Syria, al-Qaeda and Germany

This video is called ‘Al-Qaeda “army” presence in Syria much higher than officials say’.

By Bill Van Auken in the USA:

Washington raises specter of al Qaeda seizing Syrian chemical weapons

19 December 2012

Having first issued threats against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad over unspecified intelligence regarding its chemical weapons, the Obama administration is now warning that these arms may fall into the hands of the “rebels” which Washington itself has backed.

This is the significance of a front-page article published this week by the Washington Post, which reported that, “US officials are increasingly worried that Syria’s weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists, rogue generals or other uncontrollable factions.”

According to the Post, citing unnamed US officials, members of the Islamist militia, al-Nusra, which Washington has formally designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” and charged is an offshoot of Al Qaeda, overran “the Sheik Suleiman military base near Aleppo, where research on chemical weapons had been conducted” and were “closing in on another base near Aleppo, known as Safirah, which has served as a major production center for such munitions.”

While a decade ago, Washington prepared its invasion of Iraq by propagating lies about the regime of Saddam Hussein collaborating with Al Qaeda and a supposed threat he would supply the terrorist organization with “weapons of mass destruction,” today the Obama administration is floating a new and perverse pretext for war. It is raising the specter that its war for regime change in Syria might place such weapons into the hands of the Al Qaeda-linked forces that the US itself has both armed and strengthened in the bid to oust Assad.

While Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials have spoken publicly about the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against the insurgency in Syria being a “red line” that would trigger US “consequences,” the administration has not made such pronouncements about its response to these weapons being appropriated by Al Qaeda-linked “rebels.”

Speaking to US military personnel at the giant American base at Incirlik in southern Turkey, about 60 miles from the Syrian border, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke of the Pentagon’s preparations for intervention in Syria over the chemical weapons issue. “We have a number of options that we can deploy if we have to, when the president makes that decision, to be able to act,” said Panetta.

The Pentagon chief added: “I’m not going to go into specifics. But I can tell you that—you know, that the United States, when we decide we’re going to do something, we damned well are going to do it.”

According to the Post report, unnamed Pentagon officials said that US military officers have been “updating their contingency plans in recent weeks as chaos has overtaken Syria.” They said that Washington was “working closely with Israel, Jordan and NATO allies, including Turkey, to monitor dozens of sites where Syria is suspected of keeping chemical arms and to coordinate options to intervene if necessary.”

Leonard Spector, deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute for International Studies told the Post that it would take 1,000 inspectors and specialists on the ground in Syria to “monitor the condition of each [chemical weapons] site and take inventory.”

The Post article adds, however: “That’s assuming there would be no need to provide security at the installations, much less engage hostile forces. In a worst case scenario, under which the Syrian military would gas its own people, the Pentagon has projected that it could take up to 75,000 troops to intervene.”

Meanwhile, the Assad regime has issued its own warnings. Insisting that it would never use chemical weapons against the Syrian population, it charges that the real threat comes from the “rebels” and their imperialist patron in Washington.

Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations in a letter to the Security Council and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed concerns in Damascus that the US and its allies could supply the Islamist militias with chemical weapons and then accuse the Syrian government of using them to provide a pretext for direct intervention.

“We have repeatedly stated publicly and through diplomatic channels that Syria will not under any circumstances use any chemical weapons that it may have, because it is defending its people from terrorists backed by well-known states, at the forefront of which is the United States of America,” wrote Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari. The letter was dated December 8 but first made public on Monday.

“We are genuinely worried that certain states that support terrorism and terrorists could provide the armed terrorist groups with chemical weapons, and then claim they had been used by the Syrian Government,” Ja’afari continued.

In response to Washington’s threats of intervention over a supposed danger that the Syrian regime will employ the weapons against the country’s population, the ambassador wrote, “States such as the United States of America that have used chemical and similar weapons are in no position to launch such a campaign, particularly because, in 2003, they used the pretext of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction in order to justify their invasion and occupation.”

Last week, in conjunction with a “Friends of Syria” conference in Morocco, the Obama administration took the combined actions of recognizing the Syrian National Coalition—whose leadership had been cobbled together the previous month under the direction of the US State Department at a luxury hotel in Doha—and of placing the al Nusra front on its list of “foreign terrorist organizations.

The incongruity of these two measures, one of which signals a policy of war for regime change until victory, while the other seeks to distance Washington from what is widely acknowledged as the leading fighting force in this war, has led to protests from among the supposed “moderates” that the US publicly backs.

