For the record, the below is a partial record of correspondence between Susan Dirgham, National Coordinator of 'Australians for Reconciliation in Syria', and Q&A, the Australian television program. Like most Australian media outlets, the ABC almost invariably presents Syria in a squewed, ahistoric manner that supports the continued and disastrous interference by the US, NATO and its allies in the region, maintaining war.

Questions to Q&A Panel; Monday 16 May 2016

How does it help Australia to ignore the voices of millions of 'ordinary' Syrians (Sunni, Shia, Catholic, Orthodox, atheist etc)  who share our truest values, and instead promote the claims of those who support a violent form of radical Islam?

How does it help our security and social harmony to be a member of the unholy alliance that has formed between radical Islamist groups in Syria and US neo-cons and their friends?   Such an alliance could lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people and the destruction of countries.

The basic question is, 

What will become of us as a nation if we hide from the truth and play dirty? 

Why does the mass media support false government narratives that justify our support or participation in deadly wars? Media analyst, Jeremy Salt and Susan Dirgham of Australians for Reconciliation in Syria, explore this perplexing question that shapes our times and our future.

Why does the mass media support false government narratives that justify our support or participation in deadly wars? Media analyst, Jeremy Salt and Susan Dirgham of Australians for Reconciliation in Syria, explore this perplexing question that shapes our times and our future.

This article is summary plus transcript from the video of Part Two of Politics and war in Syria: Susan Dirgham interviews Jeremy Salt. Susan Dirham is convener of Australians for Reconciliation in Syria (AMRIS) and Jeremy Salt is a scholar of Media propaganda and the Middle East.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Explains how Syrian society is secular, how women have freedom there, and that it is predominantly secular. For her it is very comparable to Australian society. So why don’t Australians know this? Furthermore, the Sunnis in Syria, who are in the majority, do not welcome the extremism that is being brought into the country.

Mystery of mass media’s motivation in supporting false government narratives

JEREMY SALT: Relates the problem back to the mass media again, ( as in Part One of this series). What people know about Syria is what the media chooses to tell them. There is a huge question about media ethics. Balance, objectivity are very big questions, which relate to media-ownership and the way the media operates generally. If we think about Australia, something close to 70 % of the print media is owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch. And we saw from what happened in England, how corrupt the Murdoch organisation can be, with the wire-tapping, the phone-tapping and all the rest of it. Murdoch himself is ultra, ultra conservative, very pro-Israeli. He is anti all the things we’re talking about and Murdoch runs his newspaper in the same way. The Australian newspaper, for example, is more or less like a free market Pravda.. It’s tightly controlled. There are gate-keepers. So all of this fits into the general context of the questions you are asking about why the media does what it does. The media will not say those things you are talking about - of course it won’t – because it disrupts the narrative. It doesn’t want people to know that women have freedom in Syria and that Syria is way ahead of most Middle Eastern countries in terms of women’s individual freedoms. Of course, if you are involved in political activity against the government, you’re in trouble. We know that. Well there is a good reason for that. Syria has been under siege for a long, long period of time. So the media is not going to bring out those positive aspects. But the interesting thing is, why does the media pick up a government narrative and reproduce it? Why? This is the real mystery. Why? I mean they did this over the Iraq war. It was seamless. 2003. It was very obvious that what Bush, Blair, Colin Powel were saying was without any factual basis. It was all propaganda. Blair’s dodgy dossier, all the statements they made about weapons of mass destruction, had absolutely no evidentiary basis. And, if you were a journalist, you should have been able to see that. I mean, a child could have seen it. So, where is the truth here? There is no truth. They couldn’t prove it, and yet they went with this government narrative. And then we have a war, which resulted in the destruction of a country, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and dispossession of many, many others. And at the end of it, when they’ve hunted for their weapons of mass destruction, and haven’t found them – because they weren’t there – the two papers I know of, the New York Times and the Washington Post, said, ‘Oh, we were wrong. We’re sorry.’ But this was another lie. Because they weren’t wrong. That wasn’t the explanation. The reason was they did not ask questions about the government narrative.

And so, after that incredible propaganda operation, I thought, well, that’s got to be it. Then along comes Syria – and they do the same thing all over again!

Why does the media do it? How does it interest the media to portray the Syrian war in such a fashion? The Guardian, for example, which is one of the worst culprits, why was the Guardian’s reporting up to this point so shocking? Anything a ‘rebel’ (so-called) or ‘activist’ said, the Guardian would snap up and publish. So why is the Guardian doing this? Does the Guardian have the same kind of antagonism towards Syria that the British Government has for its own strategic reasons? Because England lies with [?is allies with] America and America wants to bring down the Syrian Government, partly because Israel wants to bring down the Syrian Government – all these reasons. But why is the media going along with it? What are they getting out of it? Are they getting money? Why? How is it in their interests.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Is it because it’s a 9-5 job and …

JEREMY SALT: No, it’s not that. It’s something to do with the culture. It’s very hard for me to put my finger on it. Why they would do this. But it’s a pattern. That’s the whole point. It’s a pattern. It’s not an incidental thing. It’s not an aberration [….] And [they] will do the same thing with Iran. It’s like they have bought the government line in America and in England, on a whole range of issues.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Do they also help determine the government line?

JEREMY SALT: Well, there’s always interplay. […] But we have to ask the question about responsibility in the media. What is their responsibility? Where does it lie? What is the media there for? Well, it’s there to make money. To make a profit. If it doesn’t make a profit, it’s not going to survive. That’s one thing. But what else is the media supposed to be doing? The old-fashioned idea is the media was the watchdog of the public interest. And possibly that was more true up to about the 1970s, 1980s, than it is now. And then the newspapers started to go downhill, partly because of the internet, because people weren’t reading so much. They were watching television. They were doing social media, and all the rest of it. So, the quality of newspapers declined and they started – to keep up sales – they were doing different things. Infotainment. Celebrity gossip. All the rest of it. The quality of analysis and reporting fell. But we’re not really talking about that so much as we are talking about what should be reasonably good quality newspapers, like the Guardian, like the Washington Post. Why do they run this line on Syria? Why? Obviously what they’re saying is not true and, at the very least, is not balanced. Why did the Washington Post or the Guardian never report what the Syrian Government was saying?

SUSAN DIRGHAM: It gets back to money?

JEREMY SALT: I don’t know. I don’t know. I seriously don’t know why. And with a paper like the Guardian I have to ask questions. Well, the Guardian can’t make all that much money. Maybe it does. I don’t think so.
SUSAN DIRGHAM: Sponsors?

Mass media as a business

JEREMY SALT: I don’t know. I don’t know what’s going on. I really can’t explain this: why the media does this all the time.
So, when we talk about the media, what we are actually talking about is media as business. Business is money. And, you know, the diversification of ownership of the media. Like in America, for example, a number of very large corporations have media ownership. Like Westinghouse. Westinghouse is one of them, only one of them. Murdoch’s interests go all across the print media into film, into cable television, into fibreoptics – the whole thing. And the media has always worked closely with government because of this give and take. The media wants things from the government. It wants licences. And the media will give things to the government. It will give them [government] favourable publicity. In Australian or in England we know that politicians are very very quick to try to curry favour with the media magnates – with Murdoch, for example. They might fall out, but they do their best to stay on side with him. So the media functions as part of the business sector – fundamentally. And the business sector has close relations with the government. So there are interlocking systems, of which the media is part. I think this partly explains the kind of narrative we see about Syria and what we saw about Iraq. It’s pumping out a line.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Also, I was an activist during the Vietnam war – we’ve got some other activists here – and what we spoke of about then was the ‘military industrial complex’. That’s still alive and active. Can we also talk about the ‘media industrial complex’ and are there links?

JEREMY SALT: Are you talking about America?

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Generally, but America in particular, of course.

JEREMY SALT: The media industrial complex. Can you just explain what you mean by that?

SUSAN DIRGHAM: It means that people don’t really have a voice; that you do have – as you are suggesting – companies that have this power that can determine what the narrative is. For example, on Syria. So you don’t get that balance. Journalists don’t have the freedom to present a balanced picture.

The ‘free’ press.

JEREMY SALT: They don’t. If you work for a big news corporation, you cannot write what you want. It might be just coincidental that your views are the same as Rupert Murdoch’s. That’s really nice. But if they are not the same as Rupert Murdoch’s, you’ve got to make sure that, pretty much, they are. Otherwise you’re not going to have much of a future. You can’t just wander off and write whatever you want. But the thing about the media is – a lot of people take these phrases for granted – like ‘free press’ – so forth and so on. Well, free for whom? Who has the right to speak? Who has the right to write in the media?

It’s very carefully controlled. It does vary a little bit from news organisation to news organisation, but basically it’s controlled. Some people have access. A lot of people don’t have access. I mean a lot of people in Australia who don’t have any access at all to the mainstream media at all. They’re very well informed, they’re very intelligent, they’re articulate, they’re experienced, they know their area, but they’re not going to be given any space in the mainstream media. Because they’re going to say things that the mainstream media – for whatever reason – doesn’t want people to hear.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: If you worked in the mainstream media today, and you wanted …

JEREMY SALT: Well I couldn’t –

SUSAN DIRGHAM: …and you’re a person of courage, what would you do …

JEREMY SALT: Well, I wouldn’t last. I wouldn’t last. I couldn’t last.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Even moving to another area? You wouldn’t be an ABC Middle East correspondent if you …

JEREMY SALT: I don’t … no, I wouldn’t …

SUSAN DIRGHAM: …integrity and courage…

JEREMY SALT: No, I wouldn’t because I would go to Syria and I’d want to go to the Syrian Government and get their take on what’s going on.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Or the people…

JEREMY SALT: …and I’d want to go to the West Bank …

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Or the women. Don’t forget the women.

JEREMY SALT: Alright, okay, I’d talk to the women.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: The women of Syria…

JEREMY SALT: If I were in Palestine, I’d go to the West Bank and I’d talk to people there and I’d do it in a much more forceful way than the ABC would allow. So, therefore, someone like me – well, let’s not talk about me – someone like me is not going to be given the freedom to speak. Right? You’re sidelined. I know lots of people here, in this country, who are very well informed about the Middle East, about Syria, about Iran. They’ve no place in the media – and they’ve tried, but they’re shut out. And so the space is given to Greg Sheridan, for example, in The Australian, and… who was it, who wrote… Derryn Hinch!

SUSAN DIRGHAM: (Laughs softly).

JEREMY SALT: In the Age, wrote this silly piece about…

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Comparing Assad to …

JEREMY SALT: Yes!

SUSAN DIRGHAM: To Pol Pot!

JEREMY SALT: Yes! So what is a quality, so-called ‘quality’ newspaper doing with Derryn Hinch on the Middle East? When there are many, many people in this country well-qualified to talk sensibly, and they use Derryn Hinch.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: I think Derryn Hinch was probably using his heart and he was going to the shallow analysis…

JEREMY SALT: But

SUSAN DIRGHAM: … of the mainstream media, and he just thought, well, Assad’s the criminal; he’s a brutal criminal; he’s killing his own people; he must be like Pol Pot.

JEREMY SALT: But why use Derryn Hinch for this anyway?

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Yeah.

JEREMY SALT: He can write a letter to the editor…

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Yeah.

JEREMY SALT: ‘Derryn Hinch of Armadale, Worried Reader’, whatever he wants to describe himself.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Why don’t they ask you and me to write about it?

JEREMY SALT: Well, not me. Forget me. Just leave me out of it. There are a lot of other people who can write intelligently about it. Why do they go to Derryn Hinch? And the whole thing about the media is that the news is an artefact …
SUSAN DIRGHAM: (Joking) We’ll have a fight soon.

JEREMY SALT: No, we’re not going to fight. News is an artefact. It’s something that people who read newspapers might not necessarily be fully aware of. I mean they do generally or not. The newspaper is one dimensional. There it is, but there is a whole kind of, like, hive of activity befor that. So the raw news is shaped by the reporter, by the editors. It’s shaped according to where it’s placed in the paper. It’s shaped according to the headlines. It’s honed and whittled and refined. Until it gets to you. And you’ve got to think of the mass of information that comes into the media every single day, whether you’re talking about newspapers or television, immense mass. And what you are seeing is a tiny fraction. So ‘news’ should be put in quotes. News is something that the newspaper or television station wants you to know; chooses for you. It’s not unmediated. And then, the other part of that, of course, is the politics of it and the way that things are reported. For example, in the case of Syria, why Syria is reported in such a negative fashion and such an unbalanced fashion. Why have none of these news organisations seen as their business to try to be fair? This is what the so-called rebels are saying – let’s hear what the Syrian Government and people who support the government have to say and what the families of the soldiers have to say. We’ve seen nothing of that. Nothing whatsoever. So, it’s completely lopsided.

And, we go back to that basic question: Why do they [the mainstream media] do it? What’s in it for them? What’s in it for them? And there’s something grey here that I can’t really put my hands on.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: At the moment, and the people in this room know this, because I’m asking them to help me, I’m working on a complaint letter to the ABC because they had a program on in December, on Radio National Earshot program, ‘The Drawers of Memory, Ahmed’s story.’ And the protagonist in this program was a ‘freedom fighter’ in Syria; someone who was running round …

JEREMY SALT: Described as a ‘freedom fighter’?

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Well, he says he supports freedom, and his ‘friends’ the insurgents based in Damascus, who support ‘freedom,’ he reckons they will win in the end. And maybe they will; they’ve got so much ‘support’ from Saudi Arabia, from Qatar – Apparently he was a money-runner, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s money. But he is presented on the ABC as someone that’s credible. And the victims of these insurgents – ordinary people like us that live in the suburbs of Damascus – are just ignored. But, what I discovered when I did a little bit of research on this story is that this is basically an unofficial ABC policy, to present this side of things. As we’ve been discussing, basically. So you get MediaWatch saying, ‘Assad is a brutal dictator. Assad is a war criminal. Assad has used chemicals against his people …’ So, if Mediawatch says this, what mainstream journalist dares present another narrative, dares present the side of the Syrian people?

JEREMY SALT: Why should we use the word ‘dare’? What is the problem in reporting Syria in a more balanced way? I mean, Australians would like to know for sure. They would like to have a different picture. Why does the media pump out this completely lopsided view? Why are they doing it? What are they frightened of? Why are they buying this narrative in this fashion? This is really what I can’t understand. You know, they’re not being told to do it by the government. The government’s not issuing an edict, ‘Please report this situation like this’. No-one’s doing that. So, exactly, how does it work out like that? That they will just report the situation in this kind of grossly unbalanced fashion.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: People get intimidated. They don’t realise their power. Individuals don’t realise the power and influence they have.

JEREMY SALT: If you were – I imagine that if you were an editor of a mainstream newspaper and you suddenly had a rush of blood to the head and decided to report Syria what you or I would call ‘fairly and objectively’, you probably wouldn’t last. But why? Why would they not allow you to report Syria in a more balanced fashion? This is the mystery that we keep coming back to. Why does the media do this? I mean, no-one’s going to punish them if they report the Syrian war – I would think – in a more balanced fashion. Why do they do it? And this is happening all the time. This freedom fighter: ‘I’m a freedom fighter’, ‘I love freedom.’ Oh, great. Okay. Well, so do I.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: So do the Syrian people.

JEREMY SALT: Congratulations. We all love freedom. Freedom’s a really nice thing.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: But what is freedom? What is free?

JEREMY SALT: It’s a word. That’s what it is. It’s a word: ‘I love freedom’.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Freedom to live.

