Fascinating Interview With Bashar Assad

[expandspanos]

Extremely interesting to hear the other side of the story regarding the Syria conflict.

Assad brings up a number of great points including the damning reality that the US is now supporting Al Qaeda in order to destroy a sovereign nation and create a "puppet state."

A few excerpts from the interview:

"Syria will never become a Western ‘puppet’ state. We are an independent country; we will fight terrorism and we will freely build relationships with countries in a way that best serves the interests of the Syrian people."

--------------

"Interviewer: On Wednesday, the rebels accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons; some Western leaders adopted these accusations. What is your response to this? Will you allow the UN inspectors access to the site to investigate the incident?

President Assad: The statements by the American administration, the West and other countries were made with disdain and blatant disrespect of their own public opinion; there isn’t a body in the world, let alone a superpower, that makes an accusation and then goes about collecting evidence to prove its point. The American administration made the accusation on Wednesday and two days later announced that they would start to collect the evidence - what evidence is it going to gather from afar?!

They claim that the area in question is under the control of the rebels and that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. In fact, the area is in contiguity with the Syrian Army positions, so how is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located; this is preposterous!"

--------------------------------------------
Interviewer: Recent statements by the American administration and other Western governments have stated that the US has not ruled out military intervention in Syria. In light of this, is it looking more likely that the US would behave in the same way it did in Iraq, in other words look for a pretext for military intervention?

President Assad: This is not the first time that the possibility of military intervention has been raised. From the outset, the US, along with France and Britain, has strived for military intervention in Syria. Unfortunately for them, events took a different course with the balance shifting against their interests in the Security Council despite their numerous attempts to haggle with Russia and China, but to no avail. The negative outcomes that emerged in Libya and Egypt were also not in their favour. All of this made it impossible for them to convince their constituents and the world that they were following sound or successful policies.

----------------------

Interviewer: Mr. President, Syria’s relations with several states are collapsing consecutively, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Who are your true allies, and who are your enemies?

President Assad: The countries that support us are well known to everyone: internationally - Russia and China, regionally - Iran. However, we are starting to see a positive shift on the international arena. Certain countries that were strongly against Syria have begun to change their positions; others have started to reinitiate relations with us. Of course, the changes in these countries’ positions do not constitute direct support.

In contrast, there are particular countries that have directly mobilized and buttressed terrorism in Syria. Predominantly Qatar and Turkey in the first two years; Qatar financed while Turkey provided logistical support by training terrorists and streaming them into Syria. Recently, Saudi Arabia has replaced Qatar in the funding role. To be completely clear and transparent, Saudi Arabia has nothing but funding; those who only have money cannot build a civilization or nurture it. Saudi Arabia implements its agenda depending on how much money it commands.

----------------------------

This is a must read interview in full here: http://izvestia.ru/news/556048" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bronco]

-

Zawahiri to Syrian Rebels: Damascus First, Then Cairo, Then Jerusalem
CNSNews ^

(CNSNews.com) - Like the Obama Administration, Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has taken the side of the rebels in Syria’s civil war.

[houndawg]

Extremely interesting to hear the other side of the story regarding the Syria conflict.

Assad brings up a number of great points including the damning reality that the US is now supporting Al Qaeda in order to destroy a sovereign nation and create a "puppet state."

A few excerpts from the interview:

"Syria will never become a Western ‘puppet’ state. We are an independent country; we will fight terrorism and we will freely build relationships with countries in a way that best serves the interests of the Syrian people."

--------------

"Interviewer: On Wednesday, the rebels accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons; some Western leaders adopted these accusations. What is your response to this? Will you allow the UN inspectors access to the site to investigate the incident?

President Assad: The statements by the American administration, the West and other countries were made with disdain and blatant disrespect of their own public opinion; there isn’t a body in the world, let alone a superpower, that makes an accusation and then goes about collecting evidence to prove its point. The American administration made the accusation on Wednesday and two days later announced that they would start to collect the evidence - what evidence is it going to gather from afar?!

They claim that the area in question is under the control of the rebels and that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. In fact, the area is in contiguity with the Syrian Army positions, so how is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located; this is preposterous!"

--------------------------------------------
Interviewer: Recent statements by the American administration and other Western governments have stated that the US has not ruled out military intervention in Syria. In light of this, is it looking more likely that the US would behave in the same way it did in Iraq, in other words look for a pretext for military intervention?