Among the latest to criticize Washington’s actions is Riad Seif, the wealthy exiled Syrian businessman who collaborated with the State Department in launching the initiative for the new Syrian opposition front. He disputed the terrorist designation, telling the French daily Le Figaro: “They do not hurt anyone. Generally, the Syrian Islamists are known for their moderation.”

Seif made this statement after a video placed on YouTube and reposted by the Syrian state news agency Sana had been widely viewed in Syria—though not even mentioned by the US corporate media. It depicts Sunni Islamist “rebels” physically abusing two captured Syrian Alawite officers (from the same sect as Assad) and then beheading them, with a boy appearing to be about 10 years old given a sword to take the first hack at one of their necks.

The video is emblematic of the bitter sectarian character of the civil war into which Syria has been plunged by US and Western intervention.

Washington’s feigned concern for the Syrian people in the face of an alleged threat from chemical weapons is a lie and a pretext. US imperialism is working in a de facto alliance with the most reactionary Islamist forces, including Al Qaeda, in a concerted attempt to lay waste to Syrian society, as part of a broader campaign to reorder the Middle East in its own interests.

Anti-Nato protest marches in fear of turning ‘Turkey into a battlefield’: here.

By Ulrich Rippert in Germany:

German parliament votes to station Patriot missiles on Syrian border

19 December 2012

On December 14, the German parliament (Bundestag) voted overwhelmingly to send 400 German soldiers and two units of its Patriot air defence system to Turkey, to be stationed on the country’s 900-kilometer border with Syria. All parliamentary parties, with the exception of the Left Party, voted in favour of the military deployment.

The parliamentary mandate also clears the way for the use of AWACS reconnaissance aircraft stationed in the region. The aircraft are to monitor air space over the border.

The deployment was justified in parliament as a purely defensive measure in line with Germany’s commitments to its allies, i.e., to protect its NATO partner Turkey from missile attacks by the Syrian army.

In reality, the parliamentary resolution is a prelude to military intervention in Syria. For months, the United States, together with other NATO states, has intensified its pressure on the Syrian government. NATO is systematically fuelling a civil war by inciting religious and ethnic differences and sending armed mercenaries to the country.

Official propaganda has sought to portray the conflict as a popular uprising against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. In fact, what is taking place is a campaign to bring about regime-change in Syria while weakening the position of Iran.

Turkey is now a major staging ground for assembling imperialist troops to be used against Syria. The government in Ankara has been providing the so-called “rebels” with weapons and equipment for months. It is also offering the services of Turkish officers as consultants to opposition militias. It has allowed the opponents of Assad to operate from Turkish territory and is home to a CIA base from which American intelligence officers pass on arms, money and intelligence to the insurgents.

Contrary to propaganda claims that the deployment is aimed at combating Syrian missiles aimed at Turkey, the Patriots can prevent operations by Syrian military aircraft in northern Syria. This would facilitate the creation of a no-fly zone, permitting easy access to Syria by Assad’s opponents. A similar move was carried out by the US and NATO in Libya last year as the first step in direct military intervention.

The decision of the Bundestag to back the stationing of missiles marks a new phase of imperialist violence in German foreign policy. During the campaign against Libya last year, the German government abstained in the United Nations Security Council on the issue of military involvement. In retrospect, this decision was considered a major foreign policy error by political and business circles.

For years, the German army operation in Afghanistan was described as a “humanitarian measure,” and any talk of direct military intervention was denied.

Now the situation is changing. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (Free Democratic Party—FDP) has been criss-crossing the Middle East and travelled to Turkey several times in the past few months. The German government had already made up its mind about the Patriot missile deployment prior to the request from Ankara, with Westerwelle announcing that Germany was ready and willing to send missiles, troops and aircraft. …

Left Party spokesman Jan van Aken explained the negative attitude taken by his parliamentary group. …

Van Aken sarcastically addressed the defence minister, who had referred in his own contribution to the danger of Syrian chemical weapons: “I think, Mr. de Maizière, if you once again raise the issue of chemical weapons you should be condemned to years in purgatory, stuck between Colin Powell and George W. Bush.”

Instead of criticising the German government and military leadership, he attacked the Turkish government, which had long been seeking “to be a regional power.” He appealed to the CDU-led German government, saying, “You really cannot, you must not show any allegiance, because Turkey is pursuing its own interests.”

