‘Jewish extremists’ condemned for vandalising Jerusalem church

St. Stephen Church in occupied Jerusalem was vandalised on 21 September 2017 [Richard Hardigan/Twitter]
MEMO | September 22, 2017
The Council of Catholic Churches in Jerusalem yesterday condemned the attack by “Jewish extremists” on one its houses of worship and called on the Israeli government to do more to curtail the escalating violence against Christians in the holy land.
Wednesday’s attack on St. Stephen Church in occupied Jerusalem resulted in the destruction of glass artwork and statues that depict the life of Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary.
The new patriarchal Vicar for Jerusalem and Palestine, Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo, speaking to AsiaNews said that the incident “fits in with the pattern of past incidents” and was carried out by “some fanatics” whom he described as most likely being “Jewish extremists”.
In addition to the “huge damage” caused by the destruction of statues and windows, there is the deep pain caused by “the fanaticism of these groups who do not want to accept diversity and the faith of others,” the patriarch said.
The attack took place near a chapel dedicated to St Stephen where a group of nuns and some members of the communities of the monastic family of Bethlehem live.
The Council of Catholic Churches moved swiftly to condemn the attack by releasing the statement calling on the State of Israel to punish those who were responsible for the acts “because” they said “it could easily lead to serious and unpredictable consequences, which would be most unwelcome in the current tense religious climate.”
Attacks by Jewish extremists on Christian and Muslim sites have been on the rise in recent years. Earlier this month church leaders united in their condemnation of Israel for its systematic attempt to undermine the integrity of the Holy City of Jerusalem and weaken its Christian heritage in Palestine.
They appealed to Christians, as well as the heads of governments “and all people of good will” to support them in their efforts to stop the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian Christian community.
Read also:
Russia never placed ads on Facebook to interfere in US election – Kremlin
RT | September 22, 2017
Moscow has nothing to do with political advertisements on Facebook that were allegedly aimed at influencing the 2016 US presidential election, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday.
“We don’t know who placed the advertisements on Facebook or how, and have never done it. The Russian side has never been part of it,” Peskov told journalists on Friday.
Earlier, Facebook reported that a Russian agency had purchased some ads on the social network during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Facebook co-founder and Chairman Mark Zuckerberg said on Thursday that the company is “actively working with the US government on its ongoing investigations into Russian interference.”
The company also said that it “will help government authorities complete the vitally important work of assessing what happened in the 2016 election.”
“We are looking into foreign actors, including additional Russian groups and other former Soviet states, as well as organizations like the campaigns, to further our understanding of how they used our tools,” Zuckerberg said.
Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev says Zuckerberg is apparently trying to improve his relations with the US authorities.
“It is known that some time ago Facebook was suspected of too much affection for [Hillary] Clinton and antipathy to Trump, who is quite vindictive as we all know. So let’s see what ‘evidence’ will be provided,” the head of the upper house’s Committee for International Relations told RT.
He also stressed that it would be interesting to see any investigation of Washington’s meddling in other countries’ affairs by Facebook.
“Zuckerberg, apparently, has not carried out any months-long investigations concerning the actions of the US to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign countries,” Kosachev said.
“I am sure that if such an inquiry were held, then countless [amounts of] evidence would be found.”
Earlier in September, Facebook said it had discovered some 3,000 ads purchased between June 2015 and May 2017, connected to 470 “inauthentic” accounts and pages, which might have been related Russia’s alleged meddling.
However, the company did not directly accuse Russia and admitted that the “vast majority of ads run by these accounts” had nothing to do with the election, voting, or a particular candidate.
The US has been struggling credibly to accuse Moscow of meddling in the 2016 presidential election – a claim that Russia has strongly denied. No evidence of Russia’s alleged hacking of the US elections has been presented.
“The Russians interfered in our election…it is the high-confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community…,” former FBI director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee in June. However, neither he nor special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign produced any evidence to support the assertion.
“The ex-FBI director said that he believes that there was Russian meddling in the electoral process [in the US], but at the same time provided no proof of that,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in June.
Another giant Internet company, Google, said earlier in September that it had failed to unearth any facts that would implicate Moscow in exploiting advertising to manipulate the election.
‘Driving Ms. Deep State’: Morgan Freeman Psy-Op Shows Desperation of US Establishment
By Andrew Korybko | Sputnik | September 20, 2017
Morgan Freeman’s latest publicly stunt permanently stained his legacy after the famous actor decided to join the fake news industry by passing off a blockbuster script as a true story.
