Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

zaterdag 15 april 2017

U.S. invented pretexts for agression

US has "longstanding tradition" of aggression under invented pretexts - Russian MoD

April 14, 2017 - Fort Russ News - 
RIA Novosti - translated by J. Arnoldski - 



The official spokesman of Russia’s Ministry of Defense, Igor Konashenkov, has commented on media reports alleging that the US intercepted conversations within the Syrian military on preparations for a chemical attack in Khan Shaeyhun.

“According to a longstanding tradition, the Pentagon always covers every violation of international law and especially any armed aggression by the US against sovereign countries with the presence of some kind of ‘indisputable’ evidence of atrocities. The more invented this pseudo-evidence is, the more ‘secret’ it is,” Konashenkov remarked.

Konashenkov added that if US intelligence continues to hide its alleged evidence of crimes against humanity, this means that there is no such evidence. 

This comes on the heels of CNN’s citing of a senior US official that the US military and intelligence had intercepted Syrian officers and chemical experts discussing preparations for an attack with the use of sarin.

On April 4th, the Syrian “opposition” claimed 80 dead and 200 wounded in a chemical attack on the town of Khan Shaykun. Syrian government troops were blamed for the attack, who in turn strongly rejected the accusations and blamed the incident on terrorists and their patrons. According to Russia’s Ministry of Defense, Syrian air forces had struck the terrorists’ arsenal in Khan Shaykun which included chemical weapons being delivered to Iraq. 

Without showing any evidence of the guilt of the Syrian military and without listening to Moscow’s call to hold a thorough investigation before blaming Damascus, on the night of April 7th, the US launched 59 rockets at a Syrian military base.


The target of the attack was the Shayrat airfield which Washington alleges the chemical attack came from. Meanwhile, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem stated that the Syrian army has never used and does not intend to use chemical weapons against civilians or terrorists, and that the country’s entire chemical arsenal had been removed earlier by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.




     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
              Facebook                                   

       Follow us on Twitter!
              Twitter               


'Longstanding Tradition' of U.S. Aggression

US has “longstanding tradition” of aggression under invented pretexts

US has “longstanding tradition” of aggression under invented pretexts – Russian Ministry of Defense
US a Greater Threat to Peace than North Korea
These concerns were echoed by a senior Russian lawmaker who, as AP reports, says the US is a greater threat to global peace than North Korea.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_KOREAS_TENSION_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-14-00-38-08 
Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the upper house of Russian parliament, said Friday “the most alarming thing about the current U.S. administration is that you can’t be sure if it is bluffing or really going to implement its threats.”

He says “America objectively poses a greater threat to peace than North Korea,” adding that “the entire world is scared and left guessing if it strikes or not.”

Kosachev says there is a “small hope” that President Donald Trump’s administration would listen to warnings from Russia and China not to use military force against nuclear-armed Pyongyang.

NOS Propaganda over Noord Korea

Sonja heeft een nieuwe reactie op je bericht "NOS Propaganda" achtergelaten: 

NOS vandaag: 'De Noord-Koreaanse parade is heel gevaarlijk' http://nos.nl/artikel/2168442-de-noord-koreaanse-parade-is-heel-gevaarlijk.html

Washington Post (2015): The U.S. war crime North Korea won’t forget. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-war-crime-north-korea-wont-forget/2015/03/20/fb525694-ce80-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html

The bombing was long, leisurely and merciless, even by the assessment of America’s own leaders. “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops.

Verdeel en Heers: Follow the Money

Gabriel heeft een nieuwe reactie op je bericht "'De Zwaarste Niet-Nucleaire Bom'" achtergelaten: 

Follow the money !
https://www.afvn.nl/2005_4/afpag3_4.htm 



VERDEEL EN HEERS; MILITAIRE EXPANSIE, UITVERKOOP,  BEHEERSING EN ONTMANTELING VAN NATIE-STATEN 


Door Mr. N.M.P. Steijnen, advocaat
Na de val van de socialistische landen hebben de imperialistische krachten de handen vrij gekregen.
En dat hebben we geweten!


In werkelijk adembenemend tempo is de NAVO, de gepantserde vuist van vooral het Europese imperialisme, opgerukt tot diep in de voormalige Sovjet-Unie. De Amerikanen, die per slot van rekening hun eigen belangen hebben die boven alles uitstijgen, stuurden liever ook hun eigen troepen, tot diep in de onderbuik van de voormalige Sovjet-Unie: Kazachstan, Georgië, Azerbeidjan, Kirgizië, noem maar op. Op jacht naar controle over de nieuwe olie- en gasgebieden en naar het innemen van nieuwe geopolitieke posities.

Maar militaire expansie is niet het enige facet van het oprukkende imperialisme.
Want ondertussen zijn we ook getuigen van een steeds veranderend panorama van regiemwisselingen, aangejaagd door westerse krachten.
Bondsteel
De VS-basis Bondsteel in Kosovo. Een van de grootste VS-bases buiten de VS.
Ter bescherming van de bevolking?
In Joegoslavië, Georgië, Oekraïne. We hebben meegemaakt hoe de westerse media de huidige president van de Oekraïne, Joesjenko, dag in dag uit de hemel in schreven. De Oekraïense bevolking is er inmiddels achter gekomen dat het een gewone schurk is. Maar het Westen zit daar niet mee, want het is wel ONZE schurk. Die daar, als zetbaas, nu ONZE westerse belangen behartigt.

