Search This Blog

Showing posts with label nusra front. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nusra front. Show all posts

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Al Qaeda forces Druze of Idlib Syria to destroy their shrines and convert

The Jabal al-Summaq region in the Idlib province of northern Syria is home to nearly 18,000 Druze spread out amongst 18 villages, all of whom have been living under the control of  Jabhat a-Nusra (JAN), (the  Syrian Al Qaeda  branch)   for nearly two years.
An offshoot of  Islam, hardline Sunni groups such as JAN consider the Druze faith a form of heresy. Nusra gave the Druze in Idlib a choice: Convert or fight. They converted. Publicly, at least.
“They claimed they were fighting infidels, and that we had to decide our own fate and our identity, to either be with the Muslims, or the infidels,” Abdul Majid Sherif, a resident and retired math teacher who currently works as the head of the Media Office of the Free Democrats Party of Idlib, tells Syria Direct’s Moatassim Jamal.
“They forced us to accept their interpretation of Sunni Islam, or else we’d be punished,” Sherif says. “We reject their laws in principle, but follow them in public.”
This past February 1, JAN released a statement spelling out a series of obligations agreed to by Druze and JAN leaders in Jabal al-Summaq: The Druze would destroy their holy shrines, convert to Sunni Islam, force women to clothing Nusra believes to be in line with sharia law, among others.
The Druze agreed to Nusra’s conditions to ensure their own survival, Sherif says. “Jabhat a-Nusra is strong, so our leaders preferred that we remain under their protection. The FSA is weak, and with them we might end up being left on our own.”
Q: How does Jabhat a-Nusra treat the Druze in Jabal a-Summaq?
They treat us fairly for now. However don’t misinterpret what I’m saying as some form of propaganda; they only do so because we’ve agreed, at least on the surface, to comply with all their rules and regulations. We follow their orders so that they treat us well.
After JN kicked the Islamic State (IS) out of Idlib, they told us that they wouldn’t protect us unless we converted to Sunni Islam, prayed and issued an official statement saying that we’ve left the Druze faith. As of now they have yet to attack us. As long as we appear to be following their rules, they consider us ‘brothers’ in Islam.
Q: Did they ask that you destroy Druze shrines?
Yes. They’ve forced us to comply with a number of orders and decrees, including the destruction of our shrines. They dug up the tombs of a number of our saints, however we didn’t protest. They forced our women to wear strict orthodox Islamic garb, and to give up their traditional Druze clothing.
They’ve also threatened us saying that if the al-Hisbeh (sharia law) police found anyone on the street during prayer time, that that person be punished. Same for women who don’t follow the mandatory clothing requirements.
The worst is what they’ve done in schools. On Monday, they arrived in our village and separated all the male and female students, insisting that they be taught separately, and only by teachers of the same gender.
This has caused problems as we don’t have enough teachers to effectively accommodate these changes. For example we only had one math teacher, who was a female. There was no qualified male teacher that could replace her, so now the boys don’t study math. The opposite occurred with English classes. Our only English teacher is male, so now the girls don’t study English.
Q: On March 2, Walid Jumblatt, a prominent Lebanese Druze politician and leader of the Progressive Socialist Party, engaged in negotiations with JAN in the hopes of easing some of these strict laws imposed by JAN. Allegedly JAN agreed to do so as long as the Druze continued to adhere to Sunni Islam. Did anything come of that?
None of the terms of that agreement have been applied in practice, as far as we can tell. JAN continues to impose their strict interpretation of Islam upon us, forcing women to cover their faces, preventing men and women from mixing in public, and so forth.
When describing his position regarding JAN’s meeting with Jumblatt to Druze leaders in Jabal al-Summaq, Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Tunisi, a Tunisian and JAN’s emir in Jabal al-Sumaq, reportedly recited a well-known saying of the Prophet Mohammed, which he thought justified his position. The saying goes, “Even with the moon on my right shoulder and the sun on my left, I will not abandon my duty, or die without having it fulfilled.”
[The saying occurred when Mohammed sought to spread the word of Islam amongst non-believers in Mecca, some of whom supposedly offered him large sums of silver and gold to abandon his mission. In the above saying, the moon is representative of silver, and the sun of gold. It essentially means that Mohammad would not abandon his quest to proselytize for all the money in the world].
 Q: What do the Druze in Idlib think about Jabhat a-Nusra and the laws they impose?
We reject their laws in principle, but follow them in public. When it comes to solving disputes amongst ourselves we don’t bring our problems to Jabhat a-Nusra, we go to our sheikhs.
Q: If you reject their rules, why have you decided to continue living under their protection?
There’s nothing we can do. Those Druze who have left our villages had their property seized and confiscated, now they can never return. That’s why we’ve decided to stay here.
Q: What was Jabhat a-Nusra’s justification for imposing their laws on the Druze?
They claimed they were fighting infidels, and that we had to decide our own fate and our identity, to either be with the Muslims, or the infidels.
Q: What is it the Druze fear most about Jabhat a-Nusra?
There’s a lot that we fear. We fear that they might force our young men and women to marry outside the Druze faith. This could lead to the eventual destruction of our religion. They’re also attempting to promote polygamy among our young men, a practice we don’t support in our faith.
We also fear their ideas about jihad. They believe that jihad is mandatory for all Muslims, and that as such those of us who have converted to the Sunni sect must take up arms and fight. Many of their local leaders (Syrians) are less strict about this.
They appreciate the position we’re in, the fact that we’re neutral and don’t want to fight, and they often times exempt us from having to do so. However the foreign leaders are very strict. Abd al-Rahman al-Tunisi constantly issues laws and decrees of this nature. The local members serving underneath him make exceptions and exempt us from having to take part the fighting.
Q: How do the FSA and other battalions treat the Druze in Jabal al-Summaq?
FSA brigades also treated us well in the past, and tried to convince us to join with them previously saying they would protect us. However Jabhat a-Nusra is strong, so our leaders preferred that we remain under their protection. The FSA is weak, and with them we might end up being left on our own.
Q: What is the future of your relationship with Jabhat a-Nusra?
Despite everything we don’t believe that Jabhat a-Nusra will be around long. We can live with them for now until God frees us from their grasp. However if their rule were to last a long time, then all the previous things I mentioned would take effect permanently, that we wouldn’t be able to accept.
Q: How do Druze leaders and sheikhs deal with this situation?
Our leaders and sheikhs engage in negotiations with Nusra. Everything is done publicly, nothing is hidden. At the end of the day all they do is receive orders from Nusra and relay them to those in the villages.
Syria Direct