JEREMY SALT: Yes. ‘I’m going to kill people, but I love freedom.‘

SUSAN DIRGHAM: ‘And I’m going to kill them for Saudi Arabia, for America.’

JEREMY SALT: And this has just one on and on for the last five years. And it doesn’t stop. And the latest thing we have is this situation in this town of Madaya, north of Damascus. And the media is reporting Assad forces, or Assad loyalists, or Syrian Army – what are they saying – usually the first two – besieged this town. And we have the reports of the civilians starving – and all the rest. I’m quite sure they’re having a terrible time.

Susan Dirgham of AMRIS talks with Middle East and propaganda scholar, Jeremy Salt, about the history of western interventions in the Middle East and in Syria. She asks why the mainstream press don't tell westerners how Syria is secular and has good women's rights; women got the vote there in 1947. This article is summary plus transcript from the video of Part One of Politics and war in Syria: Susan Dirgham interviews Jeremy Salt. Susan Dirham is convener of Australians for Reconciliation in Syria (AMRIS) and Jeremy Salt is a scholar of Media propaganda and the Middle East

Jeremy Salt begins by talking about 19th century history of interventions in the Middle East, then about intervention in Iraq in 1990s. The UN ran this nominally, but really England and United States did. Two UN humanitarians objected to the inhumanity of economic sanctions against Iraq, possibly even mentioned ‘genocide’: they were Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck. [1] To Susan’s question, Dr Salt agrees that UN personnel no longer speak out. On the subject of the 2003 ‘weapons of mass destruction’: The use of no-fly zones to conduct aerial bombardments. [2] Libya. No-fly zone fig leaf. Syria: they wanted to get a UN resolution for a no-fly zone, but Russia and China blocked this with the UN. Next best thing [sic] was to pull down the government of Damascus by using armed gangs – mercenaries. From 2011 until now and still [the west]have not reached their main objective, which is the destruction of the government in Damascus, but they have destroyed a large part of Syria. This is similar to the Sandinista template of mercenaries used in Nicaragua.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Why do these people choose to fight for/align themselves with western governments when they can see as clearly as you and I can see that these western governments are out to destroy Arab societies?

JEREMY SALT: [Ed: Not exact quotes always; some paraphrase] But we don’t know who these people are. Initially some of them were Syrians, but a lot were from Iraq. Because, in many ways, the war in Syria is the Iraq war exported. The Saudis and other Gulf states have pumped money into Sunni Muslim groups in Western Iraq to destabilise the government in Bagdad, which they didn’t like.

The whole protest movement in Syria was wildly exaggerated [by external war-mongering forces] who were waiting to seize just such an opportunity to make their move against Syria. We’ve seen this happen in Latin America, the Middle East over many, many decades. It happened in Chili, Iran, Ukraine. When the people begin to protest, you come in from behind and you turn those protests to your advantage.

So, for the question of why local people would support western-aligned interventions, the level of true support is unknown. This is not a civil war. This is a campaign against Syria orchestrated by outside governments, who want to destroy Syria and are using a protest movement. Infiltrating it.

You might remember the first week of that protest movement in Dada, in Southern Syria. We are told that the Syrian military started firing into peaceful protesters.

What the media didn’t report was the number of civilians and police who were killed by armed men in that week. And we were told by the same media that there were snipers on rooftops firing into peaceful demonstrators. They said, ‘government snipers’. Almost certainly, they were not. They were provocateurs, stirring as much trouble up as they could. Since those days, we know full well, that the number of foreigners coming to Syria has turned into a flood.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Jeremy, the thing you mention about snipers; I was in Damascus in April 2011, just one month after the start of the crisis, and I met a young man who had been to an anti-government rally just that morning and he said that two people were killed at the rally and others were shot. There were police at the rally with arms, but they did not draw their weapons. So it was just a mystery, who killed these people and Syrians know this.

Taksim Square Massacre template

JEREMY SALT: Once again, this is part of a template. This happens in many situations like this. Where you send your undercover agents into a situation. They open fire from a rooftop or from round a corner. No-one really knows who does it, but that’s the opportunity that the enemy wants, and its media wants, to portray the government as being brutal and oppressive – to killing its own people.

So, what we are seeing in Syria is just another repeat of what we have seen in many, many other countries. We had this in Istanbul, in the Taksim Square Massacre. There was a Mayday march and people started firing into the crowd. They were obviously agent-provocateurs. Turning the whole demonstration – disrupting it – turning it into a panic-stricken kind of riot. 'Cause people didn’t know what was going on.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: One thing that people don’t know is that there was the CIA-orchestrated coup in Syria in 1949. The first CIA coup ever. The CIA had just been recently set up. This was in Syria. So Syrian people know their history, know their enemies –

JEREMY SALT: The whole thing is people in the Arab world generally have a very strong grasp of history and, you know, the people who suffer, who are the victims, remember the history. The people who do bad things to them; they want to move on, want to forget it.

So, of course there is a [?known] history. And it’s not just 1949; This goes back to the end of the first world war.

Syria has been ‘under siege’, effectively, all that time, up unto the present day. So, 1949, yes, that coup, Husni al-Zaim was put there by the CIA, and then he’s followed by a second man, Sami al-Hinnawi, then Adib Shishakli. And Shishakli, whether he was actually put-up to it by the Americans, is not clear. He probably wasn’t, but what he did, the Americans liked. Because, one thing that he didn’t like was a proposal to unite the fertile crescent. To bring Syria and Iraq together.

Iraq was under the domination of the British, so, if that had happened, it would have held a wonderful advantage for Britain – and the Americans didn’t want that. Because, beneath all of these things that we are talking about, all through the 20th century, up to the present day, there were these subterranean tensions between these outside powers.

Britain and France were wartime allies in 1914. Once the war was over, they were rivals.

And the British did what they could to limit French gains. And why did the French leave Syria in 1946? Because the British put pressure on them. Made them leave, because France was, relatively speaking, in a weak position. Britain was weak, but not as weak.

And we see, in the 1950s, Britain and the United States, this same sort of subterranean tension playing up because Britain’s fading as an imperial power, America’s moving into the region and doesn’t want the British to regain lost ground. So this is all part of the picture.

Secular society and women’s rights in Syria: if people knew the truth…

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Another bit of history going back to those times, is that women were given the vote in Syria in 1949. And what disturbs me greatly is we [Australians/westerners] don’t really know what Syrian society is like. It’s hidden behind that ‘brutal dictator’. So our media is presenting a ‘brutal dictator’ versus ‘rebels’ and, behind that ‘brutal dictator’, you’ve got the army - a secular army - and you’ve got a secular society, and you’ve got women, who have extraordinary freedoms. Do you think, if we knew …?

Western governments and media do not want us to know the truth

JEREMY SALT: Yes, of course, if we knew; if people went there. I mean Syria had a quite reasonable tourist industry before this war broke out. We all know that Syria’s a fantastic country. A wonderful place, right. So, a number of people who go there would see that for themselves, but what the others have to rely on is what the media tell them. And the media doesn’t tell them the things that you’re saying. And the media wasn’t saying these things about many, many other countries.

The media will pick up a story, a narrative, which fits in with what they and the government wants. As it did over Iraq, as it has done with many other situations. So Syria becomes a target to be destroyed, therefore it’s not in the interests of the government or much of the media to talk about positive things about Syria. Not to talk about a secular society, freedom for women, and all the rest – because people would say then, ‘Well, why are we taking Syria? Why are we going for Syria?

And so the narrative over Syria has been shocking from the beginning. There has been no balanced reporting whatsoever about Syria. I mean, one or two reporters file reasonable reports from time to time, but 95, 97% of the coverage has not conformed in any way to the standards of proper journalism. It’s been completely biased. You haven’t seen the other side.

If you are a journalist the primary responsibility is what they call ‘balance’. You’re never going to achieve perfect balance, but in a situation like this, even if you want to report what the rebels are saying and doing - even if you and I don’t think they really are rebels – let them have their say. Let people think about it. But you have to report what the others are saying. You have to go to the Syrian government.

You’ve got to go to the victims of the rebels. They are very good – the media – for the last five years has talked about the ‘victims of the Syrian army’ – as they say it – but they haven’t paid any attention at all to the victims of these armed groups. And if they did, then naturally, people would get a very different idea.

If they [journalists] talked to the government and were able to see what happens in families who’ve lost young men. I mean, how many young men have died in Syria fighting these [‘rebel’] groups? Sixty thousand? Something like that. Plus all the others – tens of thousands – wounded.

If that were shown, the whole narrative would be disrupted. But it can’t be shown. It can’t be shown. You cannot really show the victims of war. This is common in all wars. They don’t like to show the gruesome detail.

We saw the other day how Obama was wiping away tears for children who had been shot dead in America. Well, this is the same Obama who has been ordering missile strikes in Yemen that have killed children.

Now if you show the victims of those missile strikes in Yemen – actually show the bodies – well then, the American public would do a double-take: ‘What on earth are we doing? Dead children! We’re killing children in Yemen.’

No, you don’t see those photographs. And the same in Syria. You don’t see the gory detail of what the armed groups are doing. It will be played down. But when the government does something, or the military does something, it’s magnified to the ultimate degree.

So there can’t be any trust in the mainstream media now, there cannot be. After the absolute pinnacle of propaganda about Iraq; Syria is even worse.

NOTES

[1] Denis Halliday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Denis J. Halliday (born c.1941) was the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq from 1 September 1997 until 1998. He is Irish and holds an M.A. in ..."

Economic Sanctions "Hit Wrong Target," Says Former U.N. ...
" “Economic Sanctions “Hit Wrong Target,” Says Former U.N. Humanitarian ... Iraq,” warned former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator Hans von Sponeck, .... Commonwealth Club of California held at the swank Westin St. Francis Hotel in .."

[2] Use of ‘No Fly Zones’: The way this works is to accuse a government of bombing its own citizens then for external powers to declare a ‘no fly zone’, which is somehow interpreted to mean that those powers can enter the zone and bomb government planes which may actually be trying to defend themselves against armed takeovers that imperil citizens. So this stops a country from defending itself militarily and enables outside powers to take over, beginning with the airspace.

This article has since been republished on the Syrian Free Press Network.

Following a meeting in Melbourne Australia of “Australians for Reconciliation in Syria” (AMRIS) today, 3 September 2015, spokesperson David Macilwain said that AMRIS unequivocally condemns atrocities committed by ‘Islamic State’ in Syria.

AMRIS deplores, however, the decision by the Australian Government to follow the lead of the United States in taking military action against IS within the borders of Syria, one of the founding members of the United Nations, without the consent of the Syrian Government.

Mr Macilwain said, "Such action will do little to ‘degrade and destroy’ the terrorist group, whose control over territory has only continued to increase despite a year of US Coalition airstrikes. Furthermore there have been significant civilian casualties and damage as a result of those airstrikes, leading to further refugee flows."

"While Australian involvement in the campaign in Syria will do little to change this situation, culpability for ‘collateral damage’ sustained within Syrian sovereign territory could bring us before the ICC," added Mr Macilwain.

"Rather than looking for an alternative pretext that might be legal, such as the ‘responsibility to protect’ Iraqis, AMRIS proposes a clear alternative - cooperation with the Syrian Army in its fight against IS and other terrorist groups."

"AMRIS also considers that if the Australian government is genuine in its desire and commitment to defeat IS, Al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups in Syria, and seeks to restore peace and security such that refugees can return, then it must be prepared to work in cooperation with the Syrian government and security forces. Such a commitment also entails the recognition of that government as legally constituted and representing the majority of the Syrian population, as mandated in the election of June 2014." ₁ 

Mr Macilwain further stated, "In the absence of such cooperation with the Syrian authorities, Australian military intervention in the Syrian conflict will be neither legal nor moral, regardless of the stated target and pretext. The consequences of such an illegal intervention, which under international law constitutes the ‘supreme crime’ of launching a war of aggression, would be both inconceivable and uncontrollable."

"AMRIS demands that there must be a full disclosure of the objectives, conditions and limitations of this intervention, subject to a parliamentary debate and public scrutiny before this apparent decision to take us to war is finalised."

http://australiansforreconciliationinsyria.org/about/

David Macilwain.

Footnote[s]

1. ↑  At the Presidential election of 4 June 2014, 10,319,723 Syrians, or 88.7% of the 73.42% of eligible Syrian voters who voted, voted for President Bashar al-Assad in spite of the obstruction of expatriate voters by some countries, including Australia and France.

The fair conduct of those elections was attested to by five international observers at a press conference held at the headquarters of the United Nations on 19 June 2014. See Syria's press conference the United Nations doesn't want you to see (21/6/15) with an embedded 53 minute YouTube broadcast. This article was previously published on Global Research.

I don't know of one of the leaders any one of the formal democracies opposed to Syria – the United States, Great Britain, Canada, France, Turkey, Israel, Australia, ... let alone the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who can claim to have even close to President al-Assad's popular endoresement.

At the conference not one of the 'reporters' who, before and since, have peddled the narrative that Bashar al-Assad is a corrupt, brutal dictator, attempted to challenge their testimony.

In Geraldine Doogue's interview with war strategist David Kilcullen on ABC's Saturday Extra (Blood Year, 23 May 2015), there was every sign that Ms Doogue accepted his point of view without question despite his being someone who works closely with the deadly U.S. war machine in Iraq and the region. Yes, Kilcullen is an ‘expert’ in that he has spent time in the ME and he has studied terrorism. He is eloquent. He is personable. He is an Aussie: he seems calm and reasonable. But in his work for the U.S. military, what truths does he omit, what ‘facts’ does he invent?

27 May 2015

Dear Geraldine,

In your interview with war strategist David Kilcullen on ABC's Saturday Extra (Blood Year, 23 May 2015), there was every sign that you accepted his point of view without question despite his being someone who works closely with the deadly U.S. war machine in Iraq and the region.

Yes, Kilcullen is an ‘expert’ in that he has spent time in the ME and he has studied terrorism. He is eloquent. He is personable. He is an Aussie: he seems calm and reasonable. But in his work for the U.S. military, what truths does he omit, what ‘facts’ does he invent?

Can he represent the aspirations of Iraqi and Syrian people who want their countries to be united, stable, peaceful, prosperous and free of foreign interference?

Or do their aspirations inevitably clash with powerful interests in the United States? Would Kilcullen’s work with the U.S. and Australian armies compromise him in the eyes of most Iraqis and Syrians?

The fact that David Kilcullen can put on his CV, “In 2003, I did not support the war in Iraq” would be irrelevant to most Iraqis since he has effectively supported the American war machine ever since.

In 1991, American war planes strafed or bombed one to two thousand Iraqi military vehicles on a 60-mile stretch of highway. They killed thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers returning from the disastrous war in Kuwait. It was dubbed the “Highway of Death” and memories of it would be etched in the brains of Iraqis. One U.S. pilot is quoted as saying, “It was like shooting fish in a barrel”.

The fact that the people of Iraq and the region have no reason to honour the United States is a no-brainer.
As a spokesperson for the ME war plans of the American Administration, David Kilcullen will not, cannot, present events through the eyes of the ordinary people of Iraq or Syria, the people who are traumatised, terrified, maimed and killed. In Australia, those who stand up with strong and eloquent voices against war, sectarianism and division are not given a chance to challenge his views.

But who will present their stories and hopes and dreams to the Australian public? Unless we seek them out, we are diminished.

One hundred years ago, the Anzacs swore allegiance to their ‘Lord the King’ and so it was the Imperial plans of Britain they fought for. Today, in Australia, particularly in the media, there seems to be an unwritten, unspoken allegiance to the Imperial plans of the United States.