Intussen is de uitverkoop van de Oekraïense bedrijven en grondstoffen goed op gang gekomen.
Als advocaat hier in Nederland verwacht ik binnenkort wel weer een prospectus te ontvangen, waarin me voor een appel en ei allerlei bedrijven in de Oekraïne te koop worden aangeboden. Want zo ging het de afgelopen jaren ook met de Oost-Duitse en Joegoslavische bedrijven die eerder eigendom waren van de bevolking daar.

Ik herinner me nog goed het moment dat de prospectus van de Treuhand, indertijd in Duitsland aangewezen om de klus van de privatisering van de voormalige DDR te klaren, bij me op de deurmat viel. Tot mijn stomme verbazing werd me een lijst bedrijven in de ex-DDR voorgeschoteld waar ik een bod op zou kunnen uitbrengen. 
Ik, die geen cent te makken heb! Maar blijkbaar werd er vanuit gegaan dat mijn collega-advocaten met geld wel voor zo’n financieel avontuurtje in zouden zijn!

Dat schaamteloos leuren met wat de bevolking met zweet en tranen had opgebouwd herhaalde zich enige jaren later, toen ik wederom een uitnodiging ontving om een of meer ondernemingen op te kopen. Ditmaal kwam de prospectus van een door de Verenigde Naties in het leven geroepen orgaan en betrof het een uitverkoop van bedrijven in Kosovo.

Ik weet nog dat ik deze schandelijke papieren meteen woedend heb verscheurd. Maar achteraf heb ik daar spijt van. Ik had ze beter kunnen bewaren. Als historische bewijzen van schaamteloosheid en het triomfisme waarmee het imperialisme en kapitalisme in de jaren rond de millenniumwisseling hun ware gezicht laten zien.

Iedereen die nadenkt en onbevooroordeeld probeert rond te kijken in de wereld ziet wat er gaande is. En weet dat dit heel wat anders is dan wat de westerse politieke elites en de gevestigde media ons willen doen geloven. 
Wat we zien, is dat een breed scala van beheerssystemen om de westerse macht te vestigen, in stand te houden en te verdiepen in tal van landen worden ingezet. Van brute veroveringsoorlogen, zoals tegen Joegoslavië, Afghanistan en Irak, tot de meest subtiele manipulaties van verdeel en heers. Al zijn de ware aard en omvang van de beheersmechanismen die worden ingezet vaak verhuld.

Heel leerzaam en verbijsterend vind ik altijd nog dat - voornamelijk achteraf - langzamerhand duidelijk werd hoe, toen enkele jaren geleden in Macedonië een burgeroorlog dreigde, de Amerikanen zowel de toenmalige Macedonische regering met wapens bleek te steunen als de Albanese rebellen. En hoe, toen op zeker moment deze rebellen op een bepaalde plek een grote nederlaag tegemoet dreigden te gaan, de Amerikanen voor hen een vrije aftocht afdwongen. En daarvoor zelfs bussen regelden.
Als mens ben je, onwillekeurig, geneigd om in kampen te denken. Maar veel beter dan een van de partijen te steunen, is natuurlijk om ze allemaal te steunen! Dat levert immers een totaal beheerssysteem op, want dan heb je ze allemaal aan een touwtje!

november 2005
achterpagina
3

Het is helemaal niet nodig om je door de gevestigde media en politieke elites in de westerse wereld in verwarring gebracht te voelen! Grofweg is vaak het tegendeel van wat ze stellen dat beoogd wordt, de werkelijke bedoeling. Dus ieder die zich die sleutel eigen maakt, slaagt er doorgaans goed in om de ware oogmerken helder te krijgen.

Staten en volkeren worden vernietigd, uit elkaar gespeeld, uitgeplunderd en opgeslokt. Om ze, volgens de westerse media en politici, te redden, democratie te brengen en middels het opleggen van een wildwest kapitalisme - dat heet dan ‘liberalisme’ - op te stoten in welvaart. Dat laatste is dan een equivalent van dienstbaar te maken aan de westerse kapitaalsbelangen.

De Federale Republiek Joegoslavië had, eind jaren tachtig, een hoog welvaartsniveau bereikt. Maar moest, na de val van het socialistische blok, toegankelijk worden gemaakt voor westerse belangen en dat dreigde niet vanzelf te gaan. Dus werd het grondig uit elkaar gespeeld. Separatistische krachten kregen een westerse stormwind in de zeilen geblazen. Tegen alle regels van het volkenrecht in werden entiteiten die zich, met westerse aanmoediging, afscheidden prompt erkend. Burgeroorlogen die daaruit voortvloeiden, boden gelegenheid tot verdere westerse 
dat in feite precies het tegenovergestelde beoogd wordt.

