A Mediterranean Battlefield - Syria

[Magda Hassan]

France's Media Admits that the Syrian "Opposition" is Al Qaida. Then Justifies French Government Support to the Terrorists

By Gearóid Ó Colmáin
Global Research, April 14, 2013
In a report published on the 11[SUP]th[/SUP] of April French daily Le Monde admits that rebels fighting the government of the Syrian Arab Republic are dominated by Japhat Al Nosra, a terrorist group linked to Al Qaida. The admission comes after two years of non-stop disinformation trumpeted from all French mainstream media outlets from the official right to the official left, disinformation that has attempted to convince the French public that democratic revolutionaries are fighting a war for human rights and freedom against a brutal, tyrannical dictator, who is ' killing his own people''.



This puerile and deeply dishonest narrative has now been utterly discredited, as the facts about the terrorist nature of the Syrian rebels have become too obvious to ignore. In an article entitled The New Visage of French Jihadism' it is reported that French jihadists are leaving France in their hundreds to join the holy war' against the Syrian Arab Republic, with many more joining jihadist groups in Mali.
On the same page in an article entitled Al Qaida extends its territory and unites its forces in Iraq and Syria', Le Monde's Christophe Ayad reports:

The head of Iraq's Islamic state, the Iraqi branch of Al Qaida, announced in a recorded message on April 9[SUP]th[/SUP], that his group would be fused with the Japhat AL Nosra( Support Front), the principal armed jihadist organization in Syria. The new group will be called Al-Qaida in Iraq and the Levant. This announcement comes two days after the call of Ayman Al-Zawarhiri, the successor of Osama Bin Laden in the leadership of Al-Qaida headquarters,' for the establishment of an Islamic state after the fall of the regime of Bachar-Al-Assad, afflicted since two years by an insurrection by the Sunni majority.'[1]

So, here we now have the French establishment press, who has been working overtime since two years to convince us that those fighting Assad are democrats, admitting that they are in fact Al Qaida. According to an October 2010Fox News report, the above-mentioned Al Qaida leader Al-Zawarhiri dined at the Pentagon just months after 911. Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge claimed she had documents to prove this. Of course, Fox News being a corporate propaganda agency did not pursue this story any further, nor did any other international mainstream media outlets. In the war on terror ignorance is strength and questioning is stupid.[2] The Fox News reporter earns 900,000 dollars per annum.[3]
In order to soften the blow and reassure French readers that the Quai d'Orsay's support for the rebels' does not contradict France's commitment to human rights', Le Monde's Christophe Ayad tells us that:

Contrary to the Islamic State in Iraq the Al Nosra Front have made an effort not to systematically target civilians. It has not insisted, for the moment, on imposing an Islamic order that is too strict in the zones under its control, and has even concluded honorable agreements with the Kurdish rebellion, as in at Ras Al-Ain and more recently at Aleppo'[4]

These rebels Le Monde attempts to whitewash have been systematically targeting civilians from the start of this conflict. They have put bombs in cars in busy market squares, they have bombed universities murdering and maiming hundreds of innocent civilians. They have been torturing and beheading civilians and soldiers alike [5], even forcing children to participate in the decapitation some of their victims. Children have also been used as soldiers.[6 ]
They have forced women to wear the chador in the liberated' parts of once beautiful Aleppo.[7] They have desecrated and ruined the country's religious and cultural heritage. They have blown up pipelines and wrecked infrastructure. They have destroyed thousands of schools, libraries and public service buildings. They have used chemical weapons. They have slit the throats of little children in order to blame the Syrian government. They terrorists are now even taking photos of themselves with the decapitated heads of their victims.[8] None of this is a secret. They have continously posted videos boasting about their crimes.
Yet Le Monde wants us to believe that Japhat Al Nosra [image above] is a good, more civilized version of Al Qaida, one perhaps worthy of Western military support! Of course, Le Monde will reply that they do not support Japhat Al Nosra, that they support the secular rebels. But where are the secular rebels?Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states very clearly that any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law'. [9 ] The attempt by Western journalists to portray terrorist groups as freedom fighters and the use of information sources emanating exclusively from these groups to justify foreign aggression against a sovereign state recognized by the United Nations constitutes a war crime.
The French special envoy' seems to lament the fact that the announcement of this new fusion of terrorist groups will discredit the French government's attempts to convince its European Union partners to officially arm the rebellion'. While the French press admits that the Syrian armed opposition is predominantly Al-Qaida, it continues to insinuate and suggest that the bulk of the armed opposition is in fact secular and liberal. However, no evidence to support such insinuations has ever been forthcoming, while evidence to the contrary is overwhelming and impossible to dismiss.
In another article published on March 5[SUP]th[/SUP] entitled The Syrian Rebels take control of the Village of Raqqa in the North of the Country', reporter Khalid Sid Mohand tells us just who these rebels' are. They are, he admits a few lines into his report:

