Syrian Letter to the UN

[wehateporn]

So, here's the side of the story that we don't tend to hear in the West. One way or another, somebody's lying, whether it's Syria or our media.

(* FUKUS Axis = France, UK and US)

Letter from First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates in the Arab Republic of Syria, Walid Al Moallem, to Kofi Anan, UN Special Envoy. In this letter, the truth about Syria is explained, a truth that is radically different from the nonsense fueling the FUKUS* Axis' belligerence.

Mr. Kofi Anan
UN Special Envoy

Dear Sir,

I read your letter, dated 13/07/2012, addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations, in which you refer to the tragic reports from the village of Al Tremseh, near Hama and the use of guns, tanks and helicopters by part of the Syrian Government. I regret that you should have based your position on a single source of information and one which is inaccurate.

I hoped you would verify reports from the Syrian Government before adopting them, so you could see the truth of the facts, noting that once we attended to the request of the observer mission to visit Al Tremseh the visit was, in fact, held on a date set by them, on 14/07/2012. What happened in the village of Al Tremseh near Hama, is that dozens of members of armed terrorist groups invaded the village and settled there, terrorizing the civilian residents and creating a command headquarters, weapons depots and places of torture of hostages, attacking more than one point of the security forces concentrated on the outskirts of the village, which required a response from the security forces at 5:00 in the morning of Thursday, 12/07/2012.

These attacks remained for some hours, but government forces did not use planes or helicopters or tanks or guns, but entered the town under the protection of military transport cars like BMB and used small arms, as defined by the Initial Understanding signed between Syria and the United Nations. During the clashes, only five houses were damaged in the village who were used as headquarters of the armed terrorist groups, as there were found large quantities of arms, ammunition and explosive devices.

I say to you that government forces committed no massacre, as announced by the press, but armed groups brought with them some of the bodies of their dead and claimed that the Syrian army launched a massacre against civilians, a fact that I strongly deny.

I find it very strange your silence about the daily violations committed by armed terrorist groups, which have already exceeded ten thousand and five hundred violations from 12/04/2012 to date. Honestly, there was no mention about it in your statements or reports to the Security Council. The adoption of non-credible sources of information affects your mission and serves only the interests of those seeking the failure of this mission, the same time that Syria cares for the success of your mission and reaffirms the commitment of the Government of Syria to the Six-Point Plan and the Initial Understanding signed on 19.4.2012, as well as the understanding which occurred between yourself and the President Bashar Al Assad, during your last visit to Damascus and Syria expects further progress in implementing this agreement to stop the violence and start the political process.
Please accept my compliments and I ask that a copy of my letter is sent to the UN Secretary General and the President of the Security Council.

Walid al-Moallem
Deputy
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/...a_situation-0/

[wehateporn]

There are rumors that the British army have been told they'll be sent out there in November

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

There are rumors that the British army have been told they'll be sent out there in November

Sure thing, you bet. Because the first the military knows months in advance which countries it will be at war with.

Trust me, both the US and the UK have contingency plans plans for our military to deal with Syria and Iran and Pakistan and any other country that needs to be bitch smacked.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

US media is lying as usual

which media doesn't lie? Russian?

[Si]

Originally Posted by Brujah

which media doesn't lie? Russian?

RT seems pretty unbiased, but then it is Russian so obviously people will think they are biased, I sometimes think they are, some of the reporters and their reports on certain things do seem skewed.

But that being said I like to get news from more than one side if possible. BBC news seems to jump to reports of these Syrian massacres a bit too quickly for my liking. I also heard the Assad "regime" is still supported by 50% of Syrians, isn't that enough for a majority government in most countries? Seems a bit odd to me.

[Captain Kawaii]

One needs to see the same news story from as many sources as possible. Media Units and Govs all have agendas and none will report the complete truth or the truth at all.

[Overload]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

english.pravda.ru/world/asia/19-07-2012/121678-syria_situation-0/[/url]

and which country blocks all the UN resolutions? hmm? russia - no miracle they take the side of a "good customer" regarding weapon deals

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

One needs to see the same news story from as many sources as possible. Media Units and Govs all have agendas and none will report the complete truth or the truth at all.

They tend to copy each other as sources, which skews the suggestion of believing it if a lot of them report the same thing.

Fact-checking should be mandatory, and rampant speculation should be mostly ignored. I don't know of any off-hand but it'd seem like there'd be some entity out there who is concerned with presenting news *facts* and wade through all the bullshit. They don't need to be breaking news. They wouldn't have to be 100% perfect either, as long as they print retractions when they get something wrong.