Assad welcomes U.S. Talks & Action

Many think tanks, Strategists, COIN experts, and others have for the past few months started to wake up to the reality that Syria would be better of with Assad than without Assad. Lessons from Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, are being drilled home more and more, as ISIS expands in those vacuums we can expect the West to wake up to some of their mistakes.

However  
it is going to take a while longer before the US Public and Government can side with Assad. The main reason is the western media has so distorted things that it will take citizens around world showing them it is time to wake up and stop the BS. The present plan for Syria 2016 is talk of training new FSA?? 5k ? now I hear 5.5k new moderate rebels???? ok so u give some rebels (terrorists) new boots a uniform and ? watch them go to Nusra? what kind of plan is that and its not like its 5.5k more fighters for the FSA its 5.5k FSA getting new boots and ak47? and some training in Qatar? So maybe they think they will use Turkeys boots on ground? I think they maybe think that is a possible thing. there was a mention recently that a coalition partner was willing to put boots on ground for the Syrian campaign against ISIS (backdoor to attack Syrian gov? hell I hope not) so the fight against the West is not over yet. - Ian Bach


Syria Awaits US
Syria Awaits US 'Actions' to Decide: Al-Assad
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad said Monday "he was waiting for action from Washington" after Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged talks with Damascus were necessary to end the country's conflict.
The weekend remarks by the top US envoy were quickly clarified when his spokeswoman said Washington's policy was unchanged and Assad had no role in Syria's future.
But in Damascus, local media touted Kerry's remarks as a reversal of US policy, even though Assad said he was waiting to see whether they would followed by action.
"We are still listening to the comments and we have to wait for the actions and then we'll decide," the Syrian leader told Iran television in remarks carried by Syrian state media.
Assad has long accused Washington of "supporting terrorism" because of its backing for the Syrian opposition, and repeated Monday that any shift in policy required an end to that.
"We have no choice but to defend our country," he added.
"Any international changes that come about within that framework are something positive, if they are honest and have an effect on the ground."
He was speaking after Kerry said in an interview broadcast Sunday that Washington could negotiate with Assad.
"Well, we have to negotiate in the end," he said, when asked by CBS television if he would negotiate with Assad.
Kerry stressed that any negotiations would be in the context of the Geneva communique, a document produced after a first round of talks between government and opposition that calls for a transitional governing body with full executive powers, but makes no mention of Assad's future.
 
""This is a new recognition of President Assad's legitimacy, his key role and his popularity, and the resulting necessity of negotiating with him," the daily said."
Syria's government insists Assad's departure from office is not up for discussion, while the opposition and its backers have long insisted he can have no role in the country's future .
In the interview, Kerry made no reference to Assad's future, but said pressure was being applied on the leader to bring him to the negotiating table.
Kerry's spokeswoman insisted his comments were consistent with US policy, but Syrian media said they underlined the "failure" of Washington's policy towards Syria and acknowledgement that Assad will not be ousted militarily.
"Facing a fait accompli, the American administration has backed down and recognised the need to reposition its policy on the Syria crisis," wrote Al-Watan.
This is a new recognition of President Assad's legitimacy
"his key role and his popularity, and the resulting necessity of negotiating with him," the daily said.
The newspaper suggested Kerry's comments could pave the way for American participation in talks on the conflict hosted by Russia next month.
Kerry's comment drew consternation from some in the Syrian opposition.
Kerry's remarks come after CIA head John Brennan also warned that Washington feared that a chaotic collapse of Syria's government could usher in an Islamist takeover.
On the ground, activists said Kerry's remarks came as no real surprise.
- See more at: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1685736#sthash.Tu5dIPX1.dpuf

Friday, March 20, 2015

Al Qaeda Nusra Front force Druze citizens of Idlib Syria to destroy their shrines and convert

