Bharat Rakshak

Michel Chossudovsky, director for the Center for Research on Globalization, also told RT news of foreign funds for Syrian rebels is a “red herring.” He argues the Free Syrian Army has been financed by NATO “from the outset.”

“The Free Syrian Army are the foot soldiers of the western military alliance, and they are advised by their foreign military handlers. We know that. We know there are Special Forces on the ground, that French military officers were arrested in late February. The thing was hushed up.And the forbidden truth is that the Western military alliance has been waging a covert war using the Free Syrian Army for more than a year now, and this free Syrian Army doesn’t represent anybody in Syria. There’s mounting evidence of atrocities.”

In its weekend supplement devoted to geopolitics French daily Le Monde published 8 March, 2013 a report entitled “Syrie : à Atmé, entre révolution et désenchantement” – “Syria: Atme, between revolution and disenchantment”- Christophe Ayad, a regular embedded journalist with NATO’s mercenary forces in Syria, reports on the mixture of despair and chaos that reigns in rebel controlled territory. One of the rebels tells the French reporter that “three former soldiers of the Irish military elite” provided training to Syrian rebels. It is claimed the Irish soldiers were acting as “independent mercenaries”. These “former soldiers of the Irish military elite” are acting in violation of international law.

For over two-and-a-half years the people of Syria have undergone hell on earth as the country has been overrun with terrorists from Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, Bangledesh, Philippines, Chechnya, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and many European states. This is a dirty, genocidal war waged by NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council under the guise of the corporate funded “Arab Spring,” a cover regime change scenario planned by the US State Department as far back as 2004 according to Rand National Defense Research Institute reports.

Mystery Sponsor Of Weapons And Money To Syrian Mercenary "Rebels" Revealed
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/16/2013 19:12 -0400

Previously, when looking at the real underlying national interests responsible for the deteriorating situation in Syria, which eventually may and/or will devolve into all out war with hundreds of thousands killed, we made it very clear that it was always and only about the gas, or gas pipelines to be exact, and specifically those involving the tiny but uber-wealthy state of Qatar.

However, one question that has so far remained unanswered, and a very sensitive one now that the US is on the verge of voting to arm the Syrian rebels, is who was arming said group of Al-Qaeda supported militants up until now. Now, finally, courtesy of the FT we have the (less than surprising) answer, which goes back to our original thesis, and proves that, as so often happens in the middle east, it is once again all about the natural resources.

From the FT:(Financial Times)

The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.

The cost of Qatar’s intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.
In dozens of interviews with the FT conducted in recent weeks, rebel leaders both abroad and within Syria as well as regional and western officials detailed Qatar’s role in the Syrian conflict, a source of mounting controversy.
Just as Egypt and Libya had their CIA Western-funded mercenaries fighting the regime, so Qatar is paying for its own mercenary force.
The small state with a gargantuan appetite is the biggest donor to the political opposition, providing generous refugee packages to defectors (one estimate puts it at $50,000 a year for a defector and his family) and has provided vast amounts of humanitarian support.
Sources close to the Qatari government say total spending has reached as much as $3bn, while rebel and diplomatic sources put the figure at $1bn at most.

Why would Qatar want to become involved in Syria where they have little invested? A map reveals that the kingdom is a geographic prisoner in a small enclave on the Persian Gulf coast.
It relies upon the export of LNG, because it is restricted by Saudi Arabia from building pipelines to distant markets. In 2009, the proposal of a pipeline to Europe through Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the Nabucco pipeline was considered, but Saudi Arabia that is angered by its smaller and much louder brother has blocked any overland expansion.
Already the largest LNG producer, Qatar will not increase the production of LNG. The market is becoming glutted with eight new facilities in Australia coming online between 2014 and 2020.

A saturated North American gas market and a far more competitive Asian market leaves only Europe. The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income. Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way.
Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Moslem Brotherhood. It is the best organized political movement in the chaotic society and can block Saudi Arabia’s efforts to install a more fanatical Wahhabi based regime. Once the Brotherhood is in power, the Emir’s broad connections with Brotherhood groups throughout the region should make it easy for him to find a friendly ear and an open hand in Damascus.

A control centre has been established in the Turkish city of Adana near the Syrian border to direct the rebels against Al-Assad. Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud asked to have the Turks establish a joint Turkish, Saudi, Qatari operations center. “The Turks liked the idea of having the base in Adana so that they could supervise its operations” a source in the Gulf told Reuters.:

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).
"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.
Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study. It recently extended the ban for two years to 2013.

Specifically, the issue at hand is the green part of the proposed pipeline: as explained above, it simply can't happen as long as Russia is alligned with Assad.

So there you have it: Qatar doing everything it can to promote bloodshed, death and destruction by using not Syrian rebels, but mercenaries: professional citizens who are paid handsomely to fight and kill members of the elected regime (unpopular as it may be), for what? So that the unimaginably rich emirs of Qatar can get even richer. Although it is not as if Russia is blameless: all it wants is to preserve its own strategic leverage over Europe by being the biggest external provider of natgas to the continent through its own pipelines. Should Nabucco come into existence, Gazpromia would be very, very angry and make far less money!

As for the Syrian "rebels", who else is helping them? Why the US and Israel of course. And with the Muslim Brotherhood "takeover" paradigm already tested out in Egypt, it is only a matter of time.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers, Qatar has sent the most weapons deliveries to Syria, with more than 70 military cargo flights into neighbouring Turkey between April 2012 and March this year.

Perhaps it is Putin's turn to tell John Kerry he prefer if Qatar was not "supplying assistance to Syrian mercenaries"?

What is worse, and what is already known is that implicitly the US - that ever-vigilant crusader against Al Qaeda - is effectively also supporting the terrorist organization:

The relegation of Qatar to second place in providing weapons follows increasing concern in the West and among other Arab states that weapons it supplies could fall into the hands of an al-Qaeda-linked group, Jabhat al-Nusrah.

Yet Qatar may have bitten off more than it can chew, even with the explicit military Israeli support, and implicit from the US. Because the closer Qatar gets to establishing its own puppet state in Syria, the closer Saudi Arabia is to getting marginalized:
Qatar’s support for Islamist groups in the Arab world, which puts it at odds with its peers in the Gulf states, has fuelled rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Qatar’s ruling emir, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, “wants to be the Arab world’s Islamist (Gamal) Abdelnasser,” said an Arab politician, referring to Egypt’s fiery late president and devoted pan-Arab leader.

