Archbishop Hanna: President Assad Is Protector Of Christians
August 15, 2017
Archbishop declares Assad defender of Christians
The Archbishop of Sebastia has praised Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, declaring him a protector of Christians in the Middle East.
Atallah Hanna, the leader from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, met with Assad in Damascus on Monday, and stressed that Assad is one of the most peaceful, loving, and kind leaders the Middle East has known in recent times.
Fort-russ.com reports: He noted that during the past few years Christians have suffered a lot, but thanks to President Assad there is hope now, as was also seen in Maaloula where wounds are slowly healing.
Bishop Hanna also said that he received negative reactions from both, the Palestinians and the Israelis because of his meeting with Assad and his supportive position on Syria, and as regards Israel, also for his role in the case of Al Aqsa mosque, saying that all this may cause his arrest or deportation, adding that none of this will deter him from his positions on Palestine and the Arab world issues, noting that conspirators against Syria are conspirators against Palestine as well.
He then said that the majority of in fact Palestinians support his visit to Syria, and most of them are aware of the seriousness of the conspiracy against Damascus.
Some, however, objected to his presence inside the Al Aqsa mosque because of his position on Syria.
He pointed out one cannot talk about Palestine without talking about Muslims and Christians together, stressing that unity of the Palestinian people is the most important step to achieve freedom.
Regarding Jerusalem, Hanna said Jerusalem's native inhabitants are treated badly, as if they were strangers to the city, noting there are constant attempts being made to falsify the history of Jerusalem.
"Any foreign forces, including those from the US, that enter Syria without invitation are invaders," Syrian President Bashar Assad told Chinese media in an interview, noting that no one had given the US troops currently in Manbij permission to in the Syrian soil.
Read also: New and massive Trump-led Middle-East invasion has begun (03/10/2017)
"Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other one," Assad told Chinese PHOENIX TV, as cited by the Syrian state-run SANA news agency.
When a journalist asked the Syrian president if Damascus had "opened doors" for American troops in Aleppo province's city of Manbij, Assad said "No, we didn't."
"What are they [foreign troops] going to do? To fight ISIS [Islamic State, formerly ISIL]? The Americans lost nearly every war. They lost in Iraq, they had to withdraw at the end. Even in Somalia, let alone Vietnam in the past and Afghanistan," said Assad.
According to Assad, the US "didn't succeed anywhere they sent troops, they only create a mess; they are very good in creating problems and destroying, but they are very bad in finding solutions."
When Assad was asked about his expectation about US president Donald Trump's policies, he replied,
"when you pin your hopes on a foreign country, doesn't matter which foreign country, it means you're not patriotic, and this is proved, because they should depend on the support of the Syrian people, not any other government or administration."
Read full Assad interview in English, published on 03/11/2017:
The U.S. has been caught launching a chemical weapons attack on a city in Syria with a population of 200,000 citizens.
The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces dropped a cluster of airstrikes containing illegal chemicals on Syria last Tuesday, which was largely ignored by the mainstream media.
Thefreethoughtproject.com reports: While popular outlets such as Reuters reported that "as artillery and coalition aircraft pounded targets in the city, SDF fighters moved in small groups into the district," there were some key aspects they appeared to leave out.
International outlets and witnesses on Twitter noted that some of the airstrikes resembled cluster bombs or white phosphorus, both of which are internationally banned on residential areas.
View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
45 civilians killed in #Raqqa #Syria due to #US-led coalition airstrikes that used White Phosphorus! #UNSC and MSM must be busy for that!
11:17 PM - 8 Jun 2017
370 370 Retweets 172 172 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Xinhua News, China's state press agency, reported that "Tens of civilians were killed on Thursday when the U.S.-led airstrikes targeted Syria's northern city of Raqqa with white phosphorus," citing a report from Syria's Sham FM radio.
Russia's Riafan.ru reported that "Coalition forces led by the United States of America shell Raqqa and suburbs of white phosphorus munitions," citing reports on Twitter, which said the U.S.-backed coalition conducted 20 air raids.
Although the total number of civilian deaths has not been confirmed, early reports suggest that nearly 50 people were killed. The U.S. has yet to acknowledge whether white phosphorus was used during the raids.
White phosphorus is described as an "incendiary and toxic chemical substance used as a filler in a number of different munitions that can be employed for a variety of military purposes."
The chemical was banned internationally after the 1980 Protocol on Incendiary Weapons restricted the "use of incendiary weapons as a means or method of warfare during armed conflict."
The use of chemical weapons is clearly prohibited in international armed conflicts. The International Committee of the Red Cross noted that "employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices is listed in the Statute of the International Criminal Court as a war crime."
If the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces are successful in regaining control of Raqqa from ISIS, then the question remains of who will control the city moving forward. The SDF announced plans in April to run the city using a civilian council-with the help of more than 3,000 U.S. ground troops-which would further a divided Syria, and would keep the U.S. is at odds with Assad's government.
The same president who claimed to be heartbroken over the "innocent babies" who were reportedly killed in April in a chemical attack that was immediately blamed on Assad's government-despite evidence that suggested otherwise-has said nothing about the reports that suggest his country could be guilty of the same crime he condemned.
While it is not likely that the United States will fully address the reports, it should be noted that by remaining silent, the mainstream media is also reminding the public of its hypocritical nature.
The same MSM that provides obsessive coverage of everything President Trump posts on Twitter, has seemingly ignored the flurry of Tweets from various users suggesting the use of chemical weapons by a U.S.-backed coalition.
HARROWING footage from #ISIS-held Raqqa. The US-led Coalition is using mass White Phosphorus bombing civilian populated neighborhoods #Syria
The Russian military has accused the U.S.-led coalition of providing safe passage for ISIS terrorists to leave the area around its stronghold of Raqqa in Syria.
General Sergei Surovikin, commander of the Russian forces in Syria, claimed in a briefing that ISIS recently made a deal with Kurdish forces to leave two villages located southwest of Raqqa and head toward Palmyra, instead.
Surovikin said that "it looks like Americans use IS in order to forestall the advances of Syrian government forces under the excuse of fighting international terrorism."
Carey Wedler for Anti Media reports:
The general claimed the Kurds and U.S. forces "collude with the leaders of the IS, who surrender the areas under their control and head to provinces where Syrian government forces operate."
According to Surovikin, "There is an impression that under the slogan of fighting international terrorism in Syria the Americans are using IS to offer resistance to government forces' advances."
If this is the case, it would certainly fall in line with the U.S. establishment's opposition to the Assad regime and their consistent calls for the Syrian president's removal from power. Though President Trump initially campaigned on the platform of moving away from America's longstanding policy of regime change and nation-building, his administration shifted gears in April following a chemical weapons attack that the West pinned on Assad, despite refutations from some experts. During his time in office, President Barack Obama also repeatedly called for Assad's removal, as did Hillary Clinton.
The Russian general further criticized the United States on Friday for attempting to attack Syrian government forces in Syria as the Russian military and pro-Assad troops continue to attack the Islamic State directly. Though the United States has certainly launched airstrikes against the terror group, it has also ramped up efforts against Assad-aligned forces, which are directly battling ISIS - a contradictory stance if the top priority is to destroy ISIS, as the Trump administration has claimed.
Despite the fact that Iranian militias within Syria are effectively battling the Islamic State, the United States has pushed for direct confrontation with those militias as they have attempted to retake the southern border region of Al-Tanf. Just this week, the United States launched two airstrikes on pro-government forces, drawing criticism from the Syrian government. The U.S. military also shot down an armed drone that allegedly dropped munitions over a U.S. coalition training base.
The U.S. has justified these actions claiming Syrian-allied troops threatened their training camp in the country, but Surkovikin dismisses these justifications. He "dismissed the U.S. argument that Syrian government forces there posed a threat to the training camp as 'absurd' and criticized Washington's action as a violation of Syria's sovereign right to protect its border," according to U.S. News.