Walid Jumblatt speaks to the press after negotiations
 with Jabhat a-Nusra. None of the terms of that agreement
 have been applied in practice according to the Druze
 of Jabal al Summaq.Photo courtesy of Al-Quds.
The Jabal al-Summaq region in the Idlib province of northern Syria is home to nearly 18,000 Druze spread out amongst 18 villages, all of whom have been living under the control of  Jabhat a-Nusra (JAN), (the  Syrian Al Qaeda  branch)   for nearly two years.
An offshoot of  Islam, hardline Sunni groups such as JAN consider the Druze faith a form of heresy. Nusra gave the Druze in Idlib a choice: Convert or fight. They converted. Publicly, at least.
“They claimed they were fighting infidels, and that we had to decide our own fate and our identity, to either be with the Muslims, or the infidels,” Abdul Majid Sherif, a resident and retired math teacher who currently works as the head of the Media Office of the Free Democrats Party of Idlib, tells Syria Direct’s Moatassim Jamal.
“They forced us to accept their interpretation of Sunni Islam, or else we’d be punished,” Sherif says. “We reject their laws in principle, but follow them in public.”
This past February 1, JAN released a statement spelling out a series of obligations agreed to by Druze and JAN leaders in Jabal al-Summaq: The Druze would destroy their holy shrines, convert to Sunni Islam, force women to clothing Nusra believes to be in line with sharia law, among others.
The Druze agreed to Nusra’s conditions to ensure their own survival, Sherif says. “Jabhat a-Nusra is strong, so our leaders preferred that we remain under their protection. The FSA is weak, and with them we might end up being left on our own.”
Q: How does Jabhat a-Nusra treat the Druze in Jabal a-Summaq?
They treat us fairly for now. However don’t misinterpret what I’m saying as some form of propaganda; they only do so because we’ve agreed, at least on the surface, to comply with all their rules and regulations. We follow their orders so that they treat us well.
After JN kicked the Islamic State (IS) out of Idlib, they told us that they wouldn’t protect us unless we converted to Sunni Islam, prayed and issued an official statement saying that we’ve left the Druze faith. As of now they have yet to attack us. As long as we appear to be following their rules, they consider us ‘brothers’ in Islam.
Q: Did they ask that you destroy Druze shrines?
Yes. They’ve forced us to comply with a number of orders and decrees, including the destruction of our shrines. They dug up the tombs of a number of our saints, however we didn’t protest. They forced our women to wear strict orthodox Islamic garb, and to give up their traditional Druze clothing.
They’ve also threatened us saying that if the al-Hisbeh (sharia law) police found anyone on the street during prayer time, that that person be punished. Same for women who don’t follow the mandatory clothing requirements.
The worst is what they’ve done in schools. On Monday, they arrived in our village and separated all the male and female students, insisting that they be taught separately, and only by teachers of the same gender.
This has caused problems as we don’t have enough teachers to effectively accommodate these changes. For example we only had one math teacher, who was a female. There was no qualified male teacher that could replace her, so now the boys don’t study math. The opposite occurred with English classes. Our only English teacher is male, so now the girls don’t study English.
Q: On March 2, Walid Jumblatt, a prominent Lebanese Druze politician and leader of the Progressive Socialist Party, engaged in negotiations with JAN in the hopes of easing some of these strict laws imposed by JAN. Allegedly JAN agreed to do so as long as the Druze continued to adhere to Sunni Islam. Did anything come of that?