Qatar’s intervention is coming under mounting scrutiny. Regional rivals contend it is using its financial firepower simply to buy future influence and that it has ended up splintering Syria’s opposition. Against this backdrop Saudi Arabia, which until now has been a more deliberate backer of Syria’s rebels, has stepped up its involvement.
Recent tensions over the opposition’s election of an interim prime minister who won the support of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood has also driven Saudi Arabia to tighten its relationship to the political opposition, a job it had largely left in the hands of Qatar.

What Saudi Arabia wants is not to leave the Syrian people alone, but to install its own puppet regime so it has full liberty to dictate LNG terms to Qatar, and subsequently to Europe.

Syria's proven reserve of 2.5 billion barrels of oil is the largest in the region except for Iraq's, according to the Oil and Gas Journal. It also has a large proven reserve of natural gas of 8.5 trillion cubic feet.

This makes Syria the largest conventional hydrocarbon resource base in the Levant Basin, a stretch of sea extending from the coasts of Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Cyprus.

Levant Basin has a mean undiscovered oil resource of 1.7 billion barrels of oil and undiscovered natural gas resource of 122 trillion cubic feet. Both Cyprus and Israel -- with help from Texas-based Noble Energy Inc. (NYSE:NBL) -- are looking to become regional powerhouses for the exportation of natural gas. Nobel is the main energy company exploring and drilling in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. In 2010, Noble Energy discovered one of the biggest gas fields off Israel’s coast, the largest natural gas find in the past 10 years.

Because Syria is not developing its natural resource in the Mediterranean, Cyprus and Israel are not worried about competition or territorial disputes arising with Syria in the near future.

Currently, Noble Energy and Cyprus are in talks to build a liquefied natural gas export facility, which will make Cyprus a regional hub in transferring LNG to markets in Europe and the Far East.

The U.S. Geological Survey reported that the Levant Basin, which covers Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus and Palestine, contains around 122 trillion cubic feet of gas and at least 1.7 billion barrels of oil.

A coastal state is entitled to explore for oil and gas in its economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers), according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the area includes the coastal states of Palestine (Gaza), Lebanon and Syria. So according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria are all entitled to explore and recover oil and gas in their respective economic zones.

Hundreds of US government financed mercenaries from Xe Services LL, formerly known as Blackwater, and Academi have been captured and killed by Syrian forces in Syria. As many as 700 foreign mercenaries of Arab and Western descent along with Israeli, US and European-made weapons were seized in the Homs neighborhood of Baba Amro in March of this year.

European journalists in Syria see a totally different story that is propagandized by the anti-sovereignty United Nations and the US government. The picture painted by the US media does not match the reality. Foreign journalists are confirming “cross-border terrorism” from Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon into Syria. They have uncovered evidence of the US government government involvement in the Syrian uprising. US paid mercenaries are the ones killing innocent civilians. Mercenaries from Xe Services LL. Syrian government forces are battling US and foreign mercenaries in Syria. US mercenaries have illegally infiltrated Syria to start an uprising by committing terrorist acts and armed assaults against Syria’s civilian population.

On March 2nd, 2007 retired general of the United States Army Wesley Clark revealed that the US government had planned just 10 days after 9/11 to attack seven countries in five years, “starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran”. As George W Bush is quoted as saying “Mission Accomplished” for Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia and Libya. Only 2 more to go – Syria and Iran. Obama illegally attacked Libya (didn’t seek nor get Congressional authorization for use of force or a declaration of war). Because an election is coming in the fall Obama chose again to defy Congress and blatantly violate the US Constitution and his oath of office by secretly waging an illegal war against Syria using foreign mercenaries.

10 years ago the US openly attacked Iraq to overthrow its government and take control of its oil. Today, the US is secretly attacking Syria to overthrow its government and take control of its huge untapped oil and gas reserves. In late 2010 huge natural gas deposits off Syria’s Mediterranean shores were discovered. The initial results revealed that the “entire” eastern Mediterranean is swimming in huge untapped oil and gas reserves.

“the Levant Basin, which covers Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus and Palestine, contains around 122 trillion cubic feet of gas and at least 1.7 billion barrels of oil.”

Heather Saul

Wednesday 16 October 2013
Nearly half a million Iraqis have died because of war in their country, a new study has suggested.

An estimated 461,000 Iraqis died between March 2003 and June 2011 as a direct or indirect result of the conflict, a new study published in journal PLOS Medicine has shown.

Most of the deaths in the study were attributable to violence but around a third occurred as a result of indirect war-related events such as failures in health care systems and collapses in crucial supply networks and sanitation.

The study found that gunshots were the cause of 62 per cent of violent deaths, car bombs accounted for 12 per cent and other explosions caused 9 per cent of deaths. Heart conditions were the lead cause of non-violent deaths, according to the findings.

Amy Hagopian led a team of researchers from the University of Washington who surveyed 2,000 households from 100 geographical locations in Iraq between May and July 2011.

Researchers asked the head of each household about deaths among household members, and they asked all adults in the household about deaths among their siblings.

The editors' summary said the Iraqi death toll figures represented the most up-to-date estimates. There has never been one overarching and official number of deaths recorded in the country.

“Based on the statistical methods, the researchers are 95 per cent confident that the true number of excess deaths lies between 48,000 and 751,000 - a large range,” the summary said.

But it said the estimates were associated with “substantial difficulties” including the small representative sample of households.

The study’s authors concluded: “To many, the war in Iraq has ended, but hostilities and resulting terror continue.

“It is estimated that during 28 years of conflict (1980–2008), Iraq has lost approximately 2.5 million people”.

“However, living in Iraq today is no longer about how many have died, but how future deaths should be prevented. The results of the present and similar studies provide a picture of the living victims (war orphans, widows, and injured, disabled, and displaced people) whose health and social needs must be met.”

Ian Black, Middle East editor
theguardian.com, Friday 18 October 2013 18.05 BST

The United Nations security council voting on Syria handing over its chemical weapons, last month. Saudi Arabia has refuse to take its seat on the body. Photograph: Craig Ruttle/AP

In a fit of diplomatic pique Saudi Arabia has spurned its chance to occupy a seat on the United Nations security council, accusing the world body of double standards and failing to do its duty over Syria, nuclear weapons and the Palestinians.

Months of simmering tension over the thorniest issues in the Middle East boiled over into public view on Friday in a strongly-worded complaint from Riyadh. Normal Saudi discretion was thrown to the winds in what appeared to be a concerted campaign to advertise its anger.

"Allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill its people and burn them with chemical weapons in front of the entire world and without any deterrent or punishment is clear proof and evidence of the UN security council's inability to perform its duties and shoulder its responsibilities," said the Saudi foreign ministry. The issue was then amplified through a Twitter hashtag in Arabic.