Morgan Freeman declared in his latest two-minute video that “We have been attacked. We are at war”, but he’s wrong in saying that Americans have been victimized by Russia, but should have rather told the truth that they’re under attack by their own government. To channel Freeman, “Imagine this movie script”, albeit modified to reflect real-life events instead of conspiratorial ones:
[Imagine…] A globalist power cabal made up of the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (the “deep state”), in conjunction with the Democratic Party, “Cultural Marxist” professors, the Mainstream Media, and Hollywood have attacked American democracy using non-stop infowar operations against their own fellow citizens to spread propaganda and false information aimed at convincing people that the Republican candidate and future President of the United States is really a Russian puppet…
A few years ago this might have sounded just as ridiculous as the narrative that Freeman read off in front of the cameras, but the difference is that this actually happened whereas his story still remains the realm of fiction. The conspiracy theory that Russia somehow swayed the 2016 election has no basis in reality, and it’s very condescending to the millions of average Americans in the Midwest who swayed the election for Trump to even infer that these patriotic citizens were under the influence of a foreign intelligence operation at the time.
Midwesterners didn’t tip the election for Trump because President Putin, the FSB, RT, or Sputnik told them to — which they didn’t — but because they had enough of the old order of business in the US and were desperately craving a change, any change, to improve the all-around deteriorating conditions that have come to define their lives. Trump promised law and order, jobs and strong borders, and a no-nonsense approach to American domestic politics, the complete opposite of Hillary’s platform and exactly what Midwesterners wanted to hear.
Even without the DNC leaks, many of those folks would never have countenanced voting for Hillary due to her husband’s toxic legacy and that of his party. Moreover, these voters didn’t need proof of Hillary and the Democrats’ corruption because they had suspected it all along, though the amplification of their crimes by the global media vindicated them for what The Establishment had falsely claimed for years was just another tinfoil hat “conspiracy theory”.
Now about actual conspiracy facts, many people could never have thought that their own government would turn against them and attack America’s sacred political system, its electoral democracy, through the incessant demonization of Donald Trump and the plethora of fake news that they disseminated about him. When Trump claimed that his campaign was under surveillance by the Obama Administration, he was dismissed as a crackpot, but it’s since emerged just the other day that former National Security Advisor Susan Rice did in fact authorize the spying of Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
On top of that, the never-ending assertions that Trump is in cahoots with the Russian government or somehow under the nefarious influence of shadowy Kremlin agents are regularly debunked by listening to the President and his Administration constantly talk about “Russian aggression” and watching them use this pretext to make hostile moves against Moscow. These actions strongly refute the claims of a secret Trump-Russian connection and most Americans understand that, but the “deep state” and their cohorts in the “Cultural Marxist” corners of academia, the Mainstream Media, Hollywood, and the masked mob of “Antifa” rioters believe that the population is just too stupid to see this and could therefore be easily misled into believing their fake news narrative that Putin’s proxy is in control of the White House.
The whole point behind this massive infowar operation against the minds of the American public is to delegitimize Trump’s election in a last-ditch bid to give the Democrats a chance to win back Congress during next year’s midterm elections. It’s also designed to influence the President’s domestic and foreign policy decision making, and it actually has succeeded to a degree in that respect if one holds the view that Trump truly believed what he said on the campaign trail but was later pressured by the “deep state” to take a decidedly neo-conservative stance towards International Affairs after he entered into office. Regardless, what’s important to focus on in this context are the American people themselves, who largely dismiss the conspiratorial, never-proven, and constantly debunked accusations that Morgan Freeman shamelessly told the American public with a straight face.
There’s a popular saying that one shouldn’t “shoot the messenger”, but that doesn’t mean that the said messenger is above criticism. Morgan Freeman is a beloved household name who is universally praised for his excellent acting skills and the unforgettable memories that he’s imbued his audiences with, but politics isn’t his element, and no matter how much the “Committee to Investigate Russia’ pleads that it’s “non-partisan”, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper’s open involvement in the project proves that it’s linked to the same anti-Trump “deep state” that’s been undermining American democracy for over the past two years. Morgan Freeman should have known better than to lend his acting talent to pretending that a movie script is a real-life story, and that’s why so many people are disappointed in him on a deep, personal level.