President Assad: This is not the first time that the possibility of military intervention has been raised. From the outset, the US, along with France and Britain, has strived for military intervention in Syria. Unfortunately for them, events took a different course with the balance shifting against their interests in the Security Council despite their numerous attempts to haggle with Russia and China, but to no avail. The negative outcomes that emerged in Libya and Egypt were also not in their favour. All of this made it impossible for them to convince their constituents and the world that they were following sound or successful policies.

----------------------

Interviewer: Mr. President, Syria’s relations with several states are collapsing consecutively, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Who are your true allies, and who are your enemies?

President Assad: The countries that support us are well known to everyone: internationally - Russia and China, regionally - Iran. However, we are starting to see a positive shift on the international arena. Certain countries that were strongly against Syria have begun to change their positions; others have started to reinitiate relations with us. Of course, the changes in these countries’ positions do not constitute direct support.

In contrast, there are particular countries that have directly mobilized and buttressed terrorism in Syria. Predominantly Qatar and Turkey in the first two years; Qatar financed while Turkey provided logistical support by training terrorists and streaming them into Syria. Recently, Saudi Arabia has replaced Qatar in the funding role. To be completely clear and transparent, Saudi Arabia has nothing but funding; those who only have money cannot build a civilization or nurture it. Saudi Arabia implements its agenda depending on how much money it commands.

----------------------------

This is a must read interview in full here: http://izvestia.ru/news/556048" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Assad says he didn't use chemical weapons? oh....wait....he didn't say that.

Read what you just posted spando, your hero doesn't deny using chemical weapons. He just says that the US adopted these accusations and then looked for evidence. Don't see any "nyet" there.....


Weak shit, as usual.

[AZGrizFan]

They're not a "western puppet state". Nope...they're a soviet puppet state.

[Ivytalk]

Might be The Chinless One's last interview, because he'll likely be vaporized within 48 hours.

[Ibanez]

I'm not saying we're right and Assad is wrong, but Innocent leaders don't bomb the hell out of an area, destroying all evidence of a chemical attack. Kerry was right.

[houndawg]

They might both be right. There's a lot of chem and bio stuff we sold to Saddam that's over there somewhere.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'm not saying we're right and Assad is wrong, but Innocent leaders don't bomb the hell out of an area, destroying all evidence of a chemical attack. Kerry was right.

Stop.

We have been locked and loaded and ready to bomb the crap out of Syria as soon as we replenished our missle supply after Libya.

Obushma thought Assad would go the way of Qwadaffy and Mubarak. Turns out Syria is a tougher nut to crack, so Obushma brings out the tired "chemical weapons" nonsense. We allowed Saddam to gas the Iranians and Kurds...where was Kerry then?

Kerry is a clown...a puppet...as was Powell.

There have been several credible reports that the rebels used gas. They do have the motive. What's a few hundred friendly casualties if you get to have American air power pave the way to victory?

What would be Assad's advantage to kill a couple hundred civilians? Seriously...why would he risk such a move? Sure, if he killed 40,000 rebels in a gas attack, you'd say there was an advantage. But, using gas to kill only 100 or so civilians near Damascus....at the risk of allowing the U.S. a "real" reason to take down your government?? THAT MAKES ZERO SENSE.

NO WAY Assad makes that move. He saw Kahdahffi get knocked off by Western air power...there is no way in hell Assad, an educated man, would allow for that possibility.

Spandos has it correct this time.

[houndawg]

I'm not saying we're right and Assad is wrong, but Innocent leaders don't bomb the hell out of an area, destroying all evidence of a chemical attack. Kerry was right.

Stop.

We have been locked and loaded and ready to bomb the crap out of Syria as soon as we replenished our missle supply after Libya.

Obushma thought Assad would go the way of Qwadaffy and Mubarak. Turns out Syria is a tougher nut to crack, so Obushma brings out the tired "chemical weapons" nonsense. We allowed Saddam to gas the Iranians and Kurds...where was Kerry then?

Kerry is a clown...a puppet...as was Powell.

There have been several credible reports that the rebels used gas. They do have the motive. What's a few hundred friendly casualties if you get to have American air power pave the way to victory?

What would be Assad's advantage to kill a couple hundred civilians? Seriously...why would he risk such a move? Sure, if he killed 40,000 rebels in a gas attack, you'd say there was an advantage. But, using gas to kill only 100 or so civilians near Damascus....at the risk of allowing the U.S. a "real" reason to take down your government?? THAT MAKES ZERO SENSE.

