A Mediterranean Battlefield - Syria

[Magda Hassan]

The Abdication of the Emir of Qatar Due to the Collapse of Anti-Syrian Forces

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: sh10"]Dmitry MININ | 30.06.2013 | 00:00[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]On 25 June, following «consultations with his closest relatives and leading members of society», the ruling Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, announced his abdication in favour of his son, 33-year old Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. Local analysts believe that the decision is a result of gathering problems with the policy the emirate has been carrying out over the last 3-4 years, especially regarding the Syria issue.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Qatar: New Emir Also Supports Terrorists in Syria

Posted by: M K July 3, 2013


The new emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, who came into power by very "democratic" elections, said in a recent statement that he also supports the so-called "Syrian National Council" (SNC) and thus, the new emir also supports the jihadists, terrorists and foreign-backed militants in Syria.
Of course, this statement of the new emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, is no surprise at all. After a meeting between Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and some members of the external Syrian opposition group "Syrian National Council" (SNC) in the Qatari capital Doha on Monday, the new emir of the totalitarian dictatorship said, that the "crisis in Syria would remain on the top of Qatar`s foreign policy agenda".
This statement just means in reality that Qatar still cares about more human ressources in order to send them to Syria to fight against the Syrian army and to carry out massacres and acts of terrorism also against Syrian civilians. In addition, this also means that the new emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, is as dangerous and criminal as the old emir. There is no change in the policy and especially the foreign policy of this totalitarian and dangerous dictatorship in the Gulf region.
It is no surprise that Mohamed Farouk, Abdul Basit Sida and George Sabra were the representatives of the "Syrian National Council" (SNC) who have met with Qatar`s new emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani on Monday in the capital of the Gulf State. Followed by a meeting with the new Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid bin Mohammad al-Attiyah. Birds of a feather flock together. No surprise at all.
The "Syrian National Countil" (SNC), the so-called external opposition group, which is nothing more than a huge farce since over two years, will hold a meeting in Istanbul today in order to select another leader (again). The usual faces are the so-called front-runners George Sabra, Burhan Ghalioun (lol) and Louay M. Safi at least according to rumors.
But whoever leads the SNC, this just does not matter, This external opposition group is on the one hand no real democratic opposition and on the other hand, the so-called SNC has no support of the majority of the Syrian people IN Syria, just by some traitors, religious fanatics and Syrian exiles who are living in Exile for partly good reasons.


http://www.syrianews.cc/qatar-new-emir-s...sts-syria/

[Magda Hassan]

Moscow demands verification of alleged arms supply to Syrian opposition from Libya

Photo: RIA Novosti

Russia has appealed to the UN Security Council committee on sanctions against Libya for initiating an inquiry into the alleged illegal arms supplies from Libya to the Syrian opposition, the Russian Foreign Ministry information and press department said in a commentary.

"Russia has asked the UN Security Council committee on sanctions against Libya for initiating an inquiry into the aforesaid reports. Hopefully, the committee will rapidly respond to our request and the inquiry will be objective and impartial," says the commentary published on the ministry website on Friday.
It said Moscow had been alerted by the latest reports of authoritative media outlets, the New York Times and Reuters, about illegal arms supplies to the Syrian opposition from Libya via Qatar and Turkey. The reports said the opposition was being armed with various weapons, including submachine guns, machineguns, grenade launchers and anti-tank systems.
"If these reports are correct, we are witnessing a flagrant violation of the international embargo on Libya," the commentary said.
Moscow called on countries capable of influencing Syrian developments to do their best for stopping illegal arms shipments to Syria.
UN should investigate possible breach of arms embargo on Libya - Russian Foreign Ministry
The Russian Ambassador at the United Nations has been told to urge the UN Sanctions Committee to launch a probe into likely arms supplies from Libya to Syria, the Russian Foreign Ministry official spokesman, Alexander Lukashevich, has told a news briefing in Moscow.
"The problem has grown acute lately, especially because of the decisions made by Western and regional partners. As you know, there have been reports of the Western press: The situation suggests the need for interference of the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee: if the mentioned facts are true, we are witnessing a flagrant breach of the embargo imposed by the UN Security Council resolution on Libya," said Alexander Lukashevich.
"Our permanent representative in New York has been instructed to make the proposal to the Committee referring to media reports that expose a whole set of problems in the observation of the embargo on arms supply to and from Libya," Lukashevich said.
Voice of Russia, Interfax
http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_07_05/M...ibya-8899/
Read more: http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_07_05/M...ibya-8899/

[Magda Hassan]

Last Update: Monday, 8 July 2013 KSA 23:30 - GMT 20:30
Online videos showcase Syrian rebels' foreign weaponry

Sunday, 7 July 2013
A Free Syrian Army fighter sits on a sofa in the old city of Aleppo, July 3, 2013. (Reuters)
Reuters
From his home in the English town of Leicester, former business administrator Elliot Higgins trawls through sometimes hundreds of online videos a day from Syria's civil war.

