Zionist – Created Syrian National Coalition Will Lead the Terrorists Against Assad

On Syrian borders, Turkey and Israel have becomeaggressive with their efforts to destabilize the nation. Reports from mainstream propaganda claim that Syrian violent strikes have prompted Israeli retaliation in the occupied area of Golan Heights.

Turkey has issued new warnings to Syria that they will defend themselves against “violation of territory”.

Turkey has been working with the Zionist-controlled US and CIA operatives in their own country. With the building of a CIA training base in Turkey, the fake-terrorist faction, al-Qaeda, has been able to recruit young men to fight for the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Syria – the proxy war being supported by the US and UK.

As the Zionist-support of the FSA is beginning to dwindle, the members of the faction are speaking out, saying that Zionist Israel is “aiding the Syrian regime and its allies in accordance with their partnership.”

It is revealed that Israel and the UN NATO forces stepped aside as Assad’s forces came into Golan Heights. The result was Israel firing missiles to “stir up the Golan front” to manufacture “tension on the border” to show support of the Syrian government.

The French government, in assisting with the Zionist takeover of Middle Eastern countries, has announced their recognition of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) as a “legitimate representative of the Syrian people and as [the] future government of a democratic Syria.”

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State has called for the creation of a new council to defend the rights of the Syrian people as defined by the UN, US and UK. This new leadership group would be expected to take more direction from those hired terrorists fighting the battles in Syria. This was one of the foundational principles of the umbrella faction called the SNC.

George Sabra, selected leader of the SNC claims to be a Christian who studied in Israel and the US. Sabra has a degree in educational technology and geography; as well as having worked for the globalist-controlled Sesame Street. Yet, Sabra’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood through Salafis make him the perfect leader for the SNC.

Sanctioned by the UN to be a shell organization that can provide weapons to Syrian terrorist factions like the FSA, take control over national resources and smuggle weaponry to designated hands is the purpose of the SNC. These factions depend of the support of the UN and cohorts to supply them with military-grade weapons, tanks and heavy artillery.

The SNC consists of “representatives from all opposition groups that are fighting to topple” the Syrian government headed by Assad. The members are Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic extremists who came together in August of this year to form the SNC. They employed the support of the US and UN when they proved to be a vital tool in coercing activists and minorities to rally behind their covert-Zionist agenda.

They were originally called the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces which was designed to facilitate money laundering through governmental channels to the appropriate terrorist factions fighting by-proxy for the Zionists against Assad.

Mark Toner, spokesman for the US State Department remarked: “We look forward to supporting the National Coalition as it charts a course toward the end of Assad’s bloody rule and the start of the peaceful, just, democratic future that all the people of Syria deserve.”

Having originated out of talks in Saudi Arabia, those from the US and various Arabian nations; including members of approved terrorist factions and political dissonant have united to become the defacto-government chosen by the Zionists to replace Assad.

Developed by the UN, the European Union and the US, the SNC is beingprimed to become the next mandatory and crucial step in destroying Syrian sovereignty and replacing it with Zionist-controlled “democracy”.

Given the power by the UN, the SNC is expected to take the National Transitional Council’s seat at the UN, as Saudi Arabia and Zionist forces seek to delegitimize this defacto-government running Libya.

Iran is scheduled to host a meeting between the National Syrian Council and the Syrian government in the hopes to facilitate talks concerning political differences, minorities and Syrian ethnicities as well as state and oppositional compromises.

US rhetoric claims that Iran is still in pursuit of nuclear weapons, giving the Obama administration justification for stricter sanctions under direction of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The reluctance of Obama to clearly define how he intends to deal with the allegations of Iran’s nuclear program could be a scheme to destabilize the Middle Eastern nation for the sake of the Zionist agenda.

Cover operations in Iran include the use of manufactured riots with the intention of creating an Arab Spring in the region to facilitate destabilization.

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
November 14, 2012


The Geopolitical Reordering of Africa

US Covert Support to Al Qaeda in Northern Mali, France “Comes to the Rescue”

NATO funding, arming, while simultaneously fighting Al Qaeda from Mali to Syria

Global Research, January 15, 2013

A deluge of articles have been quickly put into circulation defending France’s military intervention in the African nation of Mali. TIME’s article, “The Crisis in Mali: Will French Intervention Stop the Islamist Advance?” decides that old tricks are the best tricks, and elects the tiresome “War on Terror” narrative.TIME claims the intervention seeks to stop “Islamist” terrorists from overrunning both Africa and all of Europe. Specifically, the article states:

“…there is a (probably well-founded) fear in France that a radical Islamist Mali threatens France most of all, since most of the Islamists are French speakers and many have relatives in France. (Intelligence sources in Paris have told TIME that they’ve identified aspiring jihadis leaving France for northern Mali to train and fight.) Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), one of the three groups that make up the Malian Islamist alliance and which provides much of the leadership, has also designated France — the representative of Western power in the region — as a prime target for attack.”

What TIME elects not to tell readers is that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is closely allied to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG whom France intervened on behalf of during NATO’s 2011 proxy-invasion of Libya – providing weapons, training, special forces and even aircraft to support them in the overthrow of Libya’s government.

As far back as August of 2011, Bruce Riedel out of the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, wrote “Algeria will be next to fall,” where he gleefully predicted success in Libya would embolden radical elements in Algeria, in particular AQIM. Between extremist violence and the prospect of French airstrikes, Riedel hoped to see the fall of the Algerian government. Ironically Riedel noted:

Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.

And thanks to NATO, that is exactly what Libya has become – a Western sponsored sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. AQIM’s headway in northern Mali and now French involvement will see the conflict inevitably spill over into Algeria. It should be noted that Riedel is a co-author of “Which Path to Persia?” which openly conspires to arm yet another US State Department-listed terrorist organization (list as #28), the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to wreak havoc across Iran and help collapse the government there – illustrating a pattern of using clearly terroristic organizations, even those listed as so by the US State Department, to carry out US foreign policy.Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar noted a more direct connection between LIFG and AQIM in an Asia Times piece titled, “How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli:”

“Crucially, still in 2007, then al-Qaeda’s number two, Zawahiri, officially announced the merger between the LIFG and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). So, for all practical purposes, since then, LIFG/AQIM have been one and the same – and Belhaj was/is its emir. “

“Belhaj,” referring to Hakim Abdul Belhaj, leader of LIFG in Libya, led with NATO support, arms, funding, and diplomatic recognition, the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi and has now plunged the nation into unending racist and tribal, genocidal infighting. This intervention has also seen the rebellion’s epicenter of Benghazi peeling off from Tripoli as a semi-autonomous “Terror-Emirate.” Belhaj’s latest campaign has shifted to Syria where he was admittedly on the Turkish-Syrian borderpledging weapons, money, and fighters to the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” again, under the auspices of NATO support.