The irony of it all is that Morgan Freeman could have actually done a lot of good if he had the courage to say the truth. Instead of imploring Trump to sit down in front of the American people, elaborate on Hillary’s “Russia Did It!” conspiracy theory, and then “legitimize” it through a full-blown nationwide anti-Russian witch hunt stretching from the Office of the Presidency all the way down to the paupers in the inner city, he himself could have sat down in front of the American people just as he did in his two-minute psy-op video and calmly explain the actual real-life “deep state” conspiracy against Trump and the American people. He didn’t do that, so there’s no use in speculating about “coulda, shoulda, woulda”, but for the sake of cracking a smile and thinking about what might have been, it sure would have been powerful if he channeled his blockbuster script but adapted it to actual events by saying:
“My fellow Americans, during this past election, we came under attack by our own government. I’ve called on the patriotic members of Congress and our intelligence community to use every resource available to conduct a thorough investigation to determine exactly how this happened. Our citizens are demanding accountability. For 241 years our democracy has been imperfect but nevertheless something to aspire to, and we owe it to the brave people who have fought and died to protect this great nation and save democracy. And we owe it to our future generations to continue the fight.”
But then again, Hollywood by its very nature is fake and deceptive, so it might be too much to ever hope for an American movie icon to stand up and say those brave words that were imagined above, though that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have resonated with tens of millions of dyed-in-the-wool patriotic Americans who are sick and tired of the “deep state’s” manipulative mind games.
Human Rights: The Latest Weapon Against Venezuela
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Lilian Tintori, wife of opposition leader Leopoldo López who is currently serving a 13 year sentence (in house arrest) for his responsibility in the deadly violence of the 2014 guarimbas.
By Ricardo Vaz | Investig’Action | September 21, 2017
The mainstream media have a crucial role to play in the war against Venezuela, creating a distorted narrative and a constant frenzy that are crucial for any regime-change operation. With violent protests having failed to topple the government and to stop the Constituent Assembly, the plan switched to military threats and economic sanctions. But these come directly from an unpopular US administration, and a more impartial-looking figure was needed. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Jordanian Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad al Hussein, stepped up to the plate with the backing of more than 100 NGOs. We tackle the manipulation of human rights for imperial purposes, but first we examine how the term “NGO” is woefully inadequate to describe these organisations.
*****
So much more than NGOs
On occasion of the 36th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 116 “NGOs”1 signed a letter demanding that Venezuela be a priority for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The effort was spearheaded by none other than Human Rights Watch (HRW). HRW has a long and documented history of bias and outright lies in their reports on Venezuela, which is no surprise given their blatant revolving door with the US government. Among the signatories are several usual suspects such as Provea or Foro Penal, whose president Alfredo Romero was a recent speaker in a “US Democracy Support” forum.
Another organisation on the list is Transparencia Venezuela, which includes as sources of funding the EU, several embassies and the parent organisation Transparency International. And although Transparency International is much shadier than it sounds, at least we can laud their transparency in listing their backers. The list includes the US State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), George Soros’ Open Society, even corporations such as Shell. One more that stands out, and is quoted regularly by the media, is the International Commission of Jurists, which sounds very noble and independent until you discover that they were initially funded by the CIA.
The issue here is with the term “non-governmental organisation”, which are always presented by the media as faultless, impartial actors. While there are many scenarios in which independent organisations can step in and provide invaluable services, this is hardly the case of groups funded by the NED (or USAID, or similar agencies) to “promote democracy” or “defend human rights” in countries like Venezuela. These are merely extensions of the US and western foreign policy apparatus, working as the local infrastructure that is necessary in regime change operations as well as a source for the media to build its biased narrative.
At the end of the day, it is the term “non-governmental organisation” that falls very short of describing the nature and activities of these groups. If an organisation in Venezuela, or anywhere else, is funded by the US government, in what world is it a “non-governmental organisation”? One cannot prove that all the “NGOs” standing with HRW are western-funded, but advancing western interests is very much advancing corporate interests, and it is doubtful that anyone would do that for free.
UN High Commissioner for HR shaking hands with former US Secretary of State John Kerry. (If by accident their speeches were switched nobody would notice!)
