Russia Begins Operations in Syria: End Game for the US Empire?

[angelburst29]

US Aircraft Carrier Harry Truman Is Now In The Mediterranean, Approaching Syria Coast - Full US Naval Map
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-03/us-aircraft-carrier-harry-truman-now-mediterranean-approaching-syria-coast-full-us-n

Days before the dramatic military escalation between Turkey and Russia, we reported that in order to assure that the Syria proxy war has all the naval support the US-led alliance will need in the coming weeks, both a French and a US aircraft carrier were "steaming" full speed toward the Mediterranean sea, just off the coast of Syria.

According to the Navy Times, whom we cited"

ISIS is not the only challenge that awaits the flotilla, which includes the cruiser Anzio, Carrier Wing Air 7, and destroyers Bulkeley, Gravely and Gonzalez. Russian, Chinese and Iranian marines have established their presence in Syria, and Russian warships from the Black Sea have relocated to the eastern Mediterranean to protect fighter jets conducting airstrikes in support of Syria's Assad regime. In preparation, the strike group's Composite Training Unit Exercise focused on adversaries that more closely resembled those of the Cold War.

We now know that there is also at least one Russian missile cruiser operating off the Syrian coast and providing air cover for Russian jets operating above the country.

In other words, the Mediterranean Sea surrounding Syria is getting more crowded by the day.

And the bottom line is that now that UK (and shortly German) planes are flying above Syria, and "striking ISIS", having joined jets from the US, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Russia and France, the same is about to happen to the sea next to Syria.

Which, in our opinion, will also reveal the catalyst for the next, and even more serious, military escalation as one or more ships mysteriously suffer a Gulf of Tonkin incident in a proxy war in which the primary directive so far has clearly been the planting of false flags.



Russia keeps US and NATO flotilla in Black Sea at gunpoint
http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/04-12-2015/132780-nato_flotilla_black_sea-0/

A flotilla of NATO and US warships entered the Black Sea yesterday, on December 3. The flotilla consists of USS Ross and NATO constant readiness vessels - Francisco de Almeida of Portugal, Blas de Lezo of Spain and Winnipeg of Canada.

According to US naval officials, USS Ross entered the Black Sea to ensure peace and stability in the region. By approaching Russian maritime border, NATO warships intend to cooperate with "allies and partners."

The ships of non-Black Sea countries, according to the statute, are allowed to stay in the area for not longer than 21 days.

A division of the Russian Black Sea Navy took the foreign flotilla at gunpoint. This is a normal practice for all countries, when foreign warships enter their territorial waters. Noteworthy, NATO and the US refused to create an anti-terrorist coalition with Russia to Syria. NATO officials stated that they did not have common goals with the Russian administration at this point, meaning Moscow's persistence in keeping Syrian legitimate President Assad in power.



French aircraft carrier off Syria to redeploy to Persian Gulf
http://tass.ru/en/world/841768

PARIS, December 4. /TASS/. The French Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier off the Syrian coast will be redeployed to the Persian Gulf, France’s President Francois Hollande said on Friday after being on board the vessel.

"In several days you will arrive to the new deployment area, you will have to command actions in the format of the operating coalition," Hollande told the officers on board

On November 22, TASS said that France’s aircraft carrier The Charles de Gaulle, currently in the Eastern Mediterranean off Syria, established contact with the Russian armed forces. French Defense Minister Jean-Yves le Drian said the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, which leads a combined air and naval group near Syria, was prepared to start an operation against the militants of the terrorist organization calling itself the Islamic State starting from November 23.



Iran’s air force to enter Syria conflict: report
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/566325-irans-air-force-to-enter-syria-conflict-report?

Al-Rai also reported that Russia has provided the Syrian regime with S-300 aerial defense systems.

BEIRUT – Iran is preparing to deploy two fighter jet squadrons to Syria to conduct strikes on behalf of the Bashar al-Assad regime, according to a Kuwaiti daily with close access to Moscow’s military intervention in the war-torn country.

“The Iranian participation [in the Syrian conflict] is headed for more advancement with preparation for the arrival of two fleets of Iranian planes,” sources in the Damascus joint operations room of the “4+1” military coalition of Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah told Al-Rai's newspaper’s chief international correspondent, Elijah J. Magnier.

The sources added that Russian-manufactured Sukhoi jets would be deployed to the Tiyas (T4) airbase east of Homs after Iranian engineers finish preparations at the facility, which is near the Al-Shayrat base where Russia already plans to begin operating from.

“Iran and Russia have agreed that Moscow will perform all repair operations needed by these combat fleets along with provision of the necessary ammunition and the development of the launch systems of these Iranian planes,” the sources added.

Al-Rai also reported that Iran sees its planned aerial intervention in Syria as an opportunity for its pilots to gain valuable operational experience.



Moscow Calls for Removal of Data on Russian Pilots From Canadian Website
http://sputniknews.com/military/20151204/1031262320/russia-daesh-operation.html

Russia has contacted the Canadian authorities over a website that has posted details about Russian pilots involved in counter-terrorism operations in Syria to request the information be removed, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Department for New Challenges and Threats said Friday.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — A website registered in the Canadian jurisdiction has published details and photographs of Russian pilots taking part in airstrikes on Islamic State (ISIL, or Daesh in Arabic) targets in Syria.

"We have already requested the relevant authorities in Canada, asking them to remove the information. The Canadian authorities are still considering [the matter]," Ilya Rogachev said at a meeting of the Russian Public Council for International Cooperation and Public Diplomacy.

Moscow will continue to insist on removing the data, Rogachev said.



Turkey ready for dialogue with Russia — PM
http://tass.ru/en/world/841593

ANKARA, December 4. /TASS/. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said Friday that Ankara is ready for dialogue with Russia. Davutoglu spoke in favor of settling the crisis in bilateral relations that emerged after the Russian Su-24 jet was downed by Turkish aviation on November 24.

"There are no problems between the Turkish and Russian peoples. We have always been especially attentive to relations with Russia, and we think that now it is very important for us to hold doors for dialogue open," the Turkish prime minister told the Diplomatic Academy in Baku.

He also said that Ankara "does not accept the negative campaign launched against Turkey." "Let’s not start campaigns that remind of the Cold War, let’s sit down and discuss existing problems," Davutoglu said.



Iraq PM: Foreign Troop Deployments Would Be ‘Act of Aggression’ Reiterates US Combat Troops Are Unwelcome
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/12/03/iraq-pm-foreign-troop-deployments-would-be-act-of-aggression/

Despite the Pentagon announcing their latest deployment of combat troops into Iraq in the context of an “invitation” by the Iraqi government, and insisting they had consultations, Iraqi PM Hayder Abadi continues to insist the US deployment was neither discussed with the government nor welcome.

In his latest statement, made through his official Facebook page, Abadi reiterated that no foreign ground troops from any country had been requested by Iraq, and that any new deployment would be viewed as an “act of aggression.”