NO WAY Assad makes that move. He saw Kahdahffi get knocked off by Western air power...there is no way in hell Assad, an educated man, would allow for that possibility.

Spandos has it correct this time.

His Alawite home guard had been settling a lot of scores with the Sunnis. Which sect did the victims belong to?

[Ibanez]

I'm not saying we're right and Assad is wrong, but Innocent leaders don't bomb the hell out of an area, destroying all evidence of a chemical attack. Kerry was right.

Stop.

We have been locked and loaded and ready to bomb the crap out of Syria as soon as we replenished our missle supply after Libya.

Obushma thought Assad would go the way of Qwadaffy and Mubarak. Turns out Syria is a tougher nut to crack, so Obushma brings out the tired "chemical weapons" nonsense. We allowed Saddam to gas the Iranians and Kurds...where was Kerry then?

Kerry is a clown...a puppet...as was Powell.

There have been several credible reports that the rebels used gas. They do have the motive. What's a few hundred friendly casualties if you get to have American air power pave the way to victory?

What would be Assad's advantage to kill a couple hundred civilians? Seriously...why would he risk such a move? Sure, if he killed 40,000 rebels in a gas attack, you'd say there was an advantage. But, using gas to kill only 100 or so civilians near Damascus....at the risk of allowing the U.S. a "real" reason to take down your government?? THAT MAKES ZERO SENSE.

NO WAY Assad makes that move. He saw Kahdahffi get knocked off by Western air power...there is no way in hell Assad, an educated man, would allow for that possibility.

Spandos has it correct this time.

. I'm just stating an obvious fact: Using gas to kill 100 people makes as much a sense as bombing the site of a chemical attack that you claim you didn't launch. Did Assad really gas those people? I don't know. But his actions after the fact make him suspicious.

War drums are beating. How many wars do we need in this country? Can't we keep to ourselves and worry about our own people?

[houndawg]

Stop.

We have been locked and loaded and ready to bomb the crap out of Syria as soon as we replenished our missle supply after Libya.

Obushma thought Assad would go the way of Qwadaffy and Mubarak. Turns out Syria is a tougher nut to crack, so Obushma brings out the tired "chemical weapons" nonsense. We allowed Saddam to gas the Iranians and Kurds...where was Kerry then?

Kerry is a clown...a puppet...as was Powell.

There have been several credible reports that the rebels used gas. They do have the motive. What's a few hundred friendly casualties if you get to have American air power pave the way to victory?

What would be Assad's advantage to kill a couple hundred civilians? Seriously...why would he risk such a move? Sure, if he killed 40,000 rebels in a gas attack, you'd say there was an advantage. But, using gas to kill only 100 or so civilians near Damascus....at the risk of allowing the U.S. a "real" reason to take down your government?? THAT MAKES ZERO SENSE.

NO WAY Assad makes that move. He saw Kahdahffi get knocked off by Western air power...there is no way in hell Assad, an educated man, would allow for that possibility.

Spandos has it correct this time.

. I'm just stating an obvious fact: Using gas to kill 100 people makes as much a sense as bombing the site of a chemical attack that you claim you didn't launch. Did Assad really gas those people? I don't know. But his actions after the fact make him suspicious.

War drums are beating. How many wars do we need in this country? Can't we keep to ourselves and worry about our own people?

Where is the money in worrying about our own people?

We're nothing but takers who don't deserve any help.

[expandspanos]

This is a must read interview in full here: http://izvestia.ru/news/556048" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Assad says he didn't use chemical weapons? oh....wait....he didn't say that.

Read what you just posted spando, your hero doesn't deny using chemical weapons. He just says that the US adopted these accusations and then looked for evidence. Don't see any "nyet" there.....

Weak ****, as usual.

The problem with your ability to reason Howndog is the following: I provided a few excerpts from a much larger interview, then provided a link to the entire article- A much larger article you apparently didn't read .

If you read the entire article, which I linked to you would have actually read:

Interviewer: On Wednesday, the rebels accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons; some Western leaders adopted these accusations. What is your response to this? Will you allow the UN inspectors access to the site to investigate the incident?

President Assad:

"They claim that the area in question is under the control of the rebels and that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. In fact, the area is in contiguity with the Syrian Army positions, so how is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located; this is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicised and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.