A coalition of armed groups, some of whom are affiliated to the jihadists of Japhat-al-Nosra, who are behind the fall of Rakka.'[10]

How lovely! Al Qaida have captured a Syrian town and the French liberal media seems to be very excited about the prospect of armed barbarians taking over the Levantine state. From the title of the article, one is led to believe that the Syrian rebels have taken the town, the Syrian rebels being the French media's designated Arab Spring' good guys. So, even though the news is bad, the headline suggests that it is good. Reality is turned upside down.
This technique of editorializing terrorists as rebels, while at the same time admitting that they are terrorists has the effect of confusing the public and preventing the uncritical reader from understanding the real forces at play in the Syrian conflict. The technique was repeatedly used during the Russian-Chechnian war when Islamist terrorists were repeatedly described as rebels'. The double-standard, double-speak and double-think are techniques which are now part and parcel of professional journalism'.
While such villainous and schizophrenic behavior may appear to some as a diabolical conspiracy, the reality is far more complex. This schizoid way of thinking and speaking is simply the psychological reflection of a global economic system that is collapsing upon its own internal contradictions. The extraction of surplus value from labour and the globalization of this capitalist mode of production have made a tiny section of the global population extremely rich and powerful.
The rich and powerful not only own the means of production, they also own the means of communication and as rule by a financial oligarchy is objectively contrary to democratic principles, a double-language and double-think is necessary in order to make people believe that 2 plus 2 equals 5. As a result, armed groups that serve the interests of the financial oligarchy will be mediatized as freedom fighters' and human rights' activists. However, as reporters cannot always control or ignore the complex realities they report on, the truth also emerges between the lines, in the margins and interstices of their own discourse. However, the job of rational analysis and interpretation of information is only being carried nowadays out by alternative media outlets whose goal is to serve the public good and tell the truth.
Thus, articles reporting the good news' that the Syrian rebels have taking another town will also have to admit that these same rebels are actually Al Qaida. But because double-think is so deeply embedded in Western culture, the contradictions of these reports are rarely noticed or analyzed The task of molding the public mind to support the cruel but necessary' geopolitical strategies of the global financial elite falls to the mass media , who orient and distort information to suit imperial designs and the corporate interests of the media's owners.
In a Guardian article of 2002, the Western establishment's policy of total hypocrisy was eloquently expressed by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief strategist Robert Cooper who wrote:

The challenge to the postmodern world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves, we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the postmodern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle'[11]

Since unknown snipers opened fire on protestors and police in the town of Daraa on March 15[SUP]th[/SUP]2011, the Syrian nation has been assaulted by death squads armed and trained by the Gulf emirates and Nato intelligence. The result has been the death of thousands and the destruction of a nation. This is a repeat of the Arc of Crisis created in Afghanistan in 1979 when US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski organized the arming and training of Mujahedeen terrorists in order to overthrow the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The result was the creation of Al Qaida, a data-base of military-intelligence assets, who have since the very beginning, always served Nato geopolitical interests. The same technique is now being used against Syria.
It is quite possible the French government's admission that Al Qaida have taken over large parts of Syria could serve as an excuse in the weeks, months or years ahead for direct military intervention to free' Syria from Al-Qaida, just as French intelligence's fomentation of jihadism in Libya and their transfer to Mali served the cause of military intervention there. Meanwhile,the media demonization of Bachar-Al Assad will continue. However, the existence of Al Qaida in Syria could eventually become the final justification for intervention if the terrorists succeed in sufficiently weakening the Syrian state and Russia can be persuaded to acquiesce in the loss of its Eastern Mediterranean client state.
The dupes of Nato's media empire can continue to comfort themselves that their governments are fighting terrorists in some countries, while helping democratic rebels' to fight brutal regimes' in others, but as savage austerity cuts and the militarization of urban space afflicts European cities, the reality that it is the degenerate Euro-Atlantic elites who are fomenting jihadist terrorism, the nightmarish reality that this is in fact both the brutal regime', and the opaque, loose terrorist network' which wants to take away our freedoms and destroy civilization, this reality will become impossible to ignore. For in truth the war on terrorism is ultimately a war on humanity.
Notes