 

[angelburst29]

Wasn't there a recent report of a fleet of crude oil tankers stationed in U.S. waters (Atlantic ?), for months off shore and still stationed "for delivery?" How about another fleet of them still stationed off the shores of the Delaware Bay since November 2014? Syrian oil?

Oil tankers idle for months off Delaware waters, puzzling some
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-oil-tankers-delaware-idUSL1N0VK37320150222

Something Very Strange Is Taking Place Off The Coast Of Galveston, TX
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-12/something-very-strange-taking-place-coast-galveston

Nov. 12, 2015 - While the crude oil tanker backlog in Houston reaches an almost unprecedented 39 (with combined capacity of 28.4 million barrels), as The FT reports that from China to the Gulf of Mexico, the growing flotilla of stationary supertankers is evidence that the oil price crash may still have further to run, as more than 100m barrels of crude oil and heavy fuels are being held on ships at sea (as the year-long supply glut fills up available storage on land). The storage problems are so severe in fact, that traders asking ships to go slow, and that is where we see something very strange occurring off the coast near Galveston, TX.

FT reports that "the amount of oil at sea is at least double the levels of earlier this year and is equivalent to more than a day of global oil supply. The numbers of vessels has been compiled by the Financial Times from satellite tracking data and industry sources."

The storage glut is unprecedented:

On the US Gulf Coast, tankers carrying around 20m barrels of oil are waiting to unload, Reuters reported. Crude inventories on the US Gulf Coast are at record levels.


Kurdish Oil Tanker Beyond U.S. Jurisdiction
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Kurdish-Oil-Tanker-Beyond-U.S.-Jurisdiction.html

August 3, 2014 - A tanker ship carrying about 1 million barrels of Kurdish crude remains off the Texas coast in the Gulf of Mexico, legally out of the reach of U.S. law enforcement.

In defiance of Iraq’s central government in Baghdad, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) had pumped the oil from Iraqi Kurdistan through a pipeline to Ceyhan, on Turkey’s Mediterranean cost, then loaded it onto an oiler, the United Kalavrvta, and transported it across the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.

Its destination was Galveston, Texas, but the ship is too big for the city’s harbor, so the tanker remained about 60 miles off the coast with the intent to offload the crude to smaller vessels, called lighters, which would then deliver the cargo to a buyer.

On July 28, though, the Iraqi Oil Ministry argued before U.S. Magistrate Nancy K. Johnson in Galveston that the KRG had “illegally misappropriated” the oil by selling it without Baghdad’s permission and that the transaction amounts to smuggling oil belonging to all Iraqis.

Johnson said the tanker must stay put to allow the U.S. Marshals Service to seize the oil. Only once it had given up the crude could it move on, she ruled.

At a hearing the very next day, however, Johnson revised her ruling, saying the marshals can’t board the United Kalavrvta because, at 60 miles offshore, it was out of the state’s boundaries and therefore beyond her jurisdiction.

Besides, Johnson said, it would be more appropriate to resolve the oil’s ownership in an Iraqi court, not in the United States. “Seems to me this is not a matter for the U.S. courts to tell the government – the governments – of Iraq who owns what,” she said. “This just seems way outside our jurisdiction.”

 

[goyacobol]

Although, some of the incidents that angelburst29 just posted are not so current I just had the thought that at least part of the reason for the efforts of the US to muster NATO and it's lackeys is to destroy the evidence of their crime. By attempting to focus on ISIS maybe they want to strike the areas holding key figures who could disclose their involvement or even retaliate by switching sides. Could it be more damage control than a real belief that they can stop what Putin/Russia and China are so successfully accomplishing?

I just thought I would throw that out there. Maybe it is not worth mentioning I don't know.

 

[Voyageur]

In following and reviewing so many articles over time from the vantage point of the West concerning Syria, the only constant is the absolute focus upon al-Assad. That's it, not much more is sold to the public. He is evil and is running a "regime" and must go - period.

Repeated over and over again, while also appearing within lines of so many articles and spoken in repeated phrases by the nightly MSN, people seem to also just accept this in their own conversations. And this of course is the same of Putin.

Now I've noticed here in Canada that there has recently been a shift, not with al-Assad or Putin; that is relatively the same. In this shift it is with the "hints" of IS/ISIL/Daesh as a proxy government in waiting to be legitimized. This follows things such as was said in Turkey recently concerning IS opening up an "official" consulate, a consulate to basically legitimize this so called proxy government in waiting. I've not read many articles yet that speak to this, however, your attention can be drawn to radio interviews such as 'ISIS defector exposes caliphate's highly organized society' http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-december-3-2015-1.3348485/isis-defector-exposes-caliphate-s-highly-organized-society-1.3348514

But what very few Westerners have ever witnessed is life inside the territory it controls within Syria and Iraq.

In October of this year, journalist Michael Weiss met with a defector from the Islamic State. Over three days of interviews in Istanbul, a clearer picture of life inside ISIS territory began to emerge. And for all the chaos ISIS seeks to sow outside its territory, life on the inside is said to be highly organized and disciplined.

Good grief, they make it sound as if it runs like Swiss Watch.

There has been other comments on the radio concerning that "organized" life that this so called "goon" proxy state is running, and it's pathetic. This may also be the case in reports from other Western countries MSN, don't know, yet it feels like an incremental process is being followed to acclimatize, so to speak, Westerners to the notion that at some future date the West will negotiate deals with these thugs (really their own Frankenstein creation) from beneath their masks of sanity. In order to do that, al-Assad must go, and that is their repeated shtick, osis.

As a proxy gaggle of thugs in Syria, IS, if it is being fantasized and maneuvered upon global humanity as an organized state to be, can only be if it is run by outside organized states with trade (as we have seen with oil and weapons programs themselves). So in essence, as bad as it is now, the legitimization of this tethered fractured state would add a permanent NATO gladio-style dimension into the Middle East that could not be imagined, that would wreak havoc whenever it is deemed necessary, such as now, and upon any country that stands in the way of the PTB.

What a dangerous game. If this is a possible Western endgame, Russia needs all the help it can get and time is of the essence. Whatever the case may be, the West (Israel and the Saudi House included) seem to be totally committed to what the they started, and perhaps only a massive global shaming of those responsible will throw them of this course...

 

[aragorn]

I just came across this new book written by Andrew Korybko called “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” and it's a very interesting read. Korybko explains in detail the underlying geopolitical strategies and the theories of "Fourth Generation/Hybrid Warfare" and "Color Revolutions", and much more, it seems (I've only read like 50 pages so far). Korybko has appeared several times as a commentator at least on RT and Sputnik, and he seems like a sharp pencil, IMO.

You can freely read the book here:

http://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AK-Hybrid-Wars-updated.pdf

Press release:

http://orientalreview.org/press-release/

Sputnik International’s political analyst and journalist, Andrew Korybko, just published his first book on “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change”. It was reviewed by the Diplomatic Academy of Russia and released with the assistance of the People’s Friendship University of Russia, where Andrew is a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Research and Predictions. His detailed work proves that Color Revolutions are a new form of warfare engineered by the US, with everything from their organizational makeup to geopolitical application being guided by American strategists. But unlike earlier researchers who have touched upon the topic, Andrew takes his work even further and uses the latest examples of the War on Syria and EuroMaidan to argue that the US has deployed a second, more dangerous step to its regime change toolkit.

