Your tax dollars are supporting so-called “moderate” rebels who it’s been known but now directly admitted, are CIA-backed and fighting shoulder to shoulder with AL QAEDA extremist jihadists in an effort to topple the “domino” that is the secular government in Syria to replace it by a western puppet, or by utter chaos, no matter what the human cost, in this cynical game.

Buried in 3rd paragraph: the so-called “alliance” that CIA-backed and pentagon-backed “rebels” is fighting in, “includes al-Qaeda’s wing in Syria, known as the Nusra Front, and another hardline militant group, the Ahrar al-Sham movement” and is moving towards Latakia province where Al Qaeda (“Al Nusra”) has commited massacres against civilians before against.

This admission today: “fighting alongside [Al Aeda].. are groups which say they receive covert support from the CIA. Two of these are called Division 13 and Fursan al-Haq admits Yahoo news in 4th paragraph after initial two paragraphs making this sound like sane policy or even a “good” things

Meanwhile hundreds protest in Turkey against their government’s support for terrorist jihadists in Syria: Protests in Turkey in support of Syrians and against Erdogan-backed terrorism

New protest in Turkey demanding a halt to terrorism-supporting policies of Erdogan

2 May، 2015

This is following earlier  scandal and revelations in Turkey two weeks ago, exposing more Turkey support for jihadists trying to overthrow Syria

Now you know what “moderate” rebels and the “friends of Syria” talking heads are about..

For important background, see this extensive historical research article we published on BeforeItsNew and PopularResistance in 2013:

Uncover the Lies: The Hidden History of the Syrian Civil War

EXCERPT:

Digging Deeper: A Son Inherits Power

Bashar Assad, who had graduated from medical school and later specialized in ophthalmology, found himself in power in 2000 upon the death of the previous ruler, his father Hafez Assad, whose brutality is well known. What were Bashar’s first instincts? To clamp down? Or to reform stepwise towards more human rights and freedom away from the regime he was handed?

As it turns out, by 2001 there were already significant reforms (See Cultural forums: pseudonym for Syria’s new political activities by Maher Chmaytelli, January 18, 2001, with a photograph of Syrians reading a newspaper at a news stand, captioned, “The opposition has a newspaper now” *)

The author is no “regime sympathizer” writing some fluff piece, as evidenced by the fact that Chmaytelli was shortlisted by the International Federation of Journalists 2002 Natali Prize in part for this article (along with another article, more critical, about the arrested of an MP).

The 2001 article reported that “Open forums where political issues can be freely debated are growing in number in Syria, representing the increasing openness sparked by the accession of Bashar al-Assad to the presidency.” Very limited reforms were started initially by Bashar’s father Hafez. Indeed Hafez was quite brutal, particularly in 1980s after an assassination attempt against him, leading to massacres of Muslim Brotherhood militants, then brutal crackdown against suspected sympathizers, and the Hama massacre. Hafez Assad did however in 1986 allow, with many limitations, such discussion forums, and they “evolved gradually” — initially only matters such as economics were to be discussed. However, when the current president Bashar Assad came to power in 2000, they were opened up so more was allowed, Chmaytelli explained: “The move to political debate occurred after the accession of Bashar al-Assad in July, a month after the death of his father.”

What happened then? A cultural forum participant is quoted: “Prior to that, any criticism on the political front (meaning of the authorities) was couched in reference to the economy. Now, we start with the political element.” More broadly, “The first meeting [after Bashar came to power] held on January 14, focussed on political reform with more than 200 people, including former political prisoners, taking part” Chmaytelli reported.

Jamal Atassi, who died in March 2000 was part of the group that came to power in the 1960s which led to the rise of Assad’s father Hafez, had by the late 1970s, declared his opposition to Hafez’s regime, which nonetheless tolerated him as he confined his activities to an intellectual context. In the 2001 article, this dissident daughter, Atassi’s daughter is quoted commenting that “The forums represent a healthy development. They allow for dialogue. You can listen to other people’s ideas.”