The Middle East was a world away in 1915. Today, there are many Australians who have an allegiance to one side or another in the wars there. The blood lost there is mourned here. The hatreds simmering there are simmering here, within our own communities.

It is not the time for allegiances to empires or caliphates. To be supreme, both must seek to divide, destroy and brutally kill. Instead, it is the time for pursuing our most precious of human values and for seeking the truth. Only by doing so can hatred, wars and terror be stopped.

How often must we be reminded that ‘No man is an island’?

The charm and sophistry of David Kilcullen, and his reliance on sectarian terms to describe the war in Iraq, are not a substitute for the voices of the people of Iraq and Syria who live in a hell the United States and its allies have engineered.

Iraqi and Syrian people who want to end the terror and war have spokespeople. Let’s not imagine they are unsophisticated natives. Let’s not ignore them. Let’s learn about their lives and hear their voices.

In a video interview in early 2014, Monsignor Jacques Behnan Hindo, Archbishop for Syriac Catholics stated,

There is always fear. There is always anxiety. We live with the same anxieties. We are waiting for salvation. Unfortunately Geneva (2 conference) has not yielded anything yet. And, even more unfortunately, the United States, France, yes, France – and England do nothing except add poison to things …by aiding these opposing … these factions, more than half of which have come from outside (Syria). And when one comes from outside (Syria), he/she does not want what is good for Syrians but rather massacring them. And then they want to declare an Islamic State. And we as Christians cannot accept that. I am not a masochist. I do not accept to get flogged. I cannot accept these people, purely and simply. And when I hear Kerry or Fabius, these people who take their fake humanitarian sentiment, I ask myself: “What are they doing?”…

(A political solution) is always possible. However, the first thing that must happen is for these terrorists to leave. This is an essential condition. And when they are out, we Syrians can come to an agreement. We had already several towns where the Army entered because residents had had enough, and they expelled the foreigners that were in their town. And now they live much more quietly. In our region, it is the same thing … in all the cities and villages of the north. Yes, there are people who oppose (the state). I myself am not that much for the government. However, when I compare what awaits me with these people to what I have today, I say to myself: “I am doing very well today.” And I wouldn’t want to put Fabius in my place... when these people come and occupy the country. I do not want to see Fabius, Kerry, or the others. But they are not supposed to understand that they will never be here. That is why they are screwing around. Excuse my expression. They are screwing all Syrians. I wrote a letter to Obama and I told him that, in his name Barack, there is the word Baraka (blessing). However, when he sent all his fleet, it was to declare war. It was a curse! Between a curse and a blessing, there is a huge difference.

(Question: Are you able to maintain hope?) I am, even physically, very optimistic. And then I always have the hope of Christ. I always believe that even Christ on the Cross had the light of resurrection behind him. Therefore it will come. The torment and the fear might extend for a while, but it will be over. And we shall live. I have a lot of hope. That’s why I tell my people not to immigrate, because we can turn our region, our country, into another Switzerland. There is absolutely everything to make it happen. There is intelligence, money, land… everything. Therefore nothing is missing in order to live a life much better than before, in 2 or 5 years from now.

Sami Ramadani, a political exile from Sadam Hussein’s regime wrote in The Guardian in June 2014,

The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history followed the 2003 US-led occupation, which faced massive popular opposition and resistance. The US had its own divide-and-rule policy, promoting Iraqi organisations founded on religion, ethnicity, nationality or sect rather than politics. Many senior officers in the newly formed Iraqi army came from these organisations and Saddam's army. This was exacerbated three years ago, when sectarian groups in Syria were backed by the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Geraldine, I implore you to challenge your guests, challenge your listeners, and search for other points of view besides those that only serve to indirectly promote more war and more terror in the Middle East.

Saturday Extra no longer allows comments to be submitted to its online page. All old comments have been removed. It is unfortunate Saturday Extra does not welcome dissenting voices from the community. I have created a page online with all my emails and letters to you as well as comments I submitted to your webpage. I will include this message above.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Susan
National Coordinator of "Australians for Musslaha (Reconciliation) in Syria"

CC: some of your colleagues in the ABC

This is a letter to Malcolm Turnbull, Communications Minister, from Susan Dirgham of AMRIS. It draws his attention to the danger presented to Australia by biased reporting on Syria. Ms Dirgham points out that such biased reporting may have caused young Australians to join ISIS and other 'revolutionaries' in the mistaken impression that they were fighting for freedom. She also gives a link to where an Al-Jazeera reporter called for the genocide of Alawis in Syria and suggests that the tens of thousands of Alawis in Australia may not be immune from similar intimidation either. She asks Mr Turnbull to exercise some leadership in this matter. Candobetter.net Editor: We have updated this article (which initially contained the words of an email document sent yesterday) to reflect some changes in the wording of the hard copy which was sent today.

The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull
MP, Minister for Communications
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House,
Canberra, ACT 2600

21 May 2015

Dear Minister,

As you are Australia's Communications Minister, I urge you to give attention to a program broadcast this month on Al-Jazeera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtNYSUqYHw&feature=youtu.be

The program targets an Arabic speaking audience, and it would have a significant number of viewers in Australia. The host of the Al-Jazeera program and one guest express support for the killing of Alawis in Syria. They do not exclude women and children.

Note, there is at least one petition being distributed protesting this incitement to genocide by the host of an Al-Jazeera program:

http://www.change.org/p/amnesty-international-human-rights-watch-office-of-the-special-advisor-on-the-prevention-of-genocide-office-of-the-high-commissioner-for-human-rights-bring-al-jazeera-network-and-faisal-al-kasim-to-justice-for-inciting-genocide-on-tv

This call for genocide on Al-Jazeera may appear to be an aberration and as such dismissed by many. However, I contend that there is a tolerance for such vitriolic hatred within our own community and the groundwork for it has been partially laid by mainstream reporting of the Syrian conflict. (It is worth noting that prominent Al-Jazeera journalists have resigned in protest over that media outlet’s coverage of the conflict in Syria and Bahrain.)

In the last four years, I have contacted the ABC on numerous occasions to alert journalists to the distortion and bias in reports on Syria and to warn them that such reporting will encourage some in the community to support a violent jihad in Syria, something which can have repercussions in Australia. My last formal complaint was in regards to the bias in a report on AM. Despite the weight of my arguments and the implications of a mainstream broadcaster presenting militias intent on destroying the army of a secular society in a positive light, it was not upheld. http://susandirgham.wordpress.com

Since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, much of the reporting and official commentary on Syria has been framed in terms of 'a brutal Alawi regime oppressing the Sunni majority'. As the guest who stood up against the calls for genocide on the Al-Jazeera program explained, this does not reflect the reality of the Syrian government, the army or the conflict.

I was heartened this week to see an article in the alternative magazine "New Matilda" which analyses and challenges mainstream reports on Syria. https://newmatilda.com/2015/05/17/corporate-media-and-syria-study-propaganda-and-sloppy-standards

There must be some serious examination of the media presentation of the conflict in Syria and how that impacts Australians who support ISIS or al-Nusra in Syria. It would seem appropriate that you initiate it.

Like Syria, Australia is a diverse and secular society. It too can suffer from hatreds and divisions stirred up by malevolent forces.

For example, there are tens of thousands of people with Alawi Muslim backgrounds in Australia who have come from Syria, Lebanon or Turkey. Unbeknownst to most of us, they may already be facing intimidation from sections of the community who are influenced by calls to hate, both direct and indirect, from a range of sources.

Other key commentators have presented the conflict in the Middle East in sectarian terms. For example, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States has described the terrorist group ISIS as the 'lesser evil'; in his mind 'Shia' are the greater evil. No doubt such views expressed by a prominent person have an impact on communities and reporting. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/israels-former-ambassador-to-the-us-on-the-palestinian-question/373627/

On the other hand, retired U.S. General Wesley Clark has claimed that friends and allies of America created ISIS in order to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHLqaSZPe98

What is the truth? At times it seems the world is edging towards an abyss and we are being taken there with our minds, our eyes and our mouths closed.

An esteemed professor at M.I.T., Professor Theodore Postol, and a former U.N. weapons inspector, Mr Richard Lloyd, published a paper that contended that the Syrian army could not have fired the weapons that purportedly carried sarin and killed over 300 people in Damascus in August 2013. Unsubstantiated claims that the Syrian government was responsible for this 'massacre' and others have contributed to many people's bafflement regarding the war and to their disengagement in regards to supporting peace or the war's victims. On the other hand, the claims have led to the active engagement of others on the side of the terror. The implications of Postol and Lloyd's findings are extremely significant, yet our public or corporate media eschews them. Here is a link to the Theodore Postol and Richard Lloyd report: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045-possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.html

To unite Australians and to fear the future less, it is vital that we espouse and live values that reflect our common humanity and which can inspire us all. Organizations cannot display courage; individuals must.

In the past four years, many brave people in Syria have been committed to the work of reconciliation. If Syria is not to become a failed state and its people destitute and brutalized for decades to come, these efforts must be acknowledged and supported. "The Babbila Reconciliation: a Light at the End of Syria’s Dark Tunnel" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSS-AhrqGps

As Communications Minister and as someone committed to reconciliation, you are in an excellent position to take a lead. I urge you to give attention to the call for genocide on the Al-Jazeera program and to respond appropriately. Also, with the increasing number of reports of Australians being lured to Syria to support designated terrorist organizations, there is an urgent need for an independent parliamentary enquiry into the coverage of the conflict in Syria by our Public Service Broadcasters.

Yours faithfully,

Susan Dirgham

National Coordinator of "Australians for Reconciliation in Syria" (AMRIS)

CC: Australian Communications and Media Authority

How could we allow America, NATO, Israel or other Arab states to destroy something so ancient and valuable for all humanity as Syria - the last secular Arab state? Australian peace activist, Susan Dirgham, taught English for years in Syria and got to know the country and its people very well. She argues that, without deception and our complicity through ignorance, there could be no war in Syria. But how do we work out for ourselves what is really happening in Syria and who to help? We need to understand more of Syria's history and its geopolitical position, to which she provides insight here. Just as we need to severely question the notion of US-NATO presenting a 'majority' opinion, we also need to very carefully assess what NGOs are doing in Syria. Susan is the national co-ordinator of “Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria" (AMRIS). She has travelled very widely and even lived in China before it was opened to the West. When she speaks she provides testable facts and does not talk down to her audience or ask for money. Please consider asking her to speak. You may contact her at susan.dirgham51[AT[gmail.com. There is a question and answer session at the end of this video.

First Part of two part transcription of the above video.

The reality of war is complex. Fiction is often needed to make sense of it.

Inspiration:

Graham Greene’s “Our Man in Havana” is the story of a somewhat ordinary Englishman in Cuba in the 1950s, Jim Wormold, a vacuum-cleaner salesman, whose failing business and acquisitive daughter induce him to be recruited by MI6. His heart isn’t in espionage, but he has a flair for invention and his bogus reports are taken seriously by London HQ.

”He had no accomplice, except the credulity of other men.”

Tragedy results from Wormold’s deception, and it brings knowing.

”I don’t give a damn about men who are loyal to the people who pay them, to organizations… I don’t think even my country means that much. There are many countries in our blood, aren’t there, but only one person. Would the world be in the mess it is if we were loyal to love and not to countries?” Graham Greene, Our Man in Havana ”

Without deception, there would be no war in Syria.

Faith in Secular Syria

I taught at the British Council in Damascus for two years and met hundreds of Syrian people. It is those Syrian people that I met and the peaceful, secular Syria that I explored that is in my heart and that motivates me to be a peace activist. I was also a peace activist during the Vietnam War and I realized then how important it was to investigate, to research, to understand what was really going on and to expose the lies and to know that there were a lot of ‘men from Havana’, a lot of people working for war, otherwise you would have no war.

The Syria I know is a secular country, a country where you could find faith; Syrian people of all faiths are very devout. The impression I got was that their faith was genuine. And in the Syria I knew there was love and hope, so supporting their country was supporting love, supporting secularism. In the Syria I knew, it was taboo to ask people about their religion. If you did speak about religion, you spoke with sensitivity and respect. I believe this gave the people of Syria one of the most precious freedoms that anyone can have. That is the freedom to approach others in your society, no matter what their religious or ethnic background, with an open heart.

But that has been destroyed by those people who wish to destroy Syria.

I have a faith in secular Syria, the Syria I know, and there are good reasons for that faith. One is the position of women. In 1949, Syrian women were the first women in the Middle East to be granted the right to vote. They have the same basic rights as women in Australia in regards to the freedom to dress as they choose. On a visit to Syria in 2010, I heard from former students at the British Council that the talk among young educated people at that time concerned women having the same social and sexual freedoms as men.

Syrian women have the freedom to seek an education, to further their career. One of my students at the British Council, a single mother who drove a VW Beetle, worked for the Health Ministry. Her ambition was to become the Minister of Health, not a foolish dream for a highly intelligent Syrian woman as one of the most respected ministers in Syria today is a woman, Dr Kinda al-Shammat, the Minister for Social Affairs, a minister who works at the grass-roots level, with the people.

In secular Syria there was freedom of religion, which meant that Christmas, Easter and the Eid Festivals were all national holidays, so everybody stopped for each other’s holy days. I felt the magic of this on my first Christmas in Damascus. There was a huge Christmas tree in Bab Touma, the Christian quarter of the city, and the main street was closed for the festival – Christian and Muslim families mingled, and a man dressed up as Father Christmas played the saxophone. These days, you are more likely to see solemnity in Bab Touma.

Islam and Christianity, as they are practiced in Syria, are inclusive, so in recent years it is not uncommon to see imams in churches and priests in mosques for funeral services.

Humanity, Faith, Diversity – Who Describes it? Who Seeks the Truth?

Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. It is part of everyone’s history, of everyone’s humanity. Syria is basically a bridge between the different religious faiths. You can feel this in the air in Syria. The humanity of Damascus, as well as its beauty, has been extolled by many foreigners that have lived there.

For example, in 2010, British writer, Malika Browne, who once lived in the Old City of Damascus, celebrated Syria’s history, miracles and beauty. Two years later, Browne returned to the same theme in an article in The Guardian. A car bomb in the Christian quarter of Damascus prompted Browne to reflect on the Damascus she knew and loved – the Damascus I knew. However, Browne’s one sentence conclusion is partisan and glib: this harmony is precisely what one man, Bashar al-Assad and a handful of family members, is bent on trying to destroy. Few general readers would question such an unsubstantiated claim because hatred for ‘Assad’ has become a tacit truth, it has seeped into so much of our culture – political cartoons, travel writing, and movie reviews. But as someone who looks deeper for truths, I want to know what motivates Malika Browne to include flippant, but lethal propaganda in such a beautiful piece of writing about Damascus. What motivates her to ignore the points of view of Christians in Syria, many of them victims? Syrian Christian leaders have spoken out against ‘militants’ and proposed western military action. My conclusion: as Browne is married to a former Damascus-based diplomat, she has divided loyalties. Her spouse was someone’s ‘man in Damascus’. Malika Browne’s willingness to adhere to a western war narrative on Syria overrides her allegiance to the people of Syria.

Labels Quash Discussion

I believe there is good reason to support Syria, particularly the people of Syria. But if I try to get a gig on a radio station, I am told I am an ‘Assad supporter’. Labels are being used to quash discussion, to quash debate and peace activism, and they have been effective. Although Syria has a population of 23 million people, the crisis in Syria has been reduced to slogans; it’s ‘Assad versus the rebels’. This slogan has been very effective because it has intimidated people. People have been too afraid to stand up. To be told you are a supporter of Assad is almost like being told you are a supporter of Hitler. Few dare go there.