Weaponizing human rights
While one should not judge a book by the cover, it might be useful to consider the background of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad al Hussein. A member of the royal family of Jordan, he comes from a Hashemite dynasty whose calling card has been its pliancy to imperial interests in the Middle East. And having served as ambassador to the US and permanent representative to the UN, he is, much like Jordan, someone the US can rely upon.
His most recent statement, which could just as well have been written by the US State Department, was delivered during the 36th Session of the Human Rights Council. It takes aim at every inconvenient country, from Iran to North Korea, while important US allies like Bahrain or Egypt are invited to “engage more productively” with his office. Israel is treated with kid gloves, and somehow the blame for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is supposed to be shared between Israeli and Palestinian authorities. And there is no mention whatsoever of Saudi Arabia, where surely there are no human rights issues… Even when addressing the catastrophe in Yemen there is only a passing mention to “coalition airstrikes”.
And then the High Commissioner gets to Venezuela, sounding like any opposition leader or US official on “human rights violations” during anti-government protests or the “crushing [of] democratic institutions”, and suggesting an investigation into possible “crimes against humanity”. Never mind Colombia, where for years the army killed thousands of civilians and dressed them as rebels to collect rewards. Never mind Saudi Arabia, conducting double tap strikes2 against funerals in Yemen, or the US “torturing some folks,” or Israeli soldiers killing children because they were “running like terrorists.” The High Commissioner is worried that crimes against humanity have been committed in Venezuela!
This statement comes on the heels of a OHCHR report about Venezuela that Joe Emersberger described as “embarrassingly shoddy and biased.” It barely mentions any violence coming from the opposition ranks, and while offering a tally of deaths allegedly caused by government forces and the bogeyman colectivos, there is no detailed breakdown to be compared with other accounts such as the one by Venezuelanalysis. Remarkably, given the importance of the issue and the damning verdict that the OHCHR wishes to pass, no investigators from the UN body set foot in Venezuela. Instead the report relies on carefully selected testimonies and the “NGOs” we just discussed.
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza condemned the manipulation of human rights to attack Venezuela and the lies in the recent OHCHR report.
True NGOs strike back
While the amenable High Commissioner and the poorly-named “NGOs” put on their show to further the regime-change operation in Venezuela, others were not about to take it sitting down. True NGOs, independent organisations that are not pawns in imperialist machinations, and which are truly committed to human rights, condemned foreign meddling in Venezuela and the politicisation of human rights. One example was Swiss-based CETIM, an organisation focused on supporting social movements in the Global South. Concerning Venezuela, it released a statement that said:
[…] we declare ourselves for an immediate return to calm and to dialog, for the respect of Venezuelan peoples’ right to self-determination and the deepening of the process of democratic transformation that they have freely and courageously undertaken for two decades […]
Another organisation that reacted to the recent actions of the OHCHR was the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), through its representative at the UN, Micòl Savia, during one of the plenary meetings of the 36th Session of the Human Rights Council (intervention #35 in this link)
The IADL expresses its most profound dismay at the recent OHCHR report […]. Given its severity, we are particularly concerned by the High Commissioner’s mention of […] crimes against humanity, which lacks any legal grounds or sense of proportion. […]
The report is selective and biased, and represents a further example of the unfortunate politicisation that affects the work of the OHCHR, undermining its credibility and standing. Use of firearms, explosives, setting up barricades, people burned alive, attacks against hospitals, […], is this the model of “peaceful protests” that this council wants to promote?
Judge, jury and executioner
In the end the bias and lack of standards, or outright falsehood, of these claims and reports does not matter, because if the target is Venezuela they only have to look credible. The media will then do the rest, creating a background by repeating that “Venezuela has been accused by the UN of human rights abuses”, regardless of the shoddiness of the accusations, and this will be the basis to justify future escalations and aggressions as the empire pulls out all the stops to get rid of the biggest threat in its “backyard”.3
This is a good time to stress that legal systems are not moral or just by definition, but a reflection of who holds power, and this is especially true of international law. Though the struggle for an arena where all countries have the same weight is imperative, we are fooling ourselves if we are counting on international bodies to be impartial upholders of justice (just look at Palestine). Recent international tribunals have only served to reinforce the US/western narrative, either as a posteriori justification for past wars such as the one in Yugoslavia, or to justify upcoming ones against troublesome leaders like Gaddafi.