En dat is inmiddels gebleken.
Net als het voormalige Joegoslavië, bestaat Afghanistan niet langer als eenheidsstaat. In Kabul zetelt premier Karzai, zorgvuldig bewaakt door Amerikaanse militairen. Zijn macht strekt zich uit tot de poorten van de stad. Daarbuiten is het een ondoorzichtige warwinkel van krijgsheren, die het voor het zeggen hebben en elkaar, regelmatig, onderling bestrijden. De Amerikanen zien er nauwlettend op toe dat geen van de krijgsheren of facties de overhand krijgt. Zodra de status-quo ergens te veel verstoord dreigt te worden, rukken de Amerikaanse bommenwerpers uit. Van een centraal gezag is in Afghanistan geen sprake meer. Het motto is ook hier: houd ze verdeeld en zwak.

In het eens welvarende Irak, dat het ‘Zwitserland van het Midden-Oosten’ werd genoemd, idem dito.
Na de Amerikaanse veroveringsoorlog hoorden we veel over het diepe verlangen van de westerse mogendheden om Irak als eenheidsstaat in stand te houden. We wisten toen meteen al dat ze erop uit waren om ook dit land in stukken te scheuren. De voorbereidingen daartoe begonnen al onmiddellijk door Irak op te splitsen in verschillende bezettingszones. En nu hebben de Amerikanen een grondwet gemaakt waarin het uiteen vallen 
van het land zit ingebakken. Een lange en bittere burgeroorlog is, als resultaat, te verwachten. Maar dat laat de Amerikanen koud. De Amerikaanse macht zal zich blijvend vestigen in de oliegebieden. De rest van het voormalige Irak interesseert de Amerikanen in principe geen barst. Satellietlanden van Amerika mogen, als het lukt om ze daartoe aan te zetten, proberen om daar de rommel op te ruimen.
Net zoals in Afghanistan.

En de bevolkingen van deze gebieden?
De bevolkingen daar wordt zo elk perspectief op samenlevingsopbouw, op economisch herstel onthouden.
Tot in lengte van dagen.

En uiteindelijk wordt er dan tribunalen ingezet tegen de overwonnenen. Om de aandacht af te leiden van de westerse schuld aan rampspoed die is ontstaan, om de overwinning te beklinken, om wraak te nemen op ieder die de euvele moed had om de westerse belangen te weerstreven en als kille waarschuwing aan degene bij wie, in de toekomst, de gedachte zou kunnen opkomen om zich eveneens tegen de westerse hegemonie te willen verzetten.

In het volgende nummer van de anti fascist zullen we weer ingaan op de circusvoorstellingen die door dergelijke schijntribunalen worden opgevoerd.
interventie en voortgaande fragmentarisatie van wat nog van het oude Joegoslavië over was. Zelfs de naam Joegoslavië is thans uitgewist en we staan nu aan de vooravond van een erkenning van Kosovo en wellicht ook Montenegro als zelfstandige entiteiten.
Levensvatbare staten kunnen dat nooit worden, maar dat is de westerse bekommernis ook niet. Als cliënt-staten van het westen blijven zij beheersbaar, net als de rest van de Balkan.
Dat is de uiteindelijke intentie.

Het verdeel en heers op de Balkan is daarmee een bijna voltooid proces. De totale versplintering van het eens welvarende ex-Joegoslavië gaat zijn laatste stadium in.

Ik herinner me nog goed hoe, vlak na de oorlogen tegen Afghanistan en tegen Irak de kranten vol stonden over de noodzaak en de intentie om deze staten als eenheidsstaten intact te houden. Met de hierboven aangegeven sleutel tot interpretatie van wat de westerse media en gevestigde politici zeggen, weet je dan 
Anaconda
Anaconda, één van de vier bases die waarschijnlijk in Irak zullen blijven. Een dochterbedrijf van Halliburton, KBR, verzorgd hier o.a. de catering, de logistiek etc. Om een idee te geven alleen al 105.000 maaltijden per dag. 

