Bashar al-Assad on Western Media
25 2015-10-04 by schnupfndrache7
Question 17: You follow foreign TV stations, don’t you?
President Assad: Of course, I do that all the time. We should understand how our opponents think.
Intervention: Those media outlets broadcast negative news about Syria. How do you feel when you hear such negative news?
Western media and officials lost their credibility…what they say has no value or impact
President Assad: Since the early days of the crisis, this war has been a media and psychological war in the first place. This media war, particularly through Arabic TV stations, since only a few people here watch foreign TV stations, has made a great impact and has been able to distort reality for a large number of Syrians. But if we say that this was the case in the first year, things have started to become clearer gradually. So, these media outlets continue to make an impact in their countries, but they no longer have an impact in our countries, especially when it comes to foreign media outlets. I think that they are deceiving their people, not us. Second, when you have a national cause and you defend your country, you do not pay attention to what others say. You are concerned first and foremost with protecting your country, with achieving the popular interest, the national interest. Everything else has to take a second seat. Since these media outlets have lost their credibility, and since Western officials have no credibility to start with, what they say has no value or impact even from a psychological perspective. I read and listen to such things only to understand how they think, but really it no longer has any impact as far as I’m concerned.
Source: http://sana.sy/en/?p=56697
10 comments
5 themeanbeaver 2015-10-04
Assad was a regular non US compliant leader in his country.He ran one of the most regliously diverse and close to Western values state in the middleast, second to Israel. He didn't want a pipeline through his country and he can't stand those Saudis. Have you ever heard of Assad doing something cruel before the CiA smear campaign began? Compared to the action of Saudi kings, he should get the Nobel Peace prize. Syria was one of the nicest countries. Too bad. You can't succeed to destabilize a nation with a good leader, a statist that is. Putin and assad both are such men.There is an old war saying : hold your position and faith, and God will do the rest. Only corrupt leaders can abandon their nations when external forces try to destroy it. Yeltsin, Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Yanokovich , there are puppets and then, there are leaders.
4 STI-ylin 2015-10-04
Western media and military powers have no leg to stand on. America and friends murdered well over a million in just Iraq alone in the past decade. If Assad has murdered 139k, then Bush and Cheney murdered over a million. They deserve the same treatment as Quaddaffi.
-6 joinedforthis 2015-10-04
Assad's regime is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 of his own civillians since 2011, as reported by independent watchdogs Syrian Network for Human Rights and the United Nations.
I don't think we should be worried about his opinion of our media.
3 Csalbertcs 2015-10-04
http://i.imgur.com/ztwj1E2.png
130,000 pro-government forces have been killed by the end of September according to SOHR. That is the most of all groups. On top of that, Assad is responsible for the barrel bombs and air-strike deaths for sure, but look at the numbers. Between the two groups, who's been firing the most mortars? What about suicide bombings on government checkpoints in civilian areas? Which side has killed more people with point blank shootings?
If we assume that every civilian death, all 100,000 of them, were by the Assad regime, what's to say there wouldn't be more after the regime falls (if it does)? How many rebels are Alawites, Christian, Armenian, Shia? The vast majority of them are Sunni, and they will kill every single person that is non-Sunni if they had the power to do so.
Also according to the SOHR, of those 100,000+ civilian deaths, 12,000 have been kids and 8000 have been woman.
http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/06/320000-people-killed-since-the-beginning-of-the-syrian-revolution/
80,000+ male civilians is a high number, how many of them do you think could be combatants? Do you think both sides would consider every male as a combatant? This is morally wrong, but both sides will find that a victory is had if they could prevent a potential would-be fighter joining the other side.
Look at Syrian videos before the war. Do these people look oppressed by their government? Why do rebels feel that way? Because they need their shariah law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KqsbDs1800
0 joinedforthis 2015-10-04
The article you linked to also notes 38592 rebel fighter deaths. It is likely that some of the 100k civilian deaths are fighters, but it seems a stretch to claim that a large portion of the 80k males are combatants.
Assad has used chemical weapons indiscriminately against his own people and carried out sustained bombing on civilian areas and used indiscriminate barrel bomb attacks on civilian areas. He's committed war crimes and should be held to account.
These are military targets.
1 Csalbertcs 2015-10-04
There are more rebel fighters you missed out on;
"Arab, European, Asian, American and Australian fighters from the ISIS, al-Nusra Front, Junoud al-Sham battalion, Jund Al-Aqsa battalion, Jund al-Sham Movement and al-Khadra’ battalion: 31247"
And I wasn't trying to say 80k males were combatants. I was trying to say that it would be safe to assume that 10-20k would be fighters for one group or the other. Not potential fighters, but actual combatants. And the 60k, I'm not trying to say they're potential fighters, but both sides of the conflict will feel that way after killing a male. Civilians are civilians, and most of them just want to live their daily live.