Image: NATO’s intervention in Libya has resurrected listed-terrorist organization and Al Qaeda affiliate, LIFG. It had previously fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now has fighters, cash and weapons, all courtesy of NATO, spreading as far west as Mali, and as far east as Syria. The feared “global Caliphate” Neo-Cons have been scaring Western children with for a decade is now taking shape via US-Saudi, Israeli, and Qatari machinations, not “Islam.” In fact, real Muslims have paid the highest price in fighting this real “war against Western-funded terrorism.”

LIFG, which with French arms, cash, and diplomatic support, is now invading northern Syria on behalf of NATO’s attempted regime change there, officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007 according to the US Army’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC). According to the CTC, AQIM and LIFG share not only ideological goals, but strategic and even tactical objectives. The weapons LIFG received most certainly made their way into the hands of AQIM on their way through the porous borders of the Sahara Desert and into northern Mali.

In fact, ABC News reported in their article, “Al Qaeda Terror Group: We ‘Benefit From’ Libyan Weapons,” that:

A leading member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group indicated the organization may have acquired some of the thousands of powerful weapons that went missing in the chaos of the Libyan uprising, stoking long-held fears of Western officials.”We have been one of the main beneficiaries of the revolutions in the Arab world,” Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a leader of the north Africa-based al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [AQIM], told the Mauritanian news agency ANI Wednesday. “As for our benefiting from the [Libyan] weapons, this is a natural thing in these kinds of circumstances.”

It is no coincidence that as the Libyan conflict was drawing to a conclusion, conflict erupted in northern Mali. It is part of a premeditated geopolitical reordering that began with toppling Libya, and since then, using it as a springboard for invading other targeted nations, including Mali, Algeria, and Syria with heavily armed, NATO-funded and aided terrorists.

French involvement may drive AQIM and its affiliates out of northern Mali, but they are almost sure to end up in Algeria, most likely by design.

Algeria was able to balk subversion during the early phases of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” in 2011, but it surely has not escaped the attention of the West who is in the midst of transforming a region stretching from Africa to Beijing and Moscow’s doorsteps – and in a fit of geopolitical schizophrenia – using terrorists both as a casus belli to invade and as an inexhaustible mercenary force to do it.