Critics described it as a petulant and ineffective stunt that would undermine the conservative kingdom's ability to affect decisions it cares about.

Saudi Arabia is the leading supporter of armed Syrian rebel groups, some with an Islamist identity and agenda, seeking to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. It is also a strategic opponent of Iran and alarmed by signs of a thaw in its relations with the US and the positive tone in this week's talks about its nuclear programme.

The statement came hours after Saudi Arabia was elected for the first time to the 10-strong rotating membership of the council, whose five permanent members are the US, Russia, China, France and Britain. Non-permanent members usually use their two-year stint to set the agenda and suppress international censure of their policies, especially on human rights. The general assembly holds a vote every year for five of the seats. The only precedent dates back to the depths of the cold war.

Signs of anger had been multiplying since last month when the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, refused to speak or even hand out a copy of his speech at the general assembly in anger over the security council deadlock on Syria and Palestine. That came shortly after the US-Russian agreement to disarm Syria's chemical weapons, which avoided the need for US-led air strikes and let Assad off the hook. "It was a sign of the frustration felt," said Nawaf Obaid, a senior adviser to Saudi officials.

The Saudi statement also complained that the UN had proved unable to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for decades and had failed to transform the Middle East into a zone free of weapons of mass destruction – presumably a reference to Israel's undeclared atomic arsenal and perhaps also to Iran's ambitions.

Frederic Wherey, a Saudi expert at the Carnegie Endowment, said: "This is a dramatic but ineffectual gesture. The Saudis realised the tide of the security council was against them on portfolios they care about. But operationally, it doesn't mean much. It's more theatrics than substance."

Chris Doyle of the Council for Arab-British Understanding said: "There is shock at their behaviour. The Saudis are the only member of the G20 who've never been on the security council. You have to question the sense of this. If they want to change the way the international community operates the UN is the perfect venue to make your voice heard. Do they expect the world to rush to Riyadh and apologise for not listening to them more? The whole thing seems petulant and very short term. It's a teenage tantrum."

After Thursday's vote the Saudi ambassador to the UN, Abdallah al-Mouallimi, said his country's election was "a reflection of a long-standing policy in support of moderation and in support of resolving disputes by peaceful means". But the statement from Riyadh appeared to take the envoy by surprise. "They worked hard to get in trained diplomats for the [UN] job," said Ali al-Ahmed, a US-based Saudi opposition commentator, "but maybe the king pulled the plug in one of his fits."

Edward Luck of the University of San Diego called the decision a "a baffling case of shooting oneself in the foot."

The Saudi move attracted as much ridicule and sarcasm as serious analysis. "Hopes for a UNSC resolution protecting the world's women from the dangers of driving shattered by Saudi decision to vacate its seat," tweeted the Middle East expert Marc Lynch. Analyst and wit Karl Sharro commented: "You would think Saudi Arabia would be more grateful that the UNSC allowed it to invade Bahrain and crush the uprising with no fuss."

Officials in Israel's intelligence community expressed anger over the report hat Turkey had given Tehran the identities of 10 Israeli agents

By David Lev
First Publish: 10/17/2013, 4:13 PM

Danny Yatom

Officials in Israel's intelligence community expressed shock and anger over the report Thursday that Turkey had given Tehran the identities of ten Israelis who were gathering information in Iran.

According to the report in the Washington Post Thursday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan deliberately exposed a network of Iranians who had been working with the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency. Sources told the paper that Turkey’s deliberate exposure of the agents’ identities was a “significant” blow to Israel’s intelligence in Iran.

No official announcement has been made in Iran on the arrest of the agents, but Israeli officials said that they believed the report was accurate.

This, despite the fact that Iran and Turkey are rivals.

“That rivalry makes it unlikely that they would cooperate on a level like this,” said Israeli security analyst Roni Daniel. But Israeli security officials, he said, are aware that the Turkish and Iranian intelligence services have worked together on numerous issues. Thus it is quite likely that the story is correct.

There was no official comment by the government. Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin told Israel Radio that Israel's relations with Turkey were “complicated. Turkey is seeking to become the leader of the Middle East, and thinks it has found the easiest path to this – agitating against Israel.”

In an interview, former Mossad head Danny Yatom said that if true, “this is unacceptable behavior by Turkey directed at Israel. This could certainly prevent Iranians from cooperating with Israel on nuclear issues. We all want to have good relations with as many countries as possible, and it is important to Israel to foster good relations with all countries. But if the report is true, Turkey has, with this harmful action, mortally wounded relations with Israel,” he said.

“We have not received any requests so far. These documents will be considered in line with the established procedures once we receive it,” Dmitry Peskov said.

The Russian Foreign Ministry on Wednesday published a collective request for a double Russian-Syrian citizenship from a group of Christians living in the Kalamoon district.

The Syrians say in their letter that they are going to defend their homes and “would prefer death to roaming around migrant camps,” but seek Russian protection in case they are “under threat of being physically eliminated by terrorists.”

“We have everything we need, we are not asking for money,” the letter reads.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said the issue was up to Russia’s leadership to decide. Russian citizenship is granted by a presidential decree.

Father Vsevolod Chaplin, who heads the Russian Orthodox Church’s press service, said Friday that the Russian authorities should show kindness to these people, who are “in real danger.”

He, however, added that such decisions should be made “responsibly, with full understanding of where those people would live and work.”

Russia sharply criticized Saudi Arabia on Friday for refusing its non-permanent membership in the UN Security Council on the grounds that the international body had been inefficient in handling the Syrian crisis and other global conflicts.

Riyadh’s rejection, which came shortly after the kingdom was elected as one of the council's ten non-permanent members Thursday, stunned the UN, as no country has ever refused a seat on the influential body.

“We are surprised with the unprecedented decision of Saudi Arabia, whose candidacy was supported by the majority of the UN members at the vote in the General Assembly," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its website.

“With its decision, Saudi Arabia has excluded itself from collective work within the Security Council to support international peace and security,” the statement said.

Moscow questioned what it called Riyadh’s “strange” reasoning in its criticism of the alleged inefficiency of Security Council mechanisms.

"Saudi Arabia’s criticism of the UN Security Council in the context of the Syrian conflict is particularly strange, especially after the Security Council has unilaterally passed resolution 2118 forming the legal framework for the comprehensive settlement of conflict in Syria," the foreign ministry said.

Russia and Saudi Arabia have been at loggerheads over the Syrian conflict ever since the start of the uprising against President Bashar Assad in 2011. While Moscow backs the Assad regime, Riyadh is a major supporter of opposition rebels.

