The Anglo media is really too funny :-)

It turns out that that Russians - clearly fed up with the CIA's arrogance in spite of repeated warning - has, indeed, made public the name of the CIA station chief in Moscow: Steven Hall.

But now things get really hilarious: while lots of Anglo media outlets reported this fact, none of them - as far as I can tell - dared to actually mention the spook's name.  Ok, well, maybe I could understand why the putatively "independent" and "free" but still American and, therefore, rigidly "patriotic" American press would decide to keep quiet.  But I also checked the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent. etc. and they all, as if in lockstep, loyally refuse to name the spook.

Besides being pathetic, this is also very dumb.  In God's name, from whom do these boneheaded journalists think they are hiding the spook's name?  The FSB?  Don't they even realize that once the name is all over the Russian media, its going to be picked up worldwide?

The Anglo media reminds me of puppies who, when they see their master, immediately pee as a sign of submission.  It makes no sense, the master might not even like this kind of show, but they do that simply because they are puppies and this is what puppies do, without thinking, without ever considering options.

Finally, what a disgrace that anybody outside the CIA would think that anybody would somehow "owe" the CIA station chief in Moscow anything!  Whether I - or anybody else - publishes his name at this point makes no difference to anybody, not to the CIA and not to Mr. Hall.  At the age of the Internet, once something is "out", its "out" forever.  But even if we - all the non-CIA folks on the planet - could make a difference and hide Mr. Hall's name - why would we have to?!  Does anybody sincerely believe that the CIA is on anybody's side besides the 1% who run the USA?

Pathetic.  Pathetic beyond words.

Anyway, as a sign of "how its done", let me show them:

===>>>STEVEN HALL<<<===

See, that was not too hard.

The Saker

100 days of the Guantanamo hunger strike

Chechen deja vu...

Oh God, it appears that everyday some appalling video comes out of Syria. Though these are mostly from the anti-government side, supporters of government have also produced their own share of horrors.  I know about a video of prisoners stabbed to death, and of another of prisoners being cut into pieces by a chainsaw while forced to scream "Assad is my god!".

But there is an important difference between the two sides.

While both sides have committed atrocities, at least the pro-government forces did not proclaim that they were acting lawfully or in the name of God.  They committed their atrocities away from the gaze of the crowds.  Not so the Wahabi crazies.  Just like in Chechnia, these guys actually organize public events with the sole purpose of showing such atrocities.  Just like in Chechina, they real aloud some kind of pseudo-religious sentence and then they proceeds to execute the "guilty" parties.

I think that this is an obvious and very important difference: while there are bloodthirsty maniacs on both sides (as I wrote previously), such maniacs are always present in any group of people), on the government side they act in their own, self appointed, capacity, they are not the official norm, and they don't pretend to be upholding any law.  Not so with the Wahabis: they very openly claim to be acting legally and morally, they are actually very proud of their actions, and the clearly present their atrocities no as a shameful deed, but as the norm, as the law of the land should they ever get to power.  See for yourself:



When  I see these SOBs I feel a deep sense of rage and I always have fantasies about Russian Airborne Forces simply wiping them all off the surface of the planet.  I know it is not going to happen, and I know it should not even happen.  Only the Syrians can save Syria.  And yet, if Russia is the only great power who really understand the nature of these Wahabis crazies and has the means to crush them, I have to say that part of me regrets that Russian Airborne Forces are not be send in to finally eliminate these murderous psychopaths (and I know that they would gladly oblige, given the chance, as Russian paratroopers will never forget what they saw Chechnia).

The best cure for Wahabism

At the very least, I hope that these images will be shown on Russian TV and on the RuNet (Russian speaking Internet).  The type of "deja vu" such scenes will have in most Russians will put a great deal of pressure on the Kremlin to hold strong to its current support for Assad and, possible, even strengthen Russia's help to Damascus.

The Saker

The Truth about School

As a father of three kids who never spent a single day of their lives in any school (my wife and I home schooled them from kindergarten to college) and with two kids already in college, I fully endorse the message in this video (but not the organization which produced it about which I know exactly *nothing*).

It is my strong belief that the three main steps to liberate your children from the brainwashing of our society are:

1) Give them a very traditional religious education.
2) Never send them to school.
3) Get rid of your TV and all the corporate media (radio, newspapers).

If you do not teach your kids to worship the True God, they will worship false gods.  If you hand over their education to schools, the schools will brainwash and alienate them.  If you do not get rid of all the corporate media in your house, your children will sooner or later begin to believe what the media tells them.