The Dirty Numbers Game in Syria

22 Feb 2013 - By Sharmine Narwani

An abridged version of this article appeared in The Guardian on February 15, 2013
A trip to Syria last January piqued my interest in the ubiquitous Syrian death toll that accompanies most news items on the country. The overwhelming assumption about these casualty numbers is that they represent dead civilians killed by a brutal regime, but inside Syria I found widely conflicting opinions on who was doing the killing and who was dying.
In my February 2012 investigation I concluded that the UN total of 5,000 victims of violence in Syria included a more diverse universe than what was being portrayed in the media: civilians caught in the crossfire between government forces and opposition gunmen; victims of deliberate violence by government forces and by opposition gunmen; “dead opposition fighters” whose attire do not distinguish them from regular civilians; and members of the Syrian security forces, both on and off duty.
When juxtaposed with the government’s list of around 2,000 dead Syrian soldiers and policemen, it appeared that there was some “parity” in the numbers of violent deaths on both sides. But that information would suggest that the Syrian army was responding in relative proportion to the threat posed, which is not the way we understand the conflict in Syria in the mass media.
The UN stopped counting casualties around that time because escalating hostilities made “verification” difficult. But a year on, it has reinstated its count – this time using seven lists and citing a figure of 59,648 – more than ten times its last number.
Yet this new count gives us no more insight into the nature of the Syrian conflict than the 5,000 number of a year ago. It doesn’t tell us who is killing and who is dying. And that information matters – the global political response to a genuine civil conflict would be different than to a genocide committed by a ruthless authority.
UN High Commissioner For Human Rights Navi Pillay does not attribute the nearly 60,000 deaths to the Syrian government, but neatly implies it by saying things like:
“The massive loss of life could have been avoided if the Syrian government had chosen to take a different path than one of ruthless suppression of what were initially peaceful and legitimate protests by unarmed civilians.”
This kind of complicity by influential officials to obfuscate details about the Syrian death toll continues unabashed. It is little wonder that the crisis gallops ahead today – the “solutions” offered have been based on false premises that have led directly to the weaponization of the conflict, and thus, to a staggeringly higher casualty count.
SOHR disputes the UN’s numbers
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) founder Rami Abdulrahman, whose casualty list is the one most widely quoted by the media, scoffs at the UN’s new numbers and believes they are inflated for “propaganda” purposes. Rami’s list has been used as a primary source in both UN counts, but his figures are on the lower end of the spectrum and he claims high accuracy for only reporting casualties with names or video footage.
“The UN is a political organization,” says Rami, who is amassing “evidence” of falsified data by some of the other casualty counters the UN used. During a lengthy meeting with him in Coventry, England in December, he provided me with anecdotal and video examples:
“Yesterday in Qahtaniyah, near al-Raqqa (northeast of Syria), I had a video of 21 people killed, but 19 names only. Other groups said 40 were killed – where are the 40? Tell them to provide me with only 21 names,” he demands, frustrated.
“Four days ago in Halfaya, the LCCs (Local Coordination Committees) said 200 were killed in an air strike on a bakery. I cannot confirm it was an airstrike and I now have the names of 43 people, 40 adult males and 3 women. The other groups say the majority were women and children! We have no evidence of this whatsoever,” insists Rami, “so why are they playing games with the lives of people?”
Between March 2011 and mid-January 2012, the SOHR has logged 47,605 deaths of which 33,279 are “civilians,” a number which includes non-combatants and nearly 9,000 rebels. Some smaller figures are also included in this count: 1,564 are defectors killed in clashes and 943 are unnamed people who feature on his video records, for example. The SOHR maintains a separate list for Syrian soldiers and security forces, which Rami says earns him the wrath of other opposition groups who don’t want to admit there are dead soldiers. There are 11,819 names on this list.
When asked about the high civilian count, he admits: “I have thousands of rebels in the civilian list. I put all the non-defectors in the civilian list.” Rami later says: “It isn’t easy to count rebels because nobody on the ground says ‘this is a rebel.’ Everybody hides it.”
So how does one gauge how many rebels are embedded in the “civilian” count? Rami’s casualty count for that day, December 27, 2012, may be a helpful guide:
- 103 “civilians” were killed — In Idlib, 24 killed, 18 were rebels, one a leader; near Damascus, 25 killed, 4 were rebels; in Allepo, 15 killed, 7 were rebels; in Damascus, 11 killed, 9 were rebels; in Hama, 10 killed, 5 were rebels; in Homs, 9 killed, 2 were rebels; in Deir Azour, 7 killed, 3 were rebels, one a leader; in Dar’a, 2 killed, 1 was a rebel
- 42 regular army were killed — 19 in Idlib, 4 in Deir Azour, 2 in Damascus, 5 in Hama, 2 in Homs, 10 in Aleppo
- 3 defectors were killed in Reef Aleppo and Hama; one was a colonel.
Rami counts 148 violent deaths in Syria that day – 49 are rebels, 42 are soldiers, 3 are defectors, and the remaining 54 are, according to Rami, likely to be a mix of non-combatant civilians and unidentified rebels. In this count, around two-thirds of the deaths are armed men – an appreciatively different take on the perception of “civilian slaughter” in Syria created by the UN’s un-nuanced casualty numbers.
Peeling the onion further
When I ask UN spokesman Rupert Colville whether 11,000+ Syrian soldiers could be embedded in the UN’s casualty list, he replies: “It’s quite possible. And how many are in these statistics, we just don’t know.”
“The study makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to separate combatants and non-combatants,” explains Colville, adding that the motivation in compiling this list was “for indicative purposes; to gauge scale.”
Since the UN stopped it’s count last year because verification of deaths was getting harder, I asked if they were able to do those kind of checks this time around. “No,” admits Colville, “we can’t prove most of these people have died.”
Megan Price, lead author and statistician of the UN’s casualty analysis project, concurs but explains: “we were not asked to do verification of whether the casualties are real.”
Her firm, Benetech, a non-profit technology company experienced in casualty analysis in conflicts, drew its data from 7 combined lists of 147,349 reported casualties of violence in Syria. They discarded reports that did not include names, place and date of death, as well as duplicates, to arrive at almost 60,000 casualties.
So what’s the point of this UN casualty list if we don’t actually know the data is real and we aren’t even told if Syria’s victims are combatants or non-combatants – let alone who killed them?
Benetech’s data crunching actually does manage to give us a peephole into some casualty demographics that may be the most revealing “facts” we have in this conflict – depending of course on whether the data is real in the first place. Only 7.5% of the recorded dead are female, making this an overwhelmingly male casualty count. Furthermore, the largest segment of the 30% of victims whose ages are included in the records are between the ages of 20 and 30 – what might be classified as males of “military age.”
The combined demographic information could very well suggest that the violence in Syria is largely between armed men on either side and that areas dense with non-combatant civilians are not typically targeted, though some of that clearly occurs.
Alternatively, Colville suggests that the low female death toll may be due to civilians vacating areas of conflict, leaving younger men behind to protect property. This version of events, however, actually bolsters the Syrian regime’s claim that it does not target civilian populations and that it warns civilians to vacate areas before launching military operations against rebels, whether by air or by ground.
images-1Conflict death toll controversy
Maintaining casualty counts during conflict is a tricky business. On one hand, it can help alert the international community to situations of violence, track the scale of the violence over time and act as an important baseline for investigation in the aftermath of conflict.
On the other hand, inaccurate death tolls in recent conflicts, as in the case of IraqDarfur and the Democratic Republic of Congo, have made casualty counting a politically-charged business. While some death toll disputes are over methodology, the most frequent criticism is that data analysis and subsequent results can be self-serving, more focused on politics and fundraising ambitions than accuracy.
Benetech, for instance, receives funding from the US State Department, a vocal and active advocate for regime change in Syria. For Washington, jacked-up casualty numbers are as desirable in this conflict as they were anathema in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq.  Although physically present in Iraq, the US and British governments were unable to provide estimates of the numbers of deaths unleashed by their own invasion, yet in Syria, the same governments frequently quote detailed figures, despite lacking essential access.
As if to underline the argument against casualty statistics, just last month we heard that Libyan death tolls had been highly exaggerated. Libya’s new government now claims that casualties on both sides have been revised down to around 5,000 each for rebels and supporters of Muammar Gaddafi. Did politics come into play? Recall that NATO intervention was enabled by allegations that Ghaddafi had killed tens of thousands of civilians. Opponents of NATO intervention conversely argue that the aerial bombardment of Libya resulted in 50,000 deaths.
And yet Benetech plans to launch a second phase of this bizarre numbers game for the UN – this time, to fill in gaps for deaths that “may have gone undocumented” in the Syrian conflict. Using analytical tools modeled from other conflicts, the statisticians will essentially extrapolate from the current Syrian casualty data, which they already acknowledge may not be “real” or accurate. In other words: more unverified data to compound the existing unverified data. And more hyped-up numbers to blare from headlines.
Detail matters
“What does it matter who is dying and who is killing? Why should the essential journalistic questions of who, what, where, when and how apply when a hundred people are dying each day?”
Here’s why detail matters. In the past year the Syrian death toll has increased ten-fold. A big part of why this has happened is because of weapons flowing willy-nilly into the hands of unstructured, undisciplined rebel militias with competing ideologies and command structures. The weaponization of the conflict has, in turn, been made possible by non-stop narratives about “regime massacres of civilians and the need for said civilians to defend themselves.”
Provocative attacks on army checkpoints by rebels since early 2011 are not defensivepostures. Neither are car bombs and suicide bombs in urban areas. Nor sabotage and destruction of key infrastructure vital to the citizenry – water, electricity, food factories, etc.
The fact is that, left unquestioned, the narrative of “regime massacring civilians” has scene-set and paved the way for governments hostile to the Syrian leadership toweaponize this conflict – as though this, in itself, was a humanitarian gesture that would “save civilians” somehow.
In whose warped mind does arming a disparate rebellion – representative of perhaps only half the population – against a far more sophisticated centralized army ever change the odds? The weaponization of the Syrian conflict was never to save civilians. It was about increasing the regime’s vulnerabilities and hoping for momentum that may lead to its downfall.
In the interim, this weaponization has killed tens of thousands of Syrians with no obvious signs that arming rebels contributes to the safety of civilians. On the contrary, Syria is scattered with the dead bodies of tens of thousands of these armed men, soldiers and militiamen both. And hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians have been displaced by the escalation of violent conflict caused by militarization.
Yet I see little evidence that the regime-massacring-civilians narrative will be relinquished by those pursuing their own political objectives inside Syria. Qatar just sent $100 million to the “humanitarian arm” of the Syrian opposition – as if there is such a body – because the European Union won’t officially remove an arms embargo. And western politicians are being prodded by self-serving “regime massacre” and “horrible death toll” headlines to consider further weaponization of the crisis.
Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani’s reasoning behind this new “humanitarian” paycheck: “the rebels only want to be able to defend themselves,” adding that an arms embargo “will only prolong the crisis.”
His British counterpart William Hague – who ostensibly does not send weapons to Syria for good reason, yet does not object to Qatar doing so - repeats a tired refrain about considering all options “to save the lives of the Syrian people.”
Saving lives indeed.
The UN casualty-counting-circus will plough ahead, fanning the flames of armed conflict instead of easing the way to a mediated political solution. But Navi Pillay would be well advised to think twice about participating in this non-contextual, numbers-over-details game in Syria, a country where disputed death tolls feature in its recent history:
Last autumn, the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) declassified its report on Syria’s 1979-82 armed Islamist insurgency. The document quite startlingly concludes that the Syrian Army’s infamous assault on Hama resulted in only 2,000 deaths in the Muslim Brotherhood stronghold, including “an estimated 300-400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s elite Secret Apparatus.” The DIA’s 2,000 estimate, which may be unrealistically low, is still a far cry from the 10,000, 20,000 and even 40,000 reported by history books and regime foes alike.
Syria has seen this dirty numbers game before.