Hybrid Wars, as he labels them, are when the US meshes its Color Revolution and Unconventional Warfare strategies together to create a unified toolkit for carrying out regime change in targeted states. When a Color Revolution attempt fails, as it miserably did in Syria in 2011, the backup plan is to roll out an Unconventional War that builds directly upon the former’s social infrastructure and organizing methods. In the case of EuroMaidan, Andrew cites Western news sources such as Newsweek magazine, the Guardian, and Reuters in reminding everyone that in the days immediately prior to the coup’s successful completion, Western Ukraine was in full-scale rebellion against the central government and the stage was set for an Unconventional Syrian-esque War in the heart of Eastern Europe. Had it not been for the sudden overthrow of President Yanukovich, the US was prepared to take the country down the path of the Syrian scenario, which would have been its second full-fledged application of Hybrid War.

Andrew’s revolutionary research ultimately shows that it was the US, not Russia, which spearheaded the use of Hybrid Wars, and that given his proven findings, it’s irresponsible to even call Russia’s alleged involvement in the Ukrainian Crisis a ‘hybrid war’. In fact, the US is far ahead of any other country in practicing this new method of warfare, as no other state has attempted a Color Revolution thus far, let alone transitioned it into an Unconventional War when their initial regime change plans failed. While some many think that such occurrences are spontaneous and happenstance, Andrew documents how Hybrid Wars are not only created from the ground-up by the US, but how they’re specifically deployed in areas where they’d be most geostrategically advantageous for the promotion of its unipolar policies.

Thus, not only does Andrew describe the very essence of Hybrid Wars, but the final part of his book forecasts where he believes they may happen next. He introduces the groundbreaking concept of the Color Arc, a contiguous line of states stretching from Hungary to Kyrgyzstan and where the waging of Hybrid Wars would most seriously damage Russia’s national interests. This is the first time that Color Revolutions have ever been analyzed through a geopolitical prism, and it brings forth a completely different way of looking at this weapon’s utilization. This new paradigm is absolutely essential for understanding the US’ new approach to regime change and the form, both physical and geopolitical, it’s expected to take in the forthcoming years.

A few excerpts from the book:

Introduction 0.2: Theory

The book focuses on the new strategy of indirect warfare that the US has demonstrated during the Syrian and Ukrainian Crises. Both situations left many wondering whether they were observing the export of Color Revolutions to the Mideast, the arrival of the Arab Spring to Europe, or perhaps some kind of Frankenstein hybrid. It is asserted that when the US’ actions in both countries are objectively compared, one can discern a new patterned approach towards regime change. This model begins by deploying a Color Revolution as a soft coup attempt, only to be followed up by a hard coup Unconventional War if the first plan fails. Unconventional Warfare is defined in this book as any type of nonconventional (i.e. non-official military) force engaged in largely asymmetrical combat against a traditional adversary. Taken together in a two-pronged approach, Color Revolutions and Unconventional Warfare represent the two components that form the theory of Hybrid War, the new method of indirect warfare being waged by the US (Korybko 2015, 10).


Introduction 0.4: The Shortcomings of the Russian Position

The Adaptive Approach first introduced by Gerasimov must be further examined, and this is one of the goals of the book. Because it is so new, the concept has not been fully developed and must be refined. For example, the absence of Humanitarian Intervention/Responsibility to Protect à la the Libyan scenario in Syria and Ukraine needs to be accounted for. It is therefore theorized that in today’s complex international environment, the closer that US destabilization operations get towards their targeted cores (Russia, Iran, China), the lower the probability of direct warfare and the higher the chances that indirect means (Color Revolutions and Unconventional Warfare) will be applied. Of course, this axiom can theoretically be reversed as the respective cores become weakened, distracted, or lose their strategic initiative and unipolarity goes on the upswing.

Because Libya is on the extreme periphery of Russia and Iran, direct regime change methods were eventually applied, but since Ukraine and Syria are much closer to the targeted cores, indirect regime change attempts via Color Revolutions and Unconventional Warfare have been the primary plan in the evolving multipolar world. Since a repeat of the Libyan War so close to core states’ borders is extremely difficult for the US because of the international situation (more so for Ukraine than for Syria, since Russia is much stronger of a core than Iran, which has undergone a relative weakening in the past year), it is proposed that the Syrian and Ukrainian models will become the standard in the future. Although the Libyan scenario may be the ultimate goal of American military planners, it will come to be seen as more of an anomaly than a rule as the US advances deeper into Eurasia (Korybko 2015, 11).

 

[angelburst29]

I just came across this new book written by Andrew Korybko called “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” and it's a very interesting read. Korybko explains in detail the underlying geopolitical strategies and the theories of "Fourth Generation/Hybrid Warfare" and "Color Revolutions", and much more, it seems (I've only read like 50 pages so far). Korybko has appeared several times as a commentator at least on RT and Sputnik, and he seems like a sharp pencil, IMO.

You can freely read the book here:

http://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AK-Hybrid-Wars-updated.pdf

Press release:

http://orientalreview.org/press-release/

Aragorn, this information is remarkable! I'm scanning through the chapters of the book and it's like a "Wow" moment. It seems to be a "blueprint" of what we are witnessing in the geopolitical arena, not only in the Middle East but on the territories of the U.S.

Upon reading this: "the process of connecting Color Revolutions with Unconventional Wars in the framework of a unified Hybrid War theory" Political Ponerology comes to mind.

Considering the content of the book and how well organized and condensed it's chapters are, I wonder if it would be out-of-place to suggest - a separate thread - to explore it's contents, matching it with current events and possible Political Ponerology overtones?

 

[luc]

I just came across this new book written by Andrew Korybko called “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” and it's a very interesting read. Korybko explains in detail the underlying geopolitical strategies and the theories of "Fourth Generation/Hybrid Warfare" and "Color Revolutions", and much more, it seems (I've only read like 50 pages so far). Korybko has appeared several times as a commentator at least on RT and Sputnik, and he seems like a sharp pencil, IMO.

You can freely read the book here:

http://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AK-Hybrid-Wars-updated.pdf

Press release:

http://orientalreview.org/press-release/

Aragorn, this information is remarkable! I'm scanning through the chapters of the book and it's like a "Wow" moment. It seems to be a "blueprint" of what we are witnessing in the geopolitical arena, not only in the Middle East but on the territories of the U.S.

Upon reading this: "the process of connecting Color Revolutions with Unconventional Wars in the framework of a unified Hybrid War theory" Political Ponerology comes to mind.

Considering the content of the book and how well organized and condensed it's chapters are, I wonder if it would be out-of-place to suggest - a separate thread - to explore it's contents, matching it with current events and possible Political Ponerology overtones?