[1] http://www.lemonde.fr/international/arti..._3210.html
[2] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-...on-months/
[3] http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/fo...out_b48807
[4] http://www.lemonde.fr/international/arti..._3210.html
Contrairement à l'Etat islamique en Irak, Le Front Al-Nosra prend garde à ne pascibler systématiquement les civils. Il a évité, pour l'instant, d'imposer un ordre islamique trop strict dans les zones passées sous son contrôle et conclut même des accords ponctuels avec la rébellion kurde, comme à Ras Al-Aïn, et plus récemment à Alep.'
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QhicJPzG9[4
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToIyvA1N6Y
[7]http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-women...po/5328510
[8]http://allainjules.com/2013/04/14/photo-...ecapitees/
[9] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInte.../CCPR.aspx
[10] http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/arti..._3218.html
[11] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/07/1

[David Guyatt]

Tell me it ain't true. We're supporting an al-Qaida Jihadist in Syria? With our tax money?

I suppose, if we succeed in get rid of the "brutal tyrannical dictator" eventually - and I'm sure we will - we can then replace him with an enemy of our choice.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Through the Looking Glass.

French MSM admits tens of millions of western taxpayer dollars are funding Al Qaeda.

And noone blinks.

Not even the need for a dodgy dossier or lies about WMDs.

Just pathetic, cowed, sheeple shrugging their shoulders and tuning into Simon Cowell's latest circus show.

[Magda Hassan]

Pushkov Warns of US Accusations of Chemical Weapons Use in Syria

MOSCOW, (SANA)- Chairman of the Russian Duma's International Affairs Committee, Alexei Pushkov, warned of the US intentions behind making accusations against the Syrian government of using chemical weapons.


In a statement posted on Twitter, Pushkov said such accusations could be used as a pretext to start a war against Syria similar to what happened in Iraq.


"The US is starting a new attack against Syria by accusing it of using chemical weapons, which is the same way Push used in Iraq accusing it of possessing nuclear weapons as an excuse for war," added Pushkov.


\US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel earlier claimed, according to what he said a belief by the US Intelligence, that the Syrian army has used chemical weapons "on a small scale".


In a contradictory statement, the US State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said the White House was still seeking an accurate investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Syria which can be either confirmed or dismissed simply through UN inspectors.


H. Said
http://chisasaidioti.blogspot.com.au/201...b505c853ae

[Peter Lemkin]

It seems to me the US/UK/NATO have finally 'settled' on their 'rationale' for direct intervention in Syria - it will be the use of chemical weapons by 'someone'. Who used them - or if anyone used them we'll not find out until a few years after we've flattened the place with carpet bombing et al. and set up a puppet government - that's my guess. Very sad state of affairs. Many, not all, Syrians wanted real democratic and peaceful change - but not this kind of carnage - and it seems there is much more to come! As in Iraq, the 'West' knows nothing of the history and important acheaology - let alone the culture and the PEOPLE [they are real!]. Alepo is one of the oldest continuously lived in cities in the World...now all but destroyed. Ready for urban renewal, strip malls and a Walmart. Ah, who cares, the World is just a 'chessboard' anyway....and we play for keeps.

[David Guyatt]

I seem to recall a report that CBW were found in Iraq. But the problem was where they were made, and so it was never followed. But let's face it, we do know for certain that the US and Europe did provide Saddam with chemical weapons components and biological weapon cultures when he was our friend, in fact we all fell all over ourselves arming him to the teeth. Then when he was no longer a friend, we took him out.

Good business requires long term planning.

