The Voice of Reason

The recent UK parliament vote against London’s involvement in a possible war on Syria is indeed a matter of appreciation, respect and morality. It is an appreciated and moral stance because it translates the majority stance in commitment to the principles of international law and humanity.

Among the remarkable statements by the British MPs in rejection of war are those by MP George Galloway, who delivered a touching and convincing speech against a motion by Prime Minister David Cameron to authorize a military action against Syria.

Galloway also criticized the UK government for seeking to strike Syria without the UN approval, stressing that “Russia and China say no to war, so do I and most people in this country.”

Galloway cited a Daily Telegraph report indicating that a definite majority of people in the UK are opposed to the country’s involvement in a potential war on the Arab country, and underscored that there is “no compelling” evidence that the Syrian government has launched a chemical attack in the fight against the foreign-backed Takfiri groups.

“To launch a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on the very day that a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team arrives in Damascus must be a new definition of madness,” Galloway said.

The lawmaker also pointed to the crimes perpetrated by the armed terrorist groups in Syria and said, “The reason for the unease [in public] is that people can see the character of the Syrian opposition. They have seen the videos showing the heinous crimes perpetrated by the US-backed terrorists against innocent civilians.

London has done “its utmost” to supply the extremists with weapons and money over the past two years, said Galloway, adding, “It’s been the government’s policy to bring about the defeat of the regime in Damascus and the victory of the kind of people responsible for these crimes.” 

Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

Pandora's Box




Striking Syria is completely illegal according to the Time, not a Syrian media source. In an interesting analysis by Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado, Campos underlines that the fundamental rule of international law is that states cannot attack other states, even for humanitarian reasons

The fundamental rule of contemporary international law is that states cannot attack other states. The U.N. Charter embodies this rule, and makes only two exceptions to it: a state can attack another state if it is authorized to do so by a Security Council resolution, or if the attacking state is acting in genuine self-defense.

Neither of these exceptions applies in the case of the United States and Syria. But a third basis for the legality of intervention has been suggested: “customary international law,” a somewhat mysterious, illegal, and poorly-defined concept of no precedent under the pretext of humanitarian needs.

Indeed, the legal argument for attacking Syria on humanitarian grounds a law-of-no-law as much as it is the law of aggressors. The humanity is to lose thousands of innocents' lives. The Syrians are definitely to defend their country against any aggression and the US means of killing are definitely to end the lives of the innocents. A new human tragedy, misery and catastrophe is expected to spread not only in Syria, but in the entire region!

During Tuesday’s hearing on Capitol Hill, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) compelled the Obama administration to find anyone outside of Washington willing to launch a strike in Syria. "I haven't had one person come up to me and say they're for this war. Not one person," Sen. Paul said to Secretary of State John Kerry during Tuesday’s hearing.

The US Congress has indeed the moral duty to stop the present US Administration reckless thrust into war against Syrians, who wouldn't alone suffer a real humanitarian tragedy. Sufferings and humanitarian crises need no passport to cross borders; a US aggression would definitely open the Mideast Pandora's box.

Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim




A Win-Win Solution

The Syrian Arab Republic has never been an aggressor against anybody. Syria is a peace-seeker country, which has every legitimate right to defend itself, as many countries worldwide, against al-Qadea affiliates from more than 80 countries.

Since the outbreak of current plagued crisis, Syria bases its policies on two main pillars, namely to combat terrorism, unfortunately backed by many Arab, Western countries, not to exclude the neighbors, as well on the pillar of seeking dialogue and political solution, not only to the crisis but to all of the region chronic crises.

Fighting terrorism is an international interest; hence the terrorists fighting the Syrians today would definitely fight and slaughter others tomorrow, particularly in the vicinity as well as in Europe and the USA. Thus, the need is dire more than ever for a united common front by all as to eradicate the scorpion of terrorism. Such a fight would be in the interest of every humanity, instead of the ongoing threats to launch strikes against the same people who are the victims of terrorism by merciless brutal takfiris who are not only cannibals but who use even chemicals against the Syrians.

