The circle which Our western leaders dont seem to be able to square is: They claim that a US led coalition of 9 nation fighting Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria (without much success) by an air campaign, now Russia is in hitting targets and destroying heavy ISIL weapons, the western leaders are complaining and condemning Russia. In fact Russia has a strategy of preserving Syria geographical integrity as one nation; while western policy ( deliberate or misguided) is tearing Syria apart which Russia sees asagainst its long term interest . America, EU and our UK Government, who have no coherent strategy on Syria ( I am being kind here to the west) ; now Russia, which do have a long term strategy and clear tactical objectives in the short term, decided to take action against the most menacing threat facing civilisation today, namely Islamists terrorism. The Islamic State terrorism which is not confined to the Levant ( Islamic State in Iraq and Levant ISIL) but is a world threat as this entity is modeled on ( and seriously emulating) the seventh and eighth centuries Islamic conquests with the aim of establising a neo-Islamic empire they call a worldwide caliphate, which recognises no national borders ( only idiots won’t realise those objectives especially when they changed the name from ISIL into just “Islamic Stare” ), a danger of Which President Putin has been aware for over a decade. He banned Muslim Bortherhood and other similar organisations who are a front to terrorist groups long time ago, while here in the west we still deal with such vile Islamo-fascist groups.Now Russia is taking genuine action, USA and UK governments are displaying first class hypocrisy as well as making foolish statements. A coalition led by the United States declaring they are fighting the Islamic state by an air campaign for most of this year; yet they are condemning Russia for taking action targeting those very terrorists… so are USA led coalition fighting the terrorists or not?
Only a few weeks ago, our Prime Minister David Cameron ordered target assassination of terrorists by RAF drones firing missiles on their vehicles inside Syrian airspace without asking the internationally recognised government sovereign on that airspace under international law. The justification was to target three terrorists who were British nationals and were plotting to carry terror attacks on British soil. In short to protect national interest under article 51 of International law. Furthermore Mr Cameron ordered the action before seeking approval from Westminster elected parliament, he informed the commons five weeks after the action in a ministerial statement after the summer recess. The same parliament which voted last year against taking military action in Syria.
Notice here that Putin government sought Russian parliament approval before taking action, and secured a vote to take action against Russian federation nationals ( reported to be by the 100s and Russian media estimating 2000) who are fighting with IS and who would be a threat to Russian national security ( exactly same excuse Mr Cameron gave) . Besides, the internationally recognised sovereign government of Syria (regardless of how nasty the regime is or how many crimes Assad committed against his people, it is still the recognised government) invited Russia to help, sought assistance from Russia which is perfectly legal under international law. Meanwhile USA and regional allies have illegally (under international law) supplied arms and training to groups, many of them turned out to be terrorists or passed the weapons and equipment to terrorists without a legal body authorising them to do so.
Then last week, the US state departments gave media photos of Russian arms and aircraft arrived Syria; they were picked by the same USA satellites which “missed” arms & 1000s of vehicles delivery to ISIL over two years leaving a question mark on whether American led coalition were really serious about fighting Islamic State terrorists.
Now let us look at the foolish statements coming from Washington (and parroted unfortunately on BBC by sir Malcolm Rifkind Thursday October 1 on Today programme) that Russian raids on targets in Northern Syria did not target Islamic States but targeted other opposition “moderate groups”. First There is no such a thing as “moderate ” opposition Secondly at least two dozen “experts” American officials, British, European and American diplomats interviewed on CNN, BBC , Channel four and the like , all condemning Russia and claiming Russian aircraft hit “moderate” groups trained and financed by America & Co to fight against Assad, non of them named a single group .. or informed the viewers and audience who were those groups allegedly targeted by Russia.
On October 1, I put out a challenge ( on twitter and other social media) to all those “experts”. officials, diplomat, BBC editors etc, to name TWO of those “moderate groups ” who are still active opposing Assad and were targeted by Russia…I am still waiting for any of them to name who those groups are? or to name one …
The shocking reality is .. there is no “moderate” groups constituting a force to speak of are fighting in Syria on the side of the goodies (our side) by all are baddies.The (chronically stupid ) Americans have admitted that of 100s “moderate” groups they trained, financed, and armed only four or five people still “fighting ” in Syria .. Others either fled leaving their weapons to ISIL, sold them the weapons, or joined ISIL or japhat Al-nusrah terrorists
But the foolishness of the statements put out by the state department ( the most laughable of which was that Russian airstrikes against terrorists there would create more terrorism .. said state department spokesman.. the same state department justifying sending drones to target wedding parties in Afghanistan) manifests itself in a more serious manner. If American intelligence say Russians airstrikes did not target ISIL, then the statements indicate that American intelligence know where Islamic state bases are located. This begs the question: if America led western allies know where IS were, why in god’s name they didn’t have a massive airstrike to take the bastards out?? Or they just want them to stay there? And why?
The fact of the matter is Russia has a long-term strategy & clear tactical objectives in Syria while clueless Obama led west fleet sails compassless and chartless in the dark.
Nearly all, but one ( Mary Dejevsky) pundits and analysts BBC wheels out, talk a load of nonsense boiled down to anti-Russian spin. Russia’s strategy is to protect the geographical integrity of the Syrian State (regardless who is in power) to keep it as one state and tp protect its naval base, the only one in the Mediterranean.. in fact Putin would be neglecting his duty as a president protecting his nations national interests if he doesn’t defend the base and go after Islamists terrorists.
I have said it live on media and keep repeating it : there are only FOUR nations who are serious about fighting Islamists terrorism and doing it : Russia, Egypt, Jordan and UAE … The rest aren’t .. Turkey is tactically supporting ISIL .. The US Led coalition efforts are nothing but “military masturbation” ( and I am being kind and tolerant to Obama and co)
And I will end on this question: when western/Arab backed “opposition” put a car-bomb in Damascus or regime controlled area, which would practically hit civilians.. Are they still called “moderate opposition” or terrorists? We know the answer .. But in this case isn’t the United States backing and financing terrorism?
Should then the UN put Obama and his men on the list of countries supporting terrorism?
© Copyright Adel Darwish 2015