.
.
.
And so "al-CIA-duh" rebels posing as ardent righteous patriots commit terrorism in Syria from the safe haven of Doenme Turkey. They are backed by NATO forces who direct them, as they did in Libya recently.
The JEWSA directed objective is to install a militant Wahabi Sunni based "al-CIA-duh" type of government in Damascus, as they are doing in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. This is a long PROCESS where by many Middle-East countries will have "al-CIA-duh' affiliated governments, leaving Israel as the only pure Democracy.........remember this is a LONG PROCESS....planned many years ago. Thereafter these "al-CIA-duh" run states will have to be attacked directly by USA/NATO forces to "protect" Israel........Twisted logic? Not really, if you are dreaming of Avahat Erezt Israel.
In Syria ethnicity cannot be used to divide and rule the country, as in Libya (dark skinned Libyans against light skinned Libyans....Eastern Libyan tribal groups verses Western Libyans), and so religion will be used.
In Syria there are Sunni Muslims, Alawite Muslims (branch of Shia Islam.....hence why Syria has close relations with Shia Iran, and Shia Hezbollah), Christians and Druze.
Baathist Socialism under the Assad's have suppressed any religious extremism......indeed in Homs and Hama in 1982, when Western funded Muslim Brotherhood members attempted an uprising they were brutally suppressed, resulting in the death of 20--30,000 people in those two cities. Assad in that sense has a long way to go, before he surpasses his fathers record.
The elite around Assad are Alawite and are a minority propagated by the colonial French originally.
Should Bashar al-Assad lose to "al-CIA-duh" backed by NATO/USA power, then it will be a catastrophe for the country in the manner of Iraq after the USA occupied the country, viciously, maliciously and criminally. Targeted groups for massacre would be:
(i) Ba-athist members of the ruling party, tens of thousands of men and women, educated, middle class and skilled. This is what happened in Iraq, under American control.
(ii) Syrian Christians, among the oldest Christian groups......in the manner of Iraq where the country's once proud one million Christian community has been decimated into forced exile all over the world.....whilst the country was under USA control. "al-CIA-duh" will ensure their cleansing from Syria, where they have lived for 2000 years.
The Assyrians/Syriacs are significant ethnic Christian minorities that mainly live in the north and northeast (al-Qamishli, al-Hasakah) and number around 877,000–1,200,000 in Syria.
Armenians number approximately 190,000. Syria holds the 7th largest Armenian population in the world.
(iii) The next targeted group will obviously be the Alawites, ALL 3.5 million of them. They will not be tolerated in the new "al-CIA-duh" Salafist Wahabi Sunni Muslim Brotherhood Syria. No compromise for them.
(iv) The next targeted group will be the secular middle class intellectuals, and technocratic class.....many of them still believe in Socialism, many do not. But the main thing is they do not believe in theocratic states. As with Mullah Iran, with its 5 million Iranian emigres, and the destroyed technocratic class of Iraq, the same will be repeated in Syria.....GUARANTEED.
(v) Then finally the Druze will be targeted, since they are not considered Muslims.
Druze number around 700,000, and concentrate mainly in the southern area of Jabal al-Druze.
This millenia's old cosmopolitan society will be uprooted and destroyed to satisfy the lust for empire of the Jew, through the fifth column front of "al-CIA-duh" and criminal NATO/USA forces.
A lot more good people will die in Syria if the "al-CIA-duh" come to power through the backing of NATO/USA.
Remember only 10,000 mostly Iraqi soldiers died when the USA invaded Iraq in 2003, BUT under 8 years of occupation by the USA with the arrival of "al-CIA-duh" in the scene, allegedly 1.5 million people have died, and 5 million have become internal and external exiles in Iraq.
Despite the hysteria of the BBC, very few people died in the Iranian uprising of 1978-79 backed by the USA/UK.....a few hundred at most. Since 1979, maybe 1 million Iranians have died through unnecessary wars, internal political wars, and the application of very harsh theocratic laws in the country. 5 million good educated skilled Iranians have elected to leave their country.
I suppose its all too obvious a point, but Bashar al-Assad must fight fight fight for his country, and for his people. ..........because what will come under "al-CIA-duh" will be catastrophic for the country. Better to lose 5,000---50,000 people battling "al-CIA-duh" and NATO-USA forces NOW, then losing 500,000--5,000,000 LATER under the control of "al-CIA-duh" with Israeli, American and NATO forces crawling ALL over the country in support of the "al-CIA-duh" regime (Libya).