17 thoughts on “Syria, al-Qaeda and Germany

  1. I don’t like war and hearing the news stories of invasions and occupying hot sites. But I enjoy your summaries of the news. You put it out there short and detailed! It is part of our lives and is hard to hear at times. But in short detailed doses; it is tolerable. Thank you!!


    • Thanks judy for your kind words!

      This is a comparatively long blog post.

      I think that people should stop wars. To make it possible for them to stop wars, they should be well informed.


  2. Pingback: Greek nazis, police attack refugees | Dear Kitty. Some blog



    Hands off Syria and Iran! End the Drone Wars!

    We Need Jobs, Education and Healthcare, Not Endless War!

    The ominous signs of impending war with Syria escalate. NATO is massing troops and military equipment on Syria’s borders, and preparing to install missiles aimed at Syria. U.S. warships are stationed off Syria’s coast. ‘Special operation’ units are readied. The U.S. government has been supplying arms and logistical support to a few selected Syrian paramilitary groups favored by the U.S. as “replacements” for Assad. The media bombards us with arguments that support foreign intervention, supposedly for “humanitarian reasons”. Like WMD’s in Iraq, alarms are sounded, with no credible evidence, that Assad may unleash chemical weapons, thus establishing a pretext for invasion.

    These are the facts that impel us to oppose any military, economic, diplomatic, or covert intervention aimed at controlling the internal affairs of Syria or any other country:

    · The Syrian people in their majority, regardless of their political positions re: the current government, have rejected calling for foreign intervention, such as occurred in Libya.

    · Sanctions harm the people of Syria by causing food shortages, power outages, and blocking the distribution of goods.

    · The U.S. is directly involved in arming and training a few selected Syrian militias favorable to the U.S., contributing to the escalation of violence, direct foreign military intervention, and total destabilization. The people who always suffer the most are the people not engaged in the armed struggle.

    · We see the results of ‘humanitarian’ U.S. wars and occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya today, where the people, especially women and children, are worse off than before, with millions dead, injured, and/or displaced, an infrastructure and economy in shambles, and where there is no peace. A country that has a river of Iraqi, Afghan, and Libyan blood on its hands has no right to tell other countries what to do.

    · The U.S. government’s goals in Syria are to gain dominance in a part of the world that holds the vast majority of the known oil reserves and to gain strategic advantage as it seeks to isolate and contain competitors like Russia and China. The U.S. has no interest in democracy or the humanitarian well-being of a country’s peoples anywhere in the world, especially in areas where the U.S. has economic or strategic interests.

    · The U.S. has a long history of thwarting the emerging economies and progressive initiatives of the third world while supporting repressive regimes.

    While activists may hold different views of Syria’s internal political system, we must all agree that the U.S. government has no right to impose its will on other countries, especially those formerly colonized and exploited by the West. In all cases, we must support the right of nations to self- determination – that is to be able to decide on and resolve internal conflicts free from any foreign intervention.

    The United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) demands:

    No U.S. or NATO intervention in the internal affairs of Syria!

    No War! No Sanctions! No Intervention!

    Self-determination for the Syrian people!



  4. 1) On VP Sharaa’s proposal for a political solution
    and why it should be responded positively

    The interview released by Syrian vice president Faruq al Sharaa is a strong signal from the regime’s side that they are eventually interested to commence a political process. In his statement Sharaa not only insisted on a political solution (this is not new, there are many such statements from the regime), but also specified that no side can win militarily and thus both sides will have to cede positions. That means that there is a readiness for concessions which until now could not be detected (this is indeed the new element in the situation).


    2) Not reciprocate the regime
    Interview with Orwa Haj Yousef, spokesman of the Syrian “Unity Brigades” and the “Current for National Unity”, its political wing

    This movement is mainly composed of civil political activists of the democratic movement who, according to their self-understanding, were forced to take up arms for self-defence. They continue to defend the primacy of politics over military affairs, the people over the armed groups. They fight against sectarianism and advocate a political solution. Their appearance is an indicator of the political differentiation within the Syrian opposition.


  5. Pingback: NATO war in Syria? | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Pingback: British imperialism and wars today | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: French Mali war escalates | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  8. Pingback: Turks oppose German Syrian war soldiers | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  9. Pingback: Africa invaded, terrorism or profits? | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  10. Pingback: Munich conference promotes war | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  11. Pingback: War in Syria and the Pentagon | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  12. Pingback: British Conservatives help al-Qaeda | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  13. Pingback: British Conservative weapons for al-Qaeda in Syria | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  14. Pingback: CIA-funded Syrian ‘moderate rebels’ behead 12-year-old sick child | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.