[helterskelter808]

Probably best to get your facts about Russia from the BBC and CNN, and perspective of The West from Russian media.

The media doesn't even pretend to be unbiased. The situation, as in other Arab countries, is armed terrorists trying to overthrow a Government. Apparently if this happened in the US, the US Government would do the thing it expects of Assad, and surrender without a fight, meekly handing over power to an assortment of loony tune fundamentalists who'll be fighting each other the second their common enemy has gone.

It's in the interests of lunatics in Washington and Tel Aviv for there to be civil war in Syria, just like we created in Iraq, to keep it permanently crippled and weakened. We cant have any leaders emerging who might have funny ideas of doing what's best for their own country rather than what's best for neo-cons and their cronies.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Si

RT seems pretty unbiased, but then it is Russian so obviously people will think they are biased, I sometimes think they are, some of the reporters and their reports on certain things do seem skewed.

But that being said I like to get news from more than one side if possible. BBC news seems to jump to reports of these Syrian massacres a bit too quickly for my liking. I also heard the Assad "regime" is still supported by 50% of Syrians, isn't that enough for a majority government in most countries? Seems a bit odd to me.

You are blind as a bat if you think RT is unbiased. Just because they tell you what "YOU" want to hear doesn't mean it's unbiased.

It's blatantly anti American/West pro Russia.

When they report news about the US or Western Europe it's always the bad stuff. They selectively only cover things that shine a bad light on US/EU economy/society and always show reports about US military in an over bearing light as if we are the great Hitler trying to oppress the poor Russians.

Meanwhile when covering Russian related news it's always the cheerful happy rainbows & unicorns.

IE they show the doom & gloom scare tactics while trying to make Russia seem better than everyone else. RT is about as unbiased as FOX news..

[wehateporn]

Here's a 2003 Guardian article titled, ?Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot,? which describes a detailed plan of destabilizing and pitting nations against. If they planned stuff like this is the past, would they still do the same now?

September 2003 Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot - Documents show White House and No 10 conspired over oil-fuelled invasion plan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ia1?CMP=twt_gu

[ShoeBox]

can you make a video I can't read?

[Si]

Originally Posted by crockett

You are blind as a bat if you think RT is unbiased. Just because they tell you what "YOU" want to hear doesn't mean it's unbiased.

It's blatantly anti American/West pro Russia.

When they report news about the US or Western Europe it's always the bad stuff. They selectively only cover things that shine a bad light on US/EU economy/society and always show reports about US military in an over bearing light as if we are the great Hitler trying to oppress the poor Russians.

Meanwhile when covering Russian related news it's always the cheerful happy rainbows & unicorns.

IE they show the doom & gloom scare tactics while trying to make Russia seem better than everyone else. RT is about as unbiased as FOX news..

Where excactly did I say, I believe 100% of what is said on RT?

What I said was: RT seems pretty unbiased, but then it is Russian so obviously people will think they are biased, I sometimes think they are, some of the reporters and their reports on certain things do seem skewed.

The Syria stuff on there is basically a mirror of what is being reported on other news channels, some of it makes sense, maybe some of the massacres are being done by terrorists? I personally haven't been living in Syria this past week so anything I am seeing anywhere could be totally false. Other than what are seeing on TV, is there actually anything happening there at all? Has anyone directly posted video or anything directly from Syria live for all to see first hand and verified it using some kind of gps verification?

It depends on the story, and obviously what the angle is, when the Occupy movement started all the "mainstream" news was making them out to be dumb as fuck, homeless and jobless, puff smoking hippies (some of them probably were) RT interviewed a few people who actually made sense that were at protests and I don't remember seeing much of that on the other news channels.

You know the old saying, there is always 2 sides a story? One of them is usually lying.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Here's a 2003 Guardian article titled, ?Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot,? which describes a detailed plan of destabilizing and pitting nations against. If they planned stuff like this is the past, would they still do the same now?

September 2003 Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot - Documents show White House and No 10 conspired over oil-fuelled invasion plan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ia1?CMP=twt_gu

This certainly sounds familiar

"Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus."

[FoxtrotAlpha]

The adoption of non-credible sources of information affects your mission and serves only the interests of those seeking the failure of this mission, the same time that Syria cares for the success of your mission and reaffirms the commitment of the Government of Syria to the Six-Point Plan and the Initial Understanding signed on 19.4.2012, as well as the understanding which occurred between yourself and the President Bashar Al Assad, during your last visit to Damascus and Syria expects further progress in implementing this agreement to stop the violence and start the political process.

That is one extraordinarily long sentence.