See, the point of the government checkpoint is too prevent the Islamic jihadists to target civilian areas with suicide bombings. There have been several suicide bombings on exclusively civilian targets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2012_al-Midan_bombing
As for the chemical attacks on his own people, you are referring to the Eastern Ghouta attack which killed between 300-1500 people. I think you forgot there was a UN report on that, and it was not able to find a culprit, or at least to pin the blame on the government. We are also aware that rebel groups hold certain military bases that may contain these weapon, so it's not exclusively something the government would have.
Also, why would the government use chemical attacks the same day that a UN inspection would be happening?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139
And as we can see here, chemical weapons have been used by both forces in the conflict, both which are abhorrent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
The idea with the civil war, the support for the government forces, is so that the country may remain secular and free from Islamic law. I don't support the use of barrel bombs and the torture programs (both which are embellished by Western media, as you can see by the VDC numbers posted), but the entire war was always a proxy war. The government has to come out victorious, that is the best outcome for the country. If the rebels win long term, there will be mass killings of minorities, and you will see a lot more refugees in Western countries. Not too mention that Saudi Arabia will get what it wants (Wahhabi influence, European pipeline, less allies for Iran).
0 joinedforthis 2015-10-04
I absolutely agree with you here, but I think that any solution has to see Assad step down from power.
0 dehehn 2015-10-04
Do these people look oppressed by their government?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2D4hrZwRlc
It's all propaganda guys. Falling for Assad and Putin is as dumb as falling for Republicans and Democrats. I know you guys REALLY want a good guy, but stop looking to the governments of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria
These are independent observers making these claims, not the western media.
3 Csalbertcs 2015-10-04
You've failed to provide a video from Syria. While I understand your point with the video from North Korea, there are still videos of what life was like in Syria.
How is this propaganda? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2vzNSQsDjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXsnd0ja0M0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbM4trP42NY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUDxznlkm6Y
I agree that the government should give people in Syria a lot more freedom and I was wrong to mention that the government didn't oppress people, people were being oppressed for standing against the government. However, there are two discussion points that we have to look at. 1) Syria is an enemy of the US and it's sphere of influence. Were human rights activists and the internet restricted because the Syrian government feared American influence and potential CIA coups? 2) 70% of ISIS in Syria consists of Syrians. Syria has a healthy population of secularists, but it also has a healthy amount of Muslims who want Shariah law. After the Saudi funded Muslim brotherhood uprising in Hama, Sunni radicals have always posed a threat to the status quo. Unfortunately the Syria government chose to incriminate anyone the Intelligence agencies suspected.
The only propaganda is the Western perspective, that the Assad regime must fall. What is the alternative? Syria didn't have much freedom before, but at least it was safe. These rebels will get rid of religious freedom the Syrian people have, and nobody will be safe. You said it yourself, there is no good guy in this conflict. But there are 8 million internally displaced refugees in Syria, and they decided to go to government areas. The Syrian people are not dumb. They know what freedom looks like. It looks like Iraq and Libya.
0 dehehn 2015-10-04
I'm not saying that the video is propaganda necessarily. But Assad's claims of being a humble and loved leader are. Beneath the surface of that modern functioning society was a system of oppression, abductions and civil rights violations.
Sharia law is not the only alternative to Assad's regime. There is a large coalition of parties willing to replace the regime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_opposition#Syrian_National_Coalition
There are Muslims, Christians and secularists represented. If ISIS wins, then they have the US and Russia against them at that point. Maybe they can agree on another party to oppose ISIS rule.
1 Csalbertcs 2015-10-04
There are more rebel fighters you missed out on;
"Arab, European, Asian, American and Australian fighters from the ISIS, al-Nusra Front, Junoud al-Sham battalion, Jund Al-Aqsa battalion, Jund al-Sham Movement and al-Khadra’ battalion: 31247"
And I wasn't trying to say 80k males were combatants. I was trying to say that it would be safe to assume that 10-20k would be fighters for one group or the other. Not potential fighters, but actual combatants. And the 60k, I'm not trying to say they're potential fighters, but both sides of the conflict will feel that way after killing a male. Civilians are civilians, and most of them just want to live their daily live.
See, the point of the government checkpoint is too prevent the Islamic jihadists to target civilian areas with suicide bombings. There have been several suicide bombings on exclusively civilian targets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2012_al-Midan_bombing
As for the chemical attacks on his own people, you are referring to the Eastern Ghouta attack which killed between 300-1500 people. I think you forgot there was a UN report on that, and it was not able to find a culprit, or at least to pin the blame on the government. We are also aware that rebel groups hold certain military bases that may contain these weapon, so it's not exclusively something the government would have.
Also, why would the government use chemical attacks the same day that a UN inspection would be happening?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139
And as we can see here, chemical weapons have been used by both forces in the conflict, both which are abhorrent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
The idea with the civil war, the support for the government forces, is so that the country may remain secular and free from Islamic law. I don't support the use of barrel bombs and the torture programs (both which are embellished by Western media, as you can see by the VDC numbers posted), but the entire war was always a proxy war. The government has to come out victorious, that is the best outcome for the country. If the rebels win long term, there will be mass killings of minorities, and you will see a lot more refugees in Western countries. Not too mention that Saudi Arabia will get what it wants (Wahhabi influence, European pipeline, less allies for Iran).