And then there was that little know time when, during Iraq war I, a US aircraft flew a mission into Iraq towards a CBW facility but was shot down on it's way back to it's aircraft carrier. The plane crashed inside Iraq but not too far from the Saudi border. It was eventually recovered by US forces, but one bomb remained hanging of its wing, and it was leaking from the crash. It was a mixed munition and one of it's several chemical and biological components was Sarin.

This is not to say Saddam was a nice cuddly boy. He used chemical weapons for sure.

But when it comes to the use of chemical and biological weapon, the first port of call is the US and NATO allies. They're the ones with the real track record of either supply or actual use.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I seem to recall a report that CBW were found in Iraq.

I had the story through retired U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent David DeBatto.

Noone was interested.

We Found WMD And It Was Ours.

The chemical WMD was now ready to be loaded onto the aircraft.

Rahman next pointed to the hand lettered numbers on the side of the crates. They were numbered from 1-29. Rahman said that he placed hand-lettered numbers on each one personally and can assure us that were 29 chemical WMD bombs under his supervision. Not 28 or 30 - but 29. He seemed to be very proud of his accuracy and neatness in numbering each crate. He went on to say how he had spent the last eight years or so playing "cat and mouse" with UNSCOM (the UN inspectors). Every time they were due to come to his region for an inspection, he would be notified by his superiors. Then he would arrange for the bombs to be transported to a different area that was not going to be inspected. Sometimes, he told us, he would simply dig a deep hole near the storage facility and bury the bombs, crates and all, until the inspectors left and then dig them up again and put them back where they were. He was familiar with Scott Ritter and Hanz Blix in particular and said they never found any WMD in his region.

He even ran his hand along one of the crates and brushed off some dried clay, which was clinging to the outside. These were dug up after the last inspection before the war and placed back into the bunker with the large areas of clay still covering some of the crates. He was right - every one of the wooden boxes had varying amounts of dry, reddish clay - which is the common soil found at that location - caked to their wooden exteriors. These bombs had definitely been buried locally at some point just before being placed into that bunker - that was a fact.

Looking around the rest of the bunker interior, I could see dozens of metal chemicals containers, some apparently unopened, and some with their tops open and with dried, powdery substances on the floor all around them and inside the containers. Some containers were covered with what appeared to be dried liquids, almost like dry paint, streaming down the sides.

I can honestly say that I was having a hard time comprehending what I was seeing. Unless my senses were deceiving me, Weichert and I had actually found the mother load of Operation Iraqi Freedom - actual Iraqi WMD. I walked over to one of the crates and saw a plastic sheath containing what appeared to be a bill of laden. I cut it open with my Leatherman and pulled the documents out.

At this point I want to say that loud and clear that I very much regret not having either shoved that document in my pocket or made a copy of it and sent it home for safe keeping. At the time I actually thought that a report would be written and normal Army and intelligence protocol would be followed, so there would be no need for me to have to prove anything. But I digress.

I opened the folded off-white paper form and noticed several interesting things right away. The bombs had been purchased in the United States in 1988 from what appeared to be a government contractor called The Carlyle Group. I am almost embarrassed now to say that I had not heard of The Carlyle Group at that time so the name meant nothing to me. The only reason I remember it at all is that I was amazed that the bill was in English and I was stunned to see that a bomb that was used by Iraq in delivering chemical WMD - the only WMD found during the entire Iraq war - was in fact supplied to Saddam Hussein by the United States. Un-blanking believable.

The date on the bill was either 1987 or 1988, I don't recall exactly. I do recall that the bomb was manufactured in Spain and shipped through France. So much for their claims of being holier-than-thou. I checked several more bills and they were all identical. These bombs had all been shipped together. Rahman told us that similar weapons had been used all throughout the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s as well as against the Kurds. We were staring at what could have possibly been some of the same type of WMD used in one of the most heinous attacks in recorded history - the gassing of Halabja in March of 1988 which killed an estimated 5,000 Kurdish civilians.

I instructed Weichert to both videotape and take digital still photos of the bunker and its contents. The outside area which included many more chemical containers and HAZMAT suits were documented as well. At least fifteen minutes of video and 50 still photos were taken at that location. These were then incorporated and attached to the detailed written report that I wrote and sent up the chain of command through CI channels.