"al-CIA-duh" in power in Damascus will be a perfect foil for repeated Israeli raids into the country in the manner of Hezbollah Lebanon, and Hamas Gaza.
Syria must find clear credible allies such as Russia, Iran and China.
Syria needs to enter into secret agreements where by its embargoed oil is sold via Russia and Iran......400,000 barrels is but a drop in the international petroleum market but its revenue will be a Godsend to the Assad regime.
If USA/NATO forces can be stationed near Syria in Doenme Turkey, why can't Russia and Iran station thousands of troops supporting the Syrian army, fighting 'al-CIA-duh"?
Can Syrian intelligence infiltrate, and follow rebel forces into Turkey, Lebanon? How difficult can it be? Can Kurdish groups be trained to attack Turkey?
In all events Bashar al-Assad should not think of exiling himself to the Gulf. He must serve his country's people against the International criminals and terrorists.
___________________
By Jonathan Steele in the Guardian and information Clearing House.
Suppose a respectable opinion poll found that most Syrians are in favour of Bashar al-Assad remaining as president, would that not be major news? Especially as the finding would go against the dominant narrative about the Syrian crisis, and the media considers the unexpected more newsworthy than the obvious.
Alas, not in every case. When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed. So it is with the results of a recent YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation. Qatar's royal family has taken one of the most hawkish lines against Assad – the emir has just called for Arab troops to intervene – so it was good that The Doha Debates published the poll on its website. The pity is that it was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go.
The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a specter that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders. What is less good news for the Assad regime is that the poll also found that half the Syrians who accept him staying in power believe he must usher in free elections in the near future. Assad claims he is about to do that, a point he has repeated in his latest speeches. But it is vital that he publishes the election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and makes a commitment to allow independent monitors to watch the poll.
Biased media coverage also continues to distort the Arab League's observer mission in Syria. When the league endorsed a no-fly zone in Libya last spring, there was high praise in the west for its action. Its decision to mediate in Syria was less welcome to western governments, and to high-profile Syrian opposition groups, who increasingly support a military rather than a political solution. So the league's move was promptly called into doubt by western leaders, and most western media echoed the line. Attacks were launched on the credentials of the mission's Sudanese chairman. Criticisms of the mission's performance by one of its 165 members were headlined. Demands were made that the mission pull out in favor of UN intervention.
The critics presumably feared that the Arab observers would report that armed violence is no longer confined to the regime's forces, and the image of peaceful protests brutally suppressed by army and police is false. Homs and a few other Syrian cities are becoming like Beirut in the 1980s or Sarajevo in the 1990s, with battles between militias raging across sectarian and ethnic fault lines.
As for foreign military intervention, it has already started. It is not following the Libyan pattern since Russia and China are furious at the west's deception in the security council last year. They will not accept a new United Nations resolution that allows any use of force. The model is an older one, going back to the era of the cold war, before "humanitarian intervention" and the "responsibility to protect" were developed and often misused. Remember Ronald Reagan's support for the Contras, whom he armed and trained to try to topple Nicaragua's Sandinistas from bases in Honduras? For Honduras read Turkey, the safe haven where the so-called Free Syrian Army has set up.
Here too western media silence is dramatic. No reporters have followed up on a significant recent article by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer who now writes for the American Conservative – a magazine that criticises the American military-industrial complex from a non-neocon position on the lines of Ron Paul, who came second in last week's New Hampshire Republican primary. Giraldi states that Turkey, a Nato member, has become Washington's proxy and that unmarked Nato warplanes have been arriving at Iskenderum, near the Syrian border, delivering Libyan volunteers and weapons seized from the late Muammar Gaddafi's arsenal. "French and British special forces trainers are on the ground," he writes, "assisting the Syrian rebels, while the CIA and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers …"
As the danger of full-scale war increases, Arab League foreign ministers are preparing to meet in Cairo this weekend to discuss the future of their Syrian mission. No doubt there will be western media reports highlighting remarks by those ministers who feel the mission has "lost credibility", "been duped by the regime" or "failed to stop the violence". Counter-arguments will be played down or suppressed.
In spite of the provocations from all sides the league should stand its ground. Its mission in Syria has seen peaceful demonstrations both for and against the regime. It has witnessed, and in some cases suffered from, violence by opposing forces. But it has not yet had enough time or a large enough team to talk to a comprehensive range of Syrian actors and then come up with a clear set of recommendations. Above all, it has not even started to fulfill that part of its mandate requiring it to help produce a dialogue between the regime and its critics. The mission needs to stay in Syria and not be bullied out.