His research, begun after he took redundancy late last year, has made him a self-taught expert on the weaponry of a conflict largely inaccessible to outsiders, in which disparate rebel groups, some linked to al-Qaeda, form their own supply lines.

"I was just interested, and no one else seemed to be doing it," the 34-year-old said in a telephone interview.

In recent months, he has noticed that the rebels have been getting much more sophisticated Chinese, Croatian and other foreign equipment, notably the anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry they have long sought.

More traditional experts, many of whom read Higgins' blog, have come to the same conclusion, although they say the supplies are not significant enough to change the dynamic of the rebel fight against President Bashar al-Assad's heavily armed forces.

"What we are seeing now are weapons that could not have been taken from government stockpiles or bought within the region," said Higgins, who blogs under the pseudonym "Brown Moses".

"They must be being flown in and shipped across the border from Jordan and Turkey."
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, most believe, are the major buyers.

The shakily filmed rebel videos posted on YouTube and elsewhere are almost invariably impossible to verify and contain few signs of hits on genuine targets, although fighting has devastated towns and cities, killed more than 100,000 people and forced millions to flee.

Some appear deliberately intended to showcase new weaponry, particularly the latest types to arrive such as the shoulder mounted HJ-8 Chinese-made wire guided missile. Rebels crouch behind rubble, trees or buildings, quietly chanting religious slogans before firing.

The most sophisticated anti-tank weapon obtained by the rebels so far, it is capable of punching through even modern "reactive armor" able to repel older and smaller missiles, although some rebels have complained they are not up to expectations.

The Chinese-made FN-6 MANPAD also appears to have helped the rebels raise their game, with one video apparently showing one bringing down a Russian-built helicopter gunship.

Not always good quality

In the two weeks since the White House announced Assad's use of chemical weapons had prompted increased but ill-defined "military support" to the rebels, U.S. officials will not say if Washington itself has provided arms.

That it is looking to be more closely involved in the supply of weaponry from other states, however, is not disputed.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one U.S. national security source did not question that Qatar might be providing MANPADs, but said it was a matter of concern to Washington.

Such weapons can also be used against civilian airliners, helicopters or military jets.

Where exactly the weapons are coming from is unclear. With Beijing still broadly opposed to foreign-backed regime change, few believe Qatar could have bought directly from China.

"They must be being bought from a third party - perhaps one that has not always kept the weapons in good condition," says blogger Higgins, pointing to one video where the missile appears to drop to the ground almost immediately after firing.


Judging by the videos, he said much of the Chinese-made weaponry appeared to be going direct to Islamist groups.

The Croatian-manufactured Soviet-style weaponry thought to be supplied by Saudi Arabia, in contrast, appeared to be going almost exclusively to the Western-backed Free Syrian Army.

They included RAK 12 multiple rocket launchers, RBG-6, M79 and M60 anti-tank weapons and the RPG-22, capable of going through more than a meter of reinforced concrete.
That matches the views of other analysts, although Qatari officials have said controls over arms shipments have been tightened.

"After all the criticism they have had, the Saudis are being very careful where they send weapons," said Bilal Saab, director and head of research at the Institute for near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Washington DC, adding that U.S. pressure was a factor.

"The Qataris care much less. They are arming whoever they want."

Lucrative business opportunity?

Last month, Gulf sources told Reuters Saudi Arabia was also looking to buy French weapons to ship to the rebels.

So far, however, analysts say there was little sign of them reaching the battlefield - although French weapons from the Libya conflict, particularly rocket launchers, were turning up.

Even before the war, Syria was awash with weaponry.

Using data from a variety of sources, University of Sydney based website http://www.gunpolicy.org estimates Assad's army and police had well over 2 million firearms between them, with an estimated 735,000 weapons - likely mainly AK-47s - in private hands.

Local smugglers have clearly been busy. According to a study by the Small Arms Survey released this week, the price of guns and ammunition increased by 60-80 percent in Lebanon between February and September last year, almost entirely on Syria demand.

Throughout the region, the growing demand for weaponry to go to Syria is an open secret and lucrative business opportunity.

"They know we are sending guns to Syria," Libyan arms dealer Abdul Basit Haroun told Reuters last month, showing off a warehouse packed with arms and ammunition awaiting shipment. "Everyone knows."