And those lined up against Syria are basically the whole world, except for some notable exceptions, which include Russia, China, Central America, Latin America, India, Oman, and South Africa. We rarely hear about the notable exceptions because the ‘international community’ is said to be against Assad, but actually the international community is basically just America and its allies.

Partisan Stand of NGOs

What can deter people from standing up for Syria is that you have NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International as well as the U.N., taking very partisan stands against Syria and making use of emotive language rather than objective and sober analysis. These bodies are viewed as trustworthy, dependable, and their blessed aura and global presence are being exploited in today’s modern so-called information and humanitarian wars.

This year, two Nobel Peace Laureates, a former UN Assistant Secretary General, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories and over 100 scholars wrote a letter to Human Rights Watch, critical of its close ties with the U.S. government. They questioned HRW’s independence.

In regards to Amnesty International, there are many people working for it who have integrity and good intentions, but it is not the Amnesty of 40 years ago, when it was a grass-roots organization. Today, it is a corporation, with security doors, executive salaries, gate-keepers and merchandize. It has a HQ. No doubt there is dedication, but Amnesty International also provides a career path.

At the end of 2011, I accompanied members of the Syrian community to the Amnesty office in Melbourne to report on the killings of innocent civilians by armed men early on in the crisis in Syria.

One young Syrian Australian reported to Amnesty that armed men had killed his uncle, a farmer, and two of his friends when they were on the highway to Damascus. And I reported the deaths of three young teenage boys. They were killed in Homs on 17 April 2011, Independence Day, so a public holiday in Syria. They had been in a car with army numberplates because the father of two of them was an army officer. (There is reference to their deaths in an article titled Questioning the Syrian “Casualty List” by Sharmine Narwani, an analyst based in Beirut.)

The Amnesty officials in Melbourne and Sydney who took official note of these reports were very respectful and receptive. However, the reports were sent to Amnesty’s head office in London (or perhaps New York), and stories of these killings were never reported by Amnesty.

Amnesty International, like Human Rights Watch, has close and inappropriate ties with the US Administration. For example, its US director in 2012 was Suzanne Nossel, author of the 2004 paper ‘Smart Power’ which explores ways America can remain the number one global power without being overly militaristic and unpopular. Nossel has worked with top US State Department officials, and since leaving Amnesty, she has moved on smartly to become executive director of PEN American Centre, which belongs to “International PEN, the worldwide association of writers that defends those who are harassed, imprisoned, and killed for their views,” Wikipedia.

In recent years, America’s top man in Syria has been former Ambassador Robert Ford, someone who has been accused by an American investigative journalist of recruiting death squads for Syria, yet he was the keynote speaker at a 2012 Amnesty US annual general meeting.

But for an outsider, a non-Syrian, to comprehend the scale of the deception and intrigue needed to prosecute a war against Syria requires a great deal of scepticism and many dedicated hours of research. The mainstream narrative, together with the support it gets from NGOs, can overwhelm and bewilder us. To challenge people in authority - men and women in grey suits – and a distorted narrative that has slipped subliminally into our culture is a truly daunting task.

What requires support?

• The Syrian people and their secular society and state
• Diplomacy
• The non-violent struggle for political reforms

Lobbyists for War vs Lobbyists for Peace

There have been many lobbyists for a war in Syria and few lobbyists for peace. People who lobby for war are more often than not employed directly or indirectly to do so. Generally, you don’t get paid to lobby for peace.

For some years now, my peace activism has led me to email politicians and people in the media. One prominent politician on my email list was Senator Bob Brown, the Greens leader who was highly regarded for his anti-war stand in the past. However, I had reason to be disturbed by the Greens’ position on Syria. Senator Brown was vocal in his support for sanctions against Syria, for the closure of the Syrian embassy, and for the Australian Senate to call on President Assad to resign. Such a political stand in a country very distant from Syria ignored the views and circumstances of 23 million people in Syria. They were a response to the lobbyists for war.

In March 2012, Bob Brown’s office responded to me directly, giving me an opportunity to lobby for peace. In an email reply to Senator Brown’s office, I made several points. They included the following:

• A well-meaning Victorian Greens politician, Ms Collen Hartland, had been befriended by two or three Syrian Australians. Seeing them as trusted sources, Ms Hartland felt qualified to inform others on events in Syria. (The claims of two or three men in Australia helped determine Greens’ policies on a conflict impacting the lives of 23 million people in Syria.)

• One media outlet Senator Brown may have trusted for information on Syria was Al-Jazeera. But this media outlet is owned by members of the Qatari ruling royal family and in recent years has been expressing the foreign policy stand of Qatar, a country which hosts a major US base. Until recently at least, Qatar has also been a base for the Muslim Brotherhood, a force that has been at the forefront of the militarized opposition to the Syrian government. Al-Jazeera reporters, including senior staff, have resigned reportedly over the biased reporting of Al-Jazeera on Syria and the ‘Arab Spring’ in general.

• Robert Fisk’s reports on Syria may have determined many Australians’ views, but Fisk doesn’t represent the views of millions of peace-loving Syrians. He writes for western readers. If his often cryptic reports on Syria represent anyone’s views in the Middle East, they might be those of Lebanese political figure and former Druze ‘warlord’, Walid Jumblatt, a close friend of Fisk and someone who is often ridiculed for his fickle political alliances. (NB: Some truth can be found in Fisk’s reports, but he should be read with a critical eye.)

About three weeks after I sent my email to Senator Brown’s office, the senator resigned from politics. Bob Brown may have realized he had been wrong on Syria and it was all too dreadful and complicated, so he resigned. However, reasons for his resignation were probably much more prosaic than that, of course. However, what would have happened if Bob Brown had stood up and declared that he had been wrong about Syria and he now supported diplomacy and would work hard to expose war propaganda? Would he have taken the Greens’ Party with him? Would the wider community and the media have reassessed their stands on Syria? I think not. At that time, before we became aware of IS and the depth of the brutality of armed groups, few Australians were in a position to see beyond the slogans for war. Few were prepared to run the risk of being labelled an “Assad apologist”. (Labour politician Anthony Albanese was one exception.)

It should be noted that there are two prominent U.S. politicians who have taken consistently strong stands against the propaganda that feeds the war in Syria, both have stood for presidential nominations. One is former Republican Congressman Ron Paul, and the other is former Democratic Congressman Denis Kucinich, who visited Syria in 2013 to interview President Assad for Fox News. A US senator who has also defied the mainstream narrative has been Republican Senator Richard Black, who famously sent a letter to President Assad to thank him for the Syrian army’s protection of Syrian Christians. This predictably led to the headline, “Assad-loving Va. Pol defends views”.

The Syrian Perspective – An Historic One

While the Australian perspective of Syria is being shaped largely by our media, that of people in Syria is shaped by local events and an understanding of Syria’s history and its place in the world.

There are over 300 graves of Australian soldiers in a well-tended cemetery in Damascus, but the Syrian view of the contributions of ANZACs to their history may differ considerably to ours. For us, the role of Australian soldiers looms large in the lands they have fought in, and the locals are almost inconsequential extras.

My grandfather was in the 3rd Light Horse Brigade that entered Damascus on 1 October 1918, some hours before Lawrence of Arabia’s more ‘epic’ entry. After the expulsion of the generally oppressive Turkish forces in Greater Syria, Britain and France divided up Syria between them. France sent troops into Damascus in 1920, and in 1925, in response to the local opposition to their rule, bombed and destroyed a section of the historic old city of Damascus.

Australian soldiers were again in Syria in World War 2, this time to join the fight against the Vichy French, who they feared were collaborating with the Nazis in the region. The win against these French forces allowed De Galle’s Free French forces to control Syria. France after the war was reluctant to give up its strategic hold in Syria. In 1945, it attacked the Syrian parliament building in Damascus to crush any fight for independence. Finally, Syria achieved independence with the exit of the last French troops on 17 April 1946.

The French departure enabled American interference in Syrian affairs.

In 1949, CIA agents coordinated the first successful military coup in Syria. The democratically elected government had not approved a Trans-Arabian Pipeline; however, the new coup leaders did. (In that 1949 election, Syrian women were the first women in the Arabic world to have the right to vote.)

A CIA agent behind the coup, Miles Copeland Jr, was someone with a respectable, even glamorous, background, being the son of a doctor, the husband of an archaeologist, and having been a trumpet player with the Glen Millar Orchestra before the war. From the perspective of many westerners, Copeland was a guy to respect. From the perspective of a Syrian, he was a man to distrust: he was employed to destabilize their country.

Because of concern over Syria’s links with Moscow, there were further US attempts in 1956 and 1957 to overthrow the Syrian government with support from Britain and Turkey. The plan was to trigger a military coup by various violent activities on the country’s borders.

From that first successful US-backed military coup in 1949, there is a succession of coups and counter-coups up until 1970. There were 14 different presidents in just over 20 years.
But US plans for the overthrow of an independent Syrian government may have got nastier in recent years than they were in the 1950s. In 2001, after 9/11, American General Wesley Clark was told by a general in the Pentagon that the Secretary of Defence’s office had plans to ‘take out’ seven countries, these included Syria, Iran, Iraq and Libya. Clark explained that the United States underwent a ‘policy coup’ after 9/11.

America’s man in Syria to help implement the ‘taking out’ of Syria was Ambassador Robert Ford, whom in 2011 was accused of organizing Arab/Muslim death squads in Syria.

Syria’s neighbours involved in supporting unrest and violence

The last time Syria experienced terror anything like it is experiencing now was in the late 70s and early 80s. The then president, Hafiz al-Asad, publicly accused the CIA of “encouraging ‘sabotage and subversion’ in Syria so as to bring ‘the entire Arab world under joint US-Israeli domination’” (“Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East”, by Patrick Seale, page335)
Ironically perhaps, this subversion involved support from Arab leaders as in a 1982 speech, President Assad said this about Saddam Hussien,

The hangman of Iraq was not content to kill tens of thousands of his own people. He came to Syria to carry out his favourite hobbies of killing, assassination and sabotage. That man has been sending arms to the criminals in Syria ever since he took power.
(Quoted from, “Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East”, by Patrick Seale, page 336)

Israel and Syria

Books could be written about tensions and conflict between Israel and Syria. The Israeli state is situated on land that used to be part of Greater Syria under the Ottoman Empire, and it has occupied the Golan Heights, Syrian territory, since 1967.
‘Greater Israel’, or what is known as the Yinon Plan formulated in 1982, calls for the balkanization of Arab states; Israel could dominate while Muslims killed each other in endless sectarian wars.
With the wars brought about by the establishment of the State of Israel, come espionage, intrigue, tightening security, and death. Every country suffers. In 1965, Eli Cohen, an Israeli spy in Syria who ingratiated himself among top officials in Syria to become an advisor to the Syria Minister of Defence, was hanged. Two years later, in 1967, 34 American sailors on the USS Liberty, which was an intelligence gathering ship, were killed when Israeli air and naval forces attacked the Liberty.

In the conflict between the Syrian army and militants, Israel has provided practical support to militants, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has visited wounded insurgents in an Israeli army hospital.

From a Syrian perspective, Israel’s support for the insurgency is a continuation of Israel’s efforts to dominate the Middle East by weakening, even destroying, its neighbours.

From an Israeli perspective, tiny warring Sunni, Shi’a, Alawi, Kurdish, and Druze states in the region might be seen as the best option for Israel - a Jewish state in everything but name. A strong united pluralist Syrian republic which challenges Israel’s divisive and aggressive policies on the world stage would not be welcome.

Chants heard at the first violent anti-government protests in Syria in March 2011 and repeated over the coming years were “Christians to Beirut; Alawites to their graves” and “No to Hezbollah. No to Iran. Syria for Muslims.” They are chants that signal the sectarian violence that has taken place in Syria as enemies of Syria attempt to break up the nation.
Renown Middle East expert, Patrick Seale wrote in the conclusion of his book "Asad: the Struggle for the Middle East" (the book is on the father of the current president),

”Asad’s Syria represents the rejection of an Israeli-dominated Middle East order, offering instead one based on the supremacy of neither Arabs nor Israelis but on a balance of power between an Arab Levant centred on Damascus and an Israel within its 1948-9 boundaries. …”

Seale pointed out that Israel would have to give up its ambition to dominate and substitute it for a will to co-exist.

The Second Part of the text to the video will be transcribed as soon as possible.

Ed. Title, "Dangerous bias in terror wars" added by candobetter.net editor to help readers identify content. This article contains a complaint about ABC reporting bias which editors at candobetter.net believe has immediate grave consequences with respect to war crimes. Candobetter.net is publishing it in an attempt to increase the prospects for it to receive adequate and remedial attention from the ABC, which we believe could save many lives and contribute to descale events that threaten to escalate into a third world war. The complaint concerns a Radio National AM program presented by Chris Uhlmann with reporter Matt Brown, entitled, "Mixed Response from Syrian rebels to American-led war on IS."

Program: ABC, Radio National, AM
Date: 18/9/2014
Title: Mixed Response from Syrian rebels to American-led war on IS
Presenter: Chris Uhlmann Reporter: Matt Brown
***********************************************************************************************
24 September 2014
Dear Audience and Consumer Affairs,
The above-mentioned AM program breaches the ABC Code of Practice in regards to Accuracy, Impartiality and Diversity of Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION

The United States with support from Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar, has begun airstrikes on Syria, ostensibly to target IS forces. To enter the airspace of Syria without the authorization of the Syrian government is an illegal act. Also, last week the American Congress voted to train and arm ‘moderate Syrian rebels’. These rebels are fighting both the Islamic State and the Syrian government, and there is reason to believe they see the Syrian government as their principal target. Under international law, it is illegal for countries to fund and supply weapons to insurgents intent on overthrowing the government of a sovereign state.

The Australian government will have enormous pressure on it from the U.S. Administration to support their military actions in Syria. It is, therefore, imperative that Australians are as well-informed as they can possibly be about the war in Syria and the so-called moderate rebels that America and its allies are arming. Decisions which will determine the history of the 21st century are being made.

What is more, the conflict in Syria impacts on communities in Australia and on people’s sense of security and well-being. We can all be disorientated by the mixed messages and the hatred stirred up in biased, imprudent reports and commentaries on the war. It should be the responsibility of the ABC, our national broadcaster, to inform us fully and impartially on Syria and the region. However, its Middle East correspondent, Matt Brown, is not doing this.

ACCURACY and IMPARTIALITY

In his report on AM (18 September 2014) Matt Brown presented a biased portrayal of ‘moderate’ rebels in Syria. He described the rebels as ‘moderate’, as if their being moderate was a fact, not an opinion.

Furthermore, emotive expressions that could elicit sympathy for the rebels were used. These included, concern, hope, congratulated, thankful, and a welcome gesture.

There was no suggestion that these rebels might be opportunists, who happily wear the label ‘moderate’ today as it entitles them to receive military hardware from the U.S. and its allies, but who have aligned with terrorist groups, including ISIL, at times in the conflict when it suited them. Also, in coming days, months and years, there are already signs they will choose Al-Qaeda affiliated groups over the U.S. and their allies.

Unlike Brown, BBC’s Jeremy Bowen expresses serious reservations about ‘moderate’ rebels.

I have met many FSA fighters and they do have moderate views, certainly in comparison with jihadist groups. But the fighters are often religious and see no problem with building up alliances with the jihadists against a common enemy. Fighters also move from one group to another.

Also, it’s been reported that the family of Steven Sotloff, one of the American journalists beheaded by ISIL, accused ‘moderate rebels’ of selling Steven to the extremists.