None of the terms of that agreement have been applied in practice, as far as we can tell. JAN continues to impose their strict interpretation of Islam upon us, forcing women to cover their faces, preventing men and women from mixing in public, and so forth.
When describing his position regarding JAN’s meeting with Jumblatt to Druze leaders in Jabal al-Summaq, Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Tunisi, a Tunisian and JAN’s emir in Jabal al-Sumaq, reportedly recited a well-known saying of the Prophet Mohammed, which he thought justified his position. The saying goes, “Even with the moon on my right shoulder and the sun on my left, I will not abandon my duty, or die without having it fulfilled.”
[The saying occurred when Mohammed sought to spread the word of Islam amongst non-believers in Mecca, some of whom supposedly offered him large sums of silver and gold to abandon his mission. In the above saying, the moon is representative of silver, and the sun of gold. It essentially means that Mohammad would not abandon his quest to proselytize for all the money in the world].
 Q: What do the Druze in Idlib think about Jabhat a-Nusra and the laws they impose?
We reject their laws in principle, but follow them in public. When it comes to solving disputes amongst ourselves we don’t bring our problems to Jabhat a-Nusra, we go to our sheikhs.
Q: If you reject their rules, why have you decided to continue living under their protection?
There’s nothing we can do. Those Druze who have left our villages had their property seized and confiscated, now they can never return. That’s why we’ve decided to stay here.
Q: What was Jabhat a-Nusra’s justification for imposing their laws on the Druze?
They claimed they were fighting infidels, and that we had to decide our own fate and our identity, to either be with the Muslims, or the infidels.
Q: What is it the Druze fear most about Jabhat a-Nusra?
There’s a lot that we fear. We fear that they might force our young men and women to marry outside the Druze faith. This could lead to the eventual destruction of our religion. They’re also attempting to promote polygamy among our young men, a practice we don’t support in our faith.
We also fear their ideas about jihad. They believe that jihad is mandatory for all Muslims, and that as such those of us who have converted to the Sunni sect must take up arms and fight. Many of their local leaders (Syrians) are less strict about this.
They appreciate the position we’re in, the fact that we’re neutral and don’t want to fight, and they often times exempt us from having to do so. However the foreign leaders are very strict. Abd al-Rahman al-Tunisi constantly issues laws and decrees of this nature. The local members serving underneath him make exceptions and exempt us from having to take part the fighting.
Q: How do the FSA and other battalions treat the Druze in Jabal al-Summaq?
FSA brigades also treated us well in the past, and tried to convince us to join with them previously saying they would protect us. However Jabhat a-Nusra is strong, so our leaders preferred that we remain under their protection. The FSA is weak, and with them we might end up being left on our own.
Q: What is the future of your relationship with Jabhat a-Nusra?
Despite everything we don’t believe that Jabhat a-Nusra will be around long. We can live with them for now until God frees us from their grasp. However if their rule were to last a long time, then all the previous things I mentioned would take effect permanently, that we wouldn’t be able to accept.
Q: How do Druze leaders and sheikhs deal with this situation?
Our leaders and sheikhs engage in negotiations with Nusra. Everything is done publicly, nothing is hidden. At the end of the day all they do is receive orders from Nusra and relay them to those in the villages.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Another False Flag attack in Syria