Indeed, the United States is an outside invading force in Syria, and though Russia is far from innocent in its bombings - and is responsible for many civilian deaths, just like the United States - it is a Syrian ally that was welcomed into the country, as was Iran.
Col. Gen. Sergei Rudskoi of the Russian military's General Staff also questioned the U.S. military's motives:
"Having declared the goal of fighting international terrorism, the coalition strikes Syrian troops while letting IS militants exit the encircled areas unhampered, thus boosting terrorist groupings around Palmyra and Deir el-Zour. It raises a question why they do it and what their real goals are."
Robert Parry says the chemical weapons attack in Syria was a special joint Saudi-Israeli operation designed to topple President Assad.
American investigative journalist Robert Parry says the chemical weapons attack in Syria was a special joint Saudi-Israeli operation designed to topple President Bashar al-Assad.
The award-winning Iran-Contra journalist claims that an intelligence source has told him that a drone was responsible for the attack which was "launched in Jordan from a Saudi-Israeli special operations base for supporting Syrian rebels."
"The suspected reason for the poison gas was to create an incident that would reverse the Trump administration's announcement in late March that it was no longer seeking the removal of President Bashar al-Assad," writes Parry.
As we highlighted back in 2013 after another chemical weapons attack in Ghouta that was blamed on Assad, rebels freely admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they had been given the weapons by Saudi Arabia but had "handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions."
Parry's background lends the information credibility. He covered the Iran-Contra scandal for the Associated Press and Newsweek and was later given a George Polk award for his work on intelligence matters.
The contention that the incident was a "false flag" to create a justification for air strikes has also been voiced by former Congressman Ron Paul as well as numerous other prominent voices, including Vladimir Putin himself, who went on to warn that rebels could now stage a similar incident in Damascus to goad the U.S. into toppling Assad.
Whoever was responsible for the attack does not take away from the horror of the event and the fact that innocent people and children died.
Parry dismissed the four page report released by President Trump's National Security Council that blames the Syrian government for the chemical attack as being heavy on assertions but lacking actual evidence.
The white paper states, "we cannot publicly release all available intelligence on this attack due to the need to protect sources and methods," although as Parry points out, "In similarly tense situations in the past, U.S. Presidents have released sensitive intelligence to buttress U.S. government assertions, including John F. Kennedy's disclosure of U-2 spy flights in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and Ronald Reagan revealing electronic intercepts after the Soviet shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 in 1983."
Parry challenged the Trump administration to make its evidence publicly available, while also questioning why both CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats were not show in a photo released by the White House which shows the President and a dozen of his senior advisers monitoring the April 6 missile strike from a room at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
"Given President Trump's spotty record for getting facts straight - he and his administration should go the extra mile in presenting irrefutable evidence to support its assessments, not simply insisting that the world must "trust us," concludes Parry.
Oliver Stone says the world needs to listen to Putin
Director Oliver Stone has urged the public to listen to what Vladimir Putin has to say, claiming that the Russian leader is a friend and not an enemy of the American public.
The Academy Award-winning director says his upcoming documentary about Putin "opens up a whole viewpoint that we as Americans haven't heard," and claims that if the American people ignore American propaganda about Russia, it could help prevent world war 3 from occuring.
"It's not a documentary as much as a question and answer session," he said. "Mr. Putin is one of the most important leaders in the world and in so far as the United States has declared him an enemy - a great enemy - I think it's very important we hear what he has to say."
The film will present Putin's viewpoint of political events since he was first elected president of Russia in March 2000.
"It opens up a whole viewpoint that we as Americans haven't heard," Stone told the newspaper, adding that his crew went to see the indefatigable Russian leader four times over the course of two years.
"I talked to him originally about the Snowden affair, which is in the film. And out of that grew, I think, a trust that he knew that I would not edit it so much," he said, adding that Putin "talks pretty straight."
"I think we did him the justice of putting [his comments] into a Western narrative that could explain their viewpoint in the hopes that it will prevent continued misunderstanding and a dangerous situation - on the brink of war."
The 70-year-old director also commented the accusations of Russian influence on the US presidential elections.
"That's a path that leads nowhere to my mind. That's an internal war of politics in the US in which the Democratic Party has taken a suicide pact or something to blow him up; in other words, to completely de-legitimize him and in so doing blow up the US essentially.
"What they're doing is destroying the trust that exists between people and government. It's a very dangerous position to make accusations you cannot prove," he added.
Stone also said does not believe claims circulating in the mainstream media that Moscow allegedly passed some classified documents to WikiLeaks in a bid to influence the November US elections.
"I hold Assange [WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange] in high regard in many issues of state. I take very seriously his statement that he received no information from Russia or any state actors," Stone said.
WikiLeaks published over 250,000 classified US military and diplomatic documents in 2010 in a move that amounted to the largest information leak in United States history. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when WikiLeaks published 'Cablegate'.
Assange has been stuck inside the Ecuadorian embassy since he took refuge there in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning by the authorities regarding allegations of sexual assault against two women in 2010.
"For 10 years now he's been a beacon of integrity and honesty," Stone noted. "He's been very helpful to understand the world to those who pay attention.
"Unfortunately, his reports sometimes get too thick and too difficult to understand, but I don't think the media has done him any favors really by playing along and accusing him of rape and holding him on these bogus charges. This is scary behavior but it's also unlawful."
Stone's latest movie revolved around NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who became world-renown figure after leading classified documents detailing the surveillance programs of the US intelligence agencies and its allies in 2013. Stone met him in person in Russia, where Snowden was granted political asylum.
The director said Washington's unprecedented move towards far-reaching surveillance technology is utterly wrong.
"I think we've had a lot of false information - fake news as they say - used for political ideological purposes. In other words, the US has been able, because of this technology, to say without any doubt Russia hacked the election. This is coming from who? From the intelligence agencies that are fighting against Russia with all their hearts and minds.
"They can't be trusted. This is important to recognize. I think the Snowden movie shows why they cannot be trusted."
Amid a US military buildup in response to the North Korean nuclear threat, Stone told the Sydney Morning Herald he is also concerned by where US attacks on Syria and Afghanistan might lead.
"The United States is spending on defense and security almost a trillion dollars a year, which is more than all the countries in the world spend on security and the military. It's inexcusable to people who examine this rationally."
Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?
Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course.
Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.
On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.
It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time. The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009...
Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).
"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.
Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.
"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.
Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.
As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...
In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."
Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.
If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...
The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.
Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.
Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.
The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!
The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.
Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.
But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.
If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...
Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.
Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.
Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?
And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.
If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...
The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets - either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force "in connection with" the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President's use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to "prevent or deter the use or proliferation" of WMDs "within, to or from Syria" or (broader yet) to "protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons." Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied ("as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President's powers (such as a time limit).
I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:
(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.
Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?
What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...
I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.'
Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane "leaders" in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.
In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?
I Witnessed Obama Funding ISIS In Syria, Says Top Priest
February 1, 2017
A top priest living in Syria claims that former President Barack Obama provided funding to ISIS in order to overthrow the government of President Assad.
Western media reports on the conflict in Syria are very misleading, according to Belgian priest Father Daniël Maes, who is causing controversy in Europe by claiming that the U.S. under President Obama was providing funding to ISIS and Al-Qaeda because "the Americans and their allies want to completely ruin the country."
The bombshell interview with Father Daniel, who lives in Syria and has witnessed the war first hand, provides support for Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard's claim that the US under President Obama was providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIS and Al-Qaeda in order to overthrow the government of President Assad.
In an interview published in the Dutch daily newspaper Algameen Dagblad, Father Daniel explained that the Western media is full of "followers and cowards" and has failed the people of Syria by writing what their governments have told them report.
Describing Hillary Clinton as a "devil in holy water" because she deliberately worsened the conflict while in office, Father Daniel claims to be optimistic about Trump's geopolitics: "He sees what every normal person understands: That the United States should stop undermining countries which possess natural resources."
Father Daniel says "Putin and Assad saved my life"
Father Daniel, 78, lives in the city of Qara, 60 miles north of Damascus. He says "Putin and Assad saved my life"
Interviewer: You are very critical of the media coverage on Syria. What is bothering you?
