Así que Bashar al-Asad ha hablado, exclusivamente con el periódico argentino Clarín [hay una inmensa diáspora siria en Argentina, así como en el vecino Brasil).
Viendo a través de la niebla de la histeria occidental, hizo algunas observaciones valiosas. El historial muestra que sí, que el régimen ha aceptado varias veces hablar con la oposición; pero la miríada de grupos “rebeldes” sin una dirigencia creíble y unificada, siempre se ha negado. Por lo tanto no existe un camino al alto el fuego que pueda finalmente acordarse en una cumbre, como la próxima conferencia en Ginebra de EE.UU. y Rusia.
Asad tiene algo de sentido cuando dice: "Nosotros no podemos discutir una hoja de ruta con una parte si no sabemos quiénes son”.
Bueno, a estas alturas cualquiera que observe la tragedia siria sabe quiénes son en su mayoría. Se sabe que el Ejército de Caníbales Sirios No-libres, perdón el Ejército Libre Sirio (ELS), es una colección variopinta de señores de la guerra, gángsteres y oportunistas de todo tipo cruzados con yihadistas de la línea dura del tipo de Jabhat al-Nusra (pero también con otros grupos vinculados a al Qaida o inspirados en él).
Reuters tardó meses en admitir finalmente que los yihadistas dominan el show sobre el terreno . Un comandante “rebelde” incluso se quejó a Reuters, “Nusra es ahora dos Nusras. Uno que sigue la agenda de al Qaida de una gran nación islámica y otro que es sirio con una agenda nacional para ayudarnos a combatir a Asad”. Lo que no dijo es que el grupo realmente efectivo está vinculado a al Qaida.
Siria es ahora el Infierno de las Milicias; muy parecido a Irak a mediados de los años 2000, muy parecido al “liberado” Estado fracasado libio. Esta afganización/somalización es una consecuencia directa de la interferencia del eje OTAN/CCG/Israel . Por lo tanto Asad también tiene razón cuando dice que Occidente está avivando el fuego y que solo está interesado en el cambio de régimen, sea cual sea el coste.
Available in: Paperback.It took three decades for the United States government-spanning and working assiduously over five different presidential administrations (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama)-to overthrow and...
Our elected and unelected officials tell us that drone strikes target top level enemies of the United States who are imminent threats to us, and that killing innocent people is avoided altogether or minimized.
Congressional hearings, with a couple of excellent exceptions, question outside academics about the legality of this purported strategy. The Obama administration declines to send any witnesses.
But drone pilots have begun talking to the media. And they describe policies that bear a lot closer resemblance to reporting from the areas where the missiles strike. These pilots should be brought before Congress.
Here is a stunning new interview with one of them:
The International Criminal Court is still investigating war crimes in Libya despite a clash with the country's government over who has the right to try former leader Muammar Gaddafi's son and his spy chief, the court's prosecutor said on Wednesday.
The Hague-based court wants to try Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam and Gaddafi's former intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi on war crimes, but Libya wants the pair to face justice in the North African state.
ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda told the U.N. Security Council that while investigations into Saif al-Islam and Senussi had been suspended until a decision was made on where to try them, her office was continuing to probe other crimes in Libya.
"My office is aware of allegations of serious crimes committee by former Gaddafi officials, some of who are now outside of Libya," she told the 15-member council.
"We are currently engaged in the process of documenting the most serious of those crimes and documenting the current activities of those officials who were most responsible for them," Bensouda said.
This past week's Benghazi hearings refocused attention on statements made by Libyan leader Muhammad al-Muqaryaf [Magariaf] in the immediate aftermath of the murderous 9/11/2012 attacks on the vulnerable U.S. Benghazi diplomatic mission compound. Al-Muqaryaf, head of Libya's National Congress, reiterated (and elaborated upon) his contentions to Al-Hayat's Raghdah Durgham during an interview published October 1, 2012.
[Durgham] Were you the first to make the mistake of considering what happened to be among the reactions to the anti-Islam film, instead of considering it a terrorist operation?