The rebels seem to do the False Flag ops like clockwork. Every time there is talks on Syria they use it to try and manipulate the talks, the american public and world views. The Syrian Observatory for human rights is always the mouth piece that announces the false flag attacks and blames the Syrian Government. But for those of us watching the conflict close it is another headache and frustration that the west still relies on SOHR not as a rebel supported propaganda source on info, but instead the Western MSMS reports it almost as if it was fact and undisputed. The western news is still reporting Syria as  a civil War when it is clear this is a foreign backed, and manned insurgency of Sunni Arabs who want to make Syria an Islamic State with Sharia Law.,

Here is the CBS article - I left few messages and there was others who echoed what I have been saying about SOHR and how these are obvious false flag ops.

Video purports to show victims of Syrian gas attack

A group monitoring the civil war in Syria posted a video online that purports to show new evidence the country is carrying out poison gas attacks.
CBS News cannot confirm the use of chemical weapons, but President Obama has said it would cross a "red line," reports CBS News correspondent Clarissa Ward.
According to activists in Syria, the attack took place in the village of Sarmin in Idlib Province, on the other side of the Turkish-Syrian border.
Videos uploaded by medics inside Syria appear to show the aftermath of a chlorine gas attack -- young children coughing and struggling to breathe. Activists inside the country say six people were killed including a man, his wife and their three children.
Over the past year, there have been multiple reports of the Assad regime using chlorine gas in these so-called barrel bombs -- crudely made bombs stuffed with explosives and shrapnel or chlorine and dropped onto civilian areas.

Syria shoots down a US drone


A picture taken on March 31, 2014 and released by the official Syrian Arab News Agency on April 3, 2014 allegedly shows pro-government forces sitting on a tank at an undisclosed location in the north of Syria's Latakia province
.
View gallery