Does a ‘moderate’ rebel kill differently to an ‘extremist’ rebel?

Ahmad Al-Rahal, a ‘moderate rebel’ introduced in the AM report, declared in an interview in March 2014,

There is no sectarianism in this revolution. Syria only has two sects: that of the regime and that of the revolution.

It is difficult to see how such a crude uncompromising approach to a ‘revolution’ differs from the Khmer Rouge’s, whose ideology was just as black and white and led to the killing fields in Cambodia. It is therefore shocking that Brown reports on Al-Rahal totally uncritically.

Given the lethal qualities of the ‘revolution’ in Syria and its attraction to young Muslim Australians, the ABC has a heavy responsibility to both the general public in Syria and in Australia to ensure ‘rebels’ in Syria, no matter what their name-tag today, are neither glamorized nor sanitized by ABC journalists.

The other ‘moderate’ rebel commander Brown introduces to the AM audience is Jamal Al Maa’arufe (also spelt ‘Ma’ruf’ and ‘Maruf). Currently, Maa’arufe is said to head a coalition of insurgent groups called the Syrian Revolutionaries’ Front. Dr As'ad AbuKhalil, a professor of political science at California State University has written the following about Jamal Maa’arufe on his blog, Angry Arab:
A Syrian leader of rebel thugs, Jamal Ma`ruf, having been groomed by Saudi intelligence, announces in the media that he is now ready and willing to fight ISIS. Let me translate: he has just received a large supply of weapons and cash from American and Saudi intelligence. Let the thuggery begin.

DIVERSITY of PERSPECTIVES

Although rebels control quite a large area in Syria, the majority of Syrians still choose to live in government controlled cities and towns. These people include up to two million Syrian Christians as well as Muslims of all sects who do not support a militarized opposition or an Islamised political system, similar to Saudi Arabia’s or Iran’s. Yet, their voices are not heard in this AM report. It is as if they do not exist, yet they are people Australians would feel great empathy for if only we knew their stories and views.

Ironically perhaps, James Foley, the American journalist whose beheading became part of the pretext for U.S. military strikes on Syria, did diligently seek the views of civilians in Aleppo who were critical of the Free Syrian Army, supposedly moderate rebels. This may have cost him his life. In an October 2012 article titled Syria: Rebels losing support among civilians in Aleppo, Foley wrote,

The rebels in Aleppo are predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad.
“The terrorism here in Syria is spreading, and the government has to do something about it,” said Mohamed Kabal, a 21-year-old university student.

Foley also presented the perspective of a disillusioned rebel.

He said he's seen civilians executed after rebels recklessly accuse them of being mercenaries for the regime.
“I saw one beaten to death,” he said. “The FSA didn’t check their facts, and now he’s dead. I know the man. He was 46. He has five children.”

Unlike some media outlets, such as the BBC, Channel 4, and the Telegraph, the ABC has not sent a reporter into government controlled cities to seek a diversity of perspectives in regards to the war. The ABC has maintained it hasn’t been able to get a visa for a reporter. But this is no excuse for the lack of balance in Matt Brown’s report. In June, tens of thousands of Syrians in Lebanon voted in the Syrian presidential election. Brown could travel to Beirut to seek out their views.

TRUTHS vs INACCURATE & BIASED REPORTING

In 2011, on an ABC community webpage, there was an account of the violence and terror then being committed by armed gangs across Syria. However, despite challenges, the mainstream narrative on the crisis in Syria has been consistent: a minority sect is oppressing the Sunni majority and a brutal dictator is killing his own people. Matt Brown promotes it in this AM report, as do print journalists, NGOs, human rights organizations, even UN bodies. When prominent Malaysian peace activist, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, writes on what might attract young Muslim men the rebel cause in Syria, we in Australia should pay heed. He is a ‘moderate’ Muslim exploring truths.
Unfortunately, through repetition, the narrative has become an embedded ‘truth’. Hence, although a well-regarded M.I.T. professor, a doctor in pharmacology, a US intelligence expert, a veteran investigative journalist; have all challenged the claim that Assad used chemical weapons against his people in August 2013, ABC presenter Waleed Aly can still insist Assad did, without thinking it necessary to substantiate the accusation.

So Matt Brown’s recent AM report continued the tradition of this narrative. It began with a discussion of the Sunni IS forces and ended with damnation of the ‘torture chambers’ of Bashar Al-Assad, who, as Brown says, is the ‘main target’ of ‘moderate’ rebels. (NB: Alternative sources question the ‘Caesar’ claims of ‘torture chambers’, but a mainstream journalist is highly unlikely to be instructed to probe deeply once a convenient ‘truth’ is embedded.)

On AM, rebel claims were presented without challenge by Brown; thus, they easily become ‘truths’. So Jamal Al Maa’arufe speaks about the fight against the “unjust Bashar’s illegitimate state”. Belief that the Syrian state is illegitimate may be what prompts rebels to brutally murder state employees, including bakers, post office workers, doctors and teachers. But how can a state that has been represented in the U.N. since its inception be ‘illegitimate’?

Brown says a government airstrike ‘reportedly’ killed Jamal Al Maa’arufe’s wife and daughter. Brown acknowledges it is a claim. However, apart from this AM report, a tweet and a Facebook entry, It is very hard to find support on the internet for it. An article in SYRIA: direct, reports on the airstrike, but it claims Maa’arufe’s deputy was killed; there is no mention of family members. Already Brown presents a sympathetic portrait of rebel leader Al Maa’arufe. Suggesting that he has lost his wife and daughter in a government airstrike further reinforces that portrayal. That may be the purpose of it. as to repeat what seems to be merely a little chatter on the internet seems irresponsible journalism, especially when the stakes are so high when there is misinformation presented on Syria, high for the people of Syria and the region, and high for Australians, as we are now learning.

CONCLUSION

Unchallenged rebel slogans, misinformation and distortions can only further entice young Muslim Australians to Syria to fight the ‘Alawi dictatorship of Bashar Al Assad’, as James Carleton described it on RN Breakfast (22/9/14) in clear contradiction of the true demographics, which are that the Syrian government, army, and business elite are dominated by Sunni Muslims. Young Australian Muslims who aspire to becoming martyrs in Syria or Australia can inadvertently become the victims of lies.

Syria is a conflict we all contribute to if we do not demand the highest standards of reporting. Not only do we risk being victims of our own naivety and gullibility, but by ignoring the voices and suffering of millions of Syrians - people like us - we compromise our basic beliefs and values, and we risk being complicit in heinous crimes.

Regards,

Ms Susan Dirgham

National Coordinator of "Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria"

Image: Syrian TV interviewer with Dr Kinda Shammat, Minister in Syrian government (Screen shot taken from Syrian TV)

Image: Screen shot of image of a tweet showing ‘moderate’ rebel Jamal Ma’ruf, presented in Matt Brown’s report.

Update 13 Sep 14: Embedded Syrian Girl video The ISIS Syrian Rebel Debacle Decoded added as Appendix.

Syria could be America’s key ally against ISIL and other terror groups. Instead, the U.S. has chosen to align with Saudi Arabia, a country where churches are banned and women are not permitted to drive, and a country that has funded and directed much of the insurgency, both ‘moderate’ and extreme, in Syria. President Obama's latest military action decision ignores the work of journalists Sotloft and Foley, who exposed brutality of so-called moderate rebels that Obama wants to arm. Australians for reconciliation in Syria call on the Australian and US governments to heed the wishes of the people of Syria; to support the Syrian army’s fight against terror groups; and to respect its right to work for peaceful political changes without foreign interference. We can honour our own freedoms, equalities and responsibilities in Australia by respecting those of Syrians.

Obama's decision to arm 'rebels' in Syria is illegal, dangerous and ill-researched

“Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria” (AMRIS) deplores the decision by U.S. President Obama to take military action against ISIL in Syria without the consent of the Syrian Government. Such military action will be illegal.

Furthermore, AMRIS condemns U.S. military support to what President Obama terms the ‘Syrian opposition’. The vast majority of Syrian people do not support any militarized opposition groups, but rather support the institutions of the state. (NB: There is an internal opposition - parties and groups which eschew violence.)

The Syrian regular army has lost tens of thousands of soldiers in its battle against militias, including ISIL. With very little support from the local population, these sectarian militias depend on foreign fighters who include Sunni Muslims misled by a myth, namely that a minority Shi’a sect is oppressing the Sunni majority in Syria.

US sows sectarianism against secular Syrian society and denies democratic vote of Syria for its Government

Syria is a secular society and its government and army reflect the diverse mix of ethnic groups and faiths in Syria. The ministries are dominated by Sunni politicians and the conscript army is predominantly a Sunni army. The Defence Minister is Sunni. The president’s wife is Sunni. Members of the business elite are mostly Sunni Muslims.

There must be recognition of

- the inclusive Sunni Islam practised in Syria, which is rooted in Sufi Islam not Wahhabism, the school of Islam aligned with the Saudi royal family

- the right and responsibility of Syrian people to defend themselves and their country against militias funded by both foreign governments and individuals who condone the killing of civilians who support the secular Syrian state

- the wide-ranging rights and freedoms that women have in Syria

- the rights and freedoms people of different faiths have in Syria to practice their religion (Christmas and Easter are public holidays in Syria, just as Muslim holy days are.)

- the fact that more than 73% of Syrians eligible to vote participated in the June 2014 presidential election

- the fact that investigative journalists, members of the U.S. intelligence community, and M.I.T. academics maintain rebels, NOT the Syrian Government, were most likely responsible for the chemical attack in Damascus in August 2013.

Syria could be America’s key ally against ISIL and other terror groups. Instead, the U.S. has chosen to align with Saudi Arabia, a country where churches are banned and women are not permitted to drive, and a country that has funded and directed much of the insurgency, both ‘moderate’ and extreme, in Syria.

Journalists Sotloft and Foley exposed brutality of so-called moderate rebels that Obama wants to arm

By supporting militia groups which are labelled ‘moderate’ but which target soldiers, public servants and secular Syrians just as ISIL does, the U.S. and its allies will entrench the chaos, destruction and death in Syria and the region. The pretext for U.S. military action in Syria is the beheading of two American journalists, Steven Sotloff and James Foley. However, in articles published before they were abducted, Sotloff and Foley exposed the brutality of the so-called moderate rebels. The truths they revealed and their courage in exposing them do not demand an alliance with ‘moderate’ rebels complicit in their killings; they demand support for peace and reconciliation in Syria.

NATO promotion of geopolitical wars builds hatred, despair and disorganisation

The hatred being incited between Muslims to promote geopolitical wars in the Middle East will impact on communities across the globe. People everywhere risk losing their moral compass and compromising basic human values and belief systems which are needed to unite us and ensure peace and security for us all.

Need for more rigorous research before new actions

AMRIS calls for rigorous research of events in Syria in order to challenge partisan narratives.

AMRIS calls on the government to heed the wishes of the people of Syria; to support their army’s fight against terror groups; and to respect their right to work for peaceful political changes without foreign interference. We can honour our own freedoms, equalities and responsibilities in Australia by respecting those of Syrians.

Spokesperson is Ms Susan Dirgham, National Coordinator of “Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria”

MEDIA RELEASE – 11th September 2014

Appendix inserted by Candobetter.net Editor:: The ISIS Syrian rebel debacle decoded

Alex Jones covers how Obama's plan for war in the Middle East is a decades-long war in the making. Geopolitical analyst Mimi Al-Laham, AKA Syrian Girl, also joins the show to reveal what you're not being told about the recent Middle East "beheading" videos and how ISIS is too strong to not have a powerful state backer. (Editorial comment: This video is not yet on Alex Jones' InfoWars.com. An earlie interview with the Syrian Girl is Syrian Girl: ISIS’ True Purpose Revealed (22 July 2014).

The video and letters here testify to eye-witness documentation of atrocities in Syria which Mussalaha Reconciliation Initiative in Syria spokespersons complain were ignored by the UN because they were committed by so-called ‘moderates’ supported by the US and or Saudi Arabia. The crimes ignored were so bad and so big that this accusation points to corruption in the UN on an alarming scale. Although the article summarises their content, the original letters relating to the complaint to the UN are included here. They are also published on the AMRIS site.

The video is set to begin here at the part where the witnesses tell their stories in arabic, (subtitled in English), not at the beginning of the video, which shows 'rebels' beheading people etc in a film they produced themselves to promote fear. A selection of screenshots can be accessed at http://australiansforreconciliationinsyria.org/letter-to-un-commission-of-inquiry-on-syria-is-politically-compromised/

The complaint about the UN is documented in correspondence from a Catholic nun who lives in Syria, Mother Agnes Mariam (lay name Fadia Al-Lahham),[1] and Dr Nabil Fayad[2] with Ms Navanethem Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. Mother Agnes and Dr Fayad also refer to a letter from Ismail Zien, UN Coordinator of the Independent Commission of Inquiry investigators in the Syrian region. They complain that Mr Zien has requested documentation of mostly individual incidents whilst completely ignoring the videoed documents testifying to atrocities in Adra of a severity and scale surpassing any others mentioned by him. They also describe his reporting as glossing over similar war crimes at Qara, Deir Atieh, Nebek, Sadad, Maalula.

The Adra atrocities: “brutality, violence and sheer insanity”

Adra is an industrial city north of Damascus, the capital of Syria. Work there attracted Syrians of all kinds and religions, from every part of the country. Many displaced citizens sought refuge there from rebel invasions in other parts of Syria. In early December 2013 a cohort of rebels invaded the city. Thousands fled but thousands were also trapped there. The Mussalah Reconciliation spokespeople say that every kind of horror, imaginable and unimaginable, was inflicted on Adra, every act of brutality, violence and sheer insanity. The people were subjected to bloodletting and barbarity. Groups were selected for execution because of their religion and at random. There was mass abduction, torture, gang rape, and the most violent mass murders imaginable, including the roasting alive of workers in the commercial ovens of the government bakery (not by the government, by the rebels).

Although people from the Mussalaha Initiative in Syria informed the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (CoI) and sent them eyewitness statements about the Adra atrocities quickly after they began, they say there was no acknowledgement of this extraordinary information.

On March 12, 2014, with the publication of the 7th report of the UN Independent Commission (CoI) the events in Adra were still unacknowledged. The writers of the letter below say this was ‘the worst distortion of events yet’. They complained and say that they received an explanation that there had been ‘technical problems’ and were told that an appendix would be issued covering the war-crimes in Adra. On 12 May 2014 a letter arrived from Mr Ismail Zain (see below) requesting interviewees about human rights violations from Syria to Lebanon for events of significance which he specified. Even now Adra was not mentioned.

The complainants then ‘perceived that the issue had been closed permanently’.

They then wrote that, in their analysis, it had become widely apparent that anything that the Syrian government does wrong is immediately highlighted, expanded and rehashed as a deed of the whole apparatus of the State, while little is said about the permanent violation of human rights on the part of the rebels. Their violations, when reported, are taken in isolation, in such a manner as to attribute some blame to some of them, but not to the entire corpus of the rebel entity, nor to those who back them.

The only reason they can find for this double standard is that the UN Independent Commission has been compromised. They write that a pattern has emerged where groups of rebels like Jabhat al Nusra, which openly promotes and advertises their terrorist atrocities, and which is called ‘terrorist’ by the United State of America and even by Saudi Arabia (itself considered to be the main funder of Salafist jihadi activity in Syria) will have some of their crimes acknowledged by the UN Independent Commission. However crimes by other groups will be concealed to avoid shining a light on the fact that the people called ‘moderate rebels’ by actors outside Syria, ‘have themselves reached a similar level of unspeakable barbarity and terror’.