Father Daniel: "The idea that a popular uprising took place against President Assad is completely false. I've been in Qara since 2010 and I have seen with my own eyes how agitators from outside Syria organized protests against the government and recruited young people. That was filmed and aired by Al Jazeera to give the impression that a rebellion was taking place. Murders were committed by foreign terrorists, against the Sunni and Christian communities, in an effort to sow religious and ethnic discord among the Syrian people. While in my experience, the Syrian people were actually very united.
Before the war, this was a harmonious country: a secular state in which different religious communities lived side by side peacefully. There was hardly any poverty, education was free, and health care was good. It was only not possible to freely express your political views. But most people did not care about that."
Interviewer: Sister Agnès-Mariam, the Lebanese-French prioress of your Mar Yakub ("Saint Jacob") monastery, is accused of siding with the regime. She has friends at the highest level.
Father Daniel: "Sister Agnès-Mariam helps the population: she has recently opened a soup kitchen in Aleppo, where 25,000 meals are prepared five times a week. Look, it is miraculous that we are still alive. We owe that to the army of Assad's government and to Vladimir Putin, because he decided to intervene when the rebels threatened to take power.
When thousands of terrorists settled in Qara, we became afraid for our lives. They came from the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Europe, Turkey, Libya, there were many Chechens. They formed a foreign occupation force, all allied to al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Armed to the teeth by the West and their allies with the intention to act against us, they literally said: "This country belongs to us now." Often, they were drugged, they fought each other, in the evening they fired randomly.
We had to hide in the crypts of the monastery for a long time. When the Syrian army chased them away, everybody was happy: the Syrian citizens because they hate the foreign rebels, and we because peace had returned."
Interviewer: You say that the Syrian Army protects civilians, yet there are all sorts of reports about war crimes committed by Assad's forces, such as the bombardments with barrel bombs.
Father Daniel: "Do you not know that the media coverage on Syria is the biggest media lie of our time? They have sold pure nonsense about Assad: It was actually the rebels who plundered and killed. Do you think that the Syrian people are stupid? Do you think those people were forced to cheer for Assad and Putin? It is the Americans who have a hand in all of this, for pipelines and natural resources in this region and to thwart Putin."
Saudi Arabia and Qatar want to establish a Sunni state in Syria, without religious freedom. Therefore, Assad must go. You know, when the Syrian army was preparing for the battle in Aleppo, Muslim soldiers came to me to be blessed. Between ordinary Muslims and Christians, there is no problem. It is those radical Islamic, Western-backed rebels who want to massacre us. They are all al Qaeda and IS. There are not any moderate fighters anymore."
Interviewer: You once mentioned Hillary Clinton to be a 'devil in holy water', because as foreign minister, she deliberately worsened the conflict.
Father Daniel: "I am happy with Trump. He sees what every normal person understands: That the United States should stop undermining countries which possess natural resources. The Americans' attempt to impose a unipolar world is the biggest problem. Trump understands that radical Islam is a bigger threat than Russia.
What do I care whether he occasionally takes off his pants? If Trump practices geopolitics the way he has promised to do so, then the future looks bright. Then it will become similar to Putin's approach. And hopefully then, there will be a solution for Syria, and peace will return."
Interviewer: You understand that your analysis is controversial and will encounter much criticism?
Father Daniel: "I speak from personal observation. And no one has to believe me, right? But I know one thing: The media can either contribute to the massacre of the Syrian people or help the Syrian people, with their media coverage. Unfortunately, there are too many followers and cowards among journalists."
The U.S. has military bases in at least 45 less-than-democratic countries.
Much outrage has been expressed in recent weeks over President Donald Trump's invitation for a White House visit to Rodrigo Duterte, president of the Philippines, whose "war on drugs" has led to thousands of extrajudicial killings.
Criticism of Trump was especially intense given his similarly warm public support for other authoritarian rulers like Egypt's Abdel Fatah al-Sisi (who visited the Oval Office to much praise only weeks earlier), Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan (who got a congratulatory phone call from President Trump on his recent referendum victory, granting him increasingly unchecked powers), and Thailand's Prayuth Chan-ocha (who also received a White House invitation).
But here's the strange thing: the critics generally ignored the far more substantial and long-standing bipartisan support U.S. presidents have offered these and dozens of other repressive regimes over the decades.
After all, such autocratic countries share one striking thing in common.
They are among at least 45 less-than-democratic nations and territories that today host scores of U.S. military bases, from ones the size of not-so-small American towns to tiny outposts.
Together, these bases are homes to tens of thousands of U.S. troops.
To ensure basing access from Central America to Africa, Asia to the Middle East, U.S. officials have repeatedly collaborated with fiercely anti-democratic regimes and militaries implicated in torture, murder, the suppression of democratic rights, the systematic oppression of women and minorities, and numerous other human rights abuses.
Forget the recent White House invitations and Trump's public compliments.
For nearly three quarters of a century, the United States has invested tens of billions of dollars in maintaining bases and troops in such repressive states.
From Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have, since World War II, regularly shown a preference for maintaining bases in undemocratic and often despotic states, including Spain under Generalissimo Francisco Franco, South Korea under Park Chung-hee, Bahrain under King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, and Djibouti under four-term President Ismail Omar Guelleh, to name just four.
Many of the 45 present-day undemocratic U.S. base hosts qualify as fully "authoritarian regimes," according to the Economist Democracy Index.
In such cases, American installations and the troops stationed on them are effectively helping block the spread of democracy in countries like Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kuwait, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
This pattern of daily support for dictatorship and repression around the world should be a national scandal in a country supposedly committed to democracy.
It should trouble Americans ranging from religious conservatives and libertarians to leftists -- anyone, in fact, who believes in the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
After all, one of the long-articulated justifications for maintaining military bases abroad has been that the U.S. military's presence protects and spreads democracy.
Far from bringing democracy to these lands, however, such bases tend to provide legitimacy for and prop up undemocratic regimes of all sorts, while often interfering with genuine efforts to encourage political and democratic reform.
The silencing of the critics of human rights abuses in base hosts like Bahrain, which has violently cracked down on pro-democracy demonstrators since 2011, has left the United States complicit in these states' crimes.
During the Cold War, bases in undemocratic countries were often justified as the unfortunate but necessary consequence of confronting the "communist menace" of the Soviet Union.
But here's the curious thing: in the quarter century since the Cold War ended with that empire's implosion, few of those bases have closed.
Today, while a White House visit from an autocrat may generate indignation, the presence of such installations in countries run by repressive or military rulers receives little notice at all.
The 45 nations and territories with little or no democratic rule represent more than half of the roughly 80 countries now hosting U.S. bases (who often lack the power to ask their "guests" to leave).
They are part of a historically unprecedented global network of military installations the United States has built or occupied since World War II.
Today, while there are no foreign bases in the United States, there are around 800 U.S. bases in foreign countries.
That number was recently even higher, but it still almost certainly represents a record for any nation or empire in history.
More than 70 years after World War II and 64 years after the Korean War, there are, according to the Pentagon, 181 U.S. "base sites" in Germany, 122 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea.
Hundreds more dot the planet from Aruba to Australia, Belgium to Bulgaria, Colombia to Qatar.
Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, civilians, and family members occupy these installations.
By my conservative estimate, to maintain such a level of bases and troops abroad, U.S. taxpayers spend at least $150 billion annually -- more than the budget of any government agency except the Pentagon itself.
For decades, leaders in Washington have insisted that bases abroad spread our values and democracy -- and that may have been true to some extent in occupied Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War II.
However, as base expert Catherine Lutz suggests, the subsequent historical record shows that "gaining and maintaining access for U.S. bases has often involved close collaboration with despotic governments."
The bases in the countries whose leaders President Trump has recently lauded illustrate the broader pattern.
The United States has maintained military facilities in the Philippines almost continuously since seizing that archipelago from Spain in 1898.