I also personally reported the discovery to the battalion commander of the 223rd MI, CA ARNG, Lt. Col. Timothy Ryan. Ryan seem excited by the news and asked to be taken to the bunker immediately. Weichert and I drove Ryan to the bunker within minutes after his request and showed him our discovery. He seemed genuinely impressed with the authenticity of our find. He commented to me, "You guys have found the real deal."

So we had. Too bad it was ours.

Notables involved with the Carlyle Group:

Political figures

North America

James Baker III, former United States Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush, Staff member under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Carlyle Senior Counselor, served in this capacity from 1993 to 2005.
George H. W. Bush, former U.S. President, Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board from April 1998 to October 2003.
Frank C. Carlucci, former United States Secretary of Defense from 1987 to 1989; Carlyle Chairman and Chairman Emeritus from 1989 to 2005.
Richard G. Darman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Bush Administration; Managing director from 1993, later Senior Advisor[72]
William E. Kennard, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 1997-2001 and United States Ambassador to the European Union; Carlyle managing director from 2001-2009[73]
Arthur Levitt, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle Senior Advisor from 2001 to the present
Luis Téllez Kuenzler, Mexican economist, former Secretary of Communications and Transportation under the Felipe Calderón administration and former Secretary of Energy under the Zedillo administration.
Frank McKenna, former Premier of New Brunswick, Canadian Ambassador to the United States between 2005 and 2006 and current Deputy Chairman of Toronto-Dominion Bank; served on Carlyle's Canadian advisory board.
Mack McLarty, Carlyle Group Senior Advisor (from 2003), White House Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1994.
Randal K. Quarles, former Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President George W. Bush, now a Carlyle managing director

Europe

John Major, former British Prime Minister, Chairman, Carlyle Europe from 20012004[74]

Asia

Anand Panyarachun, former Prime Minister of Thailand (twice), former member of the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board until the board was disbanded in 2004[74]
Fidel V. Ramos, former president of the Philippines, Carlyle Asia Advisor Board Member until the board was disbanded in 2004[74]
Peter Chung, former associate at Carlyle Group Korea, who resigned in 2001 after 2 weeks on the job after an inappropriate e-mail to friends was circulated around the world[75][76]
Thaksin Shinawatra, former Prime Minister of Thailand (twice), former member of the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board until 2001 when he resigned upon being elected Prime Minister.[77]

Media

Norman Pearlstine - editor-in-chief of Time magazine from (19952005), senior advisor telecommunications and media group 2006-

[David Guyatt]

Thanks jan, that was the story I was thinking of.

[Magda Hassan]

Arming the Syrian Rebels is Pouring Petrol on the Fire

Assad believes he is fighting for his life. His fall would not only see Syria's collapse, but could engulf Lebanon and even Iraq. We must look to the alternatives: better a distant hope than an imminent disaster, writes Sir Andrew Green.

By Sir Andrew Green, former British Ambassador to Syria

April 28, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"The Telegraph" - Reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria threaten to propel us into another disastrous intervention in the Middle East. Our political leaders must stop, calm down and think carefully through the consequences of any form of military intervention in Syria. Harmless-sounding "assistance to the opposition" threatens to be a slippery slope that will drag us into the chaos that is developing in Syria.

For the time being there is some caution about the interpretation of the evidence - and so there should be after the scandalous misuse of intelligence on Iraqi WMD. The talk is of "limited but growing evidence", of "varying degrees of confidence" and of the small scale of any use. There is not even clear evidence as to which side, if any, is responsible.

The intelligence might yet firm up. We might even get some real evidence. But before sounding off with our indignation, we need to consider what we can actually do about it.

We could, I suppose, bomb some of their chemical facilities, but that would require a massive strike to take out Syrian air defences. This would be no easy task as the Syrians have a substantial air defence capability, provided by the Russians, to counter Israeli air power. The Americans could no doubt succeed at some military cost and a huge political cost. Few in the Middle East care for Assad, but nor is there any appetite for yet more American bombs on Arab targets.

Happily, the American public have lost their own appetite for Middle Eastern wars.