Abrupt Climate Change Is Happening Faster Than Before

Abrupt Climate Change Is Happening Faster Than Before

Saturday, April 15, 2017 By Bruce Melton, Truthout | Report 
Bubbles of ancient preserved air in Greenland ice tell the story of abrupt climate changes in our ancient past. (Photo: Bruce Melton)Bubbles of ancient preserved air in Greenland ice tell the story of abrupt climate changes in our ancient past. (Photo: Bruce Melton)
In about the last 100,000 years, there have been 23 abrupt temperature changes in Greenland ice cores. In those moments, the temperature abruptly jumped or fell 9 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit across the planet and 25 to 35 degrees Fahrenheit in Greenland. The changes typically took decades to generations, but at their most extreme, they only took two to three years.
Counterintuitively, published consensus statements on climate change do not factor in abrupt change -- an omission that seriously affects how climate policy is made. The reason is that we do not yet have the skill to model abrupt changes, even though ample robust evidence exists of the common occurrence of abrupt change in prehistory. It may seem unimaginable that these most important of all climate changes have been disregarded in climate policy, but this is the way the culture of the climate science consensus works. Policy is based upon impacts that we project to happen in the future through modeling.
Weather Models Are Not Climate Models
It's not that modeling cannot project the future. Climate modeling is actually quite accurate. It's weather modeling that goes awry after about five days.
However, there are major differences in techniques for predicting weather (in the near term) and predicting climate (over the long term). Weather models use the most recent weather data to project what the weather will be this weekend. Climate models can use weather data from any time frame, and then climate modelers create hundreds of model runs and average them all together to get climate projections. 
Abrupt Change: How Do We Know When It Starts?
Modeling can't tell us when abrupt climate change is beginning, at least not to the satisfaction of the consensus community that creates our climate policy. So, how do we know if we are in the early stages of an abrupt shift? It sure seems that we are warming a lot faster than before. Is this an abrupt change? Are there things other than temperature that we can use to imply that we are changing our climate abruptly?
Because it takes time for science to gather data, and it takes 30 years of data for temperature records to become statistically meaningful because of all the natural variability in the weather, we must move to a different field of decision making to determine if we are in an abrupt change. We have to use circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence Is Factually Meaningful
Really? Circumstantial evidence? Yes, circumstantial evidence is perfectly appropriate for making decisions. If we go to bed and there is no snow on the ground, then wake up and there is snow on the ground, circumstantial evidence tells us that it snowed overnight. If we were to have seen it snowing, this would be direct evidence, but -- at least in this situation -- direct evidence isn't necessary for us to have an idea of what happened: Circumstantial evidence is meaningful.
Can we look at temperature records to see if they are increasing faster than before and if this increase is meaningful? In a stable climate, the number of new high temperature records should be the same as the number of new low temperature records (1 to 1). From 1900 to the 1990s in the US, the number of new high vs. low temperature records was between 0.77 to 1 and 1.14 to 1, or really close to 1 to 1.
In the 1990s the ratio increased to 1.36 to 1; high records outpaced low records by 36 percent. In the 2000s the ratio was 2.04 to 1 -- twice as abundant. In the previous 365 days to April 1 (no joking), globally we saw 5,996 high temperature records and only 814 lows, or a ratio of 7.4 to 1. This is 700 percent more highs than lows, or seven times more. Not only is this number meaningful, the short amount of time that we have gone from stable to big-gulp radical is meaningful in an abrupt climate change way.
Forests Flip From Carbon Sink to Carbon Source
Another good way to understand if our climate is changing abruptly would be to look at our global ecosystems. Are they stable, or rapidly changing, and how do we determine if the changes are radical enough to be considered "abrupt?"
Across western North America, a single species of native beetle has been driven berserk because of warming. As recently as the 1990s, it took the mountain pine bark beetle (MPB) two years to raise a family. But today, summer is two-thirds longer than it was in our old climate; spring and fall come a month sooner and later, respectively, every year.
Westgate Entrance Monument Rocky Mountain National Park: The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) has devastated most of the forest in the western half of Rocky Mountain National Park. (Photo: Bruce Melton)Westgate Entrance Monument Rocky Mountain National Park: The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) has devastated most of the forest in the western half of Rocky Mountain National Park. (Photo: Bruce Melton)
It is so warm that the MPB can now go through two life cycles a year, radically increasing the number of beetles on the attack. These little beetles are about the size of a grain of rice; up to 10,000 beetles can attack a single tree. However, since about the turn of the 21st century, the beetles have multiplied so quickly that they've killed 60 to 90 percent of 89 million acres of forest. This is 20 percent of western North American forests.