We should clarify that our argument is not some kind of moral relativism, whereby we defend that the alleged crime A should not be investigated until justice is served for (the much worse) crime B. We are not arguing that nobody can be guilty of crimes against humanity until Henry Kissinger is tried, although it is hard to take any international tribunal seriously if the most blatant crimes are immune from prosecution. But what is definitely absurd and unacceptable is to have the US empire, either directly or through its proxies, be the judge trying other people and countries.
Notes
- The HRW statement, and all pieces about it, refer to 116 NGOs; however, the organisations listed only total 115…
- Double tap strikes comprise an initial strike on a target followed by another one targeting first responders.
- In its article about this issue, the Guardian refers to a high-profile jailed opposition leader called Leonardo López (his name is Leopoldo López). Given the overall bias and lack of standards, this is probably fitting.
President Aoun at UN: Lebanon Won’t Allow Naturalization of Any Refugee
Naharnet | September 21, 2017
The Lebanese President Michel Aoun stressed Thursday in his maiden speech before the UN General Assembly that Lebanon will not allow the naturalization of any Syrian or Palestinian refugee on its soil “no matter what that might cost.”
“The decision in this regard belongs to us and not to anyone else,” Aoun underlined.
Noting that the Syrian state is now in control of “85 percent of its territory,” the president emphasized that “there is an urgent need to organize the return of refugees to their country.”
“Some call for the refugees’ voluntary return and we call for their safe return and differentiate between the two concepts,” Aoun noted.
“The claim that they will not be safe should they return to their country is an unacceptable excuse… If the Syrian state is carrying out reconciliations with the armed groups that it is fighting, wouldn’t it be able to do so with refugees who had fled war?” the president asked.
He added: “The UN better help the refugees return home instead of helping them to stay in encampments that lack the least requirements of decent life.”
Separately and from the same UN podium, Aoun nominated Lebanon to become a “permanent, UN-affiliated center for dialogue among the various cultures, religions and races.”
“I hope the member states will back Lebanon in this demand, so that we can all work for peace, security and stability,” he added.
US President Donald Trump’s suggestion that refugees be resettled closer to home instead of brought to the United States has angered many in Lebanon, a tiny country hosting more than 1.5 million refugees.
The country of just 4 million is officially hosting more than 1 million Syrian refugees and some 500,000 Palestinians. The real numbers are likely higher as many don’t register with the UN.
UK Surgeon David Nott, Takes Sides While Saving Lives in East Aleppo

By Steven Sahiounie | American Herald Tribune | September 21, 2017
David Nott is a British surgeon who has received numerous awards and accolades for his medical volunteerism in East Aleppo, Syria in 2013 and 2014. He was hosted by the Aleppo City Medical Council, which was founded in 2012 by medical professionals committed to the armed revolution in Syria, which sought to overthrow the Syrian government of Pres. Bashar Assad.
The Aleppo City Medical Council served and existed in only one neighborhood in Aleppo: that of occupied East Aleppo. On the Western side of Aleppo lived 1.5 million persons, who were living under the Syrian government, as were the majority of the highly populated areas across Syria. On the Eastern side of Aleppo lived 250,000 civilians, who went to sleep one night, and woke up occupied by armed rebels. The unarmed civilians of East Aleppo didn’t vote to accept occupation by armed militias. In some cases they may have been willing to work with the rebels, but the majority of the civilian population of Aleppo did not want to participate in the revolution. Even though they did not choose war, the war came to their neighborhood, and took away their freedom. No longer were they able to visit relatives, shop, go to University, or visit a doctor in Western Aleppo. They were made prisoners in their own homes and neighborhoods.
The armed opposition, the so called ‘rebels’ of Syria, are the armed militia known as Free Syrian Army. This group began as a US supported armed group, but lacked the man-power to sustain a viable armed opposition to the very large Syrian Arab Army, which prior to the war had ranked as the 16th strongest Army in the world. From the outset in 2011 the FSA began an outreach invitation to Al Qaeda and other Radical terrorist groups, in order to bulk-up the numbers in the armed opposition on the ground, with the hope of providing enough man-power and weapons in order to topple the Syrian government.
Dr. David Nott was seduced by the romantic notion of rebels fighting against a brutal regime. Apparently, he was not aware of the true beginning of the Syrian conflict, which began in March 2011.
When Dr. Nott writes about his time in Syria he takes sides, while saving lives in East Aleppo. He was not a neutral humanitarian.
CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour has said “I learned a long, long time ago, when I was covering genocide and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, never to equate victim and aggressor, never to create a false moral or factual equivalence, because then, if you do, particularly in situations like that, you are party and accomplice to the most unspeakable crimes and consequences, so I believe in being truthful, not neutral.”
Dr. David Nott does not acknowledge the Doctors in the hospitals in Western Aleppo who were treating patients injured, or dying, from missile attacks on their neighborhoods by the rebels Dr. Nott worked for. He glorifies the position of his rebel friends, while demonizing the Syrian Arab Army, who were defending the lives and property of the unarmed civilians in Western Aleppo. He seems unaware that the ‘regime’ forces are made up of Syrian males over the age of 18 who are able bodied and not enrolled in University. In other words, they are drafted in a compulsory national service during the conflict, and are not from any one particular sect, but are from every Christian and Muslim sect, including atheists. The Syrian Arab Army were Syrian citizens, however the rebels in Eastern Aleppo were from various countries, and included various Radical Islamic terrorist groups, including ISIS, and Dr. Nott acknowledges their presence.
In fact, Dr. Nott was well aware of the presence of ISIS within the area he worked, even to the point of going through ISIS check points. He pretended to be afraid of them, and acknowledged that they had executed other British humanitarians, but this did not prevent him from leaving the area for his own personal safety. His calculated choice to remain in a specific area known to have ISIS presence must only mean that his ‘minders’, the FSA, had made special provisions with ISIS for Dr. Nott’s services. Dr. Nott was ‘off-limits’ to ISIS. In fact, Dr. Nott performed surgery on an ISIS terrorist in Eastern Aleppo. The hospital operating room was not attacked by ISIS, and he was not forced to perform surgery, but rather this was an FSA controlled Hospital which was allied with ISIS, and thus the ISIS injured were received as normal course of duty.
Dr. Nott recalls being taken to a Priest in Western Aleppo by his ‘minders’ in an effort to portray the conflict as non-sectarian. He should have asked his friends, “Where are the Christians and Priests who support the revolution here in Eastern Aleppo?” He doesn’t seem to be aware that the Syrian Christians have been targeted from the outset by the ‘rebels’.
Robin Harris in 2013 wrote: “Many Iraqi refugees left to join the two million indigenous Christians of Syria. They now share their hosts’ lot — persecution by the western-supported, Saudi-financed, Islamist-dominated Syrian rebels. Priests are special targets. This is where a Syrian Catholic priest, Father François Murad, was murdered last month.”
Dr. Nott wrote an impassioned plea concerning the photo-gone-viral of young Omran, bloodied and sitting in the back of an ambulance in Eastern Aleppo. Dr. Nott was not there at the time, but one of his colleagues from the Hospital in Eastern Aleppo contacted him concerning the tragic photo. Based only on the second-hand information coming to him, Dr. Nott was certain this little boy, saved by the famous WHITE HEMETS of Eastern Aleppo, was the victim of the brutal Syrian regime. Dr. Nott wrote: “The picture of Omran epitomises the horror that can be broadcast on our television screens.” “The sticking point is whether Assad stays or goes. He has to go. The refugees who have left the country will not return unless he has gone. There is no alternative.”
Dr. Nott did not ask all the refugees who left Syria if they left because of Pres. Assad, or whether they would be willing to come back to Syria if there was peace, even though Pres. Assad might remain. Yet, Dr. Nott would have you to believe there is no other reason for leaving Syria. In fact, many Syrian refugees left from peaceful areas, like the Syrian coast, which had never had battles or destruction, and which had remained peaceful and stable. Many Syrian refugees would tell you that they left for the chance to have an income, while living in a peaceful place. There are as many reasons to leave Syria as there are refugees: each has their own story. It is untruthful to portray all the Syrian refugees in a blanket statement.
Now that Western Aleppo and Eastern Aleppo are reunited in peace and stability, the true stories pour out from the actual eye witnesses. The father of the little boy Omran has now told the full details to both Syrian and Western journalists. The details given to Dr. Nott by the treating physician in Eastern Aleppo do not ring true. It was Omran’s father who saved the boy from the rubble, and it was the WHITE HELMETS who seized the boy, without medical treatment first, and staged the photo which then went viral. The colleague of Dr. Nott from the Aleppo Medical Council was present, but only gave treatment after the photo was finished. The WHITE HELMETS even offered to pay a bribe to the father, but were refused, and they have since admitted so.