Think about it and check out this great video:

More details about the CIA SNAFU in Moscow and some general context information

Interesting information is being leaked to reporters in Moscow about the recent CIA spy incident in Moscow:

a) The Russians knew that Fogle was CIA even before he arrived in Russia.

b) The Russians had already expelled another US diplomat in January of this year for attempting to recruit a Russian citizen and told the Americans to stop these kinds of attempts.   The Americans ignored these warning so the Russians got fed up and decided to highly publicize this arrest.

In this context, I would like to add the following reminder:

During the 1990s the Russian security services practically collapsed: their funding almost stopped, corrupt or even outright traitorous individuals were named at the top positions, secrets were given to the American "friends" is mass quantities, key institutes and academies were shut down, many officers resigned and went into "private practice" (for the oligarchs, the mob, private companies, banks, etc.), the media engaged in a hate-campaign against them, their legal powers were curtailed, etc.  Last, but not least, the security services were "reformed", "reformed" and then "reformed" some more, and then "reformed" again.  As you know, in the 1990s being "reformed" meant being destroyed.

Under Putin this state of affairs dramatically changed, in particular for the FSB (internal security service).  The FSB was for many reasons the easiest service to rebuild and Putin's determined efforts to re-establish law and order in Russia made such a process a top priority.  Things were far more difficult for the SVR, the external intelligence service which is a far more complex structure.  Things did begin to improve there, but at a slow(er) pace not because of any bad will (Putin himself was ex- PGU KGB which is now called the SVR), but because of inherently difficult nature of such a task.  The one service which originally appeared to have least suffered from the "reforms" of the democrats, the GRU or military intelligence, then rapidly collapsed.  Though I don't know that for a fact, I can imagine several plausible reasons for this collapse:

1) The GRU was a military intelligence service and the fact that the armed forces were "reformed" over and over again obviously affected it.

2) The GRU was a very expensive intelligence service to run due to its huge technological capabilities (space assets), its high-tech institutes and large size thus when the Russian economy collapsed, there was simply no money to run it.

3) The GRU is very secretive and secrecy breeds corruption.  Furthermore, the GRU had a lot of very valuable assets (in terms of monetary value) and judging by the level of corruption in the regular armed forces, one can only imagine the level of corruption in the GRU.

4) The GRU has always been a competitor to the other Soviet and, later, Russian security services.  So when Putin came to power, his KGB/SVR past and corporate closeness to the FSB put the GRU into an "2nd rate" position compared to the other services.

5) Some still secret crisis did happen inside the GRU with an important number of top officials killed in very mysterious circumstances.  While (almost) nobody knows what really happened (all we have is rumors) it appears likely that some kind of ugly "war" involving part of the GRU did result in a weakening of this organization.

6) The performance of the GRU has been, shall we say, less than stellar in a number of occasions including some major intelligence failures in Chechnia, poor intelligence work during the 08.08.08 war against Georgia, and a couple of clumsy intelligence failures abroad.

Igor Sergun

There are even more smaller reasons which I will not mention here for the sake of space.  Bottom line is this: the GRU is now the weakest of the Russian security services even though it is now headed by a real career GRU officer - Igor Sergun - about whom very little is known, but who has made an excellent impression so far.  Personally, I expect the GRU to slowly but surely recover under with combined efforts of Defense Minister Shoigu, Chief of Staff Valerii Gerasimov and GRU Commander in Chief Igor Sergun and I expect the new GRU to be very different from the old one with the biggest changes probably coming in the Russian special forces structure.

I wanted to mention these facts to illustrate an important feature of the context of the latest CIA SNAFU in Moscow: the after two decades of absolute collapse, the Russian security services are back, some of them probably better shape than their Soviet predecessors (I think of the FSB here).   This means that after two decades of careless arrogance western intelligence services need to adapt to this new reality and not assume that the 1990s are not really over.  They are.

Whether Fogle himself was a drooling idiot or somebody with mental issues really doesn't matter.  What matter is that the Russian security services are clearly punishing the USA for not taking their previous warning seriously.

This is what we see across the board: the Americans just can't accept the fact that Russia under Putin  has truly slipped away from its imperial control and that from now on the USA will have to treat Russia as an equal and respected partner if it wants to do business with it.  If not - they can expect even more painful or embarrassing "push back" from the Kremlin.

When not in denial, the other typical western reaction is a mix paranoia and phobia: the Evil Empire is back, the Russia is becoming a totalitarian KGB-run state, complete with dissidents (-: Khodorkovsky :-) and blue-eyed spies under every bed.  Check out the cover of one of those paranoid reports: it shows a rabid bear, surrounded by the emblems of various Russian security services.  This bear is clearly up to no good and about to attack all sorts of noble and freedom loving innocent people.