Our forests are undergoing an eco-regime change. The trees that live here now cannot cope with the insect populations enhanced by warming and they are being replaced by species that will be able to withstand the onslaught. The pine beetle attack in British Columbia alone has allowed forests in that region to go from a small carbon sink to a large carbon source. In the worst year in British Columbia, carbon emissions were equal to 75 percent of all carbon emissions from forest fires across all of Canada from 1959 through 1999.
The Amazon -- the greatest carbon dioxide sink of them all, the lungs of our world -- has flipped from a carbon sink to a carbon source; but for a different reason.
In 2005 the Amazon experienced a 100-year drought, and then in 2010, a drought significantly more extreme. Billions of trees were killed. Because dead trees do not absorb carbon dioxide and instead emit it as they decompose, instead of absorbing carbon dioxide and helping stabilize our ever-increasing climate pollution emissions, the Amazon is now emitting half as much carbon dioxide as Brazil emits every year.
Gulf Stream Shutdown: Abrupt Changes in Prehistory
Why did our climate change abruptly in prehistory? Mostly, the changes were caused by ice loss in the North Atlantic, from the great North American Ice Sheet that once covered New York City a mile thick with ice. The ice sheet created collapse events where great iceberg armadas were released into the North Atlantic. They melted and created a buoyant freshwater plug in the North Atlantic that slowed or stopped the flow of the Gulf Stream northward. The importance of this impact cannot be understated. The Gulf Stream is very likely the most important ocean current on earth. At its peak off of Cape Hatteras, it transports 150 sverdrups, or 21 cubic miles of water, per day. Farther north, without the warming influence of the Gulf Stream, the ocean cooled and froze. The increased ice and snow reflected more sunlight back into space without it warming the planet. An abrupt fall in temperature ensued.
The conspicuous blue hole south of Greenland is the signature of fresh buoyant meltwater from Greenland that is blocking the flow of the Gulf Stream. The blue over Africa is likely caused by poor data. White indicates no data.  (Photo: Stefan RahmstorfThe conspicuous blue hole south of Greenland is the signature of fresh buoyant meltwater from Greenland that is blocking the flow of the Gulf Stream. The blue over Africa is likely caused by poor data. White indicates no data. (Photo: Stefan Rahmstorf)
As of 2015, Gulf Stream flow has decreased by 40 percent because of a massive pool of buoyant fresh water in the North Atlantic from Greenland where ice loss has increased 500 percent since the turn of the 21st century. But this fresh water plug creates abrupt cooling, correct?
Well, it does when the Earth's CO2 concentration is below 280 ppm. Right now, CO2 is simply too high (400 ppm). Gulf Stream shutdown will not (likely) cool off the northern North Atlantic enough for it freeze.
Feedback Loops Rule Abrupt Climate Change
May snow cover across the Northern Hemisphere has fallen about 25 percent since 1980. This might seem like a small thing, but snow reflects 90 percent of the sun's rays back into space, whereas earth, rocks, water, plants, etc. absorb 90 percent of the sun's rays and change it into heat that gets trapped on Earth by the greenhouse effect.
This is called the "albedo feedback," and it is responsible for high latitudes and high altitudes warming at a rate that is double to quintuple the rate found at lower latitudes. A little bit of warming melts more snow, which absorbs more heat, which melts more snow -- in a chain reaction.
There are many warming feedback loops. Temperature itself creates one. The warmer it gets, the drier it gets. Drier air can warm more than moist air.
Dying forests create a feedback loop, too: As large numbers of trees die, less CO2 is absorbed, creating more warming, which in itself allows more trees to become more stressed, which gives insects a greater advantage in killing trees.
The Gulf Stream shutdown also creates a feedback loop. The North Atlantic is where the Gulf Stream sinks into the abyss. As it sinks, it carries carbon dioxide with it and much of it gets removed permanently by different biological and geochemical means. When the Gulf Stream shuts down, this primary source of ocean carbon sequestration goes away. More CO2 stays in our atmosphere, creating more warmth, which then increases the pool of fresh buoyant Greenland ice loss water in the north Atlantic that blocks the Gulf Stream more, keeping more and more CO2 from being buried in the abyss by deep water formation.
Other new science that is extraordinarily meaningful to abrupt climate change could be far more pertinent than the small amount of space here allows description. In particular, Antarctica has begun initiation of collapse, which could result in 10 feet of sea level rise in 35 to 45 years if upper-ocean warming around Antarctica is not returned to zero by that time.
Until we implement a rule or law that regulates climate pollution like we regulate all other forms of pollution on this great planet, uncertainty, doubt and apathy will rule. Until we finally implement this policy we have been attempting to implement for over 20 years, nothing will change. Except warming.
Note: Detailed references for the claims in this article can be found here.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