  • .
  • .
Damascus (AFP) - Syria's military shot down a US drone over the coastal province of Latakia, a stronghold of President Bashar al-Assad, state media said on Tuesday.
If confirmed, it would be the first time that Syrian forces have attacked a US aircraft since the coalition fighting the Islamic State began raids against the jihadist group in Syria in September.The US military confirmed that it had lost communication with an unarmed Predator drone over northwest Syria on Tuesday and was looking into the claims it was brought down.
The claim came as activists said Syrian regime forces had carried out an attack using chlorine gas that killed six people, including three children.
Syrian state news agency SANA reported the apparent downing of a US drone in a breaking news alert.
"Syrian air defences brought down a hostile US surveillance aircraft over north Latakia," it said, without providing further details.
While Syria is not participating in the air strikes against the IS, it has so far refrained from taking action against aircraft involved in the US-led coalition's operations to take out the extremist group.
Damascus has said it was given prior warning before the coalition began the strikes, and Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said last year that Washington had pledged its raids would not hit the Syrian army.
The strikes in Syria have largely been focused on Aleppo and Raqa provinces, where the Islamic State has strongholds.
But the campaign has also targeted the group elsewhere, and hit positions believed to belong to fighters affiliated with Al-Nusra Front, the feared Syrian wing of Al-Qaeda.
IS fighters have been largely absent from the northwestern province of Latakia, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitor.
But Al-Nusra fighters are active in the province, which is home to the Assad family's ancestral village and is a bastion of the Alawite sect of Shiite Islam to which the president belongs.
According to the Observatory, the strikes have killed more than 1,600 people, most of them jihadists.
- Gas attacks 'war crimes' -
Elsewhere in war-ravaged Syria, activists and the Observatory reported at least six people had been killed in an alleged regime gas attack.
The overnight incident in Idlib, in the northwest, prompted outrage from rights group Amnesty International, which said it was further evidence of government "war crimes."
"Three children, their mother and father, and their grandmother suffocated to death after regime barrel bomb attacks," the Observatory said.
The monitor said doctors in the village of Sarmin, southeast of Idlib city, concluded that the manner of death indicated a gas, possibly chlorine, had emitted from the barrel bombs.
Activists in Sarmin said chlorine gas had been used and posted videos of a chaotic field hospital where disoriented victims coughed and held gas masks over their faces as children cried in the background.
A paramedic interviewed by an AFP journalist said first responders rushed to the scene unprepared.
"This is the first time we've experienced a poison gas attack," Motea Jalal said.
"We grabbed the masks we had. They are for fires, not for gas attacks, but that's what is available."
He told AFP paramedics retrieved the wounded and tried to wash the chemicals from the bodies, adding that more than 100 people were in need of treatment.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said in January it had "confidence" that chlorine gas had been used in attacks on three villages in 2014.
It did not assign responsibility, but its report noted that witnesses heard helicopters before the attack, which only government forces possess.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