RT: What do you think about the situation in Syria? The region is in chaos, are the rebels winning?

Amine Hotait: No, the US-Israeli plan has failed – they haven’t been able to move forward for two years. And now Russia has persuaded the US not to bomb Syria. Russia is one of the three winners in Syria, its Russia’s strategic victory. The winners are – Resistance (Hezbollah – RT), Iran, and BRICS as NATO’s opponent. And of course, Resistance inside Syria. Now all of us, who were there when this historic decision not to bomb Syria was made, live in a new era. The UN Resolution 2118 is the first document of the new world. So far we only see fragments of this new world. Obama’s talk with Rouhani is also a result of the victory in Syria. For three days they were discussing paragraph 21 in the UN Resolution, where it says that if Syria doesn’t comply with the decision to destroy all chemical weapons, measures stipulated in paragraph 7 will be used against it. I laughed at the authors. Anyone can get up and say something in the UN. They can talk about it all they want, but there will never be a decision to use force against Syria. Now it is impossible to defeat Syria.

...

RT: Could you comment on the use of chemical weapons near Damascus?

AH: The rebels made two mistakes. They did use chemical weapons, but not in the place the bodies were in. People wouldn’t be able to be there without protective clothing. It just looked as if the children had been drugged – there were no signs of vomit or chemical poisoning. Besides, the death toll estimates vary too much: the first estimate was 120 victims, then 360. The French claimed the death toll reached 500 people, and the Americans said it was 1,300.

Russia knows the US is telling lies and is trying to dispel them. When Mr Lavrov first accused Kerry of lying, he had nothing to counter it with. (On September 2, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it was “strange” to hear the US Secretary of State John Kerry say that “the American side had produced irrefutable evidence for Russia of the Assad regime using chemical weapons” – RT)

RT: From the military point of view, who are the Syrian rebels? What tactics do they use?

AH: I’ve been studying this tactics since 2007. I call it a proxy war – Israel uses a third party to fight Syria in order to avoid getting involved directly. I anticipated this situation.

RT: Did you anticipate the events in Syria specifically?

AH: Not only in Syria, in other countries as well. It was clear that Israel had been looking for new types of warfare. The 2006 Lebanon war showed that Israel couldn’t secure a quick victory anymore, but a long campaign is also not an option – Israel can’t maintain several fronts. In the future, Israel will refrain from open warfare against the Arab world, barring punitive measures against the Palestinians, and opt for proxy wars instead.

RT: Could you describe the main parameters of this proxy war?

AH: A proxy war is closely connected to igniting a civil war between various social groups employing religious and ethnical slogans. Such a war engulfs everything and drags everyone in; it weakens the country, torn apart by artificial and irresolvable conflict. That’s the idea – to pit the Sunni and the Shia against each other across the entire region.

RT: Why did Syria become the focus of their efforts?

AH: Syria is the retaliation for Hezbollah’s victory in 2006, an attempt to cover the bitter taste of defeat that they experienced for the first time. Having won, Hezbollah delayed their plans for three years – Israel planned for the civil war in Syria to start much earlier than that.

RT: As a result of the Syrian conflict, Lebanon has to deal with enormous pressure in the form of refugees. How many are there?

AH: There are over 1,300,000 refugees total – about 350,000-400,000 Syrians in the south; 150,000 in Beirut and Saida each; 25,000-30,000 in the Christian areas, and 350,000 in the Beqaa Valley.

..
Nadezhda Kevorkova, RT

The USA is not interested in using its political influence to bring the opposition to the negotiating table in Geneva. The primary function of US diplomacy is to contain the Russian response to the US/NATO war on Syria to diplomacy while continuing the destabilization of its sphere of interest, reaching from the eastern Mediterranean, along the soft, resource rich underbelly of Russia´s and China´s Central Asian republics to Baluchistan, Nepal and Myanmar.

Philip wrote:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ ... mG7KSd0uW8
Former Mossad Head: Relations With Turkey 'Mortally Wounded'

Officials in Israel's intelligence community expressed anger over the report hat Turkey had given Tehran the identities of 10 Israeli agents

Turkish military says hits Islamist militant positions in Syria

"Turkey's army said on Wednesday it had fired on al Qaeda-linked fighters over the border in northern Syria in response to a stray mortar shell which struck Turkish territory.

The military fired four artillery shells at positions of fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) on Tuesday, the general staff statement said."

David Nott, who has spent weeks volunteering in a Syrian hospital whose location cannot be disclosed, said each day snipers would chose to aim at different body parts of the civilians who ran from one part of the city to another to buy food and supplies. One day it would be the groin, one day it would be the neck, the next it would be the chest, he told the Times.
“From the first patients that came in in the morning, you could almost tell what you would see for the rest of the day. It was a game. We heard the snipers were winning packets of cigarettes for hitting the correct number of targets.”
On one day more than six pregnant women were caught by sniper fire and on another day two heavily pregnant women were targeted. They survived but their unborn babies died, one suffering a bullet to the brain.
“The women were all shot through the uterus, so that must have been where they were aiming for... This was deliberate. It was hell beyond hell,” he told the pape

Never has a single conflict exposed so much weakness, duplicity and criminality. These things have always been there but never so plain for all to see.

Chemical weapon inspectors overseeing the destruction, well underway, of Syria’s stockpiles can’t help but note clear indications that those stockpiles have not been touched for years.

The silence of this revelation is “deafening.”

Moreover, as it becomes increasingly obvious that Assad’s forces weren’t involved in chemical attacks, inspectors are now asking for Assad’s forces to, through military action, gain access to stockpiles of chemical weapons held by rebel forces."

"The United States strongly condemns the Syrian regime’s continued siege of Ghouta and other Damascus suburbs, especially the town of Mouadimiya, and calls on the regime to allow immediate and unfettered humanitarian access to these areas. This siege has led to unprecedented reports of children dying of malnutrition-related causes in areas that are only a few miles from Bashar al-Assad's palace in Damascus."

brihaspati wrote: I think we should expect increased violence in Iraq, Sudan/Somalia, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan [low level and controlled until Talebs get full state power], and a dramatic rise in violence against westerb borders of India. The muslim dominated portions of CAR, especially those bordering Russia will be activated too.

Saudi Arabia snubs security council seat over 'UN failures'

Mother Agnes will be touring the U.S. and Canada from October 24, to December 4, 2013 under the auspices of the Syrian Solidarity Movement, a U.S. tax-exempt nonprofit project, ID no. 20-5516191. If you or your church, house of worship, school, university, union or other organization wishes to invite Mother Agnes to to speak, please contact us at the address below. If requested, Mother Agnes will also be happy to speak about the conditions of Arab and other Christian communities throughout the Middle East.