It only granted the colony independence in 1946, conditioned on the local government's agreement that the U.S. would retain access to more than a dozen installations there.
After independence, a succession of U.S. administrations supported two decades of Ferdinand Marcos's autocratic rule, ensuring the continued use of Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base, two of the largest U.S. bases abroad.
After the Filipino people finally ousted Marcos in 1986 and then made the U.S. military leave in 1991, the Pentagon quietly returned in 1996.
With the help of a "visiting forces agreement" and a growing stream of military exercises and training programs, it began to set up surreptitious, small-scale bases once more.
A desire to solidify this renewed base presence, while also checking Chinese influence, undoubtedly drove Trump's recent White House invitation to Duterte.
It came despite the Filipino president's record of joking about rape, swearing he would be "happy to slaughter" millions of drug addicts just as "Hitler massacred [six] million Jews," and bragging, "I don't care about human rights."
In Turkey, President Erdogan's increasingly autocratic rule is only the latest episode in a pattern of military coups and undemocratic regimes interrupting periods of democracy.
U.S. bases have, however, been a constant presence in the country since 1943.
They repeatedly caused controversy and sparked protest -- first throughout the 1960s and 1970s, before the Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq, and more recently after U.S. forces began using them to launch attacks in Syria.
Although Egypt has a relatively small U.S. base presence, its military has enjoyed deep and lucrative ties with the U.S. military since the signing of the Camp David Accords with Israel in 1979.
After a 2013 military coup ousted a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood government, the Obama administration took months to withhold some forms of military and economic aid, despite more than 1,300 killings by security forces and the arrest of more than 3,500 members of the Brotherhood.
According to Human Rights Watch, "Little was said about ongoing abuses," which have continued to this day.
In Thailand, the U.S. has maintained deep connections with the Thai military, which has carried out 12 coups since 1932.
Both countries have been able to deny that they have a basing relationship of any sort, thanks to a rental agreement between a private contractor and U.S. forces at Thailand's Utapao Naval Air Base.
"Because of [contractor] Delta Golf Global," writes journalist Robert Kaplan, "the U.S. military was here, but it was not here. After all, the Thais did no business with the U.S. Air Force. They dealt only with a private contractor."
Elsewhere, the record is similar.
In monarchical Bahrain, which has had a U.S. military presence since 1949 and now hosts the Navy's 5th Fleet, the Obama administration offered only the most tepid criticism of the government despite an ongoing, often violent crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.
According to Human Rights Watch and others (including an independent commission of inquiry appointed by the Bahraini king, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa), the government has been responsible for widespread abuses including the arbitrary arrest of protesters, ill treatment during detention, torture-related deaths, and growing restrictions on freedoms of speech, association, and assembly.
The Trump administration has already signaled its desire to protect the military-to-military ties of the two countries by approving a sale of F-16 fighters to Bahrain without demanding improvements in its human rights record.
And that's typical of what base expert Chalmers Johnson once called the American "baseworld."
Research by political scientist Kent Calder confirms what's come to be known as the "dictatorship hypothesis": "The United States tends to support dictators [and other undemocratic regimes] in nations where it enjoys basing facilities."
Another large-scale study similarly shows that autocratic states have been "consistently attractive" as base sites.
"Due to the unpredictability of elections," it added bluntly, democratic states prove "less attractive in terms [of] sustainability and duration."
Even within what are technically U.S. borders, democratic rule has regularly proved "less attractive" than preserving colonialism into the twenty-first century.
The presence of scores of bases in Puerto Rico and the Pacific island of Guam has been a major motivation for keeping these and other U.S. "territories" -- American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands -- in varying degrees of colonial subordination.
Conveniently for military leaders, they have neither full independence nor the full democratic rights that would come with incorporation into the U.S. as states, including voting representation in Congress and the presidential vote.
Installations in at least five of Europe's remaining colonies have proven equally attractive, as has the base that U.S. troops have forcibly occupied in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, since shortly after the Spanish-American War of 1898.
Authoritarian rulers tend to be well aware of the desire of U.S. officials to maintain the status quo when it comes to bases. As a result, they often capitalize on a base presence to extract benefits or help ensure their own political survival.
The Philippines' Marcos, former South Korean dictator Syngman Rhee, and more recently Djibouti's Ismail Omar Guelleh have been typical in the way they used bases to extract economic assistance from Washington, which they then lavished on political allies to shore up their power.
Others have relied on such bases to bolster their international prestige and legitimacy or to justify violence against domestic political opponents.
After the 1980 Kwangju massacre in which the South Korean government killed hundreds, if not thousands, of pro-democracy demonstrators, strongman General Chun Doo-hwan explicitly cited the presence of U.S. bases and troops to suggest that his actions enjoyed Washington's support.
Whether or not that was true is still a matter of historical debate.
What's clear, however, is that American leaders have regularly muted their criticism of repressive regimes lest they imperil bases in these countries.
In addition, such a presence tends to strengthen military, rather than civilian, institutions in countries because of the military-to-military ties, arms sales, and training missions that generally accompany basing agreements.
Meanwhile, opponents of repressive regimes often use the bases as a tool to rally nationalist sentiment, anger, and protest against both ruling elites and the United States.
That, in turn, tends to fuel fears in Washington that a transition to democracy might lead to base eviction, often leading to a doubling down on support for undemocratic rulers. The result can be an escalating cycle of opposition and U.S.-backed repression.
While some defend the presence of bases in undemocratic countries as necessary to deter "bad actors" and support "U.S. interests" (primarily corporate ones), backing dictators and autocrats frequently leads to harm not just for the citizens of host nations but for U.S. citizens as well.
The base build-up in the Middle East has proven the most prominent example of this.
Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution, which both unfolded in 1979, the Pentagon has built up scores of bases across the Middle East at a cost of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.
According to former West Point professor Bradley Bowman, such bases and the troops that go with them have been a "major catalyst for anti-Americanism and radicalization."
Research has similarly revealed a correlation between the bases and al-Qaeda recruitment.
Most catastrophically, outposts in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have helped generate and fuel the radical militancy that has spread throughout the Greater Middle East and led to terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States.
The presence of such bases and troops in Muslim holy lands was, after all, a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and part of Osama bin Laden's professed motivation for the 9/11 attacks.
With the Trump administration seeking to entrench its renewed base presence in the Philippines and the president commending Duterte and similarly authoritarian leaders in Bahrain and Egypt, Turkey and Thailand, human rights violations are likely to escalate, fueling unknown brutality and baseworld blowback for years to come.
David Vine is associate professor of anthropology at American University in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia. He has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and Mother Jones, among other publications. His new book, Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World, will appear in 2015 as part of the American Empire Project (Metropolitan Books). For more of his writing, visit www.davidvine.net.
Obama and Trump have blood on their hands. Washington is lying to you about the chemical weapons attack in Syria, using it as "false flag".
Obama and Trump have blood on their hands. Washington and the mainstream media are lying to you about the chemical weapons attack in Syria, using it as "false flag" - a fake justification to wage an illegal war of aggression.
In 2013 the United Nations issued a report confirming that Syrian opposition rebels (ISIS and Al-Qaeda, supported by Washington) "may have used chemical weapons against Syrian government forces."
At the same time, Assad's Syrian government called on the United Nations and international observers to come and inspect the sites in which it was found that the rebels had used chemical weapons, including sarin gas. This call was not answered.
The UN report from 2013 refutes Washington's allegations that the government of Bashar al-Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people. The history of chemical weapons usage in Syria lies solely with rebels.
Global Research reports: What the UN mission findings confirm is that the US sponsored opposition "rebels" largely composed of Al Qaeda affiliated groups, financed and supported by the Western military alliance were responsible for these 2013 chemical weapons attacks.
Moreover, as confirmed in an earlier report, the Al Qaeda rebels were being trained in the use of chemical weapons by specialists on contract to the Pentagon.
Washington (which supports the opposition rebels in the use of chemical weapons) rather than Damascus is responsible for extensive crimes against humanity.