Just scanned the contents and I second that - it seems to be excellent. It also contains an excellent summary of the geopolitical manifestations (Mahan and Mackinder/heartland theory, Brezinski etc.), for example:

Chapter 1.1.6: Geopolitical Context Summary

Brzezinski’s Eurasian Balkans concept is the apex of American geopolitical thinking. If Mackinder constructed the world island and located Russia as its Heartland, Spykman and Cohen outlined its vulnerabilities, and Pilsudski innovatively conspired to break it up, then Brzezinski combined the teachings of all of them in identifying the geostrategic imperatives of American primacy. In order to permanently weaken Russia and thus control the Heartland, it must be indirectly targeted via the Pilsudski method of destabilization in select Shatterbelt areas.

The idea is not necessarily to foster separatism within Russia itself as Pilsudski had planned (although this would also serve American goals), but instead to embrace the general idea of peripheral chaos and maximize it for strategic purposes. The logic goes that if Russia’s Eurasian periphery can remain in a constant state of destabilization or chaotic flux (or at the very least be stably filled with anti-Russian governments, which in and of itself would be extremely destabilizing), Russia would be thrown off balance and not be able to hinder America’s hegemonic plans. The closer that this destabilizing chaos can penetrate into the Russian core, the better.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Yeah, I posted about Korybko's book a few months back when it was first released (and available for free) - the release was also announced on the Saker's blog. I read it then right away and it was very well researched and written to illustrate what the Empire has been up to.

 

[goyacobol]

Yeah, I posted about Korybko's book a few months back when it was first released (and available for free) - the release was also announced on the Saker's blog. I read it then right away and it was very well researched and written to illustrate what the Empire has been up to.

I haven't read the book but it is interesting to think that a 3D earthling has enough smarts to assess the global value of each countries position and ethnic diversities accurately enough to create divisions over centuries to set a goal for complete control.

I have been looking at this for a very long time (over 40 years) and I haven't found any one source (whether psychological, scientific, political, religious, philosophical or militarist) that fully explains this ability to see the over all scope of planet earth except what the Cs describe as 4D STS.

I am currently reading Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski and I realize so far as I have read that even his conclusions do not account for this 4D STS factor.

I have not come to any final assessment yet but I am getting the feeling that we are only observing the middle men so to speak who are by nature not necessarily the brightest but may be the most compliant when it comes to doing the bidding of 4D STS. More creative beings would not keep doing the same old routine over and over expecting different results.

I definitely observe the constant energizer bunny of death tendency to go for the planned agenda whatever the cost. After all they really don't have any normal human empathy at the top to react or to care about the negative impacts (they feed off the negative really).

My main hope at this point to be honest is Putin, Russia and China. If they are like the barfly story about Terry then maybe just that unexpected back in your face action will be enough to create the discombobulation needed to break the frequency.

Here is the excerpt:

Session 14 October 1995

Q: (T) We can't develop it ourselves, but if we... (J) We can start the process... (T) It's a case of not
developing it, it's a case of that, if you can do it, it does it all by itself, you don't think about it... (L) It's
an innate thing... (T) It's a do, it's an involuntary, it's there, it works when it needs to work. Is this the
idea?
A: Network western experiences for learning purposes please. Knowledge is protection.
[Briefly, Terry related the story where he and Jan met the barfly at Vegas World, after having gone
downtown to get their marriage license. They had taken a taxi to City Hall, and foolishly decided to
walk back to the Strip, in 116 degree weather. They made it as far south as Vegas World, and stopped
at the bar inside to cool off. Jan was close to heat prostration, and the barmaid gave her glasses of iced
water and an iced towel to put on her neck. They were getting ready to go back out and hail a cab back
to Bally's, when they were approached by the "Barfly," who started asking all sorts of personal
questions, and seemed to be acting drunk when he wasn't really intoxicated. He became belligerent
when Terry refused to show him his Florida drivers license, but switched to disorientation when Terry
made the statement "We don't have a problem, here, do we?! Everything's cool, everything's OK! I'll
buy you a beer?" While staring the guy down and putting the force of his personality behind the
question/statement.]
Q: (T) Before we get too far into this, I want to ask them where we were taken. Because after that, as
far as I know, nothing else happened. We just went on about our business, and we didn't see him
again... (L) In this story that Terry has just recounted, what instant represents the turning point of
resistance?
A: The statement.
Q: (L) What statement? (T) "We don't have a problem, here, do we?! Everything's cool, everything's
OK! I'll buy you a beer?"
A: Yes.

Putin is refusing to be "compliant" with the agenda. This is a shock to the PTB. It is the main thing as far as I can see that is different and may be what we need to continue to observe. I don't pretend to know how things will proceed but I am looking for the the same kind of "resistance" in the events as they happen.

 

[Buddy]

I don't pretend to know how things will proceed but I am looking for the the same kind of "resistance" in the events as they happen.

I don't either, but the timing of that book's release may be another Russian tactic in the 'disarm' part of their Detect, then Dodge or Disarm strategy I had read about. I might be wrong, but thinking in terms of "next moves", I don't know what they will do, but I do think it's safe to say that Russia certainly is not interested in taking over the West or even widening the scope of the fighting if it can be prevented. The Disarm strategy is not about controlling others, it's about removing their control over you (moving away from the petrodollar, for example) but they do seem very interested in being left alone by others who have designs on the whole world.

Just my thoughts.

 

[goyacobol]

I don't pretend to know how things will proceed but I am looking for the the same kind of "resistance" in the events as they happen.

I don't either, but the timing of that book's release may be another Russian tactic in the 'disarm' part of their Detect, then Dodge or Disarm strategy I had read about. I might be wrong, but thinking in terms of "next moves", I don't know what they will do, but I do think it's safe to say that Russia certainly is not interested in taking over the West or even widening the scope of the fighting if it can be prevented. The Disarm strategy is not about controlling others, it's about removing their control over you (moving away from the petrodollar, for example) but they do seem very interested in being left alone by others who have designs on the whole world.

Just my thoughts.

[,,,]

I definitely observe the constant energizer bunny of death tendency to go for the planned agenda whatever the cost. After all they really don't have any normal human empathy at the top to react or to care about the negative impacts (they feed off the negative really).

[,,,]

I just don't see the PTB leaving anyone alone. FWIW

 

[sitting]

I have not come to any final assessment yet but I am getting the feeling that we are only observing the middle men so to speak ... doing the bidding of 4D STS.

This is precisely why I think the sessions themselves have such value & significance. It goes beyond "news." As "news" is capable of misleading ... as well as informing.

Additionally, Laura & crew gives us a running dialogue. Covering anything and everything that pops into their heads. Providing (through the answers) fresh insights and more importantly -- mid-course corrections & refinements. This is profoundly important. No wasted time lurching towards dead-ends. No false concepts stuck permanently in our minds. Think about the value of that!

It's a singularly unique form of discourse. (If you believe in the voracity of the answers.)

After following this for years, and assessing it with all other fields I had read and studied, I'm a believer.