Gunfire Reported in Feud between Qatar's Former, Present Emirs

TEHRAN (FNA)- Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani has imprisoned his father and former Emir after a quarrel over former Queen Sheikha Moza, security officers of the Royal palace disclosed, adding that the furious emir has fired several shots to warn his father.

"We heard several gunshots in the midst of a rather lengthy quarrel between HH Emir and his father on Friday and rushed to the room, where we realized that the Emir had taken out his gun and fired several warning shots in the air after he had gone out of control due to his fury," the source said.

"Following the quarrel, HH Emir ordered us to arrest and imprison his father (the former Emir)," he added.

The General Command of “Free Army” has published a statement, in which it demands to arrest Salim Idres, the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Military Council (SMC) of the “Free Army”, under the charge of agency with the “Syrian regime” especially in the so-called battle “Liberating the Coast” that brought the Jihadist organizations, which killed Await citizens in Lattakia countryside, as it also demands to arrest the Lebanese MP Oqab Saqer and the “Free Army” media spokesman Louay al-Miqdad because of depriving most of the anti-government military forces from the financial support, and it charges Oqab Saqer for selling arms shipments to “Syrian regime” as well as al-Qaeda. The Statement calls to arrest all al-Qaeda leaders in Syria and to correct the path of the “Revolution” that has been deviated and become warlord’s shops.

Top Syrian rebel commander killed in clashes -insurgents

AMMAN, Oct 21 (Reuters) - One of the most senior commanders of the rebel Free Syrian Army was killed on Monday during clashes with government troops near the southern city of Deraa on the border with Jordan, insurgents and state media said.

Yasser al-Aboud, a former Syrian army officer who defected in the early days of the revolt, was leading an assault on army checkpoints in the town of Tafas, northwest of Deraa, they added.

"The commander Aboud was martyred as he was leading a group of rebels against regime's forces," said Abu Hamza from the rebel Falujat Huaran brigade that was involved in the clashes.

Aboud was a founding member of the Western-backed Free Syrian Army's military council in southern Syria, which groups moderate brigades and has said it is worried about the growing role of Islamist insurgents in the conflict.

The Syrian army controls most of Deraa, the cradle of the 2-1/2-year uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. But rebels have gained territory in the city's old quarter and surrounding rural areas in recent months.

Turkey’s decision to choose China for a missile defense system demonstrates Ankara frustration with its American ally, according to a scholar.

The two allies policies on Syria and Egypt differ, while Washington’s unusually critical stance on anti-government protests in Turkey has increased Ankara’s frustration, said Dr. Serhat Güvenç of Istanbul’s Kadir Has University.

How do you evaluate Turkey’s decision to buy missile defense systems from China?

Acquiring this system is actually a belated decision, whose past goes back 20-25 years. Each time we faced a crisis, we relied on NATO, and probably the expectation of using NATO’s capabilities also delayed the decision. Currently, we are trying to build our own means. Looking from the political point of view, the choice of China is not a suprise. Look at what happened between Turkey and the United States in the last couple of months. The May visit of Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip Erdoğan] to Washington was not as successful as publicized. There was some reaction building up; the choice of China was a manifestation of this frustration on the part of Ankara.

So you believe it was rather a political decision.

It was a political decision, but not without a military and strategic component of course. There is preoccupation or obsession in Turkey to build everything locally, nationally. From that perspective, the decision makes perfect sense. The Chinese have offered better conditions than any other bidders in terms of transfers and the share of know-how, et cetera. Yet, while there are compatibility problems, there are also political problems.

Why is there a buildup of frustration, and is it with the United States or the West in general?

Here, the principal audience was the U.S. There is frustration over Syria and Egypt. Over Syria, the Turkish and American positions are not compatible and actually, there was very little overlap until a couple of weeks ago.

Turkey could not [bring] its allies into the picture for an international intervention for a regime change. Turkey has been consistently championing an intervention for a regime change whereas [U.S. President Barack] Obama expressed his readiness to carry out only a limited, punitive intervention from the air which was way short of Turkey’s expectations. And Turkey’s favorite actors on the ground are Washington’s terrorists. There was this unbridgeable gap between the strategic calculations of two allies that brought them to loggerheads with each other. And I think Egypt was the final straw. The problems reached a tipping point; but it was brewing. I think the recent domestic, social developments in Turkey obviously aggravated the situation. In the Gezi Park events, Washington’s stance was unusually critical of the AKP [Justice and Development Party] government. It should be considered an important turning point in Obama’s view of Turkey and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

So what is exactly Turkey saying by opting for China, in view of the fact that the decision is yet to be finalized?

It can be regarded as an attempt to put on a brave face and to show that Turkey can take decisions independently [of its allies].

I doubt that it will ever be finalized. It is not technically and politically feasible to expect that the deal will ever be finalized.

This was a way of showing that Turkey could act independently and that its national interests matter more than anything else. But there are implications about alliance solidarity.

Turkey is now enjoying protection afforded by the allies in the form of Patriot missiles; six batteries are deployed in Turkey. Alliance solidarity is on display. Consider a situation when Poland needs the deployment of similar missiles. Let’s assume that Turkey bought those Chinese missiles and they could be operated without being integrated into NATO’s air defense system. If Poland needs the help of its allies, Turkey will not be able to contribute because it would have a standalone system which [won’t be any use to] any NATO member other than itself.

But experts say it can be technically interoperable.

On two conditions: provided that the U.S. allows Turkey to have access to the source codes of other integrated systems and provided that China is willing to share its secret technology with Turkey so that Turkey can tinker with the system to make it compatible with the NATO system. This is difficult for both U.S. and China to accept.

Insisting on the Chinese option will give a very profound signal, especially to Turkey’s Western partners, that Turkey is shifting its axis. You cannot get away with such decision.

Is China seen as a foe?

“Foe” would be too strong a [definition] but China is a potential adversary. And also, we have to keep in mind that NATO Secretary-General [Anders Fogh Rasmussen] came up with two new concepts; smart defense and connected forces. The latter implies far deeper integration than exists at present. In a world of shrinking defense budgets, he has been urging allies to rationalize their arms procurement, and this implies closer cooperation.

The Turkish decision stands in stark contrast to that trend. It shows that we don’t take into consideration the alliance when we make such an important decision.

Members like Turkey, Britain and France would probably want to maintain a residual national capability. That is understandable because they have businesses to take care in other parts of the world. Smart defense is mostly for small- to medium-size member states. But this does not [mean] that important members [can] be totally oblivious to this principle.