General Wesley Clark - U.S. Foreign Policy Was Hijacked

In October 2007, retired General Wesley Clark spoke at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, where he revealed his knowledge of a foreign policy coup in the United States by a group of people whose hidden goals in the Middle East are contradictory with the publicly stated goals in war on terror. Gen. Clark gave the same message on Democracy Now, and other public speaking events.

The basic point that Gen. Clark made is that the Bush administration lied not just about the rationale for the Iraq war but for the entire U.S. presence in the Middle East. The public was conditioned and brainwashed into believing that the raison d'être of the war on terror is to stop the threat of international terrorism, terminate Al Qaeda, and keep America safe from any future terrorist attacks. But that is not the case. U.S. policymakers in the Pentagon and White House were never interested in fighting terrorism and stopping Al Qaeda, or to spread democracy and liberate the people of the Middle East from their dictators.

Gen. Clark says the real aim of U.S. foreign policy in the region is to overthrow governments and secure U.S. hegemony. He said that he met with a three-star general at the Pentagon weeks after 9/11 who informed him that seven nations were targeted for destabilization and regime change by the Bush administration's geopolitical strategists: Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. So far, the Obama administration has not changed the Bush administration's grand strategy in the Middle East. U.S. relations with Iran have not improved since Obama became President, and there is a big possibility that there will be an all out war between the two nations.

There has been little public resistance in the military to the current U.S. policy in the Middle East, but most of them want to keep their careers and provide for their families so it is understandable. Not every general has been silent, though. In 2008, General William J. Fallon resigned  from his post as the top military commander in the Middle East because he opposed a war with Iran. He was most likely removed, and replaced with someone who didn't mind killing hundreds of thousands of people to achieve the hegemonic goals of a crazy few.

Who are the crazy men who hijacked the White House and hoodwinked the American people into supporting a series of catastrophic and immoral wars?

"Some hard-nosed people took over the direction of American policy and they never bothered to inform the rest of us," Gen. Clark said, adding later that "this country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup." He then listed several key individuals behind the Project For A New American Century who deliberately lied to the American people and the world about America's intentions in the Middle East: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney. "They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control," said Gen Clark.

The plan to radically remake the Middle East was hatched a decade before the September 11 attacks happened. Gen. Clark said he remembered a meeting he had with Paul Wolfowitz in 1991 about America's military success in Desert Storm. At the time, Gen. Clark was commanding the national training center and Wolfowitz was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon. Wolfowitz told Gen. Clark that the war with Iraq revealed two realities. "We learned that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us," and that "we've got about five or ten years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."

Gen. Clark said that he was stunned that the real U.S. policy in the Middle East was radically different from the publicly stated goals, and never forgot what Wolfowitz told him in 1991. "You mean the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, it's not to deter conflict? We're going to invade countries? My mind was spinning, and I put that aside, it was like a nugget that you hold onto."

He said that his encounter with Wolfowitz in 1991 reinforced what he learned when he visited the Pentagon shortly after 9/11. "I sat on this information for a long time," he said, "for about six or eight months. I was so stunned by this, I couldn't begin to talk about it. And I couldn't believe it would really be true, but that's actually what happened. These people took control of the policy in the United States."

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh came to the same conclusion as Gen. Clark and millions of other Americans and people around the world: America was hijacked from within by a group of radical and crazy imperialists who want total war in the Middle East. In January 2011, Hersh told an audience at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service in Qatar that neoconservatives overthrew the American government, saying:

"What I'm really talking about is how eight or nine neoconservative, whackos if you will, overthrew the American government. Took it over. It's not only that the neocons took it over but how easily they did it -- how Congress disappeared, how the press became part of it, how the public acquiesced." (Courtesy of Blake Hounshell's ForeignPolicy article "Seymour Hersh unleashed,"; January 18, 2011).
The biggest factor that made the neoconservatives' dreams of war and regime change in the Middle East come true was the 9/11 attacks. There is conclusive evidence that proves the theory that the Bush administration and Israel's Mossad were responsible for 9/11, not Al Qaeda.