According to the United Nations 2013 mission led by Carla del Ponte:
"evidence from casualties and medical staff indicated that rebel forces in the civil war had used the deadly nerve agent sarin.
'Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals, and there are strong, concrete suspicions, but not yet incontrovertible proof, of the use of sarin gas,' said Del Ponte in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
'This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.'
Last night, the UN commission looking into allegations of war crimes in Syria tried to row back on the comments by its human rights investigator, pointing out that conclusive evidence had not been discovered.
However, the White House said it was likely that President Bashar al-Assad's regime, not the rebels, were behind any chemical weapons use. …
Sarin has been classed as a weapon of mass destruction due to its potency and is banned under international law.
US President Barack Obama has said that the use or deployment of chemical weapons in Syria would cross a 'red line' that could lead to foreign military intervention. …
The comments by Ms Del Ponte, a member of the U.N. panel probing alleged war crimes in Syria, contradict claims by Britain and the U.S. that intelligence reports showed Syrian soldiers had used chemical weapons.
She said that the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law. (See Daily Mail Online, May 6, 2013)
Congresswoman Returns From Syria With 'Proof' Obama Funded ISIS
January 26, 2017.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard told CNN that she has proof the Obama administration was funding ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard went to Syria on a secret fact-finding mission to wade through the lies and propaganda and find out what is really happening on the ground.
Immediately on her return CNN booked her for an "exclusive" interview - and Gabbard told them exactly what they didn't want to hear: she has proof the Obama administration was funding ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Explaining to Jake Tapper that she met people from all walks of life in Aleppo and Damascus, Gabbard said that Syrians "expressed happiness and joy at seeing an American walking their streets." But they also wanted to know "why is it that the United States, its allies and other countries, are providing support, are providing arms, to terrorist groups like Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, who are on the ground there, raping, kidnapping, torturing, and killing the Syrian people?
"They asked me why is the United States supporting these terrorist groups who are destroying Syria - when it was Al-Qaeda who attacked the United States on 9/11, not Syria. I didn't have an answer for that."
That was more than Jake Tapper, who was hostile from the beginning of the interview, could handle.
His face screwed up and he lashed out, saying, "Obviously the United States government denies providing any sort of help to the terrorist groups you are talking about, they say they provide help for the rebel groups."
If that was supposed to Tapper's knockout blow, Gabbard saw it coming a mile away.
Without missing a beat, she calmly deconstructed his ideological, and savagely wrong, talking points.
"The reality is, Jake, and I'm glad you bought up that point. Every place that I went, every person I spoke to, I asked this question to them. And without hesitation, they said 'there are no moderate rebels, who are these moderate rebels that people keep speaking of?'
"Regardless of the name of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is Al-Nusra or Al-Qaeda and ISIS. That is a fact. There are a number of different other groups, all of them are fighting alongside, with or under the command of the strongest group on the ground that is trying to overthrow Assad."
Brave Tulsi Gabbard completely deconstructed the false narrative sold by the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama administration, John McCain, Adam Kinzinger and Evan McMullin - all of whom supported the various terrorist factions within Syria - and sets the record straight:
There are no "moderate rebels" in Syria. "Moderate rebels" is an Obama-era propaganda myth. The opposition to Assad is led by ISIS and Al-Qaeda - and they are raping, kidnapping and murdering Syrian women, men and children - and any smaller rebel groups fighting against Assad are fighting in coalition with ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
These are the groups the Obama administration was funding and supporting.
'US not serious about fighting ISIS, it raised terrorists & wants them to stay' - Iran Def Min to...
Washington appears unready to play a serious role in fighting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), as it has fostered terrorists itself and now wants them to remain in the Middle East, Iranian...
165 165 Retweets 98 98 likes
On Tuesday, Moscow also accused Washington of "sponsoring terrorism" in Syria.
Commenting on the latest National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by President Barack Obama, the Russian Foreign Ministry pointed out that the new bill "openly stipulates the possibility" of delivering more weapons to Syria.
Those arms "will soon find their way to the jihadists," ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said, adding that America had "refused" to fully cooperate in fighting terrorism.
US-backed Rebels Caught Using Mustard Gas On Syrians
19 December 2016.
Syrian authorities have urged the international community to intervene after US-backed rebels were caught illegally using mustard gas on civilians.
According to the government in Syria, a batch of documents proving that chemical weapons were used against Syrian citizens was handed over to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on December 12.
Authorities also delivered samples from the shell containing mustard gas to The Hague.
"We have provided all the documents to the mission, they were vetted and accepted. The mission will come to Syria one more time to collect samples, which will be subsequently analyzed," said Samer Abbas, spokesman for the Syrian National Authority monitoring the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement.
The samples are expected to be delivered to The Hague, the site of the OPCW headquarters, by a charter flight in January next year. The samples will be stored in Syria until all financial difficulties linked to their transportation to Europe will be solved.
The mortar shell with the chemical was recovered near the village of Maarat Umm Hawsh in Aleppo province on November 16 by Russian experts, who were demining the area. Upon closer inspection, the unexploded crude homemade 240-mm round was found to contain dark liquid.
Russian chemical experts took samples and confirmed that the agent in question was mustard gas. The poisonous substance was widely used during the WWI-era and has been outlawed since 1923.
The shell is believed to have been used in a September 16 attack on the village, in which over 40 civilians were injured, and later treated in the Yusuf al-Azma military hospital in Damascus for symptoms of mustard gas poisoning.
In November, the Russian military handed over all the evidence concerning the attack, including the samples to the Syrian authorities. At the time, the Defense Ministry said that the evidence suggested the gas was homemade rather than supplied by a third party, but did not rule out the possibility.
Officers from the Russian Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense troops in Syria previously produced evidence of chlorine and white phosphorus usage by militants in Aleppo province. In November, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that the expert found "nine selected samples which confirmed [that the terrorists] had used chlorine and white phosphorus munitions to fill their ammunition." The traces of the agents were on the fragments of mines, shells and soil from the craters to the southwest of Aleppo, Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said.
Russia has repeatedly called on OPCW specialists to participate in the studying of the samples collected by the Russian experts, pointing to instances of use of banned substances by the militants in east Aleppo, then under rebel control, against civilians in the western neighborhoods.
"Russian specialists found that militants in eastern Aleppo used ammunition with poisonous substances, with the ammo targeting western Aleppo. The collected samples leave no doubt that it's a toxic agent," Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in late November. He also blamed OPCW's lack of action on the matter to the "tremendous pressure" it endures "from our Western partners."
Rick Sterling, a member of the Syria Solidarity movement, told RT that the new evidence might prove what serious probes into chemical use in Syria showed years ago.
"Basically, there have been many allegations of chemical use by the Syrian government; it's been used for numerous years to demonize the Syrian government. When there have been serious investigations, for example, in spring 2013, the UN official Carla del Ponte said that the evidence pointed to the rebels having used it, despite Western media claiming that it was clearly the Syrian government. There have been numerous accusations that the Syrian government used chlorine gas, including the times when the chlorine gas manufacturing plant was actually controlled by Nusra. So, there's been a steady stream of accusations against the Syrian government, and it's good to see this emerging," he said.
U.S. "Military Aid" to Al Qaeda, ISIS-Daesh: Pentagon Uses Illicit Arms Trafficking to Channel Enormous Shipments of Light Weapons into Syria
14 December 2016.
What is abundantly clear is that the Obama administration has supported both al Qaeda and ISIS-Daesh, providing the terrorists in Raqqa Northern Syria as well as in Aleppo with large quantities of weapons. The Western media is portraying the Al Qaeda terrorists in Aleppo as "opposition" freedom fighters protecting civilians. This is a big lie: The al Qaeda affiliated rebels in Aleppo have committed countless atrocities, including arbitrary executions of civilians, yet the media is now blaming Bashar al Assad for the crimes committed by the US-NATO sponsored Al Qaeda brigades.
US military aid has been channelled to Al Qaeda as well as ISIS-Daesh. The US has used the illegal weapons market to channel vast amounts of weapons and military hardware to the Syrian "rebels.