As for the UN Commission, we were the first to request a UN investigation when terrorists launched rockets that carried toxic gas in the outskirts of Aleppo. Several months before the attack, American and Western statements were already preparing public opinion of the potential use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. This raised our suspicion that they were aware of the terrorists’ intentions to use these weapons in order to blame the Syrian government. After liaising with Russia, we decided to request a commission to investigate the incident. Whereas we requested an investigation based on the facts on the ground, not on rumours or allegations; the US, France and the UK have tried to exploit the incident to investigate allegations rather than happenings."

---------------------

Actually (had you read the entire interview) Assad clearly says that the accusation of the Syria gov. having used chemical weapons is preposterous and points out the obvious fact that the chemical weapons have been constantly used against his own soldiers, and a "media build up" to prepare the public for the hoax event had been in the work far in advance

[expandspanos]

They're not a "western puppet state". Nope...they're a soviet puppet state.

The difference between a puppet state and a non-puppet state is the following:

An independent nation can CHOOSE who they want to associate with, make trade agreements, and military contracts with.

A puppet state is forced- through military action, cooercion or a fake "revolution" into accepting leaders who are directly taking orders from another country- Examples of recent puppet states include Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt most recently- Or even our newest ally puppet nation South Sudan.

Most of the countries in the middle east we are given constant "aid" - which is in fact a bribe that usually goes directly to the "leaders" of that nation to prop up our puppet governments there.

Do not confuse making strategic military deals with being a "puppet", there is a huge difference. Syria chose Russia over the US for obvious reasons- we are attacking their allies, they have had a long standing friendship and we recently invaded a country that borders theirs (Iraq) and destroyed it.

Most recently- we are lying to the rest of the world about them using chemical weapons (Just like we did to invade Iraq, their neighbor) so we can "liberate them." They would be complete idiots not to ally themselves with Russia.

If the US Allies itself with the UK and France does that make us a puppet state? Of course not.

[Bronco]

-

Politics: Obama, Kerry, Bush et al discuss Syria on Facebook

[89Hen]

so how is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located; this is preposterous!

Yeah, that's never happened before.

[houndawg]

This is a must read interview in full here: http://izvestia.ru/news/556048" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Assad says he didn't use chemical weapons? oh....wait....he didn't say that.

Read what you just posted spando, your hero doesn't deny using chemical weapons. He just says that the US adopted these accusations and then looked for evidence. Don't see any "nyet" there.....

Weak ****, as usual.

The problem with your ability to reason Howndog is the following: I provided a few excerpts from a much larger interview, then provided a link to the entire article- A much larger article you apparently didn't read .

If you read the entire article, which I linked to you would have actually read:

Interviewer: On Wednesday, the rebels accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons; some Western leaders adopted these accusations. What is your response to this? Will you allow the UN inspectors access to the site to investigate the incident?

President Assad:

"They claim that the area in question is under the control of the rebels and that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. In fact, the area is in contiguity with the Syrian Army positions, so how is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located; this is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicised and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.

As for the UN Commission, we were the first to request a UN investigation when terrorists launched rockets that carried toxic gas in the outskirts of Aleppo. Several months before the attack, American and Western statements were already preparing public opinion of the potential use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. This raised our suspicion that they were aware of the terrorists’ intentions to use these weapons in order to blame the Syrian government. After liaising with Russia, we decided to request a commission to investigate the incident. Whereas we requested an investigation based on the facts on the ground, not on rumours or allegations; the US, France and the UK have tried to exploit the incident to investigate allegations rather than happenings."

---------------------

Actually (had you read the entire interview) Assad clearly says that the accusation of the Syria gov. having used chemical weapons is preposterous and points out the obvious fact that the chemical weapons have been constantly used against his own soldiers, and a "media build up" to prepare the public for the hoax event had been in the work far in advance

Wrong as usual, spankdo. We may well have our hand in this thing, and the gas that was used might well be US supplied from one of our earlier vendettas. I don't discount that possibility. I also haven't heard Assad use the word "no". And where is this "obvious fact" that chemical weapons have been constantly used against his own soldiers? Haven't seen any footage of Syrian soldiers flopping around.

[Skjellyfetti]

-

Politics: Obama, Kerry, Bush et al discuss Syria on Facebook

Interesting that the cartoon thinks we were only involved in Afghanistan and Iraq