Who is responsible for the killing in Syria?
It was they who drafted Netanyahu’s 1996 “Clean Break” plan to use the US military to get rid of Israel’s enemies.
It was they who published the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” on September 11th, 2000, re-phrasing the Clean Break plan for America’s defense establishment, and calling for a “New Pearl Harbor” to make it possible.
It was they who murdered almost 3,000 Americans exactly one year later, to put the “Clean Break” into operation.
Immediately after 9/11, the neocon “Clean Break” plan went operational: “We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”
The seven countries making trouble for Israel: Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and Iran.
Iraq was invaded and decimated. But the occupation bogged down, throwing off the “seven countries in five years” timetable. Now it would have to be “seven countries in ten or fifteen years.”
In Lebanon, the neocons killed Hariri in a false-flag designed to end the Syrian protectorate. Somalia’s only stable government in modern history was destroyed by a neocon-orchestrated Ethiopian invasion and occupation. Sudan was smashed into two pieces, the south owned by Israel. Libya’s government was destroyed and its leader brutally murdered.
By 2011, only two of the “seven countries in five years” had not been destroyed by the neocons: Syria and Iran.
A massive, carefully-orchestrated intelligence operation brought protestors into the streets of Syria. Black ops snipers began firing on the crowds, hoping to convince them that it was Syrian government troops doing the shooting.
The same black ops snipers then fired on Syrian government troops, hoping to convince them that the demonstrators were shooting at them.
This intelligence operation was reported in the controlled media as: “Evil Syrian government troops and militias shoot down unarmed demonstrators!”
In reality, the neocon mercenaries and black ops snipers were doing most of the killing. And most of their victims were pro-Assad.
In the article below, Dr. Javed Jamil – a strong supporter of political Islam – marshals statistics from two anti-Assad sources, al-Jazeera and Wikipedia, to show that everything the mainstream media has been saying about Syria is just another Big Lie.
Who is the Tyrant in Syria?
by Dr. Javed Jamil
Those who know me will surely wonder why I am writing this piece in defence of a universally despised tyrant who expressed happiness over the defeat of “Political Islam” in Egypt. Till about two months back, I too, like almost everybody else exposed to the international media, loved to hate Bashar Assad of Syria for his presiding over the killing of innocent people of his own country. I continued to read the casualty figures with deep dismay. It touched hundreds, then thousands and finally about one hundred thousand.
I too wanted him to go at the earliest opportunity. The media made me believe he was a tyrant and bloody killer who needed no sympathy.
A man responsible for massacres of his own countrymen must be removed immediately, and the whole world must unite in this noble aim. But then something happened, which I cannot elaborate here, that made me rethink the whole scenario. Over the years, I have been more and more skeptical of what appears in the international media. More often than not, it is almost all falsehood with a pinch of truth. I have also developed a habit of looking at the statistics, which give a more fair if not absolute idea of how things are happening.
To my surprise, I found a very different type of picture from that presented by the international media and institutions. They were giving the impression that the Syrian army of Assad is wholly responsible for the bloodshed and the rebels are the victims that need support from outside world. But when I studied the break-up of deaths, to my utter amazement, I found that Assad’s men have lost much greater number of lives than the rebels. I confirmed the figures from various sources. Here I am giving figures that have been reported by Wikipedia quoting the western and rebel sources:
“Al Jazeera journalist Nir Rosen reported that many of the deaths reported daily by activists are in fact armed insurgents falsely presented as civilian deaths, but confirmed that real civilian deaths do occur on a regular basis. A number of Middle East political analysts, including those from the Lebanese Al Akhbar newspaper, have also urged caution.
“This was later confirmed when in late May 2012, Rami Abdulrahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is one of the opposition-affiliated groups counting the number of those killed in the uprising, stated that civilians who had taken up arms during the conflict were being counted under the category of ‘civilians.'”
“In May 2013, SOHR stated that at least 41,000 of those killed during the conflict were Alawites.
Syrian military and police: 25,407 killed
Shabiha and National Defense Force: 17,311 killed
Lebanese Hezbollah: 170 killed
“The pro-government militia fatalities figure also includes: 1,000 civilian government officials, 117 members of the Iranian Basij, 30 members of the Palestinian PLA, 19 Palestinian PFLP–GC members, 18 Iraqi Shia militiamen and one member of the Lebanese Amal Movement.”