This article focusses on the supply routes and illicit trade in small arms used by the Pentagon to deliver weapons to the jihadist "freedom fighters".
These weapons produced in third countries are purchased by the Pentagon. They are then channelled to Al Qaeda and ISIS-Daesh terrorists fighting government forces in Iraq and Syria. These weapons are also used to kill innocent civilians.
* * *
According to Jane's Defence Weekly, quoting documents released by the U.S. Government's Federal Business Opportunities (FBO), the US -as part of its "counterterrorism campaign"- has provided Syrian rebels [aka moderate Al Qaeda] with large amounts of weapons and ammunition.
The US and its allies (including Turkey and Saudi Arabia) have relied on the illicit trade in light weaponry produced in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, China, etc. for delivery to rebel groups inside Syria, including ISIS-Daesh and Al Nusra. In turn, operating out of the occupied Golan Heights, Israel's IDF has provided weapons, ammunition, logistical support to Al Qaeda rebels operating in Southern Syria.
While Washington's Middle East allies undertake shady transactions in a buoyant market for light weapons, a significant part of these illicit weapons shipments is nonetheless directly commissioned by the US government.
These shipments of weapons are not conducted through internationally approved weapons transfers. While they are the result of a Pentagon (or US government) procurement, they are not recorded as "official" military aid. They use private traders and shipping companies within the realm of a thriving illicit trade in light weapons.
Based on the examination of a single December 2015 Pentagon sponsored shipment of more than 990 tons, one can reasonably conclude that the amounts of light weapons in the hands of "opposition" rebels inside Syria is substantial and exceedingly large.
Background: U.S. Weapons Supply Routes "Via Third Countries"
Although the bulk of the weapons and ammunition supplied to the Syrian rebels (including the FSA, Al Qaeda affiliated entities and ISIS-Daesh) are channelled by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the US is also involved in the routine delivery (originating from third countries) of light weapons to the rebels including anti-tank and rocket launchers.
America's weapons shipments to Syria's rebels are commissioned by the Pentagon (and/or a US government agency) through several intermediaries via private weapons trading and shipping companies from the Black Sea port city of Constanta. None of these weapons under this de facto (unofficial) "US military aid" program are "Made in the USA". These light weapons purchased in Eastern Europe and the Balkans in the illicit market are relatively inexpensive.
Moreover, Washington's decision not to send US made weaponry to the rebels is meant to uphold the camouflage. No doubt, what Washington wants is to ensure that US and/or Western made weapons are not found in the hands of terrorists. As we recall, the White House narrative at the outset of the war in 2011 was: "humanitarian aid" to the rebels, coupled with "some military gear….[but no weapons]" (BBC, October 10, 2015)
US military aid to the rebels channeled (unofficially) through the illicit market, is routine and ongoing. In December 2015, a major US sponsored shipment of a staggering 995 tons of weapons was conducted in blatant violation of the ceasefire. According to Jane's Defence Weekly, the U.S. "is providing [the weapons] to Syrian rebel groups as part of a programme that continues despite the widely respected ceasefire in that country [in December 2015]."
According to Jane, the shipments of weapons on behalf of the US are entrusted to private weapons traders and shipping companies:
"The FBO has released two solicitations in recent months [early 2015] looking for shipping companies to transport explosive material from Eastern Europe to the Jordanian port of Aqaba on behalf of the US Navy's Military Sealift Command." (Jane.com April 2016)
The shipments of weapons purchased and funded by the US are carefully coordinated, with deliveries to rebels in the North and South of Syria respectively. The weapons are shipped out of the Romanian Black Sea port of Constanta (December 2015):
1) First, to the Turkish Eastern Mediterranean facility of Agalar-Limani near Tasucu in support of rebels in Northern Syria, to be smuggled into Syria with the support of the Turkish authorities. (half the shipment unloaded)
2) The remainder of the shipment to the Jordanian Red Sea port of Aqaba (for rebels in Southern Syria) via the Suez canal. From Aqaba, the weapons would be smuggled into Syria through the Southern Syria-Jordanian border.
According to Jane, the cargo of light weaponry included AK-47 rifles, PKM general-purpose machine guns, DShK heavy machine guns, RPG-7 rocket launchers, and 9K111M Faktoria anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) systems. It is worth noting that a large share of the RPG rocket launchers were slated for delivery to Northern Syria (see table below).
Also of significance, the Black Sea route to Syria has also been used to ship Ukrainian weapons to Al Qaeda and ISIS Daesh.
Sputnik, June 5, 2016
994 Tons of Weapons in a Single shipment, Courtesy of Uncle Sam
The following table provides information on the breakdown of the weapons shipment for December 2015 documented by Jane Defense Weekly.
Bear in mind the numbers pertain to a single shipment in December 2015, expressed in kilos (kg).
The amounts are substantial:
The 7.62 x 39 mm refers to ammunition for an AK47. Namely the shipment of 134 tons of ammunition.
The PG 7 VM (2 kg) and PV7 VT (3.3 kg) are anti-tank grenades (which suggests that more than 25,000 PG 7VM units were included in the shipment, and more than 60,000 PG 7VT.)
The total shipment to Aqaba and Agalar is of the order of 994 tons of "humanitarian" R2P light weapons for the "Moderates" in Syria. (in a single shipment out of Romania) among numerous comparable shipments by sea as well as by air.
PG 7VM Anti-tank
Source Jane's Defense Weekly
This trade in light weapons is transacted through private companies on contract to the US government's Federal Business Opportunities (FBO), a commercial trading entity acting on behalf of the US Navy MSC:
Stages 1,2 and 3:
1) The Pentagon (or the relevant government agency) instructs the US Navy MSC with details and specifications of the light weapons to be purchased and shipped to Syria's "freedom fighters" via Turkey and Jordan. The ports of delivery are specified. The final destination of the weapons is not mentioned.
2) The Navy's MSC places the order with the FBO.
3) The FBO in turn transacts with private companies for the procurement and shipping of the weapons and "explosive materials" out of Constanta, Romania.
PENTAGON -- US NAVY MSC -- FEDERAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES (FBO) -- (ILLICIT) PRIVATE TRADERS IN LIGHT WEAPONS, SHIPPING COMPANIES -- SMUGGLED INTO SYRIA THROUGH TURKEY AND JORDAN -- DELIVERED TO ISIS-DAESH, AL QAEDA, AL NUSRA, "MODERATE REBELS", FREE SYRIAN ARMY (FSA), ET AL.
According to Jane's report:"The FBO has released two solicitations in recent months looking for shipping companies to transport explosive material from Eastern Europe to the Jordanian port of Aqaba on behalf of the US Navy's Military Sealift Command." (emphasis added)
A still from a video released by the Syrian rebel group Jaish al-Izzah on 16 December 2015 shows one of its fighters preparing to fire an ATGW that could be either a 9K111 Fagot or a 9K111M Faktoria, the two being externally identical. Jaish al-Izzah also uses US-made TOW ATGWs. Source: Jane Defence Weekly
Released on 3 November 2015, the first solicitation sought a contractor to ship 81 containers of cargo that included explosive material from Constanta in Romania to Aqaba.
The solicitation was subsequently updated with a detailed packing list that showed the cargo had a total weight of 994 tonnes, a little under half of which was to be unloaded at Agalar, a military pier near the Turkish town of Tasucu, the other half at Aqaba. (Jane's op cit)
The US Navy's Military Sealift Command's (MSC) mission is to "Operate the ships which sustain our warfighting forces and deliver specialized maritime services in support of national security objectives in peace and war." (MSC mission)
U.S. Government Create 'Fake Terrorism' To Oust Assad
10 September 2016.
Syrians have been warning us for years that the U.S. government are responsible for supporting the terrorists and leading a
When the Pentagon announced in late August that it is protecting and arming Al Qaeda/Al Nusra jihadists in Syria, the world reacted with shock and disbelief. However Syrians have been warning us for years that the U.S. government are responsible for supporting the terrorists and leading a "proxy war" on Syria that aims to oust Assad.