What does it tell us about Turkish foreign policy thinking?

That brings us to the issue of being a lone wolf. If you go to recent public opinion surveys, the Turkish public prefers a lone wolf behavior; [the belief is that] Turkey does not have friends to rely on, so it has to stand on its own. Especially when Turkey’s relations are deteriorating with the EU or the U.S., Turks tend to fall back on their lone-wolf position, hoping that it will offer a way out to the dilemmas and frustrations about the West.

In the Western security community, we have two pillars. One is Washington, the other is EU. For about two decades, Turkey has been oscillating between the two.

In order to enlarge its room to maneuver and latitude for action, alternatives have been explored; that’s been true since the early days of the republic. Non-Western alternatives have always been [explored]. Experiencing lows in relations with the U.S. and EU is the principal reason why Turks look for non-Western alternatives. In 10 years we are back to the Eurasia option; remember [then-National Security Council Secretary-General] Tuncer Kılıç’s statement in 2002, asking to give up on EU and forging alliances with Iran and Russia.

Ten years ago the Eurasian alternative was Russia-focused; now it is on China. Ten years later it could be India or some other non-Western power. The yearning for being a lone wolf has revived.

But Turkey has been part of NATO for 60 years and did not leave the alliance since it probably benefited from it.

Turkey became part of NATO two years before Germany. Turks should keep this in mind. And of course, Turkey benefited and benefits are mutual. Bbut there is a sort of schizophrenic relationship: We feel part of it but also not part of it.

What do you think of the current Western reaction?

My impression is that they decided to keep a very low profile on it. They don’t want to get embroiled in a domestic agenda, especially when the Turkish domestic scene is pretty loaded with upcoming elections. But I think common sense will prevail, and Turkey will backtrack.

I think Turkey overplayed its cards.

What will be the consequences if it insists on the China option?

Turkey will need to sell all of the U.S.-built military hardware it possesses at the time. U.S.-built fighters would be identified as neutral at best by the Chinese system. Let me recall that in 2005, Israel tried to sell very sensitive high-tech military equipment to China and the U.S. undermined the deal. This should give you an idea of [what will happen].

So you think relations with the West will be jeopardized? Some think Turkey is not expendable for the U.S.

Israel is as important but its deal with China was blocked twice. Sticking to the decision will have huge strategic consequences, and it will jeopardize relations with the U.S. I don’t think Americans will ever be able to accept that decision. The history of Turkey’s arms procurement and co-production deals are full of unfinished major military contracts, included bids awarded to American companies.

WHO IS SERHAT GÜVENÇ?

Serhat Güvenç earned his BA in international relations and MA in European Studies at Marmara University and his PhD in political science and international relations at Boğaziçi University. In 2004, he became the first Turkish scholar awarded a fellowship to the West Point Summer Seminar in military history.
Güvenç is currently an associate professor of international relations at Kadir Has University in Istanbul. Previously, he worked at Istanbul Bilgi University and also taught at the University of Chicago as a visiting assistant professor of history in 2006.

Güvenç’s research interests include Turkish foreign and security policy, Turkish defense policy and modern Turkish military/naval history. He is the author of “Birinci Dünya Savaşı’na Giden Yolda Osmanlıların Drednot Düşleri” (the Ottomans’ Quest for Dreadnoughts on the eve of the First World War) and “Turkey in the Mediterranean during the Interwar Era: The Paradox of Middle Power Diplomacy and Minor Power Naval Policy.”

In a previous professional incarnation Güvenç worked as the Istanbul-based photographer and correspondent for Warships International Fleet Review between 1999 and 2003. He was a partner and an editor of the now defunct “Kanatlar” (Wings) aerospace journal in 2002-2003. As an aviation and naval affairs writer and researcher, he has made photo and text contributions to publications such as Air Forces Monthly, Air International, Airliners World, Military Technology, U.S. Naval War College Review, Zipper and Savunma ve Havacılık.

October/21/2013

The statement follows Saudi Arabia's surprise decision on Friday to renounce a seat on the United Nations Security Council, the seat that the government was campaigning for a year. In addition, Saudi Arabia blamed the council's ineffectiveness in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian and Syrian conflicts.

Prince Bandar, who is leading the kingdom’s efforts to fund, train and arm rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, invited a Western diplomat to the Saudi Red Sea city Jeddah to voice Riyadh's frustration with the Obama administration and its regional policies, including the decision not to bomb Syria in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons in August, the Wall Street Journal reports.

During the meeting, Prince Bandar said that he intended to roll back a partnership with the US "in which the Central Intelligence Agency and other nations’ security bodies have covertly helped train Syrian rebels to fight Mr. Assad," the diplomat told WSJ, citing Prince Bandar.

But the daily notes that all decisions in the kingdom are made by the king, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud, and it isn't known if Prince Bandar's reported remarks reflected a decision by the monarch.

On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal to discuss the issue, and the country’s seat in the UN Security Council in particular. According to officials familiar with the meeting, Prince Saud didn’t share Prince Bandar’s ideas which could mean that there are divisions within the monarchy about how to pressure the US "to play a more hands-on role," the WSJ reports.

Tension between the US and Saudi Arabia have grown sharply in recent months. Saudi Arabia is dissatisfied with Obama’s decision not to bomb Syria in response to the alleged chemical attack in August and with the renewed relations between the US and Iran’s new president.

In addition, the US refused to shield Saudi Arabia’s oil centers in case of bombing Syria, the fact that disappointed the Saudis officials. The US security cooperation with Saudi Arabia has lowered, as the US declined to give the kingdom the list of military targets for the proposed strikes.

Saudi Arabia, being Sunni in majority, regards defeating Assad’s government as essential to its interests because of the involvement of Shiite Muslims. Saudi officials long have accused Iran, with the majority of Shiits, of trying to exploit Shiite populations in Arab countries across the region to try to undermine Sunni Muslim governments and their interests, the WSJ notes.

Voice of Russia, the Wall Street Journal

....
Saudi Arabia, being Sunni in majority, regards defeating Assad’s government as essential to its interests because of the involvement of Shiite Muslims. Saudi officials long have accused Iran, with the majority of Shiits, of trying to exploit Shiite populations in Arab countries across the region to try to undermine Sunni Muslim governments and their interests, the WSJ notes.

...

Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, will propose India's participation in a key peace conference to be held in Geneva next month to find a solution to the Syrian crisis, official sources said today.The Geneva II Middle East peace conference is a UN-backed meeting that will be held in the Swiss city during November 23-24 to discuss ways to stop the fighting in Syria and to organise a transition period and post-war reconstruction.Geneva II will be preceded by a preliminary meeting early next month, during which Russia will propose India's inclusion in the main conference, the sources said.Besides Russia, the preliminary meet will be attended by the US, the European Union, China, Syria's neighbours like Iran and Turkey, representatives of Syrian rebels and President Bashar al-Assad.India can participate in Geneva II if Russia's proposal is cleared at the preliminary meeting. However, Russia's decision to nominate India for Geneva II is a "major recognition" for the country, the sources said.Both India and Russia have opposed military intervention in Syria and called for a negotiated settlement to end the fighting between rebels and forces loyal to embattled President Assad.During the India-Russia summit on Monday, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lauded Russia's moves to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis.Russia played a key role in negotiations that paved the way for Syria's chemical weapons stockpile to be brough

A deepening diplomatic rift between Saudi Arabia and the US burst open on Tuesday after secretary of state John Kerry acknowledged that Washington's key strategic ally had serious misgivings about US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Kerry held urgent talks with his Saudi counterpart in Paris on Monday amid complaints from Riyadh that the US was not doing enough to help Sunni-dominated rebels in Syria following a decision not launch US military action.

"We know that the Saudis were obviously disappointed that the [Syria] strike didn't take place," Kerry told reporters in London on Tuesday.

"It is our obligation to work closely with them – as I am doing," he added, referring to multiple meetings he had on Monday with Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal. "The president asked me to come and have the conversations that we have had."

Kerry insisted relations remained fundamentally sound, but news of the meetings appears to confirm reports in the Wall Street Journal that the Saudis had threatened to scale back their regional co-operation with the US in protest at what it saw as a misguided Middle East strategy.

The Journal said Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who is leading the kingdom's efforts to support rebels fighting Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, had invited diplomats to Jeddah over the weekend to voice Riyadh's frustration with the Obama administration and its regional policies.

Reuters also quoted Prince Bandar telling European diplomats that the kingdom would be making a "major shift" in relations with Washington over perceived inaction towards the conflict in Syria, and a possible rapprochement with Iran over its nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia is understood to be upset at perceived US weakness over Iran – and wants more aggressive steps taken to prevent Tehran's development of nuclear weapons technology – and Egypt, where the US has severed military ties with the new government in protest at crackdowns on demonstrators.

Speaking to reporters at the State Department daily briefing, US spokeswoman Marie Harf admitted all three issues were causing tension but also insisted "the fundamental relationship with the Saudis is a strong one".

"We we working together on some challenging issue,s and we share the same goals, whether it's ending the civil war on Syria, getting back to a democratic government in Egypt, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons," said Harf.

"The question of how you get there all on these issues is what we're working through right now – with the Saudis and other international partners."

Harf said that a two-hour lunch between Kerry and the Saudi foreign minister remained "productive and enjoyable".

"They have a warm friendship, and even during moments of disagreement have always found ways to have an honest and open discussion," added Harf.

"Obviously we talked about some of the challenging issues that we want to confront together. We share the same goals – whether it's Syria, Egypt or Iran."

These are the latest signs that a US policy of rapprochement with Iran is causing friction with existing allies in the region, following similar concerns expressed by Israel.

Washington is also struggling to maintain good relations with France, Brazil, and Germany over separate arguments about surveillance by the National Security Agency.

But the row with Saudi Arabia threatens to destabilise one of the strongest diplomatic ties in Washington, based historically on mutual oil and security interests. Last week, Riyadh snubbed a US-backed offer to take a seat on the United Nations security council.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said this was "of course its own decision" but added that a seat on the UNSC "affords member states the opportunity to engage directly on issues of great importance, including issues like Syria, Iran, Egypt and the Middle East peace process."

He said the US will continue "close bilateral co-operation with Saudi Arabia on the host of shared challenges we face, including those issues that the security council takes up directly".

"We also have core relationship in national security areas that is very stable and important to US interests as well as Saudi interests," added Carney.

رئيس الاستخبارات السعودية: المملكة ستحد من تعاملاتها مع واشنطن احتجاجا على موقفها إزاء سوريا وإيران

الثلاثاء 22 تشرين الأول 2013، آخر تحديث 15:24نقلت وكالة "رويترز" عن رئيس الاستخبارات السعودية بندر بن سلطان إبلاغه مبعوثين أوروبيين أن المملكة ستحد من تعاملاتها مع واشنطن احتجاجا على موقفها إزاء سوريا وإيران.

Saudi's Bandar Bin Sultan Furious At US

3 injured in bus explosion in southern Russia to be transported to Moscow

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_10_2 ... scow-8081/

Mass graves in Kurdish Turkey may hide chemical weapon victims

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_10_21/Che ... rkey-4745/

"Some 300 mass graves have been discovered in eastern Turkey. Kurds, who died in an armed struggle between the Turkish army and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, are supposedly buried there. They may have been victims of chemical attacks, Raci Bilici, head of the Diyarbakir branch of the Human Rights Association, said in an interview with the Voice of Russia.

According to Raci Bilici, human rights activists will insist on sending international experts to the site for a thorough investigation:

We did a colossal job to discover mass graves in Turkey’s Kurd-populated areas. We found around 300 mass graves containing the remains of thousands of people. Our work is continuing and the number of discovered graves is increasing. This is our part of an investigation. Now experts such as forensics and criminologists should be involved. It’s a different story, a different kind of job requiring qualified professionals and what is important, highly qualified ones. As far as our Association is concerned, we’re ready to contribute in every possible way. We’ve reached a point, when the problem should be paid special attention. That’s why we’re planning to set up a foundation whose main activity will be identifying people whose remains we find in the graves.

We’ve opened around 20 graves so far. It was not done properly enough as, for the most part, it was local people’s initiative and efforts as they hoped to find bodies of missing relatives. In a few cases building equipment was deployed. However, we can’t keep on working this way.

The information that was obtained during the excavations could prove helpful in the identification of the dead. However, all of them were affected by the bad weather as well as by the improper approach to the exhumation. Therefore, we have suspended this work. Post-mortem examinations will continue in full compliance with international rules and under the control of the foundation we are going to set up.

This foundation is expected to reveal how all these people in the graves died. Earlier several statements were made to the effect that all of them had fallen victim to the use of chemical weapons. At the moment one can neither confirm nor disprove these statements. However, there is reason to believe that everything will become clear soon. Then the legal aspect will emerge. Therefore, during the post-mortem examination the presence of representatives of international agencies is a must and we will insist on that.

We believe that the Turkish government will demonstrate interest in joint work in this field. All the victims in these graves must be identified, and all those who are responsible for these crimes convicted."