Another example of this kind of paranoia is the report of the notorious CIA front "Freedom House" which is modestly entitled "Contending with Putin's Russia: a call for American leadership". 

By showing a row of Russian riot police (obviously standing there with the clear intention to mercilessly beat up any putative democrat left in Putin's Russia) Freedom House suggest an even wider agenda and this is why this cover is even better: not only does it reduce all of "Putin's Russia" to a row of mean looking riot cops, it also clearly states that the world is

calling for "American leadership" to deal with those nasty coppers. The cover with the bear really did not suggest a 'solution' whereas Freedom House is far more ambitious and even suggest a moral obligation for the USA to stand up to these Russian bullies. Yes, sure, this is all kindergarten level propaganda, but with a general public lobotomized by hours of staring at the TV, this is good enough to trigger the correct horrified response.

The core issue is this: due to decades, if not centuries, of highly misleading propaganda, most folks in the West simply are unable to imagine a state which is simultaneously 1) supported by a majority of people and democratic 2) with strong enough institutions to defend itself and its people and 3) not subordinated to the USA.  In this mindset, world leaders can all be split into 2 basic categories: servile and obedient servants or vicious and bloodthirsty dictators.  As Dubya said, you are either with us or with the terrorists.  And nevermind that this kind of simplistic dichotomy alienates almost the entire planet as long as it keeps things simple and justifies grotesquely bloated military and 'security' budgets.

Regardless of what made him act the way he did Fogel is an iconic image of this confused, infantile, embarrassed and clueless USA which confidently treads into a world it does not understand and ends up being stunned when it stumbles.  It is really rather comical to observe.

The Saker

CIA spook in Moscow - just incompetent or mental? (UPDATED)

I have been listening to the Russian reports about yesterday's CIA SNAFU and unless the Russians are lying through their teeth, the details which are emerging just make no sense to me.

According to the Russian media, Ryan Christopher Fogle, the third secretary of the Political Section of the American embassy in Moscow and CIA spook, gave a telephone call to a Russian security services officer who specializes in anti-terror operations in the North Caucasus and offered to recruit him (yup, over the phone!).  The Russian officer refused.  Then Fogle called him again and insisted that they meet, offering him 100'000 Euros.   If that is true, this is already mind-bogglingly dumb.  Worse, according to some Russian sources Fogle also made the same offer by email (leaving a paper trail of his clumsy recruitment efforts).

Then it get outright hilarious: Fogle showed up to the meeting wearing a wig and with, I kind you not, sunglasses even though the meeting took place at 23:30 (11:30PM).  In his bag, he had a total of 3 pairs of sunglasses, a compass, a knife, a flashlight, an plan of Moscow, an old cellphone, 2 wigs and lots of money.  Take a look for yourself:

Now, I have never been a great fan of the CIA whom I always viewed as a nasty but only semi-competent outfit who instead of serving the interests of the US people is really serving the interests of the US plutocracy, the "1%" which owns the USA.

But, honestly, that kind of kindergarten-level of gross incompetence and wannabe Hollywood spy gear really looks weird to me.  Either they are all gone totally apeshit at Langley, or there is more to this story than anybody is willing to report.

First, maybe the Russians are lying just to make fun of the CIA while the CIA can hardly refute it all.  Possible, but extremely unlikely.  That would be plain silly and, besides, that could invite a retaliation in kind.

Or, and that is my hypothesis, maybe there is something really wrong with Fogle.  What if Fogle (whether he ever was CIA or not) simply had mental issues?  What if he just "lost it" and *wanted* to be caught?

Look at this guy's face and expression:

Doesn't he remind you of somebody?  Yes, exactly!  He looks like the type of squeaky-clean guy who shows up unannounced and uninvited at your door and asks you with a blissful grin on his face "have you met Jesus?".

I admit - looking like a blissful idiot is hardly a proof of anything, but when you consider that in the context of all the crazy circumstances of this arrest, it makes me wonder.

Finally, there is the demeanor of everybody on the videos shown on Russian TV: US diplomats are summoned to the FSB where they are introduced to a rather peaceful looking Fogle who shows no sign of fear or even embarrassment.  As for the US diplomats, they seem puzzled.  Normally, being arrested by the FSB at the moment you are carrying a bag full of compromising material should at the very least startle and upset you.  Ok, Fogle knew he had diplomatic immunity, but at the very least being caught means expulsion, a huge embarrassment, and a rather unpleasant series of debriefings in Langley.  And yet, Fogle looks like he does not give a damn.

Again, I have to admit that all of the above is 100% pure speculation and maybe one day we will get the real picture of what happened.  But so far my personal feeling is "this is just too much, too much....".