[qwe]

very simple, west supplying terrorists with weapons to destabilize region (where else would poor peasants have money to buy heavy weapons to counter whole Syrian army?)... then west will want to "help" by rerouting army in there "in the name of democracy as usual" and setup bases, they'll be in Iran's backyard...then you will see on cnn how US army is liberating people and removing a "dictator" while Israel loving it... after that we are not far away from a war with Iran, it's all pretty sad actually, a lot of people will die for nothing... what's stopping that plan for now is russian and chineese veto

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by qwe

very simple, west supplying terrorists with weapons to destabilize region (where else would poor peasants have money to buy heavy weapons to counter whole Syrian army?)... then west will want to "help" by rerouting army in there "in the name of democracy as usual" and setup bases, they'll be in Iran's backyard...then you will see on cnn how US army is liberating people and removing a "dictator" while Israel loving it... after that we are not far away from a war with Iran, it's all pretty sad actually, a lot of people will die for nothing... what's stopping that plan for now is russian and chineese veto

Well summed up!

[fitzmulti]

Oh, my bad.
I thought this said SYBIAN letter.

[garce]

I don't even know what that is.

[galleryseek]

Our involvement in the middle east is primarily fueled (no pun intended!) by the petrodollar. Specifically, it's referred to as petrodollar warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The phrase petrodollar warfare refers to a hypothesis that one of the driving forces of United States foreign policy over recent decades[when?] has been the status of the United States dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced.

In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros.[2] When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD.[3]
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran takes this theory as fact. As retaliation to this policy seen as neoimperialism, Iran has made an effort to create its own Iranian Oil Bourse which has sold oil in Gold, Euros, Dollars, and Japanese Yen since its opening. The theory is supported historically by Iranian intellectuals as a move made by the American elites after World War II with the Bretton Woods Act, taking away Gold backing from the Pound Sterling and discreetly starting the eventual pegging of Gulf Arab Oil producers' currencies after Britain gave them independence in 1961 and 1971. These countries were further secured militarily after the Gulf War in 1990. This pegging of the currencies along with the exchanges being exclusively in USD in only two places, the IPE in London and NYMEX in New York City, has given the United States a near monopoly, with growing economies such as India and China waiting in line for orders. Critics say this revolutionary move by Iran in creating a rival market may also be one of the reasons for the ongoing energy-related US competition with Iran.
In mid-2006 Venezuela indicated support of Iran's decision to offer global oil trade in the euro currency.[4]
A controversial change like that in Iran would have limited ability to influence the denomination of sales one way or the other. A large number of traders would have to agree to a change in denomination before a significant change would occur.

Originally Posted by Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws"

Weapons of mass destruction?
Evil dictators who need brought to justice?

It's all about currency. The dollar would devalue up to 90% over night if the OPEC nations switched from it to another currency. They're the only thing propping up the USD.

Learn more about it here:

[Vapid - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Americans are going to get their asses invaded.

[femdomdestiny]

Originally Posted by Overload

and which country blocks all the UN resolutions? hmm? russia - no miracle they take the side of a "good customer" regarding weapon deals

And which country is acting completely put of UN like in Serbia back in 1999? Idiot....

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Overload

and which country blocks all the UN resolutions? hmm? russia - no miracle they take the side of a "good customer" regarding weapon deals

I think the US has blocked way more UN resolutions ....

[James - Mr. Skin]

US is ruining everything!

[uno]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

This certainly sounds familiar

"Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus."

You realize they create plans for just about any contingency right?

[uno]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

All the US media does is get their memos from the CIA and other groups and puts it out as the truth and news. This is not to difficult to figure out

"It's not rocket science." as someone who pretended to go to MIT once said.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by uno

You realize they create plans for just about any contingency right?

Yes indeed, they spend a lot of money creating all kinds of complex and effective plans for a wide variety of scenarios and agendas. And sometimes, they put the plans into action, just like we're seen with Libya and now Syria.

[DTK]

Originally Posted by qwe

very simple, west supplying terrorists with weapons to destabilize region (where else would poor peasants have money to buy heavy weapons to counter whole Syrian army?)... then west will want to "help" by rerouting army in there "in the name of democracy as usual" and setup bases, they'll be in Iran's backyard...then you will see on cnn how US army is liberating people and removing a "dictator" while Israel loving it... after that we are not far away from a war with Iran, it's all pretty sad actually, a lot of people will die for nothing... what's stopping that plan for now is russian and chineese veto

No, they'll die for something. Some incredibly rich people/companies getting incredibly richer.

As always, follow the money.