BRUCE MELTON

Bruce Melton is a professional engineer, environmental researcher, filmmaker, author and CEO of the Climate Change Now Initiative in Austin, Texas. The Climate Change Now Initiative is a nonprofit outreach organization reporting the latest discoveries in climate science in plain English. Information on his book, Climate Discovery Chronicles, can be found along with more climate change writing, climate science outreach and critical environmental issue documentary films at ClimateDiscovery.org. Images copyright Bruce Melton and the Climate Change Now Initiative except where referenced otherwise.


    President al-Assad Interview With AFP

    President al-Assad Interview With AFP

    Video and Transcript


    April 13/14, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - Damascus, SANA–President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to AFP in which he said what happened in Khan Shaikhoun is a fabricated story, stressing that Syria does not possess a chemical arsenal and that even if it has such an arsenal, it will not use it.
    He made it clear that Syria can only allow any investigation in the Khan Sheikhoun incident when it’s impartial.
    The President said that the United States is not serious in achieving any political solution.
    He stressed that Syria’s firepower, our ability to attack the terrorists hasn’t been affected by this strike.
    Following is the full text of the interview;
    Question 1: Mr. President, first I want to thank you very much to receive me for an interview. Mr. President, did you give an order to strike Khan Sheikhoun with chemical weapons last Tuesday?
    President Assad: Actually, no-one has investigated what happened that day in Khan Sheikhoun till the moment. As you know, Khan Sheikhoun is under the control of al-Nusra Front, which is a branch of Al Qaeda, so the only information the world have had till this moment is published by Al Qaeda branch. No-one has any other information. We don’t know if the whole pictures or videos that we’ve been seeing are true or fabricated. That’s why we asked for investigation to what happened in Khan Sheikhoun. This is first.
    Second, Al Qaeda sources said that the attack happened at 6, 6:30 in the morning, while the Syrian attack in the same area was around noon, between 11:30 to 12. So, they’re talking about two different stories or events. So, there was no order to make any attack, we don’t have any chemical weapons, we gave up our arsenal a few years ago. Even if we have them, we wouldn’t use them, and we have never used our chemical arsenal in our history.
    Question 2: So what happened this day?
    President Assad: As I said, the only source is Al Qaeda, we cannot take it seriously. But our impression is that the West, mainly the United States, is hand in glove with the terrorists. They fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack, It wasn’t an attack because of what happened in khan Sheikhoun. It’s one event, its stage one is the play that we saw on the social networking and on TVs, and the propaganda, and the stage two is the military attack. That’s what we believe is happening because it’s only few days – two days, 48 hours – between the play and the attacks, and no investigations, no concrete evidence about anything, the only thing were allegations and propaganda, and then strike.
    Question 3: So, who according to you is responsible about this alleged chemical attack?
    President Assad: The allegation itself was by Al Qaeda, al-Nusra Front, so we don’t have to investigate who, they announced it, it’s under their control, no-one else. About the attack, as I said, it’s not clear whether it happened or not, because how can you verify a video? You have a lot of fake videos now, and you have the proof that those videos were fake, like the White Helmets for example, they are Al Qaeda, they are al-Nusra Front who shaved their beards, wore white hats, and appeared as humanitarian heroes, which is not the case. The same people were killing Syrian soldiers, and you have the proof on the internet anyway. So, the same thing for that chemical attack, we don’t know whether those dead children were killed in Khan Sheikhoun? Were they dead at all? Who committed the attack if there was an attack? What’s the material? You have no information at all, nothing at all, no-one investigated.
    Question 4: So you think it’s a fabrication?
    President Assad: Definitely, a hundred percent for us, it’s fabrication. We don’t have an arsenal, we’re not going to use it. And you have many indications if you don’t have proof, because no-one has concrete information or evidences, but you have indications. For example, less than two weeks, around ten days before that attack, the terrorists were advancing in many fronts, including the suburbs of Damascus and Hama which is not far from Khan Sheikhoun, let’s suppose we have this arsenal, and let’s suppose that we have the will to use it, why didn’t we use it when we were retreating and the terrorists were advancing? Actually, the timing of that attack or alleged attack was when the Syrian Army was advancing very fast, and actually the terrorists were collapsing. So, why to use it, if you have it and if you have the will, why to use it at that timing, not when you were in a difficult situation, logically? This is first.
    Second, if you want to use it, if you have it and if you want to use it – again, this is if we suppose – why to use it against civilians, not to use it against the terrorists that we are fighting? Third, in that area, we don’t have army, we don’t have battles, we don’t have any, let’s say, object in Khan Sheikhoun, and it’s not a strategic area. Why to attack it? What’s the reason? Militarily, I’m talking from a military point of view. Of course, the foundation for us, morally, we wouldn’t do it if we have it, we wouldn’t have the will, because morally this is not acceptable. We won’t have the support of the public. So, every indication is against the whole story, so you can say that this play that they staged doesn’t hold together. The story is not convincing by any means.
    Question 5: With the US airstrike, Trump seems to have changed his position on you and Syria drastically. Do you have the feeling that you lost what you have called a potential partner?
    President Assad: I said “if”. It was conditional. If they are serious in fighting terrorists, we’re going to be partners, and I said not only the United States; whoever wants to fight the terrorists, we are partners. This is basic for us, basic principle, let’s say. Actually, what has been proven recently, as I said earlier, that they are hand in glove with those terrorists, the United States and the West, they’re not serious in fighting the terrorists, and yesterday some of their statesmen were defending ISIS. They were saying that ISIS doesn’t have chemical weapons. They are defending ISIS against the Syrian government and the Syrian Army. So, actually, you cannot talk about partnership between us who work against the terrorists and who fight the terrorism and the others who are supporting explicitly the terrorists.
    Question 6: So, can we say that the US strike changed your opinion on Trump?