So what do you think: incompetent or mental?

The Saker

UPDATE: New info just came in: turns out that Fogle is CIA, and that since he had arrived in Moscow in 2011 he had already participated in several CIA operations in Moscow.  Also, the Russian media has confirmed that the officer Fogle was trying to recruit was with the FSB (previously, that info was not officially confirmed).

CIA agent trying to recruit Russian intelligence officer detained in Moscow

RT reports:

CIA agent trying to recruit Russian intelligence officer detained in Moscow


CIA agent trying to recruit Russian intelligence officer detained in Moscow

Russia’s counterintelligence agency has detained a CIA agent in Moscow trying to recruit an officer of the Russian secret service, the Federal Security Service (FSB) announced. The agent was operating under guise of career diplomat.

The FSB Public Relations Center has announced that the person detained is Ryan Christopher Fogle, the third secretary of the Political Section of the American embassy in Moscow.

The agency stressed that Christopher had special technical equipment, printed instructions for the Russian citizen being recruited, a large sum of money and means to change the person’s appearance.

The detainee was delivered to the FSB receiving office where he has been questioned and after all the necessary procedures he has been handed over to representatives of the US embassy in Moscow.

The website of the American embassy in Russia informs that its Political Section is engaged in “bringing to the attention of the Russian government the US position on the issues of foreign policy and security.” The section’s other task is to “inform Washington about the main provisions of the foreign and defense policy of Russia,” as well as Russian domestic political life.


Ryan C Fogle, 3d secretary of US embassy, was detained in Moscow by the Russian counterintelligence agency (FSB)

Disguise allegedly used by Ryan Fogle (FSB)

Ryan Fogle inside FSB office (FSB)

The one-page letter to a would-be recruit proposes a payment of US$100,000 for an interview to discuss possible cooperation and promises up to $1 million a year payment if the contact agrees to supply the American side with the information it demands.

The letter also contains a step-by-step instruction how to create a new Gmail account that would be used for future contacts. The instruction repeatedly stresses not to present any real contact information, like phone numbers, email or home addresses.


Instruction allegedly used to recruit Russian intelligence officer with offers of money and means of conducting the conspiracy (FSB)

It is advised not to use personal handheld mobile devices and notebooks for registration, proposing to use an internet café to go through the procedure. Another option, the instruction says, is to buy a new device especially for contacts and pay for it in cash, with the expenses to be reimbursed.

Once a new Gmail account is created, the recruit should write a letter to ‘unbacggdA@gmail.com and wait one week for a reply.

“Thank you for reading this. We look forward to working with you in the nearest future. Your friends,” the instruction ends.

US Ambassador to the Russian Federation Michael McFaul refused to comment on the detention of his subordinate for espionage activities.

On his Twitter account he simply wrote ‘no’ answering a question about Ryan Fogle.

But tomorrow he will definitely have to have an answer to the Russian Foreign Ministry, where he has been summoned to give an explanation concerning the incident.

Ryan Fogle’s pass to the US embassy (FSB)

Money allegedly used by Fogle for recruiting (FSB)

Ryan Fogle’s diplomatic pass (FSB)

Meet yet another charming Syrian "freedom fighter for democracy and progress"

I saw this video a few days ago but I hesitated to post it as it could be a fake, or a false flag, or a propaganda piece.  Now, since the Mail Online confirms it,  and even such a pro-FSA pro-CIA outfight light Human Rights Watch confirms it:

Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch said that he had seen an original, unedited copy of the video and that Abu Sakkar's identity had been confirmed by rebel sources in Homs and by images of him in other videos wearing the same black jacket as in the latest clip and with the same rings on his fingers.

Finally, nobody, as far as I know, has denied it.  So I decided to post it now.

Rebel is believed to be Abu Sakkar, a founder of the rebel Farouq Brigade.  He is filmed cutting into the torso of a dead soldier and pulling organs out.  He rants: 'I swear we'll eat from your hearts and livers, you dogs of Bashar'. He then raises one of the organs to his mouth and takes a bite.

Wow!  Charming, isn't it?!  Even the Chechens did not engage in this kind of stuff, but the Syrian "freedom fighters" appeared to have reached a new level of murderous insanity.

I can just about imagine the hysterical squeals of the Western "human right defenders" if somebody on the government side would have been filmed committing such acts.  But since these guys are the "good guys" while Assad is a "evil dictator", such ghoulish cannibalism will have absolutely no impact on the stance of the various "Friends of Syria" and other CIA sponsored "non-governmental" organizations.

But the imagery, the symbolism, is good.  These murderous psychopaths are, indeed, trying o destroy the heart of Syria.  Figuratively and literally.