So will we intervene to "secure" the storage sites? Contingency plans are said to exist. Special forces have been gearing up. But the task is a nightmare. There are literally dozens of sites. Are they to be held for days by pockets of troops? Can they safely destroy these weapons in a short period of time? How they distinguish friend from foe? Do we do this independently of the Israelis, or are we to be perceived throughout the region as their military allies?

It will be obvious that any action of this kind must be absolutely a last resort, only to be considered if these weapons were about to fall into the hands of potential terrorists.

Let us assume that, at least for the time being, our political leaders rule out any direct military intervention. What are they actually trying achieve?

For a long time, the talk was of "removing Assad", as if he was some kind of dictator in the mould of Saddam Hussein. I have met both Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez, from whom he took over as president. His father was terrifying - utterly ruthless and a conspirator to his finger tips.

His own staff fidgeted nervously in his presence. He was indeed like Saddam - except that his cruelty was not random. It was calculated and targeted at anyone who dared to cross him.

The young Assad, Bashar, is nothing of the kind. Those who knew him well when he was training at an opthalmologist in Britain report a pleasant, well-mannered and quietly professional young man. Back in Damascus, after his father's death, he was not much more than a figurehead president. To meet, he was, before all these troubles, sensible, reasonable and courteous.

So the only effect of "removing Assad" would be to have him replaced by one of the ruthless generals that have held the Syrians in their grip for 40 years.

If Bashar has been overestimated, his Alawite clan have been seriously underestimated. They are a mountain clan, an obscure sect loosely linked to the Shia, who number only about 10 per cent of Syria's 22 million people. Nevertheless, they have been the backbone of the Syrian army since French colonial times before the Second World War.

For the past 40 years they have been strengthening their grip on the country and have been violently suppressing the opposition, led by the Muslim Brotherhood. With that history behind them, they simply dare not lose power. If they were to, they believe that they and their families would be massacred. After the events of the last two years, they could well be right.

They have not held power alone. The many minorities - Christian, Druse, Kurds and others - preferred their rule to that of the Sunni majority. Indeed a fair number of Sunnis preferred an effectively secular regime to an alternative that might be run by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Living in Syria, one was very conscious that it was a tough police state. The only Syrians who spoke to a foreign ambassador were those with a licence to do so. After a visit to, say, Aleppo, everyone I met would be questioned afterwards by one of the six secret police forces wanting to know what had been discussed. Syrians had come to take this in their stride, knowing that the alternative would be either an Islamic dictatorship or a descent into sectarian competition, not to say strife.

This is the essential background to any decisions that the West may now take in the present crisis. Unfortunately, it is not understood. The British government talks of recent events being a red line for the international community to do more to support those members of the opposition who "want a good outcome". They want to train and arm them so as to put pressure on the regime and bring it to an end.

That, regrettably, is a serious misreading of the situation. The Alawites and their supporters will fight to the bitter end. With the military support of Russia and Iran, plus the political support of China (all for their own good reasons) the regime can last a while yet. If it eventually falls, Syria will descend into chaos. That is why so many of us who know Syria have been, from the start, strongly opposed to a "regime change" policy, however dressed-up.

The chaos will be intensified by the sectarian divisions in Syria and by the fact that these are revenge societies. For personal and traditional reasons, those who have suffered will be determined to exact revenge on the perpetrators or their families.

Eventually, one of the many opposition groups will come out on top. The strongest candidate is Al-Nusra, the jihadist group who say they are allied to al-Qaeda, who have been the most courageous and effective of the opposition fighters. They have a further and critical advantage. They and their leaders are secret, while their competitors are publicly known. I would certainly not put it past them to intimidate and, if necessary, murder their competitors or any rival leaders who challenge them.

This is why I feel sure that our policy is pointing in the wrong direction. Supplying arms to the opposition would simply be pouring petrol on the fire - quite apart from the risk of the weapons falling into the wrong hands. The collapse of Syria would be a disaster, not only for that country but for Lebanon and perhaps Iraq and, indeed, more widely.

As we look over this precipice, we must have the courage to take a pace back. Indeed, we should reverse the policy of arming the opposition. Instead, we should enter into a serious dialogue with the Russians and, if necessary, the Iranians, designed to reduce the flow of weapons to both sides. Only when both sides realise that a military victory is no longer possible can we hope to have the beginnings of a political process. Better a distant hope than an imminent disaster.