FWIW.

 

[Ca.]

Putin’s State of the Nation Address: 'No Refuge for Terrorists'
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151203/1031199383/putin-address-nation-highlights.html#ixzz3tHejekF0

Thanks Ocean.

His speech is worth documenting here (for the world to see) of what an elected leader professes the doctrine of "self respect", as the touch stone to the path of success.

Putian:
"If you dont respect your self, others will not respect you either".

RT
Putin state of Nation address 2015 (Full speech)
Streamed live on Dec 3, 2015
Russian President Vladimir Putin lashed out at “part of the leadership in Turkey" during his annual address to the parliament, accusing Ankara of having trade ties with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. He also promised more sanctions for Turkey over downing of the Russian jet. - READ MORE http://on.rt.com/6yex

http://<iframe width="560" height="...Vg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[goyacobol]

Thanks Ocean, C.A., angelburst29, stitting and all who continue to share and watch the events.

Seeing Putin's serious and steady demeanor is reminiscent to me of Caesar's courage to stand firm in the face of psychopathic onslaught.

Putin's remark:

"If you don't respect your self, others will not respect you either".

Like other forum members have said it reminds me of what Caesar said:

Session 12 July 2014

Q: (Atriedes) If you could give 3 pieces of advice to the world, what would they be?
A: I was wrong to think I could change the masses by example. Humans are fickle and self-centered for
the most part. Thus, if you wish to really effect changes, it can only be done by early education, and
even then it is fragile and will not last. In the end you must be true to your own nature and fear
nothing. If you do that you may make a difference after you are gone. That is not exactly what you are
looking for, but there are no 3 pieces of advice that serve all events.

These are strong words in a time of weak leadership in so many governments. Will we make a difference? I don't know but we certainly will learn a lot about psychopathy this "time" around.

As I continue to read Political Ponerology it becomes difficult not to see the parallels with the behavior of the PTB.

They dream of a world in which their simple and radical way of experiencing and perceiving reality would dominate; where they would, of course, be assured safety and prosperity. In this Utopian dream, they imagine that those “others”, different, but also more technically skillful than they are, should be put to work to achieve this goal for the psychopaths and others of their kin. “We”, they say, “after all, will create a new government, one of justice.” They are prepared to fight and to suffer for the sake of such a brave new world, and also, of course, to inflict suffering upon others. Such a vision justifies killing people, whose suffering does not move them to compassion because “they” are not quite conspecific. They do not realize that they will consequently meet with opposition which can last for generations.

Lobaczewski, Andrew M. (2012-09-20). Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes) (Kindle Locations 2191-2197). Red Pill Press. Kindle Edition.

Sorry, I know that cheers you right up but it is what it is sometimes. :(

 

[angelburst29]

Putin's warning ....

US Coalition Grows, Russia Opens Two New Bases In Syria
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2015/12/55412/

Syria and Russia are seriously beefing up defenses in Damascus area and military bases in the Homs region. vS-300 air defense being deployed and a warning issued that any aircraft flying in Damascus air space without first getting clearance will be considered hostile and will be shot down. Only those “willing to fight terrorism and coordinate with the military leadership will be granted safe corridors.” One military source said there would be “‘an important advance’ within 72 hours.”

In the Homs region In the Homs region, two new air bases will open: Al-Sha’ayrat (reportedly the most important military base in Syria) and a third air base called “T4”, in Tiyas, near Palmyra. Two squadrons from Iran flying Russian fighter jets will operate at T4. Newly deployed Russian air force jets will operate at Al-Sha’ayrat (also referred to as Shayrat.)


Assad: "Europe, not Syria, has become the incubator for terrorism now threatening the West." (Video 3.29 min.)
http://fortruss.blogspot.ru/2015/12/assad-europe-not-syria-has-become.html

Sunday 6th December, 2015 - President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to The Sunday Times in which he said Britain and France have neither the will nor the vision on how to defeat terrorism and their airstrikes against ISIS will yield no results, but will rather be illegal and harmful in that they will help in spreading terrorism. The full transcript is below.

Question 1: Thank you for seeing us Mr President. As you know, the British government today will be voting on whether it will join the coalition airstrikes against ISIS. Is Britain right to join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria? And do you welcome its involvement; and will it make things worse or not make a change?

President Assad: If I want to let’s say, evaluate a book, I cannot take or single out a phrase from that book to evaluate the whole book. I have to look at the headlines, then the titles of the chapters and then we can discuss the rest of the book. So, what we are talking about is only an isolated phrase. If we want to go back to the headline, it is “the will to fight terrorism.” We know from the very beginning that Britain and France were the spearheads in supporting the terrorists in Syria, from the very beginning of the conflict. We know that they don’t have that will, even if we want to go back to the chapter on military participation with the coalition, it has to be comprehensive, it has to be from the air, from the ground, to have cooperation with the troops on the ground, the national troops for the interference or participation to be legal. It is legal only when the participation is in cooperation with the legitimate government in Syria. So, I would say they don’t have the will and they don’t have the vision on how to defeat terrorism.

And if you want to evaluate, let’s evaluate from the facts. Let’s go back to the reality on the ground. Since that coalition started its operation a year or so, what was the result? ISIS and al-Nusra and other like-minded organizations or groups, were expanding, expanding freely. What was the situation after the Russians participated in fighting terrorism directly? ISIS and al-Nusra started shrinking. So I would say, first they will not give any results. Second, it will be harmful and illegal, and it will support terrorism as what happened after the coalition started its operation a year or so, because this is like a cancer. You cannot cut the cancer. You have to extract it. This kind of operation is like cutting the cancer that will make it spread in the body faster.

Question 2: Are you saying, just to clarify two things, are you saying that the British, if the British join the intervention, that includes also the other coalition, with that intervention you see that is illegitimate from an international-law perspective?

President Assad: Definitely, definitely, we are a sovereign country. Look at the Russians, when they wanted to make this alliance against terrorism, the first thing they did was they started discussions with the Syrian government before anyone else. Then they started discussing the same issue with other governments. Then they came. So, this is the legal way to combat any terrorist around the world.

Britain and France helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region

Question 3: You say that France and Britain are responsible for the rise of terrorism here. But they were not responsible for the rise of ISIS, for example, is not that a little bit a harsh accusation?

President Assad: Let’s start from what Blair said. He said that invading Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. And we know that ISIS started publically, announcing itself as a state in Iraq in 2006, and the leader was Abu Mosaab al-Zerqawi. He was killed by American strikes; and they announced that they killed him. So, they know he existed and they know that IS in Iraq at that time had existed; and that it moved to Syria after the beginning of conflict in Syria because of the chaos that happened. So, they confess. British officials confessed, mainly Blair; and the reality is telling, that they helped in the rise of ISIS and al-Nusra in this region.

President al-Assad-Sunday Times-interview 3

Question 4: In your view, does al-Qaida’s branch in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, pose an equal or a greater long-term threat to the West than ISIS? And as such, is Britain’s Prime Minister, Cameron, going after the wrong enemy? I.e. he is going after ISIS instead of going after al-Nusra.