For British blogger Higgins, tracking such trade is now more than just a hobby. With his website now receiving 2,000-4,000 hits a day, he has raised enough money to make it his main focus at least until the end of the year.

He has also begun to advise activists keen to track weapons' transfers in other current and former conflict zones.

"When you're here, you don't get a real feel for how important it is," he says. "Then you get out and meet people and see what it means to them."
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspect...ponry.html

[Magda Hassan]

Dodgy because is Veterans Today source but might be true anyway.

Syria downed an Israeli F-16, a huge humiliation for Israel


Part of channel(s): Syria (current event)


Israel announced on July 8 that one of their F-16s suffered a mechanical failure off the coast of Gaza. A military spokesman for the Israeli Air Force (IAF) said both pilots were recovered. The plane is said to have crashed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Almost no part of this story is true. It makes as much sense as the story of the American Navy putting 22 Navy Seals on a National Guard helicopter. Nobody bought that one.

Israel did lose an F-16. They are unable to hide the fact that one of their first line aircraft is no longer in "inventory."

Did Israel, as multiple reports now indicate, and perhaps even confirm, really lose an F-16 and its crew of two to a Syrian S-300 missile 48 hours before the claimed incident and over 400 miles from the claimed location?

On May 4, 2013, the Syrian Navy sunk an Israeli Dolphin submarine. Israel, unwilling to accept the public humiliation of such a loss: a disaster of such a proportion to its citizens has been repainting hull numbers and shuffling crew rosters on its remaining submarines for two months.

Lost aircraft, or something like a Dolphin submarine, especially during an offensive operation, are routinely never disclosed to the public for a variety of reason. Informed sources have disclosed that the F-16 training accident reported off the coast of Gaza was cover for their plane lost in the Syrian warehouse attack which is claimed was targeted as an S-300 component part base.

This 'attack' sounded fishy to us right away, starting with it being reported by Global Research which is an organization rumored to have "complex allegiances."

First, these missiles systems are roll on roll off mobile launching systems designed to be deployed rapidly. Upon arrival they can be ready to fire within...well...you wouldn't believe it.

Second, S-300 components or inventory missiles would never be stored in an exposed warehouse facility where they would be sitting ducks. Each missile battalion moves continually and keeps its inventory moving with it.

Historically, the most effective way of destroying S-300 missiles is by crashing aircraft into them or, perhaps, the other way around.

Third, highly trained pilots, and Israel has them, are trained to defeat air defense systems. That said, the Israelis could possibly initiate and attack flying in at 50 feet. Our sources tell us the explosion in the photo shown by Global Research fit that of a 2000lb iron bomb, the standard payload for an F-16B. But while getting in is one thing, getting out alive is something entirely different.

For the Israelis not losing pilots has been a major morale booster for their people for decades now. During the 1973 war, Soviet SAMS over Syria destroyed much of the Israeli Air Force. American planes were quickly repainted with the Israeli Star of David with American pilots thrown into the breach, something long left out of that story even after all of this time.

This was the real reason for the oil embargo against the United States that put the American economy into a free fall that we have yet to recover from.

The Israelis have their nuclear weapons to threaten a Sampson option response, but that would be the end of the Zionist experiment, and unfortunately a lot of Holy Land architecture. But for the Zionists to confront Russia, or any major power they have not already neutralized is something they know they can't do. They have to count on the US to act as their attack dog.

We would never have known that there was an attack had Israel chosen not to gloat by leaking their "triumph" through the blogosphere. The loss of a single aircraft would not be an embarrassment were it not for two minor issues.

Nothing debunks the success of a mission to destroy air defenses more than losing a plane to those defenses. High level sources in the Department of Defense indicate that Israel has long bragged of their ability to use "homegrown" ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) to defeat S-300.

When Israel next calls the Pentagon, yarmulke in hand, egg on their face, their tone will be more restrained.

Need we discuss the 2% success rate of the Iron Dome?

The loss of a single aircraft is relatively easy to sweep under the rug, but a major engagement would see the planes raining down like they did in 1973, though a complete media lock down kept that information from becoming common knowledge.

One of the reasons America has been so aggressive in forward basing is to get their missiles in strategic positions to be used for effective offense or defense in the region.

As the new Russian missile defense technology which will make conventional piloted planes deathtraps is fully deployed, the West's abilities to take land by force without significant consequences will be history.

All planned attacks have contingency plans of cover and deception built into them to hide the failed missions from their own citizens. They do this through the liberal use of national security classifications that hide the truth from the American people.