The motive of the Bush administration to stage 9/11 was to change public opinion in America and make them support new wars in the Middle East as well as a global campaign against terrorism, a manufactured and limitless enemy that was invented for the purposes of an imperialist foreign policy. The state of Israel also benefited greatly from 9/11 because Muslims and Arabs were the scapegoat for the crime, which boosted Israel's long-standing propaganda campaign that depicted Arabs as barbarians and animals. Also, immediately after the attacks there was a lot of sympathy for Israel in the international community, which allowed the leaders of Israel to block any attempt for a just peace and crush the Palestinian resistance by calling it terrorism.

There is a great need to demythologize terrorism and put acts of violence in a political context. Governments call groups terrorist organizations almost always for political reasons. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas wouldn't exist if Israel wasn't oppressing the people of Gaza and Lebanon. That doesn't mean that there aren't any terrorists in the world who have crazy goals and have the capability to impose suffering on citizens, but they are nowhere as numerous or lethal as they are portrayed by the media and governments. And it is a fact that the biggest sources of violence, chaos, and terrorism are the United States government and the Israeli government. As I wrote in my article "The Manufacturing of Terrorism: 9 Ways The U.S. And Israel Create Conflict and Chaos":

The biggest terrorists in the world are the states of U.S. and Israel--or rather, their shadow states which are undemocratically managed by oligarchs who view the people as sheep and war as a good thing. The main objective of these two states is to conquer - by war or deception. America's military is being used to conquer the Middle East in order to consolidate wealth and power for a tiny group of private banks and fascist corporations who control the American government, and Israel is conquering its neighbours instead of living in peace with them because it is an expansionist and racist state. Israel can change its aggressive policies and live in peace, but not until the leaders of Israel stop deceiving the Israeli people and instilling fear in them.It is often pointed out that imperialism abroad means less freedom at home. America will either live as a constitutional republic, or die as a global empire. It will either be ruled by the American people or by a private elitist cabal. No nation can serve two masters at once and live peacefully and prosperously.

The information that Gen. Clark revealed almost four years ago is still censored in the shameless mainstream media. Instead of informing the public and holding powerful government officials to account for the way they act, the Western media at large is deceiving the public and covering up treasonous crimes against mankind and against civilization. The corporate mass media is the biggest enemy of freedom, democracy, peace, and humanity. Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other media institutions are the immoral villains of our age. They have banned all questioning and truth-telling regarding the 9/11 attacks, and call people who don't believe in the official version "conspiracy theorists" and "wackos."

Debate about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been completely silenced by people who own and work for corporate media institutions. Even many so-called alternative websites, radio shows, and magazines are cowardly silent on the 9/11 question.

Gen. Clark expressed anger at the fact that there was no debate about U.S. policy in the Middle East after 9/11. "Was there a national dialogue on this? Did Senators and Congressmen stand up and denounce this plan? Was there a full-fledged American debate on it? Absolutely not. And there still isn't." He also said that understanding U.S. policy in the region is a citizen's duty and a matter of patriotism that cuts across party lines. "Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, if you're an American you ought to be concerned with the strategy of the United States in this region. What is our aim? What is our purpose? Why are we there? Why are Americans dying in this region? That is the issue."

The power-crazed tyrants in the White House who disregarded all morality, honor, and ethics by lying to the whole world and sending men and women in America to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan for their own glory and pleasure must be charged with war crimes and high treason, and ultimately hanged. They hijacked America to use it to kill and control people of other nations, but they are not the greatest enemies of the American people and humanity. The people in the media who knowingly spread the lies of state terrorists and block the truth about 9/11 from rising to public consciousness are the greatest enemies of the American people and humanity.

Not only was the United States of America hijacked by a rotten and dishonorable cabal, but history and humanity were hijacked, too. The Bush administration and the Obama administration have committed crimes in the name of humanity, freedom, and America.

The global public has to choose sooner or later between the false narrative of power and the honest narrative of justice; between the lie about 9/11 and the truth about 9/11. No honest and courageous person can sit out in this mental and spiritual battle. Thanks to men like General Clark, Seymour Hersh and others spreading the truth about the hijacking of American foreign policy there is a good chance that we can liberate our minds from the myths and lies that justify the war on terror and the massive killing of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

9/11 is the event that shaped the course of history, and allowed the 19 or so hijackers in the White House to launch an evil war of occupation and domination against sovereign nations in the Middle East. Once 9/11 is reexamined and reconsidered by the American and global public the war on terror would lose all legitimacy in the eyes of every sane and moral individual and the architects of U.S. policy in the Middle East who hijacked the White House and staged 9/11 would be brought to justice.



Note to reader: This article contains a lot of information put together from multiple sources. If you are unfamiliar with the sources of any of the claims highlighted here, it is highly recommended that you check out the links provided.

With conflicts raging from Libya to Mali in the aftermath of the widely misunderstood “Arab Spring,” it is not surprising that few commentators seem to realize the special significance of the battle for Syria. The outcome may determine the success or failure of the effort to create a global corporate Empire nominally directed by the government of the United States and backed by the power of the US military. It is critical that westerners understand this because once such a New World Order is fully established, resistance in the US and elsewhere can only be violent. That could only serve to provide the perfect excuse to use the powers of the police state that is being constructed all around us.

Those who only follow the news in the mainstream media have enough clues to piece the story together, though the truth is to be found in plain sight through the alternative media. To appreciate the real danger humanity faces, we must look at the available information with open eyes, a justified skepticism of government claims and an understanding of the realities of how the global game of Risk is played today. We won’t get this perspective from the political pundits whose analyses are premised on an uncritical acceptance of the need for a “war on terror.” Anyone who understands the goals of Strategy for Rebuilding America’s Defenses (SAD), the white paper put out by Project for a New American Century in 2000, knows that the America’s war of terror is a smokescreen for the creation of what amounts to a permanent fascist New World Order.