The father of Omran, Mohammed Kheir Daqneesh stated: “The truth is one thing and they used him in a way that was not truthful and this really bothered me. The armed militia and their media used him in a way that was excessive.”
Once the rebels and their allies were driven out of Eastern Aleppo, the residents were able to run to freedom in Western Aleppo. Another British citizen was present as the Syrian refugees came pouring in. Rev. Andrew Ashdown is a Church of England priest studying Christian-Muslim relations in Syria. He wrote: “They said that they had been living in fear. They reported that the fighters have been telling everyone that the Syrian Army would kill anyone who fled to the West, but had killed many themselves who tried to leave – men, women and children.”
“The refugees said that the ‘rebels’ told them that only those who support them are “true Muslims”, and that everyone else are ‘infidels’ and deserve to die.”
“Likewise, most had been given no medical treatment. (A doctor who has been working with the refugees for weeks told me last night that in an area recently liberated, a warehouse filled with brand new internationally branded medicines had been discovered.)”
“One old man in a wheelchair who was being given free treatment in the Russian Field Hospital said he had been given no treatment for three years despite asking.”
The British Priest who personally interviewed the actual survivors of 3 years of occupation in Eastern Aleppo is shedding light on the true picture of life in Eastern Aleppo under the occupation of the rebels. Why is the story that Dr. Nott is telling us so very different? Maybe the difference is that Dr. David Nott was not a neutral observer, but was firmly on the side of the rebels. His minders may have carefully kept him away from civilians, and knowing he could not understand Arabic, the language barrier kept Dr. Nott in the dark as to the true picture of life under occupation of the FSA rebels, and their allies like ISIS and Al Qaeda. Dr. Nott was kept constantly busy treating the injured and saving lives.
The Syrian conflict seems to be winding down to an end. Dr. David Nott and other western humanitarians may begin the long and thoughtful process of asking themselves why they backed the rebels and their allies in a bloody and impossible fight. The US-UK-NATO war machine, fueled by western mainstream media sold many seemingly intelligent people on the idea of a Syrian revolution which would be fought for freedom and democracy. Perhaps one day Dr. Nott will come back to Aleppo and meet some actual residents and survivors of Western and Eastern Aleppo. Perhaps then he can understand the role he played in support of the rebels and their political ideology.
SYRIA: Game Over for Macron after Shameful UNGA Performance
By Bruno Guigue | 21st Century Wire | September 20, 2017
Before the UN General Assembly, you treated President Bashar al Assad as a criminal and declared that he should be held accountable to “international justice”. You have betrayed those who believed in a turn-around in your politics and you have brought this serious accusation against the legitimate leader of a UN member state.
Exactly what jurisdiction has empowered you, Mr Macron, to issue arrest warrants for foreign heads of state, who, by the way, could teach you a thing or two?
Who gives you the right, as a European head of state, representing the former colonial power in Syria (1920 – 1946), to hand out certificates for good or bad behaviour to your Middle Eastern counterparts?
This intervention is made all the more disturbing by the fact that you, like your predecessors, persevere with your complacency towards the petro-monarchies, to whom you sell arms that are used to massacre the courageous people of Yemen. You denounce the crimes you have attributed to the Syrian president, but you turn a blind eye to the head-choppers, the West’s beloved mercenaries. The 10,000 deaths in Yemen, the 500,000 children suffering from malnutrition, the terrifying cholera epidemic brought on by the Saudi bombardment, don’t trouble you, trigger no remorse and yet, you seriously want us to take notice of your indignation over Syria?
Everybody is aware that the Syrian conflict has caused tens of thousands of deaths, that the bloodbath gone on too long and that a political solution must be found, once the terrorist hordes are eliminated. As you speak, the Russians, Iranians and Turks are gathered in Astana to work towards this end. When you fling such accusations at Pres. Assad, what are you really talking about? From the very beginning of the “Arab Spring” in 2011, the anti-government protests were polluted by armed insurgents who opened fire on the security forces. The Arab Observer Mission was present from 24th December 2011 to 18th January 2012, at the behest of the Arab League. Despite Saudi pressure, their report denounces violence carried out by both sides. The myth of the peaceful uprising has long since evaporated Mr Macron, it’s time to bid farewell to this romantic fairytale.