Syria has indeed challenged those who accuse it of using chemicals to ''present a shred of legitimate evidence, which they have not been able to do.'' Given the fact that those who smuggled the chemicals to the terrorists, who perhaps didn't know at times to use them, as the recent AP Gavlak's report mentioned, those threats and false accusations should be halted as to give peace in the region a chance. The aim behind such threats seems to be related to the destruction of a peace-loving country, with all of its heritage, Army, people. Secularity and civilization.

Where are the proofs that the chemicals were used by Syrian Gov. and not by the terrorists who do possess, according to substantiated proofs, stockpiles of chemicals, some of which were used against Syrian Army soldiers in many locations. And H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad questioned in his recent Le Figaro interview: "How is it conceivable then that an army making significant advancements on the ground through conventional armament would resort to using weapons of mass destruction?  if the army had such weapons and decided to use them, is it conceivable that it would use them in areas where its own troops are deployed? Where is the logic in that? Additionally is it really plausible that the use of these weapons in a heavily populated area in the suburbs of the capital did not kill tens of thousands; these substances travel in the air."

"What have previous wars achieved for America, or even for Europe? What has the world achieved from the war in Libya and the spread of terrorism in its aftermath? What has the world achieved from the wars in Iraq and other places? What will the world achieve from supporting terrorism in Syria?" I think that the time is ripe now for a wise reconsideration and evaluation as end supporting terrorists and reinvigorate Mideast peace efforts as to spare the more of innocents' life; it is a win-win solution and for all.

Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

US Reckless Policy of Fabrications and Lies

The present US officials' warmongering and sword rattling statements threatening the Syrians under the false flag of chemical weapons use are indeed hysterical, unbalanced and unjustified.  

Actually, President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry's recent contradictory statements on Syria prove but the false accusations levelled by the US Administration against Syria, the thorn in the throat of all who stand against the Resistance and legitimate right of self-defence in the face of  the Wahabi and Takfiri al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists.

The US, pressured and paid for by the ewes, petrodollars and some crazy politicians, lacks any proof about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian hero Arab Army. Syria, instead, has every proof that the chemical weapons have been frequently used by al-Qaeda affiliates against the Syrians, not only in Khan al-Assal, but also in Damascus Countryside, Edlib and other places.

A clear example to this effect is what the Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak revealed that the terrorists in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta admitted that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident for which western powers have blamed the Syrian government's forces. Members of the group revealed that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by gunmen mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia. “From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, armed group fighters and their families, many believe that certain gunmen received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the deadly gas attack.”

Syrian Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ministry communiqué has indeed been a stitch in time when it underscored that Kerry depended on old stories published by the terrorists more than a week ago, with all what they include of fabrications, lies and inventions'' as '' utterly fallacious, and based on foreign opposition and the armed in Syria, who are keen on a US aggression, in reminiscent of the fabricated lies of Collin Powell before the invasion of Iraq.''

Syria once more challenges the US to show but a single real and logical proof about the alleged use of chemical weapons. And the US pretext of defending the people is exposed in many places of the world including North Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Latin America, Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Syria, as H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad has recently underlined, is to defend itself against any aggression .The threats to launch a direct aggression on Syria would only enhance its firm principles and independent decision simply because this stems from its people's will."

Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

Another False Flag Operation, history repeating itself

On Wednesday 21st of August the world received the news that a chemical attack had been launched in Damascus countryside with, numbers and facts varying hugely according to the source, 300 to 1300 victims counting. A large part of them women and children. 

The United States, United Kingdom, France and their allies backed up by the Western media was quick to blame, without any investigation or proof, the Syrian government of carrying out this attack. Warning that a red line had been crossed and that military action was on the table to “punish the Syrian government”. 

Taking into account the international context of hostility towards Syria, it is easy to understand why the Western governments and their regional allies were jumping within hours on the carriage of false accusations, accusing the Syrian government and hence opening a window of opportunity to launch a military strike as they have done before in Iraq, Libya and in other places at different times all over the world. But it is more hardly to understand how established media organisations with a reputation on the national and international level are acting in such an unprofessional way as to blindly follow their political leaders in their reporting and criticism, or lack of, without any journalistic investigation or ethics and professionalism applied.