News Sources on Sarin Gas in Syria

SyriaSaringas



I know I was not the only one who thought it was very peculiar that as soon as Obama announced his “Red Line in the Sand” in Syria, which said that if Syria used chemical warfare, that would be crossing the “Red Line” and the U.S. would go to War with Syria, then days or weeks later a sarin gas attack? The videos of patients did not appear to have been from a Military Grade sarin gas (since the hops workers were handling the patients and did not get effected which is what would have happened if it had been military grade sarin) instead it appeared to be kitchen sink sarin like what was used in Japan. Even the delivery platform used looked like it was very akin to the rebels 5 gal water cooler plastic bottle rockets. They have another like this that uses 5 gal old propane tanks. They are launched from artillery. We know the Syrian governments delivery platform is much different and much more sophisticated. The Syrian regime sarin weapons atomizes the sarin and thus also why the wounded would need to be decontaminated prior to medical aide or transportation. – Shir Panjshir
Sey HershSy Hersh has a long piece in the London Review of Books accusing the Obama Administration of cherry-picking intelligence to present its case that Bashar al-Assad launched the chemical weapons attack on August 21.
To be clear, Hersh does not say that Assad did not launch the attack. Nor does he say al-Nusra carried out the attack. Rather, he shows that:
  • At some unidentified time since the beginning of the Civil War, Assad had discovered and neutralized wiretaps on his inner circle, leaving US intelligence blind to discussions happening among his top aides
  • Sensors planted to detect any movement of Assad’s CW immediately had not been triggered by the August 21 attack
  • By June, some intelligence entity had concluded that an Iraqi member of al-Nusra had the capability to manufacture sarin in quantity
2000px-State_Department_map_of_Gouta_chemical_attack.svgA lot of the story serves to establish that two days after the attack, the US had yet to respond to it, presumably because it did not have any intelligence Syria had launched the attack, in part because nothing had triggered the sensors that had worked in the past. To develop its intelligence on the attack days afterwards, the NSA performed key word searches on already-collected radio communications of lower level Syrian military figures.
‘There are literally thousands of tactical radio frequencies used by field units in Syria for mundane routine communications,’ he said, ‘and it would take a huge number of NSA cryptological technicians to listen in – and the useful return would be zilch.’ But the ‘chatter’ is routinely stored on computers. Once the scale of events on 21 August was understood, the NSA mounted a comprehensive effort to search for any links to the attack, sorting through the full archive of stored communications. A keyword or two would be selected and a filter would be employed to find relevant conversations. ‘What happened here is that the NSA intelligence weenies started with an event – the use of sarin – and reached to find chatter that might relate,’ the former official said. ‘This does not lead to a high confidence assessment, unless you start with high confidence that Bashar Assad ordered it, and began looking for anything that supports that belief.’ The cherry-picking was similar to the process used to justify the Iraq war.
SyriaChemicalArmsFORWEBUltimately, according to one of Hersh’s sources, they used intelligence collected in response tolast December’s Syrian exercise on CW as the basis for what the Syrians would have been doing in case of an attack.
The former senior intelligence official explained that the hunt for relevant chatter went back to the exercise detected the previous December, in which, as Obama later said to the public, the Syrian army mobilised chemical weapons personnel and distributed gas masks to its troops. The White House’s government assessment and Obama’s speech were not descriptions of the specific events leading up to the 21 August attack, but an account of the sequence the Syrian military would have followed for any chemical attack. ‘They put together a back story,’ the former official said, ‘and there are lots of different pieces and parts. The template they used was the template that goes back to December.’
o-REBEL-WMD-900The White House presented this cherry-picked intelligence 9 days after the attack to a group of uncritical journalists (Hersh notes Jonathan Landay was excluded).
That’s the damning part of Hersh’s story on the intelligence used to support the Syrian warmongering (it is largely consistent with observations made at the time).
Hersh also describes how the NYT ignored the conclusions of MIT professor Theodore Postol, who determined at least some of the shells used in the attack were locally manufactured and had a much shorter range than publicly described.
Ultimately, though, Hersh’s biggest piece of news describes how someone — he doesn’t say who, but this part of his story relies on a senior intelligence consultant of unidentified nationality — sent Deputy DIA Director David Shedd a report on June 20 concluding that a former Iraqi CW expert with the capability of manufacturing sarin was operating in Eastern Ghouta.
An intelligence document issued in mid-summer dealt extensively with Ziyaad Tariq Ahmed, a chemical weapons expert formerly of the Iraqi military, who was said to have moved into Syria and to be operating in Eastern Ghouta. The consultant told me that Tariq had been identified ‘as an al-Nusra guy with a track record of making mustard gas in Iraq and someone who is implicated in making and using sarin’. He is regarded as a high-profile target by the American military.