They say that the so-called ‘moderates’ are behind the Adra atrocities and that these crimes are going largely unreported and uninvestigated by the UN in order to protect certain international States who are ‘belligerent parties to the conflict in Syria’ and who have been the principle backers and financiers of these ‘moderates’.

Supermarket of horror

They accuse the UN Independent Commission of picking and choosing which atrocities they report, like items on shelves in a supermarket, on the basis of how acceptable the exposure of those crimes is to certain countries outside Syria. [Candobetter.net Ed. That is, they avoid reporting war crimes carried out by groups supported by countries like the United States and other NATO members, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.]

They say that they refuse to participate in this deception by the International Community the Security Council of the UN and many other government and non-government organisations that are guided by the Independent Commission’s reports. They demand that the Commission be independent and neutral.

“We want to encourage the CoI to take a transparent approach to Adra’s crimes as well as other terrifying human rights violations by the armed groups in Syria, and now Iraq, and to those who finance them and work assiduously to keep their protégés from being held accountable. Until we are sure that the CoI has rid itself of the influences that coerce it to act in a duplicitous manner manifest in its deception and bias we will suspend our cooperation in bringing forward the victims of terror for interview in Lebanon as to do so is only to further their suffering adding insult to injury when subsequently the traumatic experiences they have endured are minimised or ignored.”

Below are the actual documents, the contents of which I have summarised and edited to try to get the message across as directly as possible. The originals, whilst comprehensive and comprehensible, are written in English by non-native writers, referring to places and people which will be unfamiliar to most of our readers. So I have tried to make the contents more accessible and hope that people will also read the letters. Much of my summary below is paraphrased from the longer source material, which is included below. I have decided not to try to indicate exact paraphrasings because my objective is to make this report as short and clear as possible, but readers can obviously work out what has been directly cited or paraphrased for themselves by consulting the originals.

Letter from Mother Agnes Mariam (Fadia Al-Lahham ) to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

From: “INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT TEAM FOR MUSSALAHA IN SYRIA”

Subject: Fwd: Declaration of the Mussalaha Syria to the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (CoI).

H. E. Ms. Navanethem Pillay
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson
1201 Geneva
Switzerland

To Her Excellency Ms. Navanethem Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Their Excellencies the Chairperson and Commissioners of The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (CoI) and Their Excellencies the President, Vice-Presidents and the representatives of the current member states of the Human Rights Council at Geneva.

A declaration to the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (CoI) from the Mussalaha Reconciliation Initiative in Syria suspending cooperation with the Commission of Inquiry.

DECLARATION

A Declaration to the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (CoI).

We will not be a Supermarket of Horror
We are suspending our cooperation while you are politically compromised!
The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (CoI) was established on 22 August 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Council through resolution S-17/1 with a mandate to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law since March 2011 in the Syrian Arab Republic. Between 22/08/2011 and 05/02/2013 the CoI had produced 7 reports. Reading these reports, we as people living within the maelstrom of the Syrian conflict, were shocked at the distorted representation of the conflict which was being presented to the international community.

On March 7th of 2013 the Mussalaha Reconciliation Initiative through the support of The Institute of Democracy and Cooperation – Paris and the Russian Orthodox Church NGO, The Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society were facilitated in going to Geneva to challenge the contents of the CoI reports and to make submissions to them with regard to the inaccuracies, manipulations and the alarming omissions which we noted. Central to our mission was the desire to bring forth a more accurate representation of the Syrian reality and in particular to highlight before the Commission the many human rights abuses that were absent from their reporting.

We were thankful for an opportunity to cooperate with the Commission in the trusting belief that account would be taken of our grave concerns and thus we commenced in the work of bringing forward witnesses to recount the many horrors and abuses inflicted upon the person and the community by countless armed factions in Syria, crimes that were heretofore largely ignored by the CoI.

In the short term we have seen some small changes and mild improvements in the CoI reporting and believing that this might be the first tentative steps towards a more honest and truthful representation of events we endured in our work of collecting data and bringing forward, from various parts of Syria eye witnesses who could provide firsthand accounts to the CoI team in Lebanon. We watched and waited on the CoI to improve in its reporting but sadly we have reached our limit of tolerance and the breaking point came for us in regard to the CoI’s wilful failure to report on the unspeakable horror that was Adra!

The Horror of Adra will live in the eternal memory of a nation’s people even if it is not found in the pages of a CoI report!

Adra is a workers city on the outskirts of Damascus whose population were an amalgam of Syrians, workers from every corner and creed of the country all there to work in its many industries and services. During the conflict the population of the town had swollen as many displaced citizens fled their seeking refuge from rebel invasions in other localities. In early December of 2013 terror came to Adra as a cohort of rebels invaded the city, thousands fled but thousands more were trapped. The horror inflicted on Adra encapsulates every act of brutality, violence and sheer insanity that can be imagined and not imagined. The city’s population were subjected to bloodletting and barbarity; groups were selected for execution by religious affiliation while others suffered the same fate regardless of affiliation. War crimes and crimes against humanity were the order of the day, mass abduction, torture, gang rape and the most violent mass murders imaginable including the roasting alive of workers in the commercial ovens of government bakery.

As soon as reports stated to surface about the unfolding massacre in Adra we immediately informed the CoI and started to forward eyewitness testimonies to them and then we waited and waited for the CoI to acknowledge this a case of multiple violations of international human rights law.

On March 12th 2014 under the auspices of the IDC Paris and the IOPS, Dr Mohammad Nabil Faiyad head of the Justice Party and head of KNOW for documenting HR violations in Syria and Mother Agnes Mariam (civil name Fadia Al Lahham) President of the ISTEAMS, returned to Geneva for another session of the CoI in the company of Syrian researcher Aysar Maydani, head of the independent NGO, NOSTIA (The Network of Syrian Scientists, Technologists and Innovators Abroad) to again make submission (here and here) for a session of the CoI dedicated to the discussion of the, by now, 7th report of the commission, a report which in our opinion is the worst distortion of events yet. We jointly discussed the details of this report and expressed our astonishment at the absence of any mention of the Adra massacres even though the invasion and the accompanying atrocities took place within the timeframe addressed by the report. Likewise during the same timeframe as Adra the tragedies at Qara, Deir Atieh, Nebek, Sadad, Maalula and others had occurred and though covered they were glossed over in such a manner as to hardly represent the reality on the ground as we observed it. In respect to Adra those who spoke with us attributed this to technical problems and promised us at the highest level that an appendix would be issued detailing the crime of all crimes that is Adra.

On the 12th of May 2014 we received a letter from Mr. Ismail Zain – coordinator of the team of CoI investigators in the region requesting our assistance as usual to bring the victims of human rights violations from Syria to Lebanon to be interviewed. He mentioned the events of significance in which they took an interest. Based on the letter and the absence of any request to bring forward witnesses from Adra we perceived that the issue had been closed permanently.

From: Ismail Zien

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 8:13:20 PM

To: MAM ofC

Dear Mother Agnes,

Friday 16 May is fine with us. Hope you can arrange the meeting in your office in Adonis.

We need 15 Witnesses/victims from:
– (Homs): car bombs.
– Karam Louz: car bombs.
– Manar school, Jourah of Bab Touma, 17 April.
– Akrama, car bomb near mosque, 17 April.
– Bader El Din Husaini Institute, al Shaghur, 29 April.
– Homs, 2 car bombs in Al Zahra , al Abassiya circle. 29 April.
– Jibreen and Hemairi villages, Hama, 2 cars bombs. 2 May.

Thank you.

Ismail

The letter is directed to Mother Agnes Mariam (Fadia Al-Lahham ) who was in the U.S.A. at the time. In the letter, Mr. Ismail Zain is requesting 15 witnesses to the following crimes: A car bombs in Homs. A car bomb in Karam Louz. Mortar shelling on the Manar School in Jourah of Bab Touma, Damascus. Mortar shelling on the Bader El Din Husaini Institute at al Shaghur, Damascus. Two car explosions in Alzahra and Al-Abassiya, Homs. Two car explosions in Jibreen and Hemairi, Hama.

Here it is necessary to mention the following:

1: Notwithstanding the video interview testimony we submitted to the CoI there is no mention at all in this letter for the need to meet witnesses who emerged recently from Adra. It is obvious that the investigation not only relies on audio-visual evidence/documentation or on the testimonies of witnesses via telephone, but rather it is preferable to interview the witnesses directly. However we did not receive such request to bring forward witnesses in respect of Adra.

2: As for the Bader El Din Husaini Institute, we were able to connect – via telephone from our office in Damascus- one of the officials in the commission with a student who was a witness to what happened at the aforementioned institute. We believe that the dialogue which took place between the two was sufficient to convey the significance of what happened and accordingly but unlike the Adra case they requested to examine witnesses to this incident.

3: We had also mentioned to the CoI the tragedy of the village of Kharaba in Al-Suwaida province but we did not hear anything in response to that tragedy as with others we had flagged.

4: Moreover even in the instances where the CoI took a selective interest in some instance of terror the timeframe by which we were required to bring forward 15 witnesses including children from Homs and Damascus to Lebanon for interview at the convenience of Mr. Ismail Zien would itself have required a small miracle.

In our analysis It has become widely apparent that any infringement from the Syrian government is immediately highlighted, expanded and rehashed as the deed of the whole apparatus of the State and repeated in numerous ways while little is said about the permanent violation of human rights on the part of the rebels whose violations when reported are taken in isolation one from other and in such a manner as to only attribute some blame to some of them but not to the entire corpus of the rebel entity and to those who back them. We ask ourselves why this double standard prevails and why the apparent selectivity in reporting of violations, sadly we are confirmed in our conclusion that the Commission is compromised in its work. A pattern has emerged where by those groups of rebels like Jabhat al Nusra who already openly promote and advertise their terrorist atrocities and who are designated as terrorist by the United States of America and even Saudi Arabia, which itself is considered the main funder of salafist jihadi activity in Syria, will have some of their crimes acknowledged by the CoI but the crimes of other groups will be concealed because to reference them is to shine a light on the fact that those designated by outside actors as “moderate rebels” have themselves reached a similar level of unspeakable barbarity and terror.

In cases like those of Adra and Kharaba where we hold and have submitted testimonies the evidence points to the fact that those behind the crimes were so called “moderates” and thus it becomes a matter of political necessity and expediency to ignore such atrocities for the convenience of certain regional and international States who are themselves belligerent parties to the conflict in Syria and stained by the crime of being the principle backers and financiers of those very same so called “moderates”.

By ignoring these incidents the CoI has failed in its remit to investigate all human rights violations and we consider this contravention deeply damaging to the credibility of a Commission which is mandated to be independent. When the Commission employs double standards among the warring parties in Syria it becomes biased and when it fails to inform the International Community on the full range of grave violations that has occurred it reduces itself to the level of a perjurer. In our own trusting hope of better we sadly find ourselves treated like a supermarket of horror where the Commission will pick and choose selectively from the atrocities we bring forward and in such a manner as to prepare reports that are acceptable to the palates of certain countries. By this totally unacceptable action we say the CoI is politically compromised.

We refuse to be instrumentalized as a component part in an act of deception that misleads the International Community, the Security Council of the U.N. as well as many other Organizations both governmental and nongovernmental that are guided by the CoI reports. We unequivocally demand the Commission be independent and neutral, and that it ends the policy of selectivity and censorship that we see so manifest in its wilful avoidance of reporting on the matter of Adra, the workers city.

We want to encourage the CoI to take a transparent approach to Adra’s crimes as well as other terrifying human rights violations by the armed groups in Syria, and now Iraq, and to those who finance them and work assiduously to keep their protégés from being held accountable. Until we are sure that the CoI has rid itself of the influences that coerce it to act in a duplicitous manner manifest in its deception and bias we will suspend our cooperation in bringing forward the victims of terror for interview in Lebanon as to do so is only to further their suffering adding insult to injury when subsequently the traumatic experiences they have endured are minimised or ignored.

Mother Fadia Laham
Head of the International Team for Reconciliation in Syria

Doctor M. Nabil Fayad
Head of Know, for documenting HR violations in Syria

NOTES

[1] Mother Agnes has a Palestinian Lebanese background, but she set up a monastery in Syria about 20 years ago. She was forced to leave the monastery after she received death threats and now is based in both Lebanon and Syria.

[2] Dr Nabil Fayad is a Syrian. He is the Head of Know, for documenting HR violations in Syria.

The war in Syria has entered its fourth year, yet “Human Rights Watch” and its executive director, Kenneth Roth effectively campaign for its prolongation. This article initially published on the AMRIS pages at http://australiansforreconciliationinsyria.org/kenneth-roth-and-human-rights-watch-campaigners-for-war-and-terror-in-syria/

HRW avoids informing us of the extent of the suffering of ordinary Syrian people at the hands of 1,000 or more militant groups, many of them dominated by foreign fighters. It is well-known that Al-Qaeda and similar groups operate in Syria and that quite a few Australians have been caught up in the violent extremism in Syria. However, HRW rarely relates the personal stories of terror victims.

Instead it focuses principally on the alleged crimes of the Syrian government, thus fomenting more outrage against the government and the country’s president, outrage which could muffle protest in the west if America or another country carries out a military strike against Syria.

In December 2013, there was information slowly emerging in the media about radical groups attacking Adra, a workers’ town on the outskirts of Damascus. Even the ABC reported that a ‘savage massacre had been committed’.

The video above has a distressing scene of a beheading at the start, which was  filmed at the castle Krak des Chavalier in the Wadi al Nasra (Valley of the Christians) region. However, after 5:40 minutes, the remainder of the video is witness testimony from people who escaped Adra after it was  besieged by Jabhat al-Nushra fighters.

Armed men have been in control of parts of Adra for some months now and more information is coming out about the degree of that savagery. For example, one witness has related the harrowing story of a mother, mute, as she watched fighters playing with the heads of her recently executed children. There is another account of how women were dragged naked in the street. One witness said one of them had had one of her legs cut off.  Doctors and nurses in a clinic were reportedly killed. Workers in a bakery were thrown alive into the bakery’s ovens.

As children were not spared in Adra, a father and mother chose to detonate grenades in their home so they and their two young children would not face the savagery of the jihadis at their door.  It has also been reported that children have been thrown from roofs to stop the army’s advance.

When the horrors of Adra were first being reported, HRW was asked for a response. The HRW spokesperson explained it was ‘very difficult to get accurate information’ about Adra to know who was responsible for the abuses, so she could not comment.

Although some of the above stories about Adra come from Western journalists in Syria, I can find no evidence that HRW has written a report on Adra or condemned those who have perpetrated massacres there.

A 24th March 2014 HRW report is titled, “Syria: Unlawful Air Attacks Terrorize Aleppo”.  It focuses on what it terms “the indiscriminate nature of the government’s large-scale air campaign on opposition-held parts of Aleppo”.  The condemnation of the government is strong: “For three years the Syrian government has declared open season on civilians with almost no consequences”.  There are a couple of very slight references to ‘armed groups’ in the report which are almost completely lost in the report’s onslaught against the government. There are no personal stories of the victims of terrorist groups. The word ‘terrorize’ is used in reference to the Syrian government only.  It would shock those who rely on HRW to inform them about events in Syria that a Syrian archbishop has recently declared, “Western leaders are screwing all Syrians by supporting terrorists”.