 The Syrian stance 

The Syrian government has repeatedly and unambiguously stated that it would never use weapons of mass destruction, if such weapons exist in Syria, against its own population. Not only because it makes no strategic sense but because of the unethical nature of the use of these kind of weapons by any government against its own population.

 The Syrian government also immediately called for an international and scientific investigation backed by the United Nations of the facts and accusations towards it proving that is has nothing to hide. 

No military strategic logic in the use of weapons of mass destruction 

The Syrian national army has for the last couple of months been on the offensive and made huge gains on the battle field against the terrorist groups and foreign infiltrators all over the country. The Syrian army also made huge progress in Damascus countryside and the Eastern Ghouta and cleared large parts of it from these terrorist groups. From a military point of view it makes no sense to use weapons of mass destruction because the Syrian army proved for the last two years and a half that it doesn’t have to use such weapons to successfully counter the aggression against it and the use of chemical weapons in such an environment would not only affect the civilian population but would also endanger its own troops.


Political suicide 

The Syrian government repeatedly stated that it would never use such weapons, if they exist, against its own population. The Syrian government also backed any international initiative to find a political way out of the crisis. It gave its full support for the Geneva II Conference while the foreign opposition in the same time boycotted participation in this Conference as well as every other political initiative to find a peaceful way out of the crisis. It is in this context of political goodwill and constructiveness that the Syrian government got the backing and support of many countries, not the least Russia and China, both permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. If, hypothetically speaking, the Syrian government would act against its own principles on which its international relations are build on, it would immediately lose this support and commit political suicide. So also from a political point of view it makes no sense at all to even think that the Syrian government would use weapons of mass destruction against its own population. 

The timing : Visit of UN chemical weapons inspectors team to Damascus 

It is of course no coincidence that the current crisis coincides with the visit of a UN chemical weapons investigators team to Damascus as the whole world’s attention is now focused on Syria. The team of inspectors arrived in Syria to investigate another incident involving chemical weapons, the chemical weapons strike in the village of Khan al-Assal near Aleppo on March 19 in which dozens of people were killed. Also in this attack unfounded and baseless accusations were directed against the Syrian government without any investigations being made. 

Turning the situation into a window of opportunity, the Syrian government made use of the visit of the chemical weapons investigators team and, in an expression of openness and goodwill, agreed immediately to let the investigators visit the site of the attack to make the necessary investigations. Unfortunately, on their way to the site, the investigators teams came under a fierce attack by snipers belonging to the terrorists groups and had to return to their hotel in Damascus. These acts of violence and hostilities make it very clear which side wants to sabotage the work of the investigation team and has things to hide. 

Despite being under attack by terrorist snipers the investigators could still take samples and made interviews with local people about the events which took place and they will make another attempt to reach the site today, Wednesday August 28. 

Iraq revisited and other False Flag operations 

Within hours after the attack, without any investigation or inspection being made, the U.S. government and its British and French allies bragged that they had undeniable evidence that the attack was carried out by the Syrian national army and that the Syrian government “should be punished” for it and... faced with Russian and Chinese warnings about the illegality of conducting once again a military attack against another country without a U.N.-mandate, the U.S., British and French governments were quick to respond that they would attack even without any U.N.-mandate. 

This is of course nothing new as recent American history is dotted by examples of false flag operations, downright lies and distortion of reality to carry out their political plans and military adventures. The world witnessed how the American government lied about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to condone the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the following regime change. 

And, more recently, we could again witness how the United States misled and misused the United Nations when the American government used Resolution 1973 (the establishment of a no-fly zone and the use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya) to carry out regime change in Libya. 

These examples show how total disregard and lack of respect for international law and rules characterise American foreign policy and that we can expect anything from a Nation who position itself out of any legal framework or international diplomatic norms.


Kris Janssen