On 20 June a four-page top secret cable summarising what had been learned about al-Nusra’s nerve gas capabilities was forwarded to David R. Shedd, deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. ‘What Shedd was briefed on was extensive and comprehensive,’ the consultant said. ‘It was not a bunch of “we believes”.’ He told me that the cable made no assessment as to whether the rebels or the Syrian army had initiated the attacks in March and April, but it did confirm previous reports that al-Nusra had the ability to acquire and use sarin.
presstvchemicalweapThough Hersh provided ODNI with the specific cable markings on this report, ODNI spokesperson Shawn Turner claimed to be unable to find it. Turner also issued a denial that suggests some other country came to this conclusion.
[N]o American intelligence agency, including the DIA, ‘assesses that the al-Nusra Front has succeeded in developing a capacity to manufacture sarin’.
“No American agency” of course specifically leaves open the possibility another intelligence agency has made such a conclusion — perhaps the British, who were in no rush to go to war in Syria in response to the August 21 attack.
In spite of Turner’s denial, Hersh quotes one of his main sources, a former senior intelligence officer, noting that the military had concluded the rebels had the ability to manufacture sarin, too.
So that’s it, the central claims in Hersh’s piece. He ends it not with certainty about who launched the attack, but with questions raised about Obama’s subsequent decision to walk away from his planned attack.
The administration’s distortion of the facts surrounding the sarin attack raises an unavoidable question: do we have the whole story of Obama’s willingness to walk away from his ‘red line’ threat to bomb Syria? He had claimed to have an iron-clad case but suddenly agreed to take the issue to Congress, and later to accept Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical weapons. It appears possible that at some point he was directly confronted with contradictory information: evidence strong enough to persuade him to cancel his attack plan, and take the criticism sure to come from Republicans.
That’s what I’ve always looked to. What underlying intelligence would lead to these actions?
  • Our European allies refusing to go to war based on the intelligence they had seen
  • US refusal to provide specific intelligence on planned attacks in Syria to the Saudis
  • Assad deciding to give up his CW stocks
  • Obama giving the Russians a big win in Syria, followed by subsequent progress on an Iran deal
One potential underlying motivation for all these actions might be the discovery that al Qaeda has achieved our long-feared aim, the acquisition of CW, which it was using to stage an attack in an effort to get Americans (as one of Hersh’s sources describe) to “provid[e] close air support for al-Nusra,” and that it was doing so with some knowledge or even assistance from our Saudi allies.
Such a discovery certainly might lead allies to avoid empowering al-Nusra. It would explain both Assad’s incentive to expose himself to Israeli attacks by disarming his CW, in an effort to provide real deniability for any attacks going forward. And perhaps most crucially, it might explain why we would move away from our role in granting the Saudis decisive help in extending their hegemony over the region, and move towards shoring up Iran as a counter-balance.
That is, al-Nusra wielding CW with the tacit support of the Saudis might explain all subsequent actions. [Update: If al-Nusra has CW and the Saudis have not objected, it might lead to these actions whether or not they staged the August 21 attack.]
Which leads me to one other tiny detail in Hersh’s story, his source’s description of who pushed the quick conclusion that Assad was responsible.
‘The immediate assumption was that Assad had done it,’ the former senior intelligence official told me. ‘The new director of the CIA, [John] Brennan, jumped to that conclusion … drives to the White House and says: “Look at what I’ve got!” It was all verbal; they just waved the bloody shirt. There was a lot of political pressure to bring Obama to the table to help the rebels, and there was wishful thinking that this [tying Assad to the sarin attack] would force Obama’s hand: “This is the Zimmermann telegram of the Syrian rebellion and now Obama can react.” [my emphasis]
Now, this description of Brennan is a tell. He is and was by no means “the new director” of the CIA; by early September he had been in place for 6 months already. That he was perceived to be such by a “former senior intelligence official” might suggest the source is someone at CIA who lost out with Brennan’s ascendance, perhaps someone close to Mike Morell, who had been a candidate for the position (Morell left CIA on August 9).
That by no means means this person is wrong. But CIA officers and alumni who opposed Brennan’s nomination have long condemned his close ties to the Saudis, even claiming he thwarted investigations of al Qaeda while serving as Riyadh station chief in the 1990s, investigations which might have prevented 9/11. So while it is a subtle point, it is worth noting that Hersh’s sources point to Brennan as the source for the quick conclusion that the Saudis wanted us to reach, that Assad had launched the attack.
Hersh’s sources analogize this cherry-picked intelligence to the case for the Iraq War. Are they, with that, also pointing to someone who had been a close aide for George Tenet when he cherry-picked that intelligence?
So I have listed a few of the many sources you can read about this
Should We Fall Again for ‘Trust Me’? – ConsortiumNews Investigative Reports
The Risk from Distorting Intelligence – ConsortiumNews Investigative Reports