The full report can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war
The reports make it clear that:
1. Asad’s men has been the worst victims of violence, with at least 3 times as many casualties as the rebels;
2. That the so called “civilian casualties” are mostly the civilians in combatant roles;
3. If that is the situation, one can easily gauge who was more responsible for civilian deaths – army or rebels;
4. The rebels are heavily armed with massive supply of arms from outside. The main suppliers have of course been Arab states, Turkey and Western countries that have formed a union of friends. Otherwise, the rebels could not have mounted such heavy casualties on government forces.
It is not difficult to analyse why Assad is being presented as the tyrant worthy of hatred. He is the only Arab leader who has never compromised on Israel-US designs in the Arab world. I will again quote from an article on Wikipedia regarding Assad:
“The United States, European Union, the March 14 Alliance, Israel, and France accuse Assad of providing practical support to militant groups active against Israel and against opposition political groups. The latter category would include most political parties other than Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. ….Assad opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq despite a long-standing animosity between the Syrian and Iraqi governments. Assad used Syria’s seat in one of rotating positions on the United Nations Security Council to try to prevent the invasion of Iraq.
Following the Iraq invasion by US and allied forces, Assad was accused of supporting the Shia insurgency in Iraq. A US general accused him of providing funding, logistics, and training to Iraqi and foreign Shia fundamentalists to launch attacks against U.S. and allied forces occupying Iraq. … The February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the accusation of Syrian involvement and support for anti-Israeli groups, helped precipitate a crisis in relations with the United States.
Assad was criticised for Syria’s presence in Lebanon which ended in 2005, and the U.S. placed sanctions upon Syria partly because of this…In the Arab world, Assad mended relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization but relations with many Arab states, in particular Saudi Arabia, have been deteriorating. This is in part due to Assad’s continued intervention in Lebanon and his alliance with Iran. Around the time of the 2008 South Ossetia war, Assad made an official visit to Russia. In an interview with the Russian TV channel Vesti, he asserted that one cannot separate the events in the Caucasus from the US presence in Iraq, which he condemned as a direct threat to [Syria’s] security.”[ In 2011, Assad told the Wall Street Journal that he considered himself “anti-Israel” and “anti-West”, and that because of these policies he was not in danger of being overthrown.….
In a speech about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in August 2006, Bashar al-Assad said that Hezbollah had “hoisted the banner of victory,” hailing its actions as a “successful resistance.” He claimed that Arab resistance was growing stronger, and warned Israel that “your warplanes, rockets, and your atomic bomb will not protect you in the future.” He called Israel an enemy with whom no peace could be achieved as long as they and their allies (especially the U.S.) support the practice of preemptive war. In the same speech, he also called Arab leaders that have criticized Hezbollah “half-men.”….
During the visit of Pope John Paul II to Syria in 2001, Bashar al-Assad requested an apology to Muslims for the medieval Crusades and criticised Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Comparing their suffering to that endured by Jesus Christ in Palestine, Assad claimed that followers of Judaism “tried to kill the principles of all religions with the same mentality in which they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet Muhammad.” Responding to claims that his comment was anti-Semitic, Assad said that whereas Judaism is a racially heterogeneous religion, the Syrian people are the core of the Semitic race and therefore are opposed to the term anti-Semitism.
When offered to retract his comment implying that the Jews were responsible for Jesus’ suffering, Assad replied, “As always, these are historical facts that we cannot deny,” and stressed that his remarks were not anti-Jewish.”
Assad is no cleric or Islamist; nor is he a tribal man like Ghaddafi. He has studied medicine and earned a Masters in ophthalmology from a UK medical college. He is not an Islamic enthusiast, which is perhaps the only point against him. He may have endorsed Morsi’s ouster. It was a reaction to Morsi’s open call for his removal. But he has proved to be a bigger Muslim than many Arab heads who have been hobnobbing with the Israel-US nexus.
Till the Arab Spring, his regime was not involved in any major violence, and there was no evidence that he was unpopular with the people. The Arab Spring gave the Western powers an opportunity to foment trouble in Syria so that their avowed enemy can be removed. And any government faced with armed rebellion would not accept rebellion and would wage a full-fledged counterattack. With such a virulent international campaign against him, even despite the facts that stare at my eyes, I still find it hard to side with Assad but I am finding it hard, almost impossible, to side with the rebels. There are strong reasons to believe that these foreign backed rebels are the real tyrants of Syria.