Ironically, this most recent HRW report came out just a day after an article in the Armenian Weekly appeared:  “Two Thousand Kessab Armenians Find Safety in Latakia”  It presents the story of the people of Kessab, a town near the Turkish border.  In this case, people have fled the terror of Al-Qaeda affiliated armed groups which had crossed into Syria from Turkey.

Image from “The Armenian Weekly”

HRW has detailed one massacre committed by ‘rebels’.  Around two hundred villagers, mostly women and children, in the province of Latakia were slaughtered in early August 2013, and about the same number were abducted. HRW reported on this massacre in October, two months after it occurred: “You Can Still See Their Blood”.

It is fair, therefore, to contend that HRW is unwilling to educate the world about the fearsome savagery of the extremist groups operating in Syria. There is little sign that it condemns either the extremist clerics who incite hatred and violence or those that fund the Islamist extremists and/or insurgents prepared to commit acts of terror.  Moreover, except in its report on the massacre in Latakia, it mostly avoids directly condemning countries which enable foreign jihadis to cross the border into Syria. What should be noted is that HRW does not declare that people or countries should stop supporting the insurgency in Syria. After reporting the massacre and abductions in in Latakia, HRW, states in its report: “Support for these five groups should continue to be withheld until the groups stop committing these crimes and those responsible are fully and appropriately held to account.” (I emphasize ‘until’.)

HRW informants include ‘opposition activists’ who claim that the army or pro-regime militias have committed atrocities.  I would contend that rather than being activists for peace as we in the west might expect, these are people who are often involved directly in the insurgency against the Syrian government. They are partisan players and their claims are the fuel for an ongoing war; hence, they should be investigated thoroughly.

Last year in Damascus, I recorded an interview with genuine Syrian peace activists from a group called “The Third Current”. They neither support the government nor the militarized opposition.  Their mentor was once a political prisoner, but these activists choose to support the Syrian army, telling me that “the collapse of the national army, despite its mistakes, would result in the collapse of the country and state, similar to (or worse than) Iraq.”  (For recorded interview with Syrian peace activists, go to bottom of this page on ‘Socrates and Syria’)

Other informants that HRW relies on are refugees in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. Again these people almost invariably make accusations against the government and there is no suggestion by HRW that it should question their veracity, or that it should rigorously examine what might motivate some refugees to make them.  For example, are the refugees also fighters or related to fighters?  Do they support the establishment of an Islamic state in Syria? If so, what are they prepared to compromise for their beliefs?  Or do they make claims out of fear? This human story of war is not told by HRW.  Kenneth Roth and his colleagues present a black and white picture of the Syrian conflict.

Kenneth Roth’s wife, Dr Annie Sparrow, was interviewed on ABC radio towards the end of last year. She presented the testimonies of refugees on the Syrian Turkish border who condemned the actions of the Syrian government. Being an Aussie and being a doctor, no doubt she would have had a captive audience.  She made many outrageous claims.  But whose ‘truth’ did she present?  In her interview, Dr Sparrow doesn’t refer to claims about the rape of women and girls in refugee camps, or about the trafficking of human organs (something I heard discussed in Syria in May 2013).   In the west, who is determining the discourse on Syria?

Images taken from Syrian TV.  The young boy was filmed after a car bomb in Damascus. The Damascus University students in the center were at a vigil in March 2013 for 15 College of Architecture students killed by a ‘rebel’ mortar attack on the university.  The mother in the bottom picture is at a funeral service for her young daughter, Vanessa, who was killed along with other students when their school bus was hit by a ‘rebel’ mortar in Damascus in November 2013.  (See BBC report below showing Vanessa’s coffin being taken to an Armenian church in Damascus)

It  is possible to pursue the truth in Syria with integrity. I believe some foreign journalists have done this, for example, in regards to the Houla massacre and another massacre in Aqrab.

Syria burns and its people continue to suffer. In the meantime, most politicians, journalists, and NGOs in the west choose not to be associated with any stand that could be construed as supportive of the Syrian government. They dare not.

By not taking a much stronger condemnatory stand against the armed groups in Syria and their supporters, HRW not only jeopardizes the lives of millions of people in Syria and the region, but it also puts at risk the peace and security of western societies. Exposing extremist ideologies, foreign jihads and armed insurrections is ultimately in everyone’s interest .

Why is HRW so partisan in its stand on Syria?  Is it because one of its most generous donors, George Soros, supports the ‘Arab Spring’ even if it takes decades to settle?  Or is it as crass as Roth and Dr Sparrow wanting more invitations to the White House? Keane Bhatt, another critic of Human Rights Watch, has noted how “HRW’s institutional culture is shaped by its leadership’s intimate links to various arms of the U.S. government“.

Kenneth Roth (L), executive director of Human Rights Watch, and Annie Sparrow (R) arrive at the White House for a state dinner 19, 2011 in Washington, DC. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama are hosting resident Hu Jintao for a state dinner during his visit to the United States. (see link above)

Kenneth Roth will be on ABC’s “Q and A” on Monday 31 March.  He purports to present “the truth”.  In regards to the sarin gas attack in Damascus in August 2013, Roth said HRW had done its own investigation, “looking at the facts”.  Long before the UN had concluded its report, HRW declared the government did it!  Its condemnation of the Syrian government was rushed, but timely: it would have provided support for a western military strike against Syria. For most experts the jury is still out on who is responsible for the sarin gas attack, though the evidence points to the ‘rebels’ being responsible.

When information is a weapon of war, ‘the facts’ might not be determined by HRW as easily as Roth suggests. Robert Stuart, a peace activist in Britain, has been investigating for some months now a BBC report of an alleged ‘napalm’ attack against ‘a school’ in northern Syria. His research is rigorous and impressive.  And the BBC is only able to stand by its journalist by not responding to many of Robert Stuart’s questions.

Will Australians defer to Kenneth Roth when he visits?  Will we be intimidated by his ‘facts’ and his title?  As Russia Today interviewer Oksana Boyko did, can we ask Roth hard questions while being respectful?

It may be in the interests of Australia for us to be much more alert to events in Syria and perhaps even to be irreverent occasionally.

27 March 2014

Susan Dirgham

National Coordinator of Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria

Melbourne, Australia

APPENDIX:

1. Human Rights Watch on Syria: Relentless Propaganda  by Tim Anderson and Mazen al-Akhras
https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/human-rights-watch-on-syria-relentless-war-propaganda/10151958371906234

2.  Youtube: A young girl recounts how she was raped by ‘rebels’ her father introduced her to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX26cyUV5Pg

3.   Youtube: The suffering and exploitation of young Syrian girls and women in the refugee campshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzpVhW1tXVY

4. Youtube:  A Syrian boy recounts how he was taught to be a sniper, so he kills more than 30 people without any feeling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS5WrcvH46c

5.  Youtube:  Two boys are executed by ‘rebels’ http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DlvCREFBEV5w%26bpctr%3D1380891097

6.  Interview with Aisling Byrne from ‘Conflicts Forum’, the think-tank set up by Alastair Crooke, former member of MI6

7.  Youtube: Refugee Camps in Turkey: Safe Havens for al-Qaeda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fzUTh73Urw

8.  Reuters report: Five killed at blast in Syria refugee camp near Turkey: monitor http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/20/us-syria-crisis-turkey-explosion-idUSBREA1J18H20140220

9. VIDEO OF INTERVIEWS, RALLIES OF SUPPORTERS OF al-Nusra and al-Qaeda in Syria – Support shown for an Islamic Caliphate, the killing of Christians and Alawis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8hoVo_Fiu4&feature=player_embedded  

---

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

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

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

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

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Has capitalism, corporatisation and globalisation corrupted big international aid organisations. Is there some way we can boost the grass-roots activists and reinforce whatever is still working within troubled countries like Syria. And what are we doing there, anyway? AMRIS interview inside.

Vigil for peace, but no forum for discussion

On March 14th 2014 someone convinced me to go to Federation Square to cover the "With Syria" Melbourne Vigil for Peace in Syria. I had thought that this was going to be another politically informative meeting like the 2013 AMRIS forum for peace in Syria, only bigger, involving more groups. It was not until I was on my way that I checked and realised that this was an 'event' rather than a forum and that it was organised by International Aid organisations. But it was too late to turn around.

Highly organised event for spectators

I hoped instead that I would be able to interview any Syrians attending about the worsening situation and the demands by Aid organisations for the UN to get them more penetration into Syria. However, when I arrived, I found that Syrians had stayed away in droves. With the exception of Susan Dirgham (interviewed above) who is the National Co-ordinator for AMRIS, I found no-one there to interview. I did see Bill Shorten, the leader of the Labor Party (currently in opposition in Australia) gliding about in the croud. I thought of going up with my camera and telling him how impressed I was by Anthony Albanese's speech on Syria, and seeing what he had to say, but by the time I had made up my mind, he had appeared and disappeared again like a mirage. In his place, swarms of tee-shirted international aid staff from a variety of organisations buzzed about brightly against the vast grey paved Federation Square, as they set up stalls, red balloons and candles as props for photo opportunities. Officials from international aid organisations spoke repetitively about how Syrians were being turned into refugees, as if no-one there had realised. Why this was happening was not explored. Across Collins Street on the side of the Town Hall was a big electronic announcement saying, "Let's fully welcome the refugees."

Controlling information at the Vigil

I found out that Susan Dirgham had asked organisers at some of the international aid tables for permission to place some of her AMRIS postcards there so that the public could inform themselves about that organisation. She was disappointed to be denied permission to do this. I approached Susan and filmed the interview in the video at the top of this story. Susan told me that the event organisers gave her the reason for her refusal that AMRIS is 'political' with the explanation that International Aid organisations are not. She said she thought that they mean it is 'political' because AMRIS does not support the militarised opposition; it supports efforts for reconciliation in Syria. But, for her, the international aid organisations are political and do support the militarised opposition ('the rebels'). She finds this evident in their failure to condemn the extremist theology of the countries that fund the opposition to the Syrian government and who fight its regular army, supported by outside forces and outside countries, and for not seeing the consequences of this.

For me this was unsurprising, if disappointing, because World Vision, Save the Children, et al, receive financial support from those western external forces that are currently fueling the militarised opposition, and so could hardly be expected to disagree with them and remain in business on the scale at which they operate.

International aid organisations in the global corporate world

Susan noted that people like George Soros and other very very wealthy people fund Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch etc and that these organisations are actually huge corporations in themselves. She added that they have security doors and staff and close their doors to people.

Indeed, they are huge corporations with huge staffs, dependent on vast sums of money to run their affairs and dependent on military forces to give them safe passage into various troubled countries. But they also depend on the mainstream media to publicise their campaigns for finance, so they are not likely to counter the mainstream message. Since most of their funding comes from the West, it is the Western mainstream press they must please.

The Anglophone and Western mainstream press, for its part, promotes aggressive pursuit by the US and its allies of geopolitical territory in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, focused on regional oil and gas reserves, notably around the Caspian Sea and outgoing pipelines. International Aid organisations don't talk about this, but then, how could they, when the international mainstream press and the governments supporting war in Syria don't talk about it either.

This geopolitical resource-grabbing is billed as wars against terrorism and for democracy. But democracy in these cases just means capitalism, and foreign investment and take-over of these countries' resources and trading relationships with their neighbours. These wars produce many refugees. Worse, they produce wars in countries which already harbour many refugees from previous wars in other countries. A 2008 survey by ... found that Syria was host to approximately 1,852,300 refugees, with most from Iraq (1,300,000), but many thousands from the former Palestine (543,400) and Somalia (5,200) [1] The refugee influx would have contributed to rapid population growth in Syria, which has swelled from 4.5m in the 1960s to 18m in 2004 and 21.1m in 2011. In October 2013 the UNHCR estimated that 2.1m Syrians had become international refugees, whilst around 7m were displaced, presumably within their own country.

Should the big international aid organisations get out of the area?

Am I suggesting that International Aid organisations should get out of the area entirely? My reading would tell me that those that are incapable of working locally with the Syrian government and by using and shoring up the structures in place, probably should. But what a complex area. The most recent book of many I have read on the question of international aid intervention in disaster was Jonathan M. Katz, The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster, Palgrave McMillan, 2013. Katz made the case that such was the undeserved history of Haiti and foreign intervention that you could not expect an uncorrupted government and that Aid organisations should work with whatever incumbent government and structure exists because if their efforts are independent they undermine the economy, and existing organisational structures.

This is a brilliant book on foreign aid in a disaster among many rivetting books on the subject because of the detailed investigation of the sums raised internationally and where they went. The reporter who wrote it was on the ground there when a major earthquake struck Haiti in 2010 and he stayed several years after. He was present when Clinton and others visited and knew the major Haitian politicians and, most important, both recent and long-term political history. He also spoke the creole language. In his book, he makes several really good points, but the one I want to take up is his criticism of Aid agencies tendency to create their own communications and infrastructure over the top of the government's, thus further undermining all established organisation, however good or bad, and all established business, including local food production.

From this, in addition to my earlier studies, I recognised that it does not matter what you think of a government; any government in a disaster is better than none and you can do a lot to help a country by working through its government, employing nationals and reinforcing and maintaining present infrastructure, institutions and routines.

In Haiti the international aid organisations and foreign dignitaries did not do this and the Haitians got hardly any help. A bunch of foreigners got salaries for going in there and making things worse. That's generally the way of foreign Aid; the money goes on salaries, rent, vehicles, infrastructure, corporate running expenses and public relations. There is not much left over to employ locals with or purchase materials from. Ironically, the big foreign aid organisations are very globalist because they associate with globalist governments and they tend to go along with things like the establishment of cheap garment factories etc. In Haiti, foreign financed factories were planned as part of aid committments where the owners would not pay taxes to the Haitian government. The government was operating with almost no money, yet was held responsible promises not kept by foreign entrepreneurs purporting to be part of the aid effort. This kind of thing destabilised an already fragile government system, but could not replace government. You get the same sorts of people, ex-AID organisation people, sitting on the Committee for Melbourne and dictating to ordinary Australians what kind of infrastructure they should have, who should build it for them, and how fast their populations should grow.

Some questions are asked that raise similar points about a refugee camp in Syria in this article by Kim Wilkinson, "Of Dons and Dust, The Economics of the Zaatari Refugee Camp"

[1] "World Refugee Survey 2008". U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. 19 June 2008.

In Adra, Syria, in parts controlled by the 'rebels', more than 2,500 people have been abducted. No one knows their fate, however, according to reliable reports, scores of women taken hostage are raped and exhibited naked on balconies every day. Children have been thrown from roofs as the army has advanced. Inside we have embedded a video with statements from people who have survived in Adra. The Syrian government may be making some headway, however, against the terror. As reported here in another embedded video, there has been heartening reconciliation and amnesty between 'rebels' and the government in Babbila, Yalda, and Beit Sahem, three country towns in Damascus. Australia should not interfere with Syrian government attempts to restore order. They are Syria's only hope, although you will not hear this in the mainstream news, like the ABC or Murdoch papers.

Shocking crimes of radical groups in Syria

On 22 February 2014, AMRIS members had a SKYPE conversation with Mother Agnes, who was in Damascus at the time. Below is an abridged version of her update on the situation in Syria.[1] This article is a republishing (with thanks) of an AMRIS article by Susan Dirgham, with some additions and changes.

In her update, Mother Agnes refers to the shocking crimes of radical groups in Syria and speaks about their occupation of Adra, a town on the outskirts of Damascus.

The video shows 'rebels' performing public executions at the castle “Krak de Chavalier” in the Wadi al Nasra (Valley of the Christians) region and gives insight into the absence of military rules in the rebels' behaviour. At 5.40 minutes into the video, this horror is replaced by testimonies from people who have escaped Adra, a town besieged by Jabhat al-Nushra. These testimonies support what we have recorded from the skype interview with Mother Agnes Mariam on 22 February 2014.