This war was pre-fabricated by the sponsors of the “opposition”, in an attempt to destabilize the Syrian state. The Baathist government may have had shortcomings, but Syria was debt-free, a productive, multi-ethnic country where people of different faiths, lived, peacefully, side by side. The biggest demonstrations in 2011 were in favour of the Syrian government and the proposed reforms. To blame this government for the war that was started by a foreign-backed, armed uprising, is a distortion of reality. You pervert the facts to serve the narrative you wish to uphold. Mr Macron stop selectively determining the facts as you do, also, with the victims. Wars are cruel, this one is no exception. But who should bear responsibility, other than those who wanted to subjugate Damascus to Wahhabi Sharia law with the help of the US, France, Great Britain and the oil kingdoms.
Even in the statistics of the SOHR, an opposition-partisan organisation, 40% of the victims – since 2011 – were from the Syrian Arab Army, 35% the armed groups and 25% civilians caught in the crossfire of war. If a war could spare civilians, we would know about it. The war, supported by France in Yemen certainly doesn’t, neither does the US coalition bombing of Mosul or Raqqa. But accusing the Syrian Arab Army of deliberately committing crimes against its own people is an insult to common sense. This army is an army of conscripts, who defend their homeland against the tsunami of extremist militants. While you are safe at the UN, Mr Macron, “Assad’s soldiers” cross the Euphrates to settle his account with DAESH.
Of course, in this game of illusionists, you still hold the joker, you still have the chemical weapon “false flag” with which to feed the propaganda mill. Sticking to the CIA script of this novel, you even pretend to set a “red line”. The fact that an MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) expert showed you that the August 2013 attack could only have come from terrorist held areas, is of no consequence to you. When the same US experts have denounced the Khan Sheikhoun (April 2017) alleged CW attack, blamed upon Damascus, you remain resolute. Have you even read the report by eminent American journalist, Seymour Hersch, which dismantles the western narrative of Syrian Arab Army chemical attacks?
Beware Mr Macron, this chemical weapon farce, the western propaganda mantra, is wearing thin. It even steals the crown from the lies of State, uttered by Colin Powell, brandishing his file at the UN Security Council. With each passing day, the chemical weapon lie loses its power to enchant. Those who still believe it are those who want to believe it, or who believe their own governments in the west would never lie to them. But the majority of the Syrian people don’t believe it, and that is what matters. When an area is liberated by the Syrian Arab Army, the refugees are returning home, life begins again and hope resurfaces. Making windmills with your insignificant arms at the UN wont change anything, and your inane chatter is already being drowned out by the media hubbub. Your so called “contact group”, Mr Macron, is already dead in the water and will disappear from our consciousness in under a week.
Who is still paying any attention to the French presidency? This presidency, regardless of who is in power, has demonized the Syrian government, brought traitors into Syria disguised as opposition, has condoned the brutality of the armed “moderates”, encouraged the influx of terrorists into Syria – terrorists who forced the French Lycee in Damascus to close its doors. This presidency has refused cooperation with Syrian forces & allies, it has delivered arms to the extremist groups, it has refused to fight DAESH when DAESH was threatening Damascus, it has called for the murder of a legitimate head of state, it has imposed an embargo on medicines for the Syrian people – this presidency has flouted international law and allied itself with the worst aspects of neo-colonialism. Nobody is listening to you.
By choosing to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states, France has relinquished its part in the game. Give up Mr Macron, you too are “out.”
Translation from the French, by Vanessa Beeley for 21st Century Wire.
***
Bruno Guigue is a French author and political analyst born in Toulouse 1962. Professor of philosophy and lecturer in international relations for higher education.






This war, like the war against the Caliphate,was announced four years ago in the New York Times, by Robin Wright, a researcher at the US Institute of Peace (equivalent to the NED for the Pentagon). It also planned to divide the Yemen into two states, potentially shared between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi – and finally, last but not least, to dismember Saudi Arabia.
Not long ago, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, Laurent Fabius, publicly declared that President Assad « did not deserve to be on Earth », and confirmed that the jihadists were doing a « good job ». Many young people answered his call by joining Al-Nusra (Al-Qaïda), then Daesh. Today, the French ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bernard Kouchner, publicly announced that France would support the creation of state which would include Iraqi Kurdistan and the corridor to the Mediterranean via Syria. A few young Europeans have already answered this call, and many others will follow.