PNAC laid out its plans for world domination in this seminal document, published one year before the attack on the World Trade Center provided the opportunity to put the strategy into action. PNAC was founded on the assumption that the US had the right and duty to assure a Pax Americana would endure for at least a century, established and maintained through American military superiority in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. SAD described a plan to destabilize any nation whose leaders dared challenge “American interests.” In context, the term can only be assumed to mean the interests of international corporations whose executives have dictated foreign policy to the US government at least since the 1954s, when the CIA staged the Guatemalan coup on behalf of the United Fruit Company.

Among nations specifically identified as potential threats in SAD were Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran. It may seem surprising that Afghanistan was not on the list, given that negotiations for an American pipeline had broken down in 1998, but perhaps by 2000 the invasion was already a foregone conclusion. After all, General Wesley Clark has reported being informed of a classified memo on or about September 20, 2001 that laid out plans to take down these governments along with Sudan, Lebanon and Somalia. For those who haven’t been paying attention, oil-rich southern Sudan seceded in July of 2011, Hezbollah has recently been accused of masterminding a terror attack against Israelis in Macedon, leading to the EU considering putting them on its terrorist list, and the CIA is still busy trying to gain control in Somalia through drones, private contractors and covert means.  The claim that Hezbollah was behind the Macedon attack is at best suspicious, pointing to a deliberate effort to implicate a key ally of Syria and Iran.

The timing of the CIA and MI-6 based coup in Libya may have been related to Gaddafi’s renewed threat to create a gold-backed dinar to challenge the supremacy of the petrodollar. There had been threats to take out Gaddafi at least since Reagan was in office. In 1996, two MI-5 whistleblowers  revealed that one was approached by an agent of MI-6 about illegally funneling money to foreign mercenaries to finance a coup. Gaddafi’s socialist government and his efforts to promote Pan-African unity and independence were threats to NATO’s vision of an American-led New World Order. When the time came to take him out, NATO used the same means proposed in 1996. Mercenaries backed by the US and its Gulf partners infiltrated the Benghazi region and gained the support of a few malcontents to give themselves a veneer of legitimacy. NATO then sought UN cover in the form of a no-fly zone authorization, which was used as a pretext to eliminate loyalist civilians and the Libyan military through massive air strikes, allowing the terrorist army to murder Gaddafi and take control of the country.

Many wondered why Russia and China did not veto the UN decision on the no-fly zone. After all, they stand to be the biggest losers in the winner-take-all game of global Monopoly in which average citizens of the planet are merely token players. What they did was abstain. By tradition though not law, this is taken to mean that a measure passes in the Security Council. However, when NATO exceeded the mandate of the resolution and murdered an estimated 10,000 loyal Libyan civilians under the doctrine of “responsibility to Protect,” both nations decided it was in their interests to not allow the same thing to happen in Syria. This is probably the main reason the Assad government remains in power.

Syria is the key line of defense against US/NATO/Gulf Cooperation Council/Israeli domination of the world’s oil supplies exclusive of Latin America and Russia. Its citizens increasingly realize that the survival of sovereignty in Syria may be the last hope of stopping a small band of bankers and their minions from controlling the world. From a larger perspective, the quest to achieve dominance over the rest of the planet in the interest of perpetuating a carbon fuels-based world economy threatens the survival of human civilization as we know it. As long as geopolitics is centered on the conflict over oil and natural gas, the threat of global climate change grows and becomes ever more immediate.

Here is how the dominoes line up: If Syria falls and Hezbollah is named a terrorist organization by the EU, Iran and Russia will stand virtually alone against the powerful alliance of western “democracies,”  Israel, the Gulf monarchies, the Qatar-backed governments dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist groups backed by Saudi Arabia, the CIA, MI6 and Mossad. US policy has since 2007 has been to back cooperative “moderate” Sunni monarchies over “radical” Shia governments and groups and their secular allies in Syria and pre-invasion Iraq. This is essential to understanding the US plan to carry out its program of regime destabilization. The Muslim Brotherhood, including Hamas, seems committed to securing its place in what they seem to assume will be a permanent fascist New World Order.  If Iran is destabilized through economic sanctions or eventually attacked by NATO forces with the implicit or explicit blessing of citizens of EU nations, Russia will be essentially isolated and economically devastated by the loss of access for its oil and natural gas to European, Chinese and Indian markets. China in turn will find itself virtually alone in the fight against a worldwide western corporate Empire.

China is heavily dependent on oil from Iran, Myanmar and other regions that have been targeted by NATO, which is seeking to absorb SEATO (the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization). Australia and Japan are going along with the plan to establish NATO economic and military dominance over Asia. Meanwhile, drone bases are being set up in Africa, throughout Asia and in the Americas. Everything is in place to allow the international corporate terrorists who control the US government, military and intelligence agencies to take over the world militarily in areas where it cannot yet dominate economically. In the face of a dollar that is increasingly seen as endangered, the impetus to move rapidly toward a final solution to the problem of democracy is compelling.

With all this happening in front of their eyes, a clueless American public dithers over the economic consequences of having unwittingly allowed corporations to take control of their government, without recognizing that is the problem. Most of those who have not given up on politics altogether engage in endless debate over whether Democrats or Republicans have allowed this to happen when clearly both are responsible. As an example of the lunacy of the state of American politics, supporters of right wing politicians are so fearful of a “socialist” takeover that they have made gun rights a central issue in the political dialogue, joined in support by left wingers who have also concluded that violent revolution is unavoidable.

What would be left in this corporate-controlled New World Order is a China under increasing pressure by the Anglo-American Empire, an economically crippled Russia, a Mideast dominated by overseers of the slave owners of the corporatocracy, a recolonized Africa and Asia and a defenseless and demoralized world citizenry, unable to fight back effectively because any effort to resist would simply increase support for a police state by those remaining in the middle class who are fearful of a mob rule formerly known as “democracy.”

Is there any hope to change the tide of history? In a word, yes. That will be the topic of the next essay in Soldiers For Peace International.

For a more detailed discussion of the outline of the plan for global domination, listen to this podcast from SFPI Radio, the voice of Soldiers For Peace International on the worldwide web.

Who is arming the Syrian rebels?