Syria being ground into dust

In her conversation with AMRIS members via skype on 22 February 2014, Mother Agnes Mariam described how the pace and scale of destruction is accelerating in Syria. She told how Syrian resources were being 'ground into dust'. She said that the people responsible for the destruction appear fearless, making the point that they no longer pretend to justify what they are doing by talking of 'freedom' or 'democracy', because they no longer need to do so. She explained that this is because most of the world's media have normalised the killing and destruction in Syria.

"'Revolution' and fighting against the 'brutal dictator' and the 'Alawite regime' are slogans which have now served their purpose," she said. She added, that "to maintain the status quo of war and terror, however, anything the Syrian government does must be either ignored or completely discredited, and the regime demonized, still."

"Now, even more radical groups are being sent into Syria, and their crimes still shock," Mother Agnes stated.

"I have met survivors from Adra, a large industrial town on the outskirts of Damascus, which used to be an oasis of tranquility and productivity. It’s ‘the working Adra’, a town of workers and government employees. The relative calm of Adra was shattered when it was invaded by armed gangs in December 2013."

This video shows a beheading at the start which was filmed up at the castle “Krak de Chavalier” in the Wadi al Nasra (Valley of the Christians) region. The rest of the video, however, is witness testimony from people who have escaped Adra, a town besieged by Jabhat al-Nushra. These testimonies give credence to the quotes below from Mother Agnes Mariam. If people are troubled by seeing the beheading, start at 5.40 min before viewing.

Middle-aged men who escaped said, “Even in the movies, we had never seen such scary people. It seemed that they were on drugs or under some kind of evil influence,” Mother Agnes reports.

"It is not just one atrocity here and there in Syria which is occurring. The eating of the liver of a soldier last year was not an aberration. In massacres in the villages in Lattakia last year, there was evidence of the roasting and eating of a child. More recently, in Adra, workers in a bakery were thrown into the bakery oven. Those people were not government agents. They were murdered simply because they had chosen to live a normal life and not get involved in politics."

She explains that, "Before the invasion of Adra, many displaced people from besieged areas around Damascus had found sanctuary in this workers’ town. Some of them were activists who spent time making lists of the ‘non-tolerated people’ in Adra: the Alawites, the Christians, the Druze and government employees. They had names and addresses, and so when the militias took over the city they were able to efficiently perpetrate a discriminatory genocide.

Even now, part of Adra remains under the control of the ‘rebels’.

"More than 2,500 people have been abducted. No one knows their fate, however, according to reliable reports, scores of women taken hostage are raped and exhibited naked on balconies every day. Children have been thrown from roofs as the army has advanced."

She said, "I have heard many testimonies of women inside areas held by rebels in different parts of Syria. Many women have been raped and abused. There is nothing normal about war. A mentality can develop which distorts our natural compassion and sense of justice. In these rebel areas, men are encouraged to believe they are ‘lords’ and that whatever they desire can be theirs. When they utter the shaharda – in other words, they say three times “Allah is great” – everything can be theirs: a car, a building, a woman, a child."

Is this to be the future for Syria?

Mother Agnes Mariam said, "Before the siege of Adra, there were many other invasions and sieges, such as that of the old historic city of Homs, where 130,000 Christians used to live. Now almost all the Christians are displaced and their shrines destroyed. This part of Homs was not a military target. It was not taken or invaded after a big battle. There was no oppression in the streets. In February 2012 there was an invasion and today it is a big political story. Fighters say, ‘We are besieged and we are dying’, but in reality, the negotiations of the United Nations have become a safe way for the invading forces to flee."

She described two sources of armed violence:

"In Syria, there are generally two kinds of fighters. Firstly, there are Syrian fighters who took up arms either to protect their families from the perceived or real oppression of some intelligence services; or to simply survive. Those people are willing to enter into negotiations."

The other kind of fighter does not want to negotiate:

"However, the second category of fighter works under the international coalition that is intent on dismantling Syria. As more and more Syrian rebels are noting, these international forces and the fighters sponsored by them show neither care for Syria nor care for the well-being of the majority of Syrian people."

"On the other side, as the violence and strife deepens, corruption deepens. It is the human story of war. There are terrible betrayals for money or out of fear."

There is hope

Mother Agnes Mariam related, however, that,

"Parallel with these atrocities, defilement, betrayal, and corruption, you have the reconciliation process. This process is carried out by good-willed people at grass-roots level.

One result of this process is that many local rebels are now convinced that this ‘revolution’ was a Trojan horse, one used by the international alliance to dismantle Syria. Those rebels brought back into the national fold are also the good fuel, the good incentive of this dynamic for reconciliation and peace.

And despite the warlords on the ground who will do anything to prevent reconciliation and peace, this initiative is succeeding. This reality will be difficult to hide outside Syria. Reconciliation is a breakthrough in this darkness and confusion and it continues to gain momentum despite the efforts to create a de facto partitioning of Syria along the lines of Iraq and Libya."

A nation state formed of tribes which need to reconcile

According to Mother Agnes Mariam, one reason for successful reconciliation is that Arab tribes form more than 65% of the Syrian population. A tribe can be composed of 100,000 or two million people, so it becomes a matter of security for the tribe not to have any internal battles. Therefore, tribal leaders willingly enter the reconciliation process for the sake of both their tribe and for the country, as Syrians are generally very nationalistic.

Perception that the New World Order wants to destroy the Syrian nation-state

Mother Agnes Mariam said, "A perspective from Syria today is that there is a New World Order which wants to destroy the nation state. The destruction of the state may be seen to benefit finance, industry or trade control. But the Syrian people believe in their nation; it is the source of their security, their wealth, and their peace."

She believes that the time is ripe for an inter-Syrian reconciliation.

To preserve Syria, however, she believes it is vital that foreign states stop sponsoring foreign fighters to come and fight in Syria.

International community keeps war alive through misleading information

"The battle is a huge one for the people of Syria. They face the hypocrisy of the international community, including the United Nations, the Human Rights Council and some NGOs. The telling of the story of Syria has most often been far from the reality; virtual reports have been created. And despite some improvements, the reality is often still distorted, particularly the overall reality."

Expatriate information 30 years out of date

Mother Agnes Mariam added, "Much of the discourse about Syria has been shaped by the external opposition, mostly composed of people who have not lived in Syria for 30 years. They are effectively waging a war against their version of Syria based on memories dating back to the 1970s and 1980s. The faded memories of these people and their grudges are exploited by forces that wish to destroy another Middle Eastern country."

Non-violent political parties in Syria

She pointed out that, "In contrast to this external opposition and their skewed picture of 21st century Syria, there exists an internal opposition to the Baath Party. This opposition is made up of formal political parties, some in government, some not; as well as informal groups. Prominent members of the internal opposition have experience of regime prisons, however, they maintain a non-violent path toward political change.

"This opposition is ignored by the west," she said.

"To respect it would require governments to back down from their support for a violent ‘revolution’ and the destruction of Syria. In the western media, in UN reports and among NGOs, the pretense is maintained that, by definition, the opposition in Syria is militarized. This is despite there being hundreds of warlords using terror as a weapon of war making up this western sanctioned Syrian ‘opposition’."

"The pursuit of war demands black and white depictions of complex situations," she explained.

"Today, what is happening in Syria has nothing to do with a fight against an oppressive regime.

"Yesterday, [21 February, 2014] we heard the views of people coming in the south of Syria. They say, ‘we would prefer the jail of the government to the normal way of life imposed on us by the rebels’. Every day you have people who are raped, who are cut into pieces, who are beheaded. And the children, instead of attending school, are recruited to commit terror."

"It is a new form of society: a terrorist society."

She asks, "How can there be peace in Syria if the horrors and those who commit them, whether they are ‘moderate’ fighters or Al-Qaeda terrorists, are not condemned? If those who support them are not condemned? As long as the reality is concealed, the death and destruction will continue."

There is a fear that the ancient citadel in the heart of Aleppo will be destroyed.

"As has happened in Iraq, it seems the green light has been given to destroy the cultural and archeological resources of Syria. The memory of our human history in this ancient country, the relics which have been reminders over millennia of our humanity, may be lost forever."

Jihadists organised from Great Britain and Australia

She sees that, "In the 21st century, people are leaving Great Britain and Australia for Syria because they strive for jihad. But this by itself is not the reason they eventually find themselves in Syria. There is a tight network supporting these fighters. Thus, it could be argued there is hypocrisy in the claim that they will be arrested when they come back. They are not supposed to return. They are in Syria to destroy it and are expected to stay until the destruction is complete.

Yesterday, we were told by local fighters, 'If the president gives us bread and electricity, we will surrender because we can work.' But it was not the president who cut the electricity. It is the militias who cut the electricity to deprive the civilian population from a way of gaining a living for their family. It is one way of dragooning ordinary people into the battle."

War in Syria can only end if foreign interference ends

"This is an international conflict occurring in Syria. It is not a civil war. Saudi Arabia commits millions of dollars to keeping the conflict alive, so terror reigns and the country burns, with the blessing of the United States, Turkey, France and other allies. Israel openly provides medical aid to wounded fighters and sends them back to fight the regular Syrian army. It is a dirty war.

Even though Russia and Iran say they want to help Syria, in the end, each country will work for its own interests.

And their interests will not always suit the interests of Syria. Therefore, there must be an end to any foreign interference inside Syria. Syrian people must be left to deal with their own matters in a non-violent way.

It is the reconciliation movement which can help bring peace to Syria, if the world permits it."

Interview with Sister Agnes Mariam ended here.

Film: The Babbila Reconciliation: a Light at the End of Syria’s Dark Tunnel

Film published on 18 February 2014, with this description: "The Syrian government's efforts in promoting reconciliation and amnesty to Syrian militants who took up arms against it has paid off. Babbila, Yalda, and Beit Sahem are three towns in the Damascus countryside that recently had reconciliation between their militants and the Syrian Army. These deals included agreements on ceasefire, lifting of siege, allowing food and aid to get in, and the giving up of weapons - in most cases - in exchange for the residents raising the Syrian flag.

In Babbila, videos of the armed Islamist militants standing side by side with the Syrian Army might have seemed strange a week ago; however, today, this presents a sliver of hope that there might actually be a way out of this conflict, if all Syrians work together to get their country back." (Sources: NDF Media (Syria), al-Mayadeen TV (Lebanon))

NOTES

Notes were taken by three people and this version is a combination of my notes and Susan Dirgham's notes published on the AMRIS site, with the insertion of headings and some paraphrasing by me.

Breaking news : (30 August, 11:30AM GMT+10) UK Parliament votes against war

In response to an as yet unattributed use of chemical weapons in Syria, the US and its allies are seriously considering military action against including surgical air strikes in Syria. Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria (AMRIS), regards these proposals as an extreme escalation of the conflict. Updates inside.

Military escalation in Syria cannot defuse the crisis, limit the casualties of war or produce peace. Instead, some believe it can lead to a world war.

[Updates for this article: Selective ‘obscenity’: US checkered record on chemical weapons of 29 August (with video) on RT, Obama ‘not yet made a decision’ on Syria as UK political rows stall intervention of 28 August (with video) on RT, Team of chemical weapons experts to leave Syria Saturday: UN of 29 August on PressTV, Calls for strike on Syria challenge UN Charter: Russia of 29 August on PressTV (with video), UK government forced to put off plans for war on Syria of 29 August on PressTV (with video), Syria asks UN to immediately investigate 3 new ‘chemical attacks’ by rebels of 28 August in Bloomberg, U.S., U.K. Pressure for Action on Syria Hits UN Hurdle of 28 August in Bloomberg,Poland against military operations in Syria of 28 August in Poland - News Review, Investigate Chemical Weapons Attack In Damascus (2) of 25 August, Dennis Kucinich: Bombing Syria would make US pilots ‘Al-Qaeda's air force’ of 25 August on RT, Church statements on possible attack on Syria of 27 August, Obama should be stripped of his Nobel Peace prize if he starts Syria war of 29 August on RT, CIA files implicate Washington in chemical weapons use against Iran of 29 August by Paul Craig Roberts. (This article originally posted 2013-08-27 16:07:36 +1000)]

This is the text of the introductory speech by Susan Dirgham to what turned out to be an uplifting evening on the politics of war in Syria, as interpreted by members of AMRIS (Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria). The speakers formed a panel of two young women and one man, all with different connections to Syria and different perspectives. The level of political sophistication was very high, impressive, and stimulating. For those of you who were not able to attend the Unitarian Church on Wednesday 6 March, I filmed the event in four films. The films are embedded in this article and available at http://youtu.be/HifmWKE0cg4; http://youtu.be/exoNr8r4UEU; http://youtu.be/BpWjdzlOheg and http://youtu.be/obw4M40CeDM

AMRIS (Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria).
Susan Dirgham: On behalf of AMRIS [Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria] I’d like to thank the Unitarian Church, particularly the Social Justice Committee for hosting this evening.

What unites all the speakers you will hear tonight is a love for the people and secular societies of Syria and/or Lebanon.

That word ‘love’ isn’t sniggered at in Syria, as it might be in Australia. People use it frequently and it has meaning.

I don’t want to idealize Syrian society and the people, but in my mind, there is something in the air in Syria, or there was in the Syria I knew when I lived there and visited. It is very human, and very precious, and genuine.

The other main speakers at the forum were Edward, Nina and Leyla, pictured below. Each of his/her pictures is linked to the embedded video of his/her talk.

I used to believe I could take something of value from our modern affluent world to Syria. Like a 21st Century missionary.

I took diaries with beautiful photos of Australian landscapes and I took koalas.

But I found so much in Damascus and other parts of Syria that was precious and that couldn’t be packed in a bag. It was both a physical and metaphysical expression of the history of humanity, something grand and sweeping, and tragic and triumphant, and still very much present - being lived by the people in Syria who have Arab, Turk, French, British, Palestinian, Russian, Roman, Greek, Circassian, Armenian, Kurd etc etc in their blood.

In the classrooms of the British Council, I felt that my Syrian students had a common purpose in bringing their society together, in modernizing it and uniting the disparate peoples, despite the enormous challenges and the threats from outside. It was hard work that the people of Syria were committed to, the women as much as the men.

In Syria, I was very conscious of the plight of the Palestinian people and of the war in Iraq. On television, we saw images of US soldiers walking the streets of Baghdad looking as alien there and as unwelcome as say Saudi Arabian soldiers would if they were striding the streets of Australia with AK47s.

But Syria was on the list of countries the neo-cons in the US planned to topple. Now the US and its allies are waging a modern day Cowboy and Indian fight in Syria, a 21st century digital crusade against Syria, with support from Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Israel and Australia.

So it is a love for Syria and Lebanon which unites the speakers tonight. And it is Mother Agnes Mariam who has brought us together. Mother Agnes, as described by Angela Shanahan in The Australian (6 Oct 2011) was the mother superior of a 1500-year-old monastery in Syria.

For me, she is a modern day hero in a time when we imagine we don’t need heroes because our suburban life-style and city scape look so permanent. But trust me, we need heroes. The grand architecture and monuments or Syria appeared permanent to me; and the free and easy lifestyle which allowed young women to go out alone at night in Damascus did, too.

We need heroes. And we need to search hard for the truth, and demand that people in our media and the government do the same.

As in the 1930s, there are signs that a most terrible genocide could be committed in Syria and the region. It has to be prevented.

Questions and discussion in the latter half of the forum