President Assad: The whole question is about the structure, and the problem is not about the structure of the organization. It is about their ideology. They do not base their actions on the structure, they base them on their dark, Wahhabi deviated ideology. So, if we want to evaluate these two, the difference between the two, there is no difference because they have the same ideology. This is one aspect. The other aspect, if we want to talk about their grassroots, their followers, their members, you cannot have this distinction, because they move from one organization or one group to another. And that is why sometimes they fight with each other, for their vested interests, on a local and small scale. But in reality they are cooperating with each other on every level. So, you cannot tell which is more dangerous because this is one mentality. It is like if you say the first one is al-Qaida and the second one is al-Qaida. The difference is the label, and maybe some other trivial things.

Question 5: Last week, a key part of Cameron’s argument for extending UK airstrikes to Syria was a number that he used – 70 thousand moderate rebels – that he mentioned “don’t belong to extremist groups”, but are already on the ground, who the west can use to help them in the fight of ISIS. As far as you know, which groups are included in the 70 thousand? Are you aware of 70 thousand moderate rebels in Syria?

President Assad: Let me be frank and blunt about this. This is a new episode in a long series of David Cameron’s classical farce, to be very frank. This is not acceptable. Where are they? Where are the 70 thousand moderates that he is talking about? That is what they always talk about: moderate groups in Syria. This is a farce based on offering the public factoids instead of facts.

The Russians have been asking, since the beginning of their participation two months ago. They have said: where are those moderates? No one gave them an answer. Actually, since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were no moderate militants in Syria. All of them were extremists. And in order not to say I am just giving excuses and so on, go back to the internet, go back to the social networking sites. They uploaded their atrocities’ videos and pictures, with their faces and their rhetoric. They use swords, they do beheadings; they ate the heart of a dismembered innocent person and so on.

And you know, the confession of a criminal is the incontrovertible fact. So, those are the 70 thousand moderates he is taking about. It is like if we describe the terrorists who committed the attack in Paris recently, and before that in Charlie Hebdo, and before that in the UK nearly ten years ago, and in Spain before that, and the 11th of September in New York, to describe them as moderate opposition. That is not accepted anywhere in this world; and there is no 70 thousand, there is no 7 thousand, he does not have, maybe now ten of those.

Question 6: Not even the Kurds and the FSA for example, the free Syrian army?

President Assad: The Kurds are fighting the terrorists with the Syrian army, in the same areas.

Question 7: But they are also being supported and armed and trained and backed by the Americans to also launch, to fight …

President Assad: Mainly by the Syrian army, and we have the documents. We sent them armaments, because they are Syrian citizens, and they want to fight terrorism. We do the same with many other groups in Syria, because you cannot send the army to every part of Syria. So, it is not only the Kurds. Many other Syrians are doing the same.

Question 8: U.S. Secretary of state John Kerry said last Friday that the Syrian government could cooperate with the opposition forces against the ISIS even if president Assad is still in office, but he said that this would be so difficult if the opposition fighters, who have been fighting the Syrian president, don’t have a faith that the Syrian president will eventually leave power.

Kerry also said that concerning the timing of leaving office, the answer is it is not obvious whether he will have to leave.

Meanwhile, the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Le Progres Newspaper on Saturday that he no longer believes that President Assad’s departure is essential to any political transition in Syria, adding that the political transition does not mean that President Assad should step down before it but there should be future insurances.

My question: Do you intend to complete your presidential term until 2021 or do you expect a referendum or presidential elections prior to that date? And if so, when can these elections be held? And what can make you decide to hold them? And if they are held, is it certain that you will be running for election? What can influence your decision?

President Assad: The answer depends on the context of the question. If it is related to a settlement in Syria, then early elections have nothing to do with ending the conflict. This can only happen by fighting terrorists and ceasing Western and regional support for terrorists…Early elections will only be held as part of a comprehensive dialogue about future by the political powers and the civil society groups in Syria.

Thus, it is not about the will of the President, but rather the will of the Syrian people…It is about a political process. If this process is agreed on, then I have the right to run for elections like any other Syrian citizen…My decision in this case will be based on my ability to deliver on my commitments…and on whether I have the support of the Syrian people or not….Anyway, It is early to talk about this, because as you know, this process was not agreed upon yet.

President al-Assad-Sunday Times-interview 2

Question 9: Do you think ISIS can be defeated by airstrikes alone?

You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone without cooperation with forces on the ground

President Assad: Did the coalition defeat them by airstrikes during the last year or so? It didn’t. Did the Americans achieve anything from the airstrikes in Afghanistan? They achieved nothing. Did they achieve anything in Iraq since the invasion in 2003? Nothing. You cannot defeat ISIS through airstrikes alone, without cooperation with forces on the ground. You cannot defeat them if you do not have buy-in from the general public and the government. They cannot defeat ISIS by airstrikes; they are going to fail again. The reality is telling.

Question 10: If the international coalition refuses, as it has so far, to coordinate with the Syrian Army, or with the local troops on the ground, what is your next plan? I mean do you have a plan B beyond what is going on? How do you plan to end this war?

President Assad: This coalition is illusive, it’s virtual, because it has not made any achievements in fighting terrorism on the ground in Syria. Since an illusion doesn’t exist, let’s not waste time with the ‘before and after.’ From the very beginning we started fighting terrorism irrespective of any global or world powers. Whoever wants to join us is welcome, and whether they join us or not, we are going to continue. This is our plan. It is the only plan we have and we will not change it.

Question 11: Are you calling on them to ask the Syrian government to coordinate and cooperate with the Syrian army and the Syrian air force in the fight against terrorists?

President Assad: We are very realistic. We know that they are not going to do so and that they don’t have the will. This is more about international law than anything else. Is it possible that western governments, or regimes, don’t know the basics of international law, that they don’t understand the meaning of a sovereign state or that they haven’t read the UN Charter? They have no respect for international law and we didn’t ask for their cooperation.

Question 12: But would you like them to?

President Assad: If they are ready – serious and genuine – to fight terrorism, we welcome any country or government, any political effort. In that regard we are not radical, we are pragmatic. Ultimately, we want to resolve the situation in Syria and prevent further bloodshed. That is our mission. So, it’s not about love or hate, accepting or not, it is about reality. Are they truly ready to help us fight terrorism, to stop terrorists coming into Syria through their surrogate governments in our region, or not? That is the real question. If they are ready, we will welcome them. This is not personal.

Question 13: Do you think it is possible for you, in Syria, and for your allies – Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and other allies – to defeat ISIS militarily; and if so, how long do you think it might take?

President Assad: The answer is based on two factors: our capabilities on the one hand, and the support the terrorists receive on the other. From our perspective, if you were to remove the support these groups get from various countries in our region and the West in general, it will take a matter of months to achieve our mission. It is not very complicated, the solution is very clear to us. However, these groups have unlimited support from these countries, which makes the situation drag on, makes it more complicated and harder to resolve. This means our mission will be achieved at a much higher price, which will ultimately be paid by Syrians.