Global Research, February 21, 2013

The Council of the European Union renewed its arms embargo on Syria this week by another three months, with the slight amendment to allow for “greater non-lethal support and technical assistance for the protection of civilians.” The council further affirmed that it would “actively continue the work underway to assess and review, if necessary, the sanctions regime against Syria in order to support and help the opposition.”

This decision, seen as a compromise between EU members that are solidly against direct military involvement in Syria and those that are ambiguously in favor of it (chiefly Britain), was, like all decisions taken at the supranational level, several months out of date and risibly insufficient. But an added element of pathos in this re-upping of status quo policy can be found in a remarkable new development: Syria’s rebels are now receiving better and more copious arms from some outside actor. Moreover, the way in which those arms are being distributed, as well as to whom, strongly hints that some Western actors are finally acceding to a military option for a conflict that never had a chance for a diplomatic or political breakthrough.

In one of the most strangely neglected stories in the two-year Syria conflict, beginning on January 1, four new weapon models began appearing in large quantities in Daraa province, none used at any time by the Syrian military. The M60 recoilless gun, the M79 Osa rocket launcher, the RPG-22 rocket launcher and the Milkor MGL/RBG-6 grenade launcher hadn’t been shown in any opposition videos until the new year. Every device was used in a massive joint rebel operation against Busr al-Harir, a town previously safely in regime hands to the northeast of Daraa city. Several tanks and BMPs (armored personnel carriers) were destroyed in the ensuing battle and, as Syria analyst James Miller of EA Worldview told me, what distinguished this rebel sortie from others was that “the fighters didn’t seem concerned about preserving the ammunition for these weapons.”

Rebels tend to hoard the bullets of their Kalashnikovs, so the fact that they’d promiscuously expend the ammo of more powerful and newer-made arms is noteworthy. And there was another major oddity: Unlike most recent attacks against regime installations, the Busr al-Harir fight was waged mainly by secular or moderate units of the Free Syrian Army, with the normally ever-present Jabhat al-Nusra, the US-blacklisted Syrian branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq, conspicuously absent.

Busr al-Harir was by no means a one-off. Rebels continued to penetrate the southern province where the anti-regime protest movement took off in earnest in March 2011. More tanks and BMPs have gone up in flames in Zeizun, northwest of Daraa city, and others have been captured by the FSA. Rebels are approaching the city from the east and north, though also hitting within its limits from the south. On Valentine’s Day, they laid siege to El Sahoah, east of the city, eliminating an entire military convoy and sacking an air base and making off with at least one BMP. Four days later, they captured a checkpoint on Dam Road, affording them a new southeastern point of ingress into Daraa city. If this provincial capital were to be ring-fenced or taken by the opposition, Miller writes, it’d mark a significant setback for the regime because it would allow the rebels a direct supply line from Jordan straight into Damascus, where rebel operations are also taking place in the outlying suburbs and in the capital itself.

From Daraa, these munitions began popping up in other provinces. According to Eliot Higgins, who blogs obsessively about Syrian warfare as “Brown Moses” and who first uncovered the new hardware in Syria, the RPG-22 and M60 have since turned up in Idlib; the RPG-22, M79 and RBG-6 in Hama; the RPG-22 and M79 in Aleppo; and all four have appeared in Damascus. In an email, Higgins said that markings from M79 rocket pods suggest a manufacture date of 1990-1991, although the rocket launcher itself was first manufactured in 1979. Yet clearly this is still an improvement on the more commonly used RPG-7.

In one video, rebels demonstrate how the M79 works to a relevant figure: Colonel Abdul-Jabbar Mohammed Ogaidi, the FSA representative of the Northern Front of the Supreme Military Council. He also, intriguingly, serves on the Front’s Armament Committee. (Ogaidi was a main point man for Future Movement MP Okab Sakr, who previously ran consignments of light weapons into Syria.)

Higgins further happened upon a revealing training video showing the al-Farouq Brigade giving a lesson in how to handle some of this Balkan hardware to the Dawn of Islam Brigade. This exercise was coordinated under the auspices of the Free Damascenes Movement, a newish coalition of rebels seeking to unify all Islamic units in the insurgency under one heading, excepting (again) Jabhat al-Nusra. “That process,” Miller wrote in a blog post on EA Worldview, “appears to have started in late November and came to fruition in late December, approximately the same time we started to see the surge in foreign arms. This effort appears to have started in the south, in Daraa Province, with the eventual goal of liberating Damascus.” Both Miller and Higgins suspect that Jordan and Turkey are the entry points for the new weapons, given their proliferation in the north and south of Syria.

That sophisticated anti-tank and anti-infantry munitions are now being funneled exclusively to non-extremist rebel units, who themselves are committed to isolating al-Qaeda, suggests either a staggering coincidence or some degree of external facilitation. Now here’s another interesting fact. The M60, the M79, the RBG-6 and the RPG-22 are all currently in use by the Croatian Army.

Croatia, which, along with a host of European and Middle Eastern powers, recognized the Syrian National Coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people, is not yet a member state of the European Union (it is set to accede in July of this year) and so, technically, it is not beholden to the EU arms embargo. It is, however, a member of the Friends of Syria umbrella group: Croatian Foreign Minister Vesna Pusić attended the second conference in Istanbul in 2012, and she’s previously expressed concern about Croatia’s oil and gas fields, which sanctions and deteriorating security have rendered useless. (About a year ago, Croatia instructed all of its businesses to withdraw from Syria, an act that left INA, the national oil company, operating at a loss of “hundreds of millions of euros.”) A pro-EU Balkan state not yet subject to EU jurisdiction would also have a nice geopolitical motive to help undermine a proxy of Russia.

But even assuming that Zagreb isn’t directly or indirectly supplying these arms to Syria, might a hitherto unknown arms dealer – Croatian or otherwise, state or non-state – now be working directly with a regional intermediary who is supplying them? If so, how is it that this arms dealer has managed to negotiate relatively smooth supply routes through both Jordan and Turkey?

One plausible scenario would be that these weapons were all coming from Libya, which was one of the initial arms-runners to the Syrian opposition. The former Yugoslavia, which manufactured the M60 and M79, formerly enjoyed warm ties with Muammar Qaddafi, as did Croatia prior to the Libyan revolt and subsequent NATO intervention (former Croatian President Stipe Mesić seemed to want those ties to continue regardless).