    President Assad: Anyway, I was very cautious in saying any opinion regarding him before he became President and after. I always say let’s see what he’s going to do, we wouldn’t comment on statements. So, actually, this is the first proof that it’s not about the President in the United State; it’s about the regime and the deep state or the deep regime in the United States is still the same, it doesn’t change. The President is only one of the performers on their theatre, if he wants to be a leader, he cannot, because as some say he wanted to be a leader, Trump wanted to be a leader, but every President there, if he wants to be a real leader, later he’s going to eat his words, swallow his pride if he has pride at all, and make a 180 degree U-turn, otherwise he would pay the price politically.
    Question 7: But do you think that there will be another attack?
    President Assad: As long as the United States is being governed by this complex of military industrial complex, the financial companies, banks, and what you call deep regime, and works for the vested interest of those groups, of course. It could happen anytime, anywhere, not only in Syria.
    Question 8: And, your army or the Russians will retaliate if it happens again?
    President Assad: Actually, if you want to talk about retaliation, we are talking about missiles coming from hundreds of miles, which is out of our reach, but actually the real war in Syria is not about those missiles; it’s about supporting the terrorists. This is the most dangerous part of this war, and our response is going to be what we started from the very first day: is smashing the terrorists everywhere in Syria. When we get rid of the terrorists, we wouldn’t worry about anything else at that time. So, this is our response. It’s a response, not reaction.
    Question 9: So, what you say means that retaliation by the Syrian Army or by the Russians will be very difficult, because the boats are very far?
    President Assad: For us, as a small country, yeah, of course it is, everybody knows that. It’s out of reach. I mean, they can have missiles from another continent. We all know that. They are a great power, we’re not a great power. Talking about the Russians, this is another issue.
    Question 10: Would you accept the findings of OPCW investigation?
    President Assad: Since the very first time, when we had in 2013, I think, the first attacks by the terrorists on the Syrian Army by chemical missiles at that time, we asked for investigation. We were the ones who asked for investigations every time there was chemical attacks or allegations about chemical attacks. We asked. And this time, we were discussing with the Russians yesterday and during the last few days after the strike that we’re going to work with them on international investigation. But it should be impartial. We can only allow any investigation when it’s impartial, when we make sure that unbiased countries will participate in this delegation in order to make sure that they won’t use it for politicized purposes.
    Question 11: And, if they accuse the government, would you step down?
    President Assad: If they accuse, or if they prove? There’s a big difference. No, they are already accusing the government, and if you mean by “them” the West, no, we don’t care about the West. If you mean the chemical agency, if they can prove that there’s an attack, we have to investigate who gave the order to that attack. But a hundred percent, as Syrian Army, we don’t have, and we cannot – even if we want, we cannot – we don’t have the means to commit such attack, and we don’t have the will.
    Question 12: So, you mean that you don’t have chemical weapons?
    President Assad: No, no, definitely, a few years ago, in 2013, we gave up all our arsenal, and the chemical agency announced that Syria is free of any chemical materials.
    Question 13: Because the Pentagon said that there are chemical weapons in the airbase, you deny it?
    President Assad: They attacked that airbase, and they destroyed the depots of different materials, and there was no sarin gas. How? If they said that we launched the sarin attack from that airbase, what happened to the sarin when they attacked the depots? Did we hear about any sarin? Our Chief of Staff was there a few hours later, how could he go there if there was sarin gas? How could you only have six martyrs if you have hundreds of soldiers and officers working there, but there was sarin, and they didn’t die. The same fabricated videos that we’ve been seeing about Khan Sheikhoun, when the rescuers tried to rescue the victims or the supposedly dead people or inflicted people, but actually they weren’t wearing any masks or any gloves. How? Where’s the sarin? They should be affected, right away. So, this is all allegation. I mean, this attack and these allegations is another proof that it was fabricated and there was no sarin anywhere.
    Question 14: If you say that you didn’t give any order, it is possible that the chemical attack could have been carried out by a rogue or fringe element from the army?
    President Assad: Even if you have a rogue element, the army doesn’t have chemical materials. This is first. Second, a rogue army cannot send an airplane at their will, even if they want. It’s an airplane, it’s not a small car to take it from place to place or a small machinegun to use it. You can talk about somebody who has been using his pistol on his behalf the way he wants and break the law, that could happen anywhere in the world, but not an airplane. This is second.
    Third, the Syrian Army is a regular army, it’s not a militia. It’s a regular army, it has hierarchy, it has very clear way of orders, so this kind of “rough personnel tried to do something against the will of the leadership of the army” never happened during the last six years of the war in Syria.
    Question 15: Did the Russians warn you before the US attack? And were they present in the airbase?
    President Assad: No, they didn’t warn us because they didn’t have the time to warn, because the Americans called them maybe a few minutes before the launching, or some say after the launching, because it takes time to reach the base. But actually, we had indications that there was something that was going to happen, and we took many measures in that regard.
    Question 16: Do you confirm that 20% of your air force has been destroyed in this attack as the Americans said?
    President Assad: I don’t know what’s the criteria, what’s the reference of 20%, what’s the hundred percent for them? Is it the number of airplanes? Is it the quality? Is it, how to say, the active airplanes and stored airplanes? I don’t know what do they mean by this. No, actually, what we and the Russians announced about a few airplanes being destroyed, most of them are the old ones, some of them were not active anyway. This is the reality, and the proof is that, since the strike, we haven’t stopped attacking terrorists all over Syria. So, we didn’t feel that we are really affected. Our firepower, our ability to attack the terrorists hasn’t been affected by this strike.
    Question 17: You know, your government said in the beginning that you hit a chemical weapon depot. Is it true?