Question 14: But there has already been a high price: over 200,000 people have been killed.

President Assad: You are right, and that is a consequence of the support I referred to.

Question 15: But a lot of it is also blamed on the Syrian government and the Syrian use of force, sometimes indiscriminate or unnecessary force in certain areas that has brought about a large number of people killed. How do you respond to that?

President Assad: First, all wars are bad. There is no such thing as a good war. In every war there are always too many innocent casualties. These are only avoidable by bringing that war to an end. So it is self-evident that wars anywhere in the world will result in loss of life. But the rhetoric that has been repeated in the West for a long time ignores the fact that from day one terrorists were killing innocent people, it also ignores that fact that many of the people killed were supporters of the government and not vice versa. As a government, our only countermeasure against terrorists is to fight them. There is no other choice. We cannot stop fighting the terrorists who kill civilians for fear of being accused by the West of using force.

Question 16: Let us talk about the role of Russia. How important has the role of Russia been? Was Syria about to fall had Russia not intervened when it did at the time?

Russia and Iran’s support played important part in Syria’s steadfastness against terrorism

President Assad: The Russian role is very important. It has had a significant impact on both the military and political arena in Syria. But to say that without this role, the government or the state would have collapsed, is hypothetical. Since the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, there were bets on the collapse of the government. First it was a few weeks, then it was a few months and then a few years. Every time it was the same wishful thinking. What is definite is that the Russian support to the Syrian people and government from the very beginning, along with the strong and staunch support of Iran, has played a very important part in the steadfastness of the Syrian state in the fight against terrorism.

Question 17: You mean the previous one, or the recent military intervention?

President Assad: No, the whole support; it is not only about their participation. Their support from the very beginning in all aspects: political, military and economic.

Question 18: How and why did Russian involvement come about now? And can you give us some details of the discussions between you and President Putin that brought it about? Who took the first step? Did you ask, or did they offer?

The Russians want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe

President Assad: You will have to ask the Russians why they got involved. But from our perspective, since the Western coalition started in Syria, ISIS has expanded, al-Nusra has expanded and every other extremist and terrorist group has expanded and captured new territory in Syria and Iraq. The Russians clearly saw how this posed a threat to Syria, Iraq and the region in general, as well as to Russia and the rest of the world. We can see this as a reality in Europe today. If you read and analyse what happened in Paris recently and at Charlie Hebdo, rather than view them as separate incidences, you will realize something very important. How many extremists cells now exist in Europe? How many extremists did you export from Europe to Syria? This is where the danger lies. The danger is in the incubator. The Russians can see this very clearly. They want to protect Syria, Iraq, the region, themselves and even Europe. I am not exaggerating by saying they are protecting Europe today.

Question 19: So, did they come to you and say we would like to be involved? Or did you ask them: could you help us?

President Assad: It was an accumulative decision; it didn’t happen by me having this idea or them having another. As you know, our relationship with the Russians goes back more than five decades, and they have always had military staff in Syria: call them experts or by any other name. This cooperation accelerated and increased during the crisis. Their teams are here and can see the situation real-time with us. This kind of decision doesn’t start from the top down, but rather from the bottom up. There is a daily political and military discussion between our two countries. When it reached a presidential level, it was mature enough and ready for the decision to be made quickly.

Question 20: But there must have been a point when they said: we think, or with your agreement, we think that we should actually now physically get involved.

President Assad: Again, this was started at the lower levels. These officials jointly agreed that it was necessary to get involved and each party discussed it with their leaders. When it reached the stage of discussion between us, I mean between President Putin and I, we focused our discussions on the how. Of course this did not happen directly as we had not yet met and it’s impossible to discuss these issues on the phone. It was mediated through senior officials from both sides. That is what happened. In terms of procedure, I sent a letter to President Putin which included an invitation for their forces to participate.

Question 21: So you asked president Putin having been advised by your officials.

President Assad: Exactly, after we reached that point I sent President Putin a formal letter and we released a statement announcing that we had invited them to join our efforts. Let’s not forget that President Putin had already taken the step when he said he was willing to create a coalition. My response to this was that we are ready if you want to bring your forces to participate.

Question 22: So, what forces have been deployed? I am talking about Russian forces. There have been reports, for example, of a thousand ground troops plus Special Forces, is this correct? Is there anytime when you think that the Russians will be involved in Syria, not just by air but with ground troops as well?

President Assad: No, so far there is no such thing. There are no ground troops except for the personnel that they send with their military staff and airplanes to guard the airbase, and that is natural. They don’t have any ground troops fighting with Syrian forces at all.

Question 23: And there is no plan for that?

President Assad: We have not discussed that yet, and I don’t think we need it now, because things are moving in the right direction. The Russians may consider it with time or under different circumstances, but for the moment, this has not been discussed.

Question 24: There was a report, or a hint, that Syria might be receiving S-300 from the Russians, and the S-300 will allow Syria to protect its airspace. Is this something, for example, that Syria will use against the US-led coalition’s air force, even if Britain was involved, since their warplanes are in Syrian skies, as you said earlier, without official or sovereign permission. As Syria will receive S-300, then will it use this to impose, if you want, protection of its skies and impose a way to tell the coalition that you have to actually directly deal with us, or coordinate with us on the ground?

We will use any means available to us to protect our airspace

President Assad: That is our right and it is only to be expected that we prevent any airplane from violating our airspace. That is completely legal. We are going to use any means available to us to protect our airspace. It is not about that armament in particular. Any air defense we have is for that reason.

Question 25: Do you have that defense at the moment?

President Assad: No. So far we don’t have it.

Question 26: If you get that defense?

President Assad: Any defense systems we are going to have are for that purpose. If we are not going to protect our airspace, then why buy such armaments in the first place? That is self-evident.

Question 27: And if you get it …

President Assad: Not at the moment; it is not our priority now. Our priority is fighting the terrorists on the ground. This is the most important danger now. Of course we are keen to protect our airspace and prevent foreign interference in our internal affairs, militarily or other. But the priority now is to defeat the terrorists. By defeating the terrorists, some of whom are Syrians, we can move further in protecting the whole country from foreigners. It is a matter of priorities.

Question 28: But I meant about the actual coalition airplanes that are actually flying over Syria. So, that is not a priority either at the moment?

President Assad: No, not at the moment. At the moment the priority is fighting terrorism.

Question 29: If Saudi Arabia were to invite you for serious discussions on the future of Syria, would you accept such an invitation? Or have relations between Syria and Saudi Arabia been severely severed that you would never consider that?

President Assad: No, there is nothing impossible in politics. It is not about whether I accept or not, but rather about the policies of each government. What are their policies towards Syria? Are they going to keep supporting the terrorists or not? Are they going to continue playing their dangerous games in Syria, Yemen and other places? If they are ready and willing to change their policies, especially with regard to Syria, we don’t have a problem meeting with them. So it is not about the meeting or whether we go or not, the issue is their approach to what is happening in Syria.