This has been an ongoing threat to American national security for some time as mistakes never acknowledged can never be fixed. The designation of operations as classified or top secret can also be used to cover up those that serve the interests of foreign governments while undermining American interests.

The real cause of death, if these pilots did die, is hubris. Syria will never admit the attack. Syria can't even claim the "kill."

They fear Israeli desperation, and well they should.

MC/KA


Mike Chester is a featured writer for the online news magazine Veterans Today.

src: PressTV: F-16 loss, a humiliation for Israel






Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d2_13735...FAsd1Tz.99

[Magda Hassan]

The "FSA" is not going to defeat Al Qaeda in Syria.

Posted on July 12, 2013 by Phil Greaves
Recent reports within mainstream media are pushing the theory that divisions are forming within the various camps of opposition militants in Syria, while also making attempts to highlight the disparity between the supposed "moderate" rebel forces of the "FSA" which does not exist beyond a small cadre of defectors with no autonomy inside Syria and the Al Qaeda affiliated militia of Jabhat al Nusra, (JaN) or the Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), while also whitewashing the presence of the larger Salafist brigades that fight alongside them, predominantly Ahrar al-Sham (SIF).
To comprehend these alleged divisions, it is fundamental to understand what exactly the "FSA", or "Supreme Military Council" consists of. In short, these Western-backed outfits and the oft-referenced "spokesmen" that carry them hold no value inside Syria, or any amount of authority among the plethora of militia fighting on the ground. This has been the case since day one of the Syrian crisis. The "FSA" was a retroactive PR stunt implemented by the West and the GCC to uphold a facade of "moderation", and bolster the false image of militants fighting for "freedom and democracy". In reality, the FSA represents a branding exercise; enabling foreign powers to rally behind disparate groups of militants often led by extremists to undertake their desired use and mask the true identity of what are, by western legal standards, "terrorists".
When the media refer to the "FSA", at best it is lazy journalism, at worst it is disingenuous and designed to mislead the reader otherwise known as propaganda. Yet the "FSA", or "SMC" seem to have a new lease of life within the media. Furthermore, General Salim Idriss has been at the forefront of recent media campaigns to persuade foreign powers to increase military aid to the rebels (includinga photo-op with renowned peace advocate John McCain); rebels that Idriss, nor any other commander in the "SMC" or "FSA" have any control over. I posited the theory in early May that the US and its GCC partners (now minus the deposed Qatari Emir) were attempting to marginalize the very militants they fomented, sponsored and armed in order to build a new "moderate" force under their control that is agreeable to the public, and the many European and American Parliamentarians and Congressman that have expressed concern about the "rising" influence of radicals among the militants they are indirectly supporting.
Recent attempts to purport divisions could be construed as part of this "re-branding" policy. In a Reuters report titled "New front opens in Syria as rebels say Al Qaeda attack means war" we learn that a "Commander" from the Supreme Military Council was assassinated by ISIS' Emir: Sheikh Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whether this is even true remains to be seen; several prominent analysts have cast doubt on the report, claiming it may be a psy-op on the FSA's behalf; presumably in order to marginalize Baghdadi and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham militants that follow him. This bears hallmarks to recent reports and analysis covering the supposed "split" between the Syrian wing of Al Qaeda, otherwise known as Jabhat al Nusra (JaN), and the Iraqi wing of Al Qaeda, otherwise known as the Islamic state of Iraq (ISI). When Baghdadi, the Emir of ISI retroactively announced the "merger" of these groups and declared the militia should now be addressed as the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham, a spat broke out between him and Jabhat al-Nusra Emir Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. The following analysis and reports covering the dispute were blown out of all proportion and have continued in this vain ever since. Again, actual divisions on the ground between ISI and JaN were minimal and did not affect either tactical, nor ideological cooperation and kinship.
ISI and JaN are one and the same, in both a tactical and ideological sense, there are slight differences in their outlook for a possible future Syria, but crucially, both the tactical relationship and core ideologies remain untouched and unified. Furthermore, JaN was concieved through ISI funding and logistic cooperation. Journalists and analysts suggesting these groups are separate do not understand their mutual ideology, or they are being purposefully misleading to suit an agenda that agenda seems to be to highlight ISI as the "bad rebels", this could be to allow space for the "good rebels" under JaN's leadership which are predominantly led by Syrians and not foreigners, therefore more likely to win "hearts and minds" to join the "moderate" brigades under the SMC command.
The first paragraph of the Reuters report fulfills the false narrative that the "FSA" represents a larger force than that of "Islamists": (NB: Reuters lazy wording not mine)

Rivalries have been growing between the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Islamists, whose smaller but more effective forces control most of the rebel-held parts of northern Syria more than two years after pro-democracy protests became an uprising.