Two years ago, "Majd" wrote these words on a Facebook posting:
"I am Syrian… living in Syria in the middle of everything. We have seen horrors. It was never a revolution nor a civil war. The terrorists are sent by your goverment. They are al Qaeda Jabhat al Nusra Wahhabi Salafists Talibans etc and the extremist jihadists sent by the West, the Saudis, Qatar and Turkey. Your Obama and whoever is behind him or above him are supporting al Qaeda and leading a proxy war on my country.
We thought you are against al Qaeda and now you support them.
The majority here loves Assad. He has never committed a crime against his own people… The chemical attack was staged by the terrorists helped by the USA and the UK, etc. Everyone knows that here.
American soldiers and people should not be supporting barbarian al Qaeda terrorists who are killing Christians, Muslims in my country and everyone.
Every massacre is committed by them. We were all happy in Syria: we had free school and university education available for everyone, free healthcare, no GMO, no fluoride, no chemtrails, no Rothschild IMF- controlled bank, state owned central bank which gives 11% interest, we are self-sufficient and have no foreign debt to any country or bank.
Life before the crisis was so beautiful here. Now it is hard and horrific in some regions.
I do not understand how the good and brave American people can accept to bomb my country which has never harmed them and therefore help the barbarian al Qaeda. These animals slit throats and behead for pleasure… they behead babies and rape young kids.
They are satanic. Our military helped by the millions of civilian militias are winning the battle against al Qaeda. But now the USA wants to bomb the shit out of us so that al Qaeda can get the upper hand.
Please help us American people. They are destroying the cradle of civilization. Stop your government.
Impeach that bankster puppet you have as president… support Ron Paul or Rand or anyone the like who are true American patriots. but be sure of one.thing..if they attack and I think they will….it will be hell.
Be sure that if it were to be a world war, many many will die. Syria can and will defend itself and will sink many US ships. Iran will go to war..Russia and China eventually if it escalates… and all this for what ? For the elites who created al Qaeda through the US government and use it to conduct proxy wars and destabilize countries which do not go along with their new world order agenda !!?
American people…you gotta regain control of your once admirable country. Now everyone hates you for.the.death you bring almost everywhere.
Ask the Iraqis…the Afghans…the Pakistanis…the Palestinians…the Syrians…the Macedonians and Serbs…the Libyans…the Somalis…the Yemenis ….all the ones you kill with drones everyday. Stop your wars, Enough wars. Use diplomacy..dialogue…help..not force."
Consistent testimonies from Syrians, as well as well-documented, open-source Western sources, and historical memory, all serve to reinforce the accuracy of the aforementioned testimony.
Syrians are living the horror brought to them by the criminal West. They can not afford the complacency of shrugging their shoulders in indecision, not when their lives and their ancient civilization is being threatened by Western-paid terrorist mercenaries of the worst kind.
"Our" proxies, slit throats, chop heads, and take no prisoners as we waffle in indecision, ignore empirical evidence, and take the comfortable easy road of believing the labyrinth of lies promulgated by Western media messaging.
The veil of comfortable confusion, nested in an unconscious belief that our government knows best or that it is patriotic to believe the lies and fabrications implicit in the hollow words of politicians (who no longer represent us) and the false pronouncements of Imperial messengers, is concealing an overseas holocaust.
Western societies are rotting from the inside out because of these lies and this barbarity. We are protecting a criminal cabal of corporate globalists who do not serve our interests and never will.
Our democracies, which we should be protecting, have long disappeared - except in the hollow words of newspaper stenographers. Instead we are supporting transnational corporate elites and their delusional projects.
Poverty and disemployment are all soaring beneath the fakery of government pronouncements, as the public domain evaporates beneath words like "efficiency" or the "economy" - all false covers that serve to enrich elites and destroy us. Internal imperialism at home is a faded replica of the foreign imperialism abroad.
As countries are destroyed, and its peoples are slaughtered - think Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and others - by abhorrent Western proxies - public institutions are contaminated, and ultimately replaced by parasitical "privatized" facsimiles. Public banking is looted and destroyed in favour of transnational banksterism, World Bank funding, and IMF usury. Food security is destroyed and replaced by biotech tentacles and engineered dependencies on cash crops and unhealthy food. Currencies are destroyed, sanctions are imposed, and the unknown, unseen hand of totalitarian control imposes itself, amidst the cloud of diversions and confusions, aided by comprador regimes, oligarch interests, and shrugging domestic populations.
Syria refuses to submit. That is why the West is taught to hate her, and the rest of the world learns to love and respect her.
Yet, Syria's struggles are our struggles. Syria represents international law, stability, and integrity: the same values that western peoples overtly cherish but stubbornly reject, as our countries wilt beneath suffocating veils of lies and delusions.
I support Syria, because I respect what remains of international law.
I support Syria because I reject Wahhabism, Sharia law, and terrorism.
I support Syria because I reject the undemocratic, transnational oligarchies that are subverting our once flourishing, now dead, democracies.
I reject the lies of our propagandizing media, the hollow words of our politicians, and the fake "humanitarian" messaging that demonizes non-belligerent countries and their populations.
In the name of justice, humanity, and the rule of law, I support the elected government of Syria led by its President, Bashar al-Assad. Syria, an ancient cradle of civilization, is leading the way towards a better future for all of us.
U.S. Erasing Evidence Of Support For ISIS To Salvage Reputation
14 September 2016.
The United States is desperately trying to destroy evidence of its support for ISIS terrorists in the Middle East, according to a former U.S. Army intelligence officer and whistleblower.
Scott Bennett, a former US Army psychological warfare officer, says that United States is desperate to "erase" evidence of its support for Daesh terrorists as world opinion turns against them.
He made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Wednesday when asked about a report that the US military admitted its airstrikes in Syria "may have resulted in civilian casualties" over the past several days.
The US military's Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a statement on Tuesday that it launched multiple attacks against Daesh terrorists in Syria during last week.
It said US warplanes may have targeted civilians in their strikes near the cities of Raqqah, Dayr al-Zawr, and Shaddadah.
Bennett said this is not surprising, but "it is an indicator of the desperation that's beginning to emerge from the Obama administration there, rushing as fast as they can to erase the evidence of their own complicity and financing and training of the ISIS (Daesh) mercenaries."
Daesh terrorists left "Saudi Arabia and various parts of the North African and Persian Gulf country Wahhabi Takfiri Salafist countries," he said, adding "they all went into Syria on the checks and dollars and chips and planes and Humvees that the United States and Great Britain provided."
Now, "the US senses the world opinion being turned against it with regards to its interventionism, its policies of militant interventionism beginning to blow back on them," he noted.
He went on to say that "the United States is taking a quick desperate action to try to obliterate the evidence and destroy everything that may be linked back to them."
"The United States is trying desperately to save face, trying to salvage what reputation that it may have left in the Middle East," he added.
Daesh terrorists still control parts of Iraq and Syria. They are engaged in crimes against humanity in the areas under their control.
US warplanes have been conducting airstrikes against Daesh in Iraq since August 2014. Some Western states have also participated in some of the strikes in Iraq.
Since September 2014, the US and some of its Arab allies have been carrying out airstrikes against Daesh inside Syria without any authorization from Damascus or a UN mandate.
Exposing the I.S.I.S Lie: How President Obama & Hillary Clinton Created I.S.I.S.
The Real Reason the USA Can't Separate Moderates from Al Qaeda in Syria
06 October 2016.
US has attempted to direct attention away from the fact supposed "moderate rebels" it has been supporting are now openly aligned to designated foreign terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda, Jubhat Al Nusra, and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) by focusing instead on the alleged "humanitarian crisis" unfolding amid final operations to restore security to the northern Syrian city of Aleppo.
Syria Already Controls the Vast Majority of Aleppo
The operation however, headed by Syrian forces and supported by its allies including Russia, aims to bring the last remaining districts of the city under government control. Already, the vast majority of Aleppo's remaining 2 million residents live in government controlled territory, with less than a quarter of a million trapped in terrorist held sections of the city.