So it is possible that the M60s, M79s, RPG-22s and RBG-6s were all sold to Libya a long time ago and were only just emptied from warehouses by the National Transition Council for urgent use in another country – although this then raises the question of why it took the new Libyan government a year to send the heavy-duty materiel to the Syrians when it previously trafficked in only light arms and ammunition. Nor does this explain why the NTC suddenly decided to empower the moderates over the jihadists in a highly organized fashion that, superficially, accords with Western preconditions for supporting the armed opposition.

Over the course of the last few days, I’ve tried repeatedly, by phone and email, to query both the press officer and military advisor at the Croatian mission in New York to see if they might account for the provenance of four weapon models that, taken together, are exclusive to their country’s arsenal. I received no reply.

One Washington-based source close to the Syrian rebels suggested that Croatia “might be involved” but thought the Libya clearinghouse theory was more persuasive, particularly as new stockpiles of Libyan weapons have been appearing and disappearing from Mali. That said, the source believes that classroom training seminars bespeak “total formalization,” and because “the people getting these weapons are not Salafis or Nusra, that suggests a Western power” orchestrating or overseeing the entire effort.

In its reports on the EU arms embargo renewal, the Washington Post cited diplomats in Brussels and London who alleged that Whitehall was indeed intent on arming vetted and responsible rebels. While British Foreign Secretary William Hague denied such claims, saying his government merely wanted to “give assistance and advice that we’d been restricted in giving before,” he nevertheless left the door open a crack for further action. “We would have gone further,” Hague said.

From the looks of it, someone already has.


How the Muslim Brotherhood sees the 'Syrian Revolution'

Never mind ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, that’s all for international public consumption. The statement below is from the Muslim Brotherhood’s official plan for Syria, back in March 2011. Notice the identified enemy ‘the secular regime’

In the late March 2011 the Muslim brotherhood distributed stealthy a statement in some of their dens and mosques in Syria. The statement entirely based on religious hatred in order to incite people to protest against the Syrian government with only one goal: To finally impose their Sharia law. 
First of all, it was too hard for me to translate this statement, and that is because of the writing style, it is actually very primitive and disgusting, exactly as if you are reading some sort of Middle-Ages hatred preaches, and for the same reason the translation is somewhat long. 

Below is the complete translation of the statement of the Muslim Brotherhood about the situation in Syria, and for anyone who does not know this Brotherhood: It is the name of an underlying terrorist organization that launched in the eighties of the twenty century a series of attacks against the Syrian state and other sects: Kindergartens, schools, buses, villages, lawyers, doctors, professors, universities, and military officers. They also managed to plant bombs in some vital parts of Damascus such as Al-Azbakiya quarter, in which more than two hundreds of innocent women and children were killed. They also managed to take over one of the most important military schools in Aleppo, the Artillery School, and kill all the students and officers who were “infidels” in their point of view. 

The Muslim brotherhood was officially a forbidden party in Syria because it committed unimaginable crimes against both the Syrian state and its citizens.

A Statement of Support to the People of Syria
With the name of Allah
Allah had said in Quran: “The permission is granted to the fighters for his well, to defeat the injustice and Allah is capable of making them win”, and all prayers and salutations to his messenger Muhammad who has been sent for the mercy of all people, and all prayers and salutations also to Muhammad’s companions and followers until the end of the days.
We are – the Muslim Brotherhood – declare that we have got enough from the politics of the Baath-Regime and his infidel supporters in the past years.
We declare, it is enough after all what we have faced from killing, arresting and displacement against our leaders and followers.
It is time for us to come back home and rule Syria under our principles that come from Islam (Sharia), these principles that have been brought back to life by the greatest renewer of the 20th century Imam Hassan Al-Banna – Allah’s mercy on him.

It is time for our forbidden party to come back home, and there is no way to achieve that goal without igniting and supporting the revolution inside Syria.
The people in Syria have demands: a better life, more freedom, … and we have to exploit and push them to take actions that guarantee the overthrow of the current government.
The people are now protesting after the allegations of the bloodshed by the government forces.
These demonstrations should be our aid to make our coup and replace the government. We have to ignite rage, incite and exploit that bloodshed and make it our way to come back home and spread our Islamic principles to rule over the political scene in Syria.
It is time to come back home and rule the Syrian Muslim people who live under the umbrella of the secular regime that supports and protects the principles of tolerance, and guarantees the freedom of thinking and embracing whatever belief the people choose. Such a freedom was the main reason that made the other non-Muslim sects of the Syrian people able to step forward and have a rank and a good contribution in the Syrian life, and also share the wealth with the Muslims on their own land.
It is time for us to come back and force all the other non-Muslim sects to shrink and step back. These sects are the infidel Christians, the criminal Alawites and the infidel Druzes.

It is time for us to come back and rule Syria under the name of Allah – the lord of all lords – and his holy Quran, and to impose the Islamic principles on all who oppose us without discrimination.
It is time for our principles to spread among the Syrian Muslims, to bring back the well and the glory of Allah after they have been lost because of these infidel regimes.
So we support the revolution in Syria with all what we have (money, speech, writings and media conferences), because it is the last hope for our principles to gain success, and the only way to overthrow the Baath-Regime, even if that has to cost thousands of lives of innocent people. We have to push the young Muslims to go down the streets in order to ignite this revolution, even if that would lead to their death, because that death means the freedom to those who will come after, and a victory for us. We also assure the right of those people to protest and defend themselves, even if that would cause the death of many policemen and army officers who are basically infidels, they caused a lot of corruption and destruction in our land, so death will be their fair punishment for what they committed.

It is also too important to remind the Syrian Muslims of the intentions of the other sects and their plans against Islam, and against our freedom, so we do not recommend any sort of collaboration even under the most difficult circumstances, because they – in their instincts – have bad feelings and bad intentions for Islam and for his people. We have to make sure that the revolution will be pure Islamic, and with that no other sect would have a share of the credit after its success.
We pray to Allah to support our people in Syria and lead them to victory.
Written by
Dr. Muhammad Riyad Al-Shaqfa
the General supervisor for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood
Monday, 28 March, 2011