Sir Andrew Green was the British Ambassador to Syria from 1991 to 1993.

[Magda Hassan]

Syria and Sarin Gas: US Claims Have a Very Familiar Ring

Reports of the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons are part of a retold drama riddled with plot-holes

By Robert Fisk

[TABLE="width: 48%"]
[TR]
[TD]

A video image which, it is claimed, shows a victim of a sarin gas attack in Aleppo

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

April 28, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"The Independent" - Is there any way of escaping the theatre of chemical weapons? First, Israeli "military intelligence" says that Bashar al-Assad's forces have used/have probably used/might have used/could use chemical weapons. Then Chuck Hagel, the US Defence Secretary, pops up in Israel to promise even more firepower for Israel's over-armed military avoiding any mention of Israel's more than 200 nuclear warheads and then imbibing all the Israeli "intelligence" on Syria's use/probable use/possible use of chemical weapons.

Then good ol' Chuck returns to Washington and tells the world that "this is serious business. We need all the facts." The White House tells Congress that US intelligence agencies, presumably the same as Israeli intelligence agencies since the two usually waffle in tandem, have "varying degrees of confidence" in the assessment. But Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee she who managed to defend Israel's actions in 1996 after it massacred 105 civilians, mostly children, at Qana in Lebanon announces of Syria that "it is clear that red lines have been crossed and action must be taken to prevent larger-scale use". And the oldest of current White House clichés hitherto used exclusively on Iran's probable/possible development of nuclear weapons is then deployed: "All options are on the table."

In any normal society the red lights would now be flashing, especially in the world's newsrooms. But no. We scribes remind the world that Obama said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a "game changer" at least Americans admit it is a game and our reports confirm what no one has actually confirmed. Chemical arms used. In two Canadian TV studios, I am approached by producers brandishing the same headline. I tell them that on air I shall trash the "evidence" and suddenly the story is deleted from both programmes. Not because they don't want to use it they will later but because they don't want anyone suggesting it might be a load of old cobblers.

CNN has no such inhibitions. Their reporter in Amman is asked what is known about the use of chemical weapons by Syria and replies: "Not as much as the world would want to know … the psyche of the Assad regime …." But has anyone tried? Or simply asked an obvious question, posed to me by a Syrian intelligence man in Damascus last week: if Syria can cause infinitely worse damage with its MiG bombers (which it does) why would it want to use chemicals? And since both the regime and its enemies have accused each other of using such weapons, why isn't Chuck as fearful of the rebels as he is of the Assad dictatorship?

It all comes back to that most infantile cliché of all: that the US and Israel fear Assad's chemical weapons "falling into the wrong hands". They are frightened, in other words, that these chemicals might end up in the armoury of the very same rebels, especially the Islamists, that Washington, London, Paris, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting. And if these are the "wrong hands", then presumably the weapons in Assad's armoury are in the "right hands". That was the case with Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons until he used them against the Kurds.

Now we know that there have been three specific incidents in which sarin gas has supposedly been used in Syria: in Aleppo, where both sides accused each other (the hospital videos in fact came from Syrian state TV); in Homs, apparently on a very small scale; and in the outskirts of Damascus. And, although the White House appears to have missed this, three Syrian child refugees were brought to hospital in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli with deep and painful burns on their bodies.

But now for a few problems. Phosphorus shells can inflict deep burns, and perhaps cause birth defects. But the Americans do not suggest that the Syrian military might have used phosphorus (which is indeed a chemical); after all, American troops used the very same weapon in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, where there is indeed now an explosion of birth defects. I suppose our hatred of the Assad regime might better be reflected by horror at reports of the torture by Syrian secret policemen of the regime's detainees. But there's a problem here, too: only 10 years ago, the US was "renditioning" innocent men, including a Canadian citizen, to Damascus to be interrogated and tortured by the very same secret policemen. And if we mention Saddam's chemical weapons, there's another glitch: because the components of these vile weapons were manufactured by a factory in New Jersey and sent to Baghdad by the US.

That is not the story in our newsrooms, of course. Walk into a TV studio and they're all reading newspapers. Walk into a newspaper office and they're all watching television. It's osmotic. And the headlines are all the same: Syria uses chemical weapons. That's how the theatre works.