One has to wonder how the supposed "Islamists" which, according to Reuters are a smaller force than the "FSA" can possibly hold more territory than the Western-backed moderates. Again, Reuters is pushing a false narrative upon its readers to uphold the image that the majority of "rebels" fighting inside Syria are moderate secularists under the command of the "FSA", or "Supreme Military Council". The truth of the matter has always been that Jabhat al Nusra who are one and the same as Al Qaeda in Iraq with slightly different outlooks for their respective homelands along with the more populist, and larger in number Salafi militia, such as Ahrar al-Sham, who operate under the umbrella group the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF), represent the vast majority of opposition fighters in Syria. These groups have close links, and it is likely that fighters often interchange depending on expertise, experience and geographical requirements. Since the onset they have cooperated closely with logistics and paramilitary operations.
Supposed "secular" opposition forces in Syria simply do not exist; under the "FSA" command or anywhere else. There are many smaller groups that espouse an inclusive, and indeed, moderate outlook for a future Syria. These groups have in the majority been rampant with criminality, infighting, and a lack of funds. Leaving disillusioned fighters with the option of joining the better organised and funded Salafi brigades; which have consistently received funding and arms from both state and non-state actors in the Gulf.
The "FSA" commander quoted in the Reuters piece claims: "we are going to wipe the floor with them". Presumably this is aimed at Baghdadi and his fellow ideologues, or as Reuters labels them: "Islamists". Again, we are supposed to buy the theory that the FSA is in a position to strike anyone militarily inside Syria let alone a commander of one of the strongest opposition groups operating. At this moment in time, the "FSA" as a fighting force could possibly be at its weakest since its artificial inception. Reports have suggested there are up to 6,000 foreign militants fighting against the government in Syria. It is likely that the vast majority of foreigners have joined the more radical outfits such as ISIS, for the same reasons as mentioned above, but can also be explained by the public sectarian tone being applied to the conflict, and calls to the regions Sunni community to engage in "Holy War" against the Syrian state from influential clerics such as Yusuf Qaradawi.
Several political developments also shed light on the "re-branding" of the Syrian opposition. The Emir of Qatar's unexpected departure from the throne to be replaced by his son may have been an indicator as to Qatar's failures in leading the Syrian insurgency. It is common knowledge that Saudi Arabia have been given the "Syria File". A fact that is portrayed with no irony by western analysts; who manage to conveniently whitewash exactly which state actor is delegating the "files" could it be"Mother"? This handing over of the baton was solidified with the departure of SNC Prime Minister Ghassan Hitto a Muslim Brotherhood member chosen by Qatar in attempts to consolidate the Muslim Brotherhood's hold on the SNC. Hitto was replaced by Ahmed al-Jarba, an influential tribal figure with close links to the Saudi Monarchy.
Reports on the ground in Syria have also suggested that the rebels weapons flow including such basics as ammunition have come to an almost standstill. And several rebel commanders have relayed their frustration at the lack of promised US weapons. Recent developments in the US Congress have also given Obama the back-door he was looking for, at least to buy himself more time until a more suitable fighting force is able to undertake the task at hand if such force ever materializes. Direct US arms supplies or, to be precise; the official funding for arms supplies have been blocked by Congress until the administration can determine exactly which rebel groups it intends to arm, and what exactly the administration intends to achieve from what seem to be futile efforts to validate the now almost two-year covert policy of arming the rebels, and achieving nothing but bloodshed and destruction of course, it would be ridiculous to suggest that was the plan? US allies in the region will undoubtedly be working under their own terms with regard to their destructive policies in Syria, to some extent.
Contrary to the Saud monarchies renewed efforts to wrest control of the insurgency; recent developments on the ground, along with Russia's steadfast support and mass public opinion against supporting the extremist dominated rebels; the Syrian Army have kept the insurgency at bay whilst they choose their strategic victories. Homs is about to become the latest "rebel stronghold" to fall, as rebels announced this morning another "tactical retreat".
One imagines the rebel siege being laid upon 2 million civilians a war-crime that Western "diplomats" seem reluctant to "intervene" on, or indeed make any mention of - in government controlled Western Aleppo will be the Syrian military's next priority. The Saudis through their new puppet al-Jarba have promised a huge influx of "game-changing" weapons, but without a massive influx of military hardware, and indeed, trained fighters to use them, it appears the trajectory of the conflict will remain in the Syrian military's favour. What the various actors supporting the insurgency are willing to do to change that trajectory in the short-term, if anything substantial, remains to be seen. There are at least three interested and powerful parties whose objectives can be served by allowing the Syrian conflict to drag on for years to come; yet none of them necessarily want to see Assad fall.
http://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/201...-in-syria/