Question 30: Do you expect any results from the talks in Vienna? And what would be the shape of any possible deal that you see coming out of Vienna?

President Assad: The most important clause in the Vienna communique is that the Syrians should come together to discuss the future of Syria. Everything else is an accessory. If you don’t have that main part, the accessories are of no use. So, the only solution is for us to come together as Syrians. Vienna itself is a meeting to announce intentions; it is not the actual process of siting down and discussing the future. So, the question is not what results from Vienna, but rather what we Syrians are able to achieve when we sit down together.

Question 31: But do you realize that some of the opposition’s leaders, and I’m talking about opposition figures who have been against taking up arms and what have you, but are also afraid of coming to Syria, because the moment they land in Syria, they will be arrested by the security officers and put in prison. And it has happened to others.

President Assad: No, it has never happened. There is an opposition in Syria, and they are free to do whatever they want.

Question 32: No, I mean the external opposition. For example, somebody like Haitham Mannaa, cannot come back.

President Assad: We have clearly stated that when there is a gathering in Syria, which they want to attend, we guarantee that they will not be arrested or held. We have said this many times. We don’t have any problems in this regard.

President al-Assad-Sunday Times-interview 1

Question 33: Now, Saudi Arabia invited 65 figures, including opposition leaders, even rebel commanders, businessmen, religious figures for a meeting in Saudi Arabia to present a united front in preparation for the January Vienna talks. Yet, the Syrian government, which is the other major element in this whole thing for the future of Syria, has not been seen to be involved with the opposition. Are you conducting any talks with the opposition? Have you reached any consensus with them?

President Assad: We have direct channels with some opposition groups; but others cannot communicate with us because they are not allowed to do so by the governments that control them. From our perspective, we are open for discussions with every peaceful opposition party. We don’t have any problems. With regards to the meeting in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi’s have been supporting terrorism directly, publically and explicitly. That meeting will not change anything on the ground. Before the meeting and after the meeting Saudi Arabia has been supporting terrorists and will continue to do so. It is not a benchmark or a critical juncture to discuss. It will not change anything.

Question 34: Do you see that anytime, in the future, that in order to protect Syria, or in order to save Syria, or to get the Syria process moving, that you might see yourself sitting with certain groups, one group, or certain groups, that perhaps now you deem terrorist, but in the future, it might be feasible that you would agree to negotiate with them because it would do well for the future?

President Assad: We already have; since the very beginning one of the pillars of our policy, was to start a dialogue with all parties involved in the conflict, whether they were in Syria or not. We negotiated with many terrorist groups, not organizations – to be very precise, who wanted to give up their armaments, and return to normal life. These negotiations led to many amnesties being issued and has proven to be very successful in several areas. Furthermore, some of these fighters have joined the Syrian Army and are now fighting with our forces. So yes, we are sitting down with those who committed illegal acts in Syria, whether political or military, to negotiate settlements on the condition that they give up their arms and return to normal life. This doesn’t mean that we negotiate with terrorist organizations like ISIS, al-Nusra and others. This is what I meant by groups, those who want out of the fight, regret their choices and want to have their lives back.

Question 35: The rebels call them barrel bombs. You refuse to refer to them as barrel bombs. Irrespective of the name, these were indiscriminate. Do you accept that Syria used indiscriminate bombs in some areas, which resulted in the death of many civilians?

President Assad: Let us suppose that this part of the propaganda is true, which it isn’t. But for the sake of argument, let us ask the same question regarding the different attacks committed by the Americans and the British with their state-of-the-art airplanes and missiles in Afghanistan and in Iraq, not only after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but also during the first Gulf war in 1990. How many civilians and innocent people were killed by those airstrikes with these very high precision missiles? They killed more civilians than terrorists. So, the issue is not these so-called barrel bombs and this evil president killing the good people who are fighting for freedom. This romantic image is not the case. It is about how you use your armaments, rather than the difference between so called barrel bombs and high precision missiles. It is about how you use these weapons, what kind of information you have and your intention. Do we have the will to kill innocent people? How is that possible when the state is defending them? By doing so, we are pushing them towards the terrorists. If we want to kill people, for any reason, innocent people or civilians, that will play directly into the hands of the terrorists. And this is against our interests. Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot? That is not realistic and not logical. This propaganda cannot be sold anymore.

Question 36: Mr President, the final question. As president of the country, and you always lead the military and everything. Do you, even if by default, not bear responsibility for some of the things that happened in Syria?

President Assad: I’ve been asked this question many times especially by western media and journalists. The aim of the question is to corner me between two answers: if I were to say I was responsible, they would say look the President bears responsibility for everything that happened, if I were to say I am not responsible, they would say this is not true, you are the president, how can you not be responsible.

Question 37: Because you are the head, like in a family …

President Assad: Let me continue, that was only an introduction to my answer. It is very simple. Since the very beginning, we built our policy around two pillars, engaging in dialogue with everyone, and fighting terrorism everywhere in Syria. Now, if you want to talk about the responsibility, you have to discuss many aspects of the conflict, and the reason why we are here today in this difficult and dire situation in Syria. If I am to claim responsibility, do I also claim responsibility for asking the Qataris to pay the terrorists money? Or for the Saudis to fund their activities? Or for western governments allowing their terrorists to come to Syria? Do I claim responsibility for asking western governments to offer a political umbrella to those terrorists and label them as moderates? Or for the western embargos on the Syrian people? This is how we have to discuss it. We cannot simply say, that he takes responsibility or not. We have to talk about every part; we have to differentiate between the policy decisions and the practices, between the strategy and the tactics. So, it is very complicated to evaluate it. Additionally, if you want to evaluate who bears responsibility in Syria, it could happen at the end of the war, when you can investigate the whole story before, during and after.

Interviewer: Mr. President, thank you very much.


Is Washington Edging Towards Full-Scale Military Operation in Iraq, Syria?
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151205/1031294822/us-iraq-syria-special-operations-troops-isis.html

The Obama administration recently announced its plans to send 50 special operations troops to Syria and 100 more commandos to neighboring Iraq in what many view as breaking the promise not to send boots on the ground in the two countries plagued by sectarian violence and terrorism.

The White House tried to brush these legitimate concerns aside, claiming that the US will not be dragged into large-scale military operations like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s.


Pentagon Decision to Deploy Soldiers in Iraq Violates Withdrawal Agreement
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151204/1031274894/penagon-iraq-troops-withdrawal-violation.html

Aan Iraqi lawmaker said that Pentagon's decision to deploy its special forces to Iraq to fight against Daesh is a violation of the US-Iraqi agreement on the withdrawal of US troops from the country.

"We completely reject the deployment of US forces in Iraq to carry out military and intelligence operations. Iraqi security forces and the forces of Shiite militia al-Hashd al-Shaabi [part of Popular Mobilization Forces] able to liberate areas occupied by IS militants," Khalaf Abd Samad said in a statement.