[Al-Muqaryaf] Since the first seconds after this incident happened on 9/11 I was completely convinced that this act was a premeditated and intentional terrorist act. This video (film) was not disseminated before [could be typographical error for "was disseminated before" as stated in an answer to the question following next], but it is possible that it was taken as justification and pretext. Still, the truth of the matter is that what happened was premeditated and planned according to previous arrangements.
[Durgham] When did you say this to the Americans?
[Al-Muqaryaf] From the first seconds, in my first reaction to what happened.
em seguida veio o chamado pacote de dois adotado semana passada pelo parlamento europeu duas regras segundo as quais os estados devem submeter suas previsoes de orcamento a ce antes mesmo de submete-las aos parlamentos nacionais resumo da opera as...
Question: I would like to start our conversation from your last international contacts and, first of all, from your meeting with US Secretary of State in Moscow on 7 May. The day after he left Moscow, John Kerry made a statement in Rome that there is no place for President Bashar al-Assad in the new transitional government. There were also statements that the White House had not made its final decision about armament of the opposition and is waiting for the results of the investigation of the use of chemical weapons in SAR to make this decision. We know about the agreements reached between Russia and the USA in Moscow, however, we would still like to understand why we have heard other statements, which do not fit within the framework of the agreements reached the day before, as soon as the US Secretary of State left Moscow.
Sergey Lavrov: I will start from stating that we had very good negotiations, when John Kerry was in Moscow. He had a long conversation with the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, during which they touched upon the topic of Syria and several other international problems along with a detailed discussion of a number of bilateral issues. As to Syria, John Kerry provided the analysis that is very close to what we talk about, when spotting threats as a result of preservation of status quo and stimulation of the inexorable opposition to grab power, solve the problem in a military way. We talk (and John Kerry supported it) about the need to stop bloodshed, start political negotiations according to the logic established in the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, which was signed by almost all key external players affecting the situation in Syria one way or another. John Kerry opted in favour of convention of the next international meeting with participation of the parties to stimulate them to move in the political direction of formation of a transitional governing body based on unanimous consent of SAR Government and all the opposition groups, to make them prepare stable agreements ensuring safety and rights of all the ethnic, religious and other groups in Syria.
We have been advocating for such forum for a sufficiently long time. We proposed to convene Geneva-2 last August. That time our Western partners, Arab participants of the Geneva process and Turkey told that they were not ready yet. Our American, French and British colleagues, Europeans in general, talked in favour of the unity of the opposition on a constructive platform of readiness to negotiations. The National Coalition was created; however,unfortunately, it was formed on an absolutely opposite platform – overthrow of the regime and dismantling of all institutes. The decision of the League of Arab States that the National Coalition is the only representative of the Syrian people and should occupy the place of Syria in LAS did not help either. To that end,the question arises: what about the rest of opposition groups, because the National Coalition is not the only group? There is an external opposition that is not represented in the coalition, there is an internal opposition as well, which has never left Syria and opts for the internal reform of the country.
On this background, we welcome the consent of Americans represented by John Kerry to the concept of holding the conference without preconditions (no preconditions were formulated in things we have coordinated with our US colleague). The President of Russia Vladimir Putin supported the idea expressed by the US Secretary of State, and placed me in charge of formulating ideas on paper together with my US colleague, as we did by voicing them at the jointpress-conference. I have agreed with John Kerry that we will secure consent of the governments to the formulated propositions. The President Vladimir Putin is also working with a number of countries, which have to be involved into such conference, but the American party will continue its efforts in uniting the opposition on a platform of support of such approach.
These efforts are continuing. I heard about the statements made by John Kerry in Rome, and about statements of other colleagues of ours. I presume that it is difficult to persuade the opposition. Unlike the Government of Syria, that made a sufficiently positive statement in response to the Russian-American initiative, it has not done it, but was ambiguous by saying that, in fact, it would welcome any initiative, which could stop violence, but Bashar al-Assad should “disappear” first – that is, they expressed again the approaches that have been causes of the deadlock in the Syrian crisis for many months. Therefore, we continue our actions and contacts with many partners. The President Vladimir Putin had a meeting with the UK Prime Minister David Cameron in Sochi some days ago, where they also supported the Russian-American initiative. I know that another meeting of opposition forces attracted to the National Coalition is scheduled in Istanbul in a few days, presumably on 19-20 May. Immediately after that, the National Coordination Committee will hold a meeting of the internal constructive patriotic opposition in Madrid, I think. We will see what approaches will be expressed as a result of these events.