[Jan Klimkowski]

Recent reports within mainstream media are pushing the theory that divisions are forming within the various camps of opposition militants in Syria, while also making attempts to highlight the disparity between the supposed "moderate" rebel forces of the "FSA" which does not exist beyond a small cadre of defectors with no autonomy inside Syria and the Al Qaeda affiliated militia of Jabhat al Nusra, (JaN) or the Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), while also whitewashing the presence of the larger Salafist brigades that fight alongside them, predominantly Ahrar al-Sham (SIF).
To comprehend these alleged divisions, it is fundamental to understand what exactly the "FSA", or "Supreme Military Council" consists of. In short, these Western-backed outfits and the oft-referenced "spokesmen" that carry them hold no value inside Syria, or any amount of authority among the plethora of militia fighting on the ground. This has been the case since day one of the Syrian crisis. The "FSA" was a retroactive PR stunt implemented by the West and the GCC to uphold a facade of "moderation", and bolster the false image of militants fighting for "freedom and democracy". In reality, the FSA represents a branding exercise; enabling foreign powers to rally behind disparate groups of militants often led by extremists to undertake their desired use and mask the true identity of what are, by western legal standards, "terrorists".
When the media refer to the "FSA", at best it is lazy journalism, at worst it is disingenuous and designed to mislead the reader otherwise known as propaganda. Yet the "FSA", or "SMC" seem to have a new lease of life within the media. Furthermore, General Salim Idriss has been at the forefront of recent media campaigns to persuade foreign powers to increase military aid to the rebels (includinga photo-op with renowned peace advocate John McCain); rebels that Idriss, nor any other commander in the "SMC" or "FSA" have any control over. I posited the theory in early May that the US and its GCC partners (now minus the deposed Qatari Emir) were attempting to marginalize the very militants they fomented, sponsored and armed in order to build a new "moderate" force under their control that is agreeable to the public, and the many European and American Parliamentarians and Congressman that have expressed concern about the "rising" influence of radicals among the militants they are indirectly supporting.

Right on cue, MSM obliges:

Free Syrian Army threatens blood feud after senior officer killed by jihadists

Death of Kamal Hamami likely to inflame rising tensions between mainstream Syrian opposition and foreign anti-Assad fighters

Martin Chulov in Beirut
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 July 2013 18.29 BST
Jump to comments (90)
Free Syrian Army fighters prepare for an offensive against Bashar al-Assad's forces in Deir al-Zor. Photograph: Stringer/Reuters

Commanders of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) have reacted with fury to the assassination of a senior FSA officer by a jihadist group, warning that the killing would lead to further violence between the disparate factions battling to oust the president, Bashar al-Assad.

Kamal Hamami, a member of the opposition's supreme military command, was killed and his body mutilated after he was lured to a planning meeting on Thursday with fighters believed to be foreign jihadists in the Jebel al-Krud region, north of Latakia.

The killing the first internecine targeting of a ranking member of the mainstream Syrian opposition group follows rising tensions between the exclusively Syrian militia and jihadi fighters, including increasing numbers of foreigners who see the civil war in Syria as part of a global jihad.

Rebel leaders in northern Syria said on Friday that the assassination had shattered trust between the two sides and set off a blood feud.

"This will not go unpunished," said a former officer of the Syrian army who now commands a mainstream opposition militia near Idlib province. "They are trying to assert themselves, to make us bow to them. They need to be taught a lesson."

Since they entered northern Syria in mid-July last year, jihadist groups have become the most effective fighting force in the land, renowned for their prowess on the battlefield and skill in obtaining weapons.

Blighted by ill-discipline and infighting, the FSA has meanwhile struggled to assert itself as its fight against the Assad regime stagnated and more battle-ready militants seized the initiative during raids on military bases that yielded crucial hauls of guns and ammunition.

Recently, however, the jihadists have been accused of the same shortcomings as discipline gives way to power grabs and growing tensions between Syrian and regional al-Qaida leaders.

The main homegrown group, Jabhat al-Nusra, has been undermined by a power struggle between its nominal leader, Abu Muhammad al-Golani, and the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has led the terror group in its revitalised insurgency against Iraq's Shia-led government.

Baghdadi has attempted to combine his group with Jabhat al-Nusra but was rebuffed in May by Golani, who was reported to have instead pledged loyalty to the al-Qaida leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Since then, Jabhat al-Nusra's ranks have split in the same way that the FSA has splintered in the past year.