The Syrian Ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, during a recent interview reiterated the fact that not only do 1.75 million of Aleppo's 2 million residents live in government controlled sections of the city, but militant groups held up in districts awaiting liberation are not even entirely made up of Syrians - but rather foreigners who have entered the country.
This entirely undermines the West's narrative that Syria is undergoing a "civil war" rather than a foreign orchestrated invasion by proxy, and that security operations to secure Aleppo's remaining districts represents somehow, an unprecedented "humanitarian disaster."
And as the US-Russian brokered ceasefire collapses, Russia has cited the United States' inability and unwillingness to clearly delineate between what Washington alleges are "moderate rebels" and designated terrorist organizations the US itself admits are operating alongside militants they are backing.
Reuters in an article titled, "Russia urges U.S. to deliver on promise to separate Syria's moderates from 'terrorists'," would admit:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday to make good on U.S. pledges to separate Washington-oriented units of Syrian opposition from "terrorist groups", Russia's Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday.
In response, Washington has incoherently and dishonestly blamed Russia for what it calls the driving of moderates into the arms of terrorist organizations.
A BBC article titled, "Syria conflict: US says Russia driving rebels into extremists' camp," would claim that:
Russia's increasing military action in Syria is forcing moderates within the opposition into the hands of extremists, the US has said.
However, in reality, a long-standing truth entirely negates America's current rhetoric - so thoroughly that this reality lays the blame for the last five years of regional catastrophe entirely at Washington's feet.
Washington's War on Syria Began in 2007 Led by Policymakers, Not 2011 by "Protesters"
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in a now prophetic 2007 article titled, "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?," laid out years before the Syrian conflict began not only who and how the war would be triggered and then subsequently waged, but the very sort of humanitarian and sectarian catastrophe that would unfold, and how those the US claimed were "villains" would play a pivotal role in protecting religious and ethnic minorities across the region as it burned in foreign-fueled conflict.
The article began by stating explicitly (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
This statement is underpinned by a further 9 pages of interviews with American, Lebanese, and Saudi intelligence sources, as well as revelations that monetary and political support was already being funneled at the time into Syria to lay the groundwork for the coming conflict.
The US Can't Separate "Moderates" from Terrorists, Because There Are No Moderates
The 2007 report clearly explains why the US cannot "separate" its alleged "moderate rebels" from Al Qaeda and its various affiliates - precisely because there were never any "moderate rebels" to begin with. In fact, it is clear now that the notion of "moderate rebels" was merely cover for the West's intentional support provided to terrorists since before the conflict even began.
Thus, it's not that Syria and Russia are suddenly "driving rebels into the extremists' camp," it is instead that America's attempts to cover up the fact that it has armed and supported extremists since as early as 2007 are no longer tenable.
Hersh's article would also admit (emphasis added):
Nasr went on, "The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis"-Sunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates. "The last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you can't put them back."
He would continue by stating (emphasis added):
This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that "they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was 'We've created this movement, and we can control it.' It's not that we don't want the Salafis to throw bombs; it's who they throw them at-Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran."
Yet despite this realization, even back in 2007, the US continued in earnest, with the conspiracy transcending the Bush administration and being carried forward under US President Barack Obama's administration.
Predicting the coming sectarian conflict that would unfold in the region, Hersh's article would note:
Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, "we've got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it's going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites.
Indeed, it was stated then, and evident now that Syria's government, its military, and their allies constitute the only force capable of protecting the region's many minorities from a US-Saudi backed horde of sectarian extremists.
Thus, even as the US feigns urgent concern for what it attempts to portray as an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Aleppo, it is itself guilty of intentionally engineering the entire conflict in the first place - knowing precisely the nature and degree of barbarity that would unfold and the extent to which it would reach. By attempting to shield its terrorist proxies remaining in Aleppo and throughout the rest of Syria, it is attempting to prolong, not end the humanitarian crisis, and tip Syria further toward what would be a catastrophic collapse making Libya's recent US-induced division and destruction pale in comparison.
US spokespeople, before their various podiums and amid their various press conferences, are struggling to explain what the United States is doing in Syria and toward what end besides repeating the devastating destruction that it has unleashed in Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They struggle not because the "truth" is difficult to convey to the public, but because the truth is difficult to deny any further.
Syrian official slams US-led coalition for violating sovereignty
14 November 2016.
The Syrian government has repeatedly said that all sides involved in the fight against terrorism in Syria must respect its sovereignty
A senior Syrian official slammed the US-led coalition over the violation of the country's national sovereignty, vowing to bring legal battles against states and persons responsible for the bloodshed of the Syrian people.
Minister of Justice Najim al-Ahmed made the remarks at the opening of a symposium jointly organised by the Ministries of Justice, Information and Education in Damascus on Sunday.
The Research Legal International Strategic Symposium focuses on the roles played by the United States, Turkey and France in the Middle East, as well as the responsibility of the UN and the Security Council in the fight against terrorism and towards applying international humanitarian law.
The Syrian government has repeatedly said that all sides involved in the fight against militancy in Syria must respect its sovereignty. However, the US-led coalition has been conducting air strikes in the country since 2014 without any authorisation from Damascus or a UN mandate.
According to reports, coalition air raids have killed more than 300 Syrian civilians and caused extensive damage to infrastructure.
In September, US-led coalition jets bombed Syrian military positions near the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, killing dozens of government soldiers.
The US Central Command said the attack was a mistake. The Syrian military, however, accused the coalition of supporting the Islamic State militant group.
In his speech at the symposium, al-Ahmed said the Syrian government will hold all militants and their backers, as well as those invading the Syrian territory, accountable.
"We will spare no effort in our legal battles against terrorism and all its backers and sponsors, including the countries and organisations that have been responsible for shedding the blood of the Syrian people," said the minister.
Syria Slams US-Led Coalition Over Destruction Of Two Bridges
30 September 2016.
Syria Slams US-led Coalition Over Destruction Of Two Bridges
The Syrian government has slammed the U.S.-led coalition for destroying two bridges over the Euphrates river this week while purportedly fighting ISIS .
Syria's ambassador to the U.N. said the bridges had been used by hundreds of thousands of civilians.
In letters to the UN chief and the Security Council, the Syrian foreign minsitry said that the attacks "confirm the so-called international coalition's intent to bomb and destroy Syrian infrastructure and economic and social establishments through repeated aggressive acts"
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said warplanes most probably from the coalition hit the two bridges in Deir al-Zor province on Tuesday and Wednesday, making them unusable.
The Province is the same site where US warplanes "accidentally" attacked a Syrian Army base earlier this month killing dozens.
Press TV reports:
The ministry said said terror groups are the only beneficiaries of the US-led coalition's attacks, which come under the pretext of a war against Daesh.
The letters reiterated that the US-led alliance's raids run contrary to international rules and the UN Charter, calling on the world body to condemn this "deliberate" act of aggression.
The official SANA news agency reported that the bridges of al-Asharah and al-Mayadin in the eastern countryside of the provincial capital city of Dayr al-Zawr were hit by the coalition's warplanes on Wednesday.
Syria's ambassador to the UN Bashar Ja'afari said the bridges had been used by hundreds of thousands of civilians in the area.
Meanwhile, the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based rights group advocating militants in Syria, said the two bridges are now unusable, a situation which would impede aid deliveries and hamper movement of civilians.
Since 2014, the United States, along with a number of its allies, has been leading a so-called anti-terror campaign in Syria and neighboring Iraq.
Instead of helping to rein in the Takfiri terrorists, the air raids have killed many civilians, and caused extensive damage to the country's infrastructure.
On September 17, a Syrian army airbase in Dayr al-Zawr came under attack by US-led warplanes in violation of a nationwide ceasefire deal, which had been mediated by Russia and the US.
More than 80 Syrian soldiers lost their lives and some 100 others were wounded in the US-led airstrikes, which helped Daesh terrorists make some gains in the area.