We think that we need to refuse from preconditions, because we need to be realistic rather than because we like or dislike somebody. While realism and taking care of interests of the Syrian people require stopping violence as soon as possible without any preconditions. Any preconditions will only drag on this vicious circle of bloodshed.
A week from now it will be one year since the world first heard about the horrors of a place in Syria called “Houla.” On the afternoon and evening of Friday, May 25, 2012, a reported 108 civilians were massacred there. They were executed inside their homes, with guns and “sharp tools,” and maybe a little bit from shelling as well. As the reader might recall, most of the victims were entire families, included some 49 younger children and even babies.
Anyone who had to watch the video results might recall having the bottom drop from their stomach with dread, and the lingering depression after. Many people, naturally, wanted revenge for that.
According to activists, all of the victim families were Sunni Muslim. It was of course blamed on the Syrian Arab Army – the only ones with artillery, if blades aren’t so clear - and their allied “Shabiha,” militias from surrounding villages, of the same Alawite faith of president Assad. None of these features was completely new, but this was by many measures the worst, most massive, most unambiguous massacres of innocents to date.
Even by the standards of a particularly murderous war, a fighter eating the freshly cut out lungs of a dead enemy soldier reached a new depth of savagery; the images on the Internet were, to the outside world, gruesome evidence of a depraved and...
Last October, senior Obama officials anonymously unveiled to the Washington Post their newly minted "disposition matrix", a complex computer system that will be used to determine how a terrorist suspect will be "disposed of": indefinite detention, prosecution in a real court, assassination-by-CIA-drones, etc. Their rationale for why this was needed now, a full 12 years after the 9/11 attack:
Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaida continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight. . . . That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism."
On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether the statutory basis for this "war" - the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) - should be revised (meaning: expanded). This is how Wired's Spencer Ackerman (soon to be the Guardian US's national security editor) described the most significant exchange:
"Asked at a Senate hearing today how long the war on terrorism will last, Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, answered, 'At least 10 to 20 years.' . . . A spokeswoman, Army Col. Anne Edgecomb, clarified that Sheehan meant the conflict is likely to last 10 to 20 more years from today - atop the 12 years that the conflict has already lasted. Welcome to America's Thirty Years War."
That the Obama administration is now repeatedly declaring that the "war on terror" will last at least another decade (or two) is vastly more significant than all three of this week's big media controversies (Benghazi, IRS, and AP/DOJ) combined. The military historian Andrew Bacevich has spent years warning that US policy planners have adopted an explicit doctrine of "endless war". Obama officials, despite repeatedly boasting that they have delivered permanently crippling blows to al-Qaida, are now, as clearly as the English language permits, openly declaring this to be so.
LONDON—A tiny tip of the vast subterranean network of governmental and intelligence agencies from around the world dedicated to destroying WikiLeaks and arresting its founder, Julian Assange, appears outside the red-brick building on Hans Crescent Street that houses the Ecuadorean Embassy. Assange, the world’s best-known political refugee, has been in the embassy since he was offered sanctuary there last June. British police in black Kevlar vests are perched night and day on the steps leading up to the building, and others wait in the lobby directly in front of the embassy door. An officer stands on the corner of a side street facing the iconic department store Harrods, half a block away on Brompton Road. Another officer peers out the window of a neighboring building a few feet from Assange’s bedroom at the back of the embassy. Police sit round-the-clock in a communications van topped with an array of antennas that presumably captures all electronic forms of communication from Assange’s ground-floor suite.
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), or Scotland Yard, said the estimated cost of surrounding the Ecuadorean Embassy from June 19, 2012, when Assange entered the building, until Jan. 31, 2013, is the equivalent of $4.5 million.
Audio clip one: Chris Hedges talks with Julian Assange about his opponents’ legal strategies. Your browser does not support the audio element. (Transcript)
Audio clip two: Julian Assange shares his thoughts on the Bradley Manning Case. Your browser does not support the audio element. (Transcript)