Assad re-election would extend civil war in Syria - Kerry

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_10_2 ... erry-6937/

Like it or not, we’ll have to talk to Bashar al-Assad

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Assad.html

The Muslim world’s historic – and deeply tragic – chasm between Sunni and Shia Islam is having worldwide repercussions. Syria’s civil war, America’s craven alliance with the Sunni Gulf autocracies, and Sunni (as well as Israeli) suspicions of Shia Iran are affecting even the work of the United Nations.

Saudi Arabia’s petulant refusal last week to take its place among non-voting members of the Security Council, an unprecedented step by any UN member, was intended to express the dictatorial monarchy’s displeasure with Washington’s refusal to bomb Syria after the use of chemical weapons in Damascus – but it also represented Saudi fears that Barack Obama might respond to Iranian overtures for better relations with the West.

The Saudi head of intelligence, Prince Bandar bin Sultan – a true buddy of President George W Bush during his 22 years as ambassador in Washington – has now rattled his tin drum to warn the Americans that Saudi Arabia will make a “major shift” in its relations with the US, not just because of its failure to attack Syria but for its inability to produce a fair Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement.

What this “major shift” might be – save for the usual Saudi hot air about its independence from US foreign policy – was a secret that the prince kept to himself.

Israel, of course, never loses an opportunity to publicise – quite accurately – how closely many of its Middle East policies now coincide with those of the wealthy potentates of the Arab Gulf.

Hatred of the Shia/Alawite Syrian regime, an unquenchable suspicion of Shia Iran’s nuclear plans and a general fear of Shia expansion is turning the unelected Sunni Arab monarchies into proxy allies of the Israeli state they have often sworn to destroy. Hardly, one imagines, the kind of notion that Prince Bandar wishes to publicise.

Furthermore, America’s latest contribution to Middle East “peace” could be the sale of $10.8bn worth of missiles and arms to Sunni Saudi Arabia and the equally Sunni United Arab Emirates, including GBU-39 bombs – the weapons cutely called “bunker-busters” – which they could use against Shia Iran. Israel, of course, possesses the very same armaments.

Whether the hapless Mr Kerry – whose risible promise of an “unbelievably small” attack on Syria made him the laughing stock of the Middle East – understands the degree to which he is committing his country to the Sunni side in Islam’s oldest conflict is the subject of much debate in the Arab world. His response to the Saudi refusal to take its place in the UN Security Council has been almost as weird.

After lunch on Monday at the Paris home of the Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud al-Faisal, Kerry – via his usual anonymous officials – said that he valued the autocracy’s leadership in the region, shared Riyadh’s desire to de-nuclearise Iran and to bring an end to the Syrian war. But Kerry’s insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime must abandon power means that a Sunni government would take over Syria; and his wish to disarm Shia Iran – however notional its nuclear threat may be – would ensure that Sunni military power would dominate the Middle East from the Afghan border to the Mediterranean.

Few realise that Yemen constitutes another of the Saudi-Iranian battlegrounds in the region.

Saudi enthusiasm for Salafist groups in Yemen – including the Islah party, which is allegedly funded by Qatar, though it denies receiving any external support – is one reason why the post-Saleh regime in Sanaa has been supporting the Zaidi Shia Houthi “rebels” whose home provinces of Sa’adah, al Jawf and Hajja border Saudi Arabia. The Houthis are – according to the Sunni Saudis – supported by Iran.

The minority Sunni monarchy in Bahrain – supported by the Saudis and of course by the compliant governments of the US, Britain, et al – is likewise accusing Shia Iran of colluding with the island’s majority Shias. Oddly, Prince Bandar, in his comments, claimed that Barack Obama had failed to support Saudi policy in Bahrain – which involved sending its own troops into the island to help repress Shia demonstrators in 2011 – when in fact America’s silence over the regime’s paramilitary violence was the nearest Washington could go in offering its backing to the Sunni minority and his Royal Highness the King of Bahrain.

All in all, then, a mighty Western love affair with Sunni Islam – a love that very definitely cannot speak its name in an Arab Gulf world in which “democracy”, “moderation”, “partnership” and outright dictatorship are interchangeable – which neither Washington nor London nor Paris (nor indeed Moscow or Beijing) will acknowledge. But, needless to say, there are a few irritating – and incongruous – ripples in this mutual passion.

The Saudis, for example, blame Obama for allowing Egypt’s decadent Hosni Mubarak to be overthrown. They blame the Americans for supporting the elected Muslim Brother Mohamed Morsi as president – elections not being terribly popular in the Gulf – and the Saudis are now throwing cash at Egypt’s new military regime. Assad in Damascus also offered his congratulations to the Egyptian military. Was the Egyptian army not, after all – like Assad himself – trying to prevent religious extremists from taking power?

Fair enough – providing we remember that the Saudis are really supporting the Egyptian Salafists who cynically gave their loyalty to the Egyptian military, and that Saudi-financed Salafists are among the fiercest opponents of Assad.

Thankfully for Kerry and his European mates, the absence of any institutional memory in the State Department, Foreign Office or Quai d’Orsay means that no one need remember that 15 of the 19 mass-killers of 9/11 were also Salafists and – let us above all, please God, forget this – were all Sunni citizens of Saudi Arabia.

Friends of Syria report: hidden threats to return to military scenario – Lukashevich

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_10_2 ... vich-7042/

"Final document of Friends of Syria meeting contains "poorly hidden threat" to return to military scenario, which is unacceptable, says Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Alexander Lukashevich in his statement.

“We looked at the results of a meeting in London of eleven countries, the so-called “nucleus” of the so-called “nucleus” of the Friends of Syria group, including the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, and the Syrian National Coalition led by Ahmad Jabra,” Lukashevich says.

He sees the final document passed at the meeting as “an attempt to revise the key elements of the Geneva Communique.”

“Before the London meeting, we had been assured that discussion would not overstep the framework of the Geneva Communique, yet it went far beyond the frames of both the above communique and the May 7 Russian-American initiative to convene an international conference on Syria,” the spokesperson states.

According to the statement, the document "was apparently conceived as an attempt to predetermine the results of Geneva-2 that are supposed to be coordinated in an entirely new format – through political dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition to enable them to achieve mutual consent on their country’s future."

It "calls for regime change Syria, proclaims the Syrian National Coalition as the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people and threatens to use 'all options' to influence violators of the 'London decisions'," Lukashevich says.

"This is a poorly hidden threat to return to the use of military force, which is absolutely unacceptable," he underlines.

The spokesperson says that there is an impression that the document “aims to disrupt Geneva-2 by shifting attention from the opposition to the Syrian authorities.”...