    President Assad: It was a possibility, because when you attack any target related to the terrorists, you don’t know what’s in it. You know that this a target; it could be a store, it could be warehouse, it could be a depot, it could be a camp, it could be a headquarter, we don’t know. But you know that the terrorists are using this place and you attack it, like any other place, and that’s what we’ve been doing since the beginning of the war on daily bases, on hourly bases sometimes, but you cannot tell what’s within this. So, that was one of the possibilities that the airstrikes attacked a depot of chemical materials, but this is conflicting again with the timing of the announcement, not because only the terrorists announced it in the morning, but because their media, their pages on Twitter and on the internet announced the attack a few hours before the alleged one, which is 4 in the mourning. 4 in the morning, they announced that there’s going to be a chemical attack, we have to be ready. How did they know about it?
    Question 18: Don’t you see that Khan Sheikhoun is a huge setback for you? For the first time in six years, the US attack your army and yesterday after a brief honeymoon, yesterday Tillerson said that reign of Assad family is coming to the end, don’t you think that Khan Sheikhoun is a huge setback for you?
    President Assad: There is no reign of Assad family anyway in Syria. He’s dreaming, or let’s say, he’s hallucinating, so, we don’t waste our time with his statement. In reality, no. Actually, during the last six years, The US was directly involved in supporting the terrorists everywhere in Syria, including ISIS, including al-Nusra, including all the other like-minded factions in Syria, this is clear, and this is proven in Syria. While if you want to talk about the direct attacks, actually only a few months ago, there was a more dangerous attack than the recent one, just before Obama left, I think a few weeks before he left, it was in Deir Ezzor in the eastern part of Syria when they attacked a very strategic mountain, it was a Syrian base, a regular Syrian Army base, and that helped ISIS to take over that mountain, and if the Syrian Army wasn’t resilient and strong enough to repel ISIS, the city of Deir Ezzor would have been now in the hands of ISIS, means a direct link between Deir Ezzor and Mosul in Iraq, which would have been a very strategic gain to ISIS. So, actually, no, the American government was directly involved. But this time, why did they attack directly? Because, as I said, the terrorists in that area were collapsing. So, the Unites States didn’t have any other choice to support their proxies, the terrorists, but to directly attack the Syrian Army because they sent them all kinds of armaments and it didn’t work.
    Question 19: So, for you, it’s not a huge setback?
    President Assad: No, no, it’s actually part of the context, the same context for six years; it took different shapes, but the core of the American policy and the Western policy towards what’s happening in Syria, it hasn’t changed at all. Forget about the statements; sometimes we have high-pitch statements, sometimes you have low-pitch statements, but it’s the same policy.
    Question 20: You have gradually pushed most of the rebels into Idleb, do you plan to attack it next?
    President Assad: We’re going to attack terrorists anywhere in Syria, Idleb or any other place. What’s the timing, what’s the priority, this is a military issue and should be discussed on the military level.
    Question 21: You said before that Raqqa is a priority for your government, but the forces advancing on the city are mostly US-backed Kurds, aren’t you afraid of being excluded from the liberation of Raqqa?
    President Assad: No, we support whoever wants to liberate any city from the terrorists, but that doesn’t mean to be liberated from terrorists and being occupied by American forces, for example, or by another proxy, or another terrorists. So, it’s not clear who is going to liberate Raqqa. Is it really Syrian forces that are going to hand it over to the Syrian Army? Is it going to be in cooperation with the Syrian Army? It’s not clear yet. But what we hear is only allegations about liberating Raqqa. We’ve been hearing that for nearly a year now, or less than a year, but nothing happened on the ground. So, it’s just, let’s say, a hypothetical question, because there is nothing concrete on the ground.
    Question 22: The US and Russia are the co-sponsors of Geneva process. Because of the tension between the two countries, do you think that this process can continue?
    President Assad: Look, there’s a big difference between the process being active, which could happen anytime, to reactivate the process and to be effective. Till this moment, its’ not effective. Why? Because the United States is not serious in achieving any political solution. They want to use it as an umbrella for the terrorists, or they want to get in this forum what they didn’t get on the ground in the battlefield. That’s why it wasn’t effective at all. Now, it’s the same situation, we don’t see this administration serious in that regard, because they still support the same terrorists. So, we can say yes, it could be reactivated, but we cannot say we expect it to be effective or productive. No.
    Question 23: After six years, Mr. President, aren’t you tired?
    President Assad: Actually, the only thing that could make pressure on you is not the political situation, not the military situation; actually the human situation in Syria, the daily blood-letting, the daily blood-shedding, the suffering and the hardship that inflicted every house in Syria, this is the only painful thing that could make you feel tired- if it is accurate to say “tired”- while if you talk about the war, about the politics, about the relation with the West, no, I don’t feel tired at all, because we are defending our country, and we’re not going to get tired at all in that regard.
    Question 24: What makes you lose sleep?
    President Assad: Again, the suffering of the Syrian people. The humanitarian interaction between me and every Syrian family directly or indirectly, this is the only thing that could deprive me from sleep from time to time, but not the Western statements and not the threat of the support of the terrorists.
    Question 25: Today, there are people from Foua’a and Kefraya who will move from their village to Damascus and to Aleppo. You are not afraid that in fact it will be a displacement of population, that the Syria after the war will not be the same Syria as before?
    President Assad: The displacement in that context is compulsory. We didn’t choose it. We wish that everyone could stay in his village and his city, but those people like many other civilians in different areas were surrounded and besieged by the terrorists, and they’ve been killed on daily basis, so they had to leave. But of course they’re going to go back to their cities after the liberation; that happened in many other areas where the people are going back to their homes. So, it’s temporary. Talking about demographic changes is not in the sake or in the interest of the Syrian society when it’s permanent. As long as it’s temporary, we wouldn’t worry about it.
    Journalist: Mr. President, I want to thank you very much for this interview.
    President Assad: Thank you.
    Journalist: It was very interesting, and thank you very much for talking with me.

    President Assad: Thank you.



    “Lots of Very Good Wars!” The Gangsters Have All the Power Now

      OCTOBER 2, 2026 Roaming Charges: “Lots of Very Good Wars!” JEFFREY ST. CLAIR Emai Wounded civilians from the US airstrikes on Enghelab Squ...