Were these just meetings to keep intellectual dissidents busy and out of the public eye? On the contrary, this prize nominated 2001 article reported that the official (government run) press gave coverage to forums: “The ideas raised in the political meetings are not totally ignored by the official press. The Ath-Thawra daily, which runs an opinion column called “questions” every Saturday, includes ideas raised by intellectuals taking part in the forums.”

We should not naively see these developments as pure benevolence, of course. The question is, was there room for the west to work with someone willing to contemplate reform, if the west was willing to give up the chess game of maximizing it’s hegemony, backing Israeli expansionism, and leaving most regime leaders with just two options: join dictatorships like the Saudis by joining “Team USA” in which case we’ll “tsk, tsk” at most at your crimes, or refuse to be part of our chess pieces, in which case no matter what reforms you may be interested in, you’ll be marginalized, and regime-changed if we get the chance.” Such a stance is not merely immoral and hypocritical, it also leaves foreign leaders who might find common ground with us, with little or no space to do so.

Digging Deeper: 2004, pre-Arab Spring, and still more reforms?

In any case, it’s not clear whether Assad himself or dissenters within his government moved to quiet the forums around 2002, but given this background from 2001 of Assad’s first instincts in 2000-2001, not to mention hundreds of political prisoners he released in the early stages of the Arab Spring (another 500 were released in January 2012 alone, when “Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby said Tuesday Syria had released about 3,500 detainees in recent weeks”*) it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility to take Bashar at face value when in 2004, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported about his reform agenda: “Asked if he might be reforming himself out of a job, he said that is a possibility. ‘I never cared about my position,’ he said. ‘When the Syrian people no longer want me, I’ll quit.’”*.

Just a lie, or Assad’s actual views? The reason we can’t know whether Assad’s 2004 statement was true and still in place in 2011 when the Arab Spring started, open to peaceful reforms continuing forward, is that unfortunately, the West and its allies (you know, the ones who shot bullets into the backs of, threatened rape against, and sent tanks to crush peaceful protesters in Bahrain, yeah, those guys) quickly moved to make sure the courageous peaceful Syrian protesters were joined, early on, by violent ones and insurgents — right from the early (possibly very earliest) stages.

Before turning finally to that ugly chapter, let’s note that by 2004 Assad’s reforms already included:

• “The elimination of martial law courts. Now anyone charged with a crime has the right to hire a lawyer and fight the charges in court.
•  
• Some political prisoners have been freed.
•  
• Private banks have been allowed.
•  
• A private newspaper has opened.
•  
• A private radio station begins soon.”
• [Did U.S. encourage this movement? Nope, "let's support ISIS so we can 'own' Syria instead!"]

In case you’re wondering, this is not a press release by some pro-Assad flak, it’s the above-quoted article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporting on the legal, newspaper, banking, etc, reforms that Bashar had instituted by 2004 (quoted also here)

Incidentally, concerning the above list of reforms, Assad was quoted not as bragging that he did “so much”, but the quite opposite, that all of the above is still too little and he would like to do much more: “We’re going to change…We haven’t made great progress. I think the road is still long ahead of us.” Does this sound like the 1-dimensional caricature we’re presented with in the West, of a Hitleresque madman super-dictator bent on nothing other than taking over the world, while inflicting as much brutality as he can on his people, just for kicks?

No, acknowledging (and learning from) this history does not make us “fans” of Assad – it simply makes our analysis informed by the facts — a good idea if we want to make wiser policy choices.

It’s unfortunately necessary to state the obvious at this point: I do not think for one second that Bashar Assad is a “nice guy” — or anything remotely of the sort. He inherited a decades-old dictatorial regime (which, we should recall, came about after a series of coups the first one of which was the 1949 CIA-coup of a democratically elected Syrian government) and the military and police forces of the regime he inherited carry out plenty of repression and brutality, a fact that is not lessened by similar tactics by US-backed authoritarian regimes. [1]

For important background, see this extensive historical research article we published on BeforeItsNew and PopularResistance in 2013:

Uncover the Lies: The Hidden History of the Syrian Civil War

See also Must Read: “Establishment” Foreign Affairs interview with President Assad

Please consider supporting this article by taking 2 seconds to click “recommend contributor” and “recommend story” at the top.,thanks!