While it remains a formidable fighting force, it cannot boast the same rigid control over its members and especially over foreign fighters who are increasingly creating their own leadership structures and setting their own rules.

"I've always said that this would become like Anbar," where al-Qaida was driven out in 2006 after earning the ire of local hosts, said a rebel leader in Aleppo. "And I was right. This is now a land of warlords and clans, of foreigners with a perverse form of Islam that share neither our views or goals.

"This is what becomes of a civil war in a place like Syria when help doesn't come the way of the people who need and deserve it."

The spectre of a war within a civil war mainstream fighters battling foreign fighters has long been predicted by senior members of established FSA brigades, such as Liwaa al-Tawheed in Aleppo and the Farouk brigades near Idlib and Homs.

For the most part, though, the groups had co-existed, often collaborating on raids and working to the maxim of first winning the battle, then thrashing out how to deal with what remains of the country.

Jabhat al-Nusra members interviewed by the Guardian this year said their leaders, many of whom had fought in Iraq, both against the US army and Sunni tribes, had learned from past mistakes especially in Anbar, where overplaying attempts to impose and enforce a strict interpretation of sharia law meant they lost the trust of the tribes.

Now, with foreign fighters again taking prominence and employing the same ruthless, uncompromising ways, al-Nusra is losing its bid for containment.

"The war is metastasising in ways that draw in regional and other international actors, erase boundaries and give rise to a single, transnational arc of crisis," says a new report on the Syrian crisis from the International Crisis Group.

"The opposition increasingly resembles a Sunni coalition in which a radicalised Sunni street, Islamist networks, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Gulf states and Turkey take leading roles. The pro-regime camp, encompassing Iran, Hezbollah, Iraq and Iraqi Shi'ite militants, likewise appears to be a quasi-confessional alliance."

The opposition, "not unlike the regime, has acquired a critical and resilient mass of support at least partially immune to the ups and downs of its performance. The large underclass that is its core constituency has suffered such extreme regime violence that it can be expected to fight till the end."

[Magda Hassan]

David Cameron's support for Syria uprising questioned over top aide's links to rebels

16 Jul 2013 08:44The UK arm of strategist Lynton Crosby's lobbying empire represented the Syrian National Council





Support: David Cameron

Getty

David Cameron's support for the Syrian uprising has been questioned after revelations that his top aide's firm worked for the rebels.
The UK arm of strategist Lynton Crosby's lobbying empire represented the Syrian National Council.
Mr Cameron stepped up his calls for action including arming forces trying to oust bloody dictator Bashar al-Assad after hiring the Australian as his elections adviser last year.
Frank Roy, a member of the Foreign Affairs select committee, said: "We need to know that David Cameron's crusade has not been inspired by his lobbyist chum.
"It would be quite wrong if Lynton Crosby was using his position to influence the Prime Minister on such an important foreign policy issue on behalf of a former client."
Mr Roy's comments came as it was alleged that Mrs Cameron had pushed for a more robust response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria.
The Prime Minister's wife Samantha, who visited a refugee camp in Lebanon earlier this year, is reported to be one of the reasons for his hawkish stance on the conflict.
Many Tory Mps are deeply alarmed at the prospect of Mr Cameron going further and arming the rebels who are locked in war of attrition with Assad's forces.
The PM raised the prospect of sending them weapons after hiring Mr Crosby last year.
Mr Cameron has already faced questions over his decision to employ the lobbyist after plain fag packets and minimum booze pricing were shelved.
Mr Crosby has links to firms that have fought both measures in his Australian homeland.
Australian Health Minister Tanya Plibersek yesterday claimed Mr Crosby had been "key" in the UK government's decision to abandon plans to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes.
"It's very clear Lynton Crosby has been a key adviser in this move to dump plain packaging in the UK," Ms Plibersek was quoted saying by the Australian newspaper.
The UK arm of Crosby's international public affairs and PR consultancy spent six months working for the Syrian National Council, the main opposition grouping.
Crosby Textor Fullbrook placed articles in Western newspapers and got airtime for opponents of the Assad regime on broadcasters including the BBC and Sky News.
The company, founded with a former Tory official, then pitched for a paid contract with the SNC, asking for a reported £180,000 fee, which it failed to win.
Contact with the with the group was broken off before the PM hired Mr Crosby last autumn.
But Frank Roy said that his links to the Syrian opposition was another example of the "huge conflict of interest" that Mr Cameron had created by employing him.
The Labour MP said: "David Cameron promised to get firms peddling influence out of politics before he was elected.
"Instead he has done the opposite and brought a lobbyist into the heart of his operation and created a huge conflict of interest on his and many other issues."
Downing Street yesterday played down the suggestion Mr Cameron was being pushed to take a more proactive stance on Syria by his wife.
The Prime Minister's spokesman said the policy on Syria was a matter for the National Security Council.
"I would proceed with a fair bit of caution on this one. The Government's approach to Syria is driven through the National Security Council. That is where our policy and approach is driven," he said.
The spokesman also said Mr Crosby had not lobbied the Prime Minister on Syria, alcohol pricing or cigarette packaging. But he refused to say if Mr Crosby and Mr Cameron had discussed any of these issues.
"Mr Crosby has never lobbied the Prime Minister on anything," the spokesman said. Legislation being introduced in Parliament tomorrow (WEDS) will require lobbying firms to list their clients.
So far Mr Crosby has refused to name the companies he works for despite having such a key role in the Conservative Party.
Mr Crosby did not reply to a request by the Daily Mirror to comment.



Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dav...z2ZDGUsy7D

[Lauren Johnson]

In the second post of this entire thread, Bill Kelly responds to Bernice who started it with this:

Bernice, I must politely disagree with this guy, whoever he is, from Argentina, who claims that it is the right of any government to stop successionists, and draws the false analogy of a state in USA wanting to succeed, when in fact this is a Revolutionary war, winner take all campaign and not an attempt by a separate state in Syria to succeed.

In addition, historically, the origin of the revolution in Syria is well documented, and it was inspired by the successful non-violent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and the violence was instigated with the arrests of young boys - children, not even teenagers, who spray painted anti-government graffeti on walls and were arrested.

Now the Syrian government and this guy is falsely saying that the revolt was inspired by foreigners, just as LBJ tried to pawn off any conspiracy on the Warren Commission. There is no foreign instigation to this revolt, it is simply a revolution by the people of Syria, primarily young people, who want freedom, democracy and justice.

Reporters are not even permitted in the country to cover the revolt.

You want to blame the Bilderburgers, USA, NATO or UN, go ahead, but they have had no influence or impact on anything that is happening in Syria today, as the UN won't even condemn the atrocities being committed by the government there. And not to support the revolutionaries is to support the brutal dictatorships, in Syria, Libya, Baharan and Yemen, right across the board.

The big conspiracy in Syria is not among those powerful institutions we have no control over, but by the government of Syria in the suppression of the revolt.

I just don't understand those liberals and radicals who take pride in opposing the US government and military on the one hand, and reject the democratic Arab revolt to support tyrants on the other.

Either you are with the revolution or you are with the tyrants, and there's no three ways about it.

Bill Kelly

Other than the NATO powers and their various outlets, the MSM, no one believes nor can they credibly hold this POV. Before our eyes we have a case study in how a color revolution is begun, nurtured, and and carried forwward.

To sustain this view, the skeptics of the validity of the Syrian revolution have to answer one question: How were the non-violent protests which in fact went on for months were made to appear spontaneous when they were a work of deep political alchemy? Or another way of framing this question, to what extent was opportunism by NATO and its allies a factor?

[Magda Hassan]

Yes, Bill wants it to be a revolution and he wants they tyrant Assad to be gone. He has a good heart but his analysis on this is completely wrong. There is not and never was a 'revolution'. Even Syrians who wanted Assad to be gone now do not support the FSA and the semseless destruction of their country. Any so called revolution never had the support of the people or Assad would have been gone in 2 weeks. It is now more than 2 years later and he is still there.....Apart from the fact that Assad is not his father Assad has already instituted all the reforms that the first protests demanded but has been unable to implement many of them because of the social upheavals wrought by the fighting. The only thing needed is for all foreigners to leave and to stop arming them. But we know this is nothing to do with Assad.

[Lauren Johnson]

Yes, Bill wants it to be a revolution and he wants they tyrant Assad to be gone. He has a good heart but his analysis on this is completely wrong. There is not and never was a 'revolution'. Even Syrians who wanted Assad to be gone now do not support the FSA and the semseless destruction of their country. Any so called revolution never had the support of the people or Assad would have been gone in 2 weeks. It is now more than 2 years later and he is still there.....Apart from the fact that Assad is not his father Assad has already instituted all the reforms that the first protests demanded but has been unable to implement many of them because of the social upheavals wrought by the fighting. The only thing needed is for all foreigners to leave and to stop arming them. But we know this is nothing to do with Assad.

BK is indeed one of the best and a first rate JFK researcher. His Syria analysis is clearly wrong. However, can it be said that the whole thing including the months of non-violent demonstrations have the "made by NATO" stamp on it? It seems utterly incredible to me but it appears that is exactly what has happened.