The Saker

Question for all the readers - how do you want to get the speeches of Hassan Nasrallah?

Recently, Mari asked me to post the latest speech of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.  Actually, since I try to post all his speeches, I would like to ask you all what you would prefer:

Option A: I can do as I did in the past and post the full speech as a post.  This, however, takes a of space and "pushes down" all the other posts.

Option B: I could upload the speech in Rich Text Format (RTF) on, say, Media Fire, and only post the download link: click here to download (Mari - I posted the May 9th speech at this link, so grab it there).

Which option do  you prefer?

Thanks,

The Saker

A few basic reminders about wars, civil wars and human rights

Robert recently posted the following comment on this blog:

Manicheanism tends to take over with civil wars. Both sides tend to believe all that is good is with them and all that is evil with the other and this usually leads to fiendish atrocities on both sides. The media often then gives selective reporting of atrocities by the side they favour. In a war with a foreign enemy you can respect the other guy because he's fighting for his country but in a civil war you are fighting an enemy within and it becomes bitter and cruel because each side regards the other as traitors who are destroying the country.

 I think that he is absolutely right and I feel that I want to add a few observations of my own to this words.  But first, let me remind everybody of a little-know fact: according to the fundamental positions of the Nuremberg Tribunal the worst crime possible is not genocide or any other crime against humanity.  The worst possible crime is the crime of *aggression* because, according to the experts who set up the Nuremberg Tribunal, the crime of aggression "contains" all the other crimes (by the way, the International Criminal Court takes the same position).  In the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson,

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

 I think that this is an absolutely crucial insight and it is a bittersweet irony that it came from a scholar from the USA which is, beyond any possible doubt, the nation which waged the most wars of aggression of any nation in mankind's history.

I submit that this argument is also very much applicable to civil wars because civil wars are, by their very nature and inherently, far more vicious and prone to result in atrocities than conventional international conflicts.  I can only repeat Robert's words:

In a war with a foreign enemy you can respect the other guy because he's fighting for his country but in a civil war you are fighting an enemy within and it becomes bitter and cruel because each side regards the other as traitors who are destroying the country.

The Western propaganda machine has done its best to bolt out this idea for the public consciousness and discourse.  Why?  Because of all this "humanitarian intervention" nonsense.  The Western recipe for war is really extremely simple:

Find out whatever issue is upsetting a sizable minority of the public, then support that agenda and foster demonstrations.  When these demonstrations happen, make sure that a few cops and demonstrators get killed.  The more violence the better.  Then encourage an armed insurrection by the opposition and as soon as the government forces use force to crack down on the (now armed) opposition, scream to high heavens about "human rights violations", atrocities, etc.  Then, all you have left to do is intervene, either indirectly or even directly.

Simple, no?

And the best part of this tactic is that while a few atrocities might be false flags, or exaggerations, or even complete fabrications, the real atrocities will *INEVITABLY* begin to happen.  All you need to do is to grossly inflate the atrocities of the government forces and minimize or even better, totally ignore, the atrocities of the opposition.  Now, how hard is that when the entire corporate press is completely under your control?  Very easy, really!

This is what happened in Iraq, in Romania, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Chechnia, in Libya and now in Syria.  This is also what is possibly going to take place very soon in Iran.

Indeed, according to Russian sources, the MEK are preparing for a series of terrorist attacks in Tehran and other major cities during the upcoming elections.  While the "Gucci Revolution" of Mr. Mousavi and his patron and boss Rafsanjani lacked the needed level of violence (this is why the Basij and cops were plenty enough to contain it), the upcoming terrorist attacks will have as a goal to force the government to use the Pasdaran to impose law and order.  At that point, it will be easy to whine and yell about all sorts of atrocities and horrors (whether real or imaginary).

There is another idea which the western propaganda machine is trying to bolt out form the public consciousness and discourse.  Simply put, this is my thesis:  in a pre-civil war or civil war situation the government side has NO interest in committing atrocities whereas the opposition/insurgency has a HUGE interest in generating atrocities.

No, I am not saying that Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, Gaddafi or Assad are tender-hearted doves who would weep over every innocent killed or that they are highly principled men of honor whose ethics and morals which would never allow them to commit an evil act.  Nope.  In fact, all these were ruthless individuals, with a sense of compassion and mercy as developed as the one of a blue-green algae.  The point is that they all perfectly understood that any atrocities committed their watch would be disastrous for them.

You want an example?

Take Ratko Mladic.  The so-called "butcher Srebrenica" and "genocidal war criminal".  What did he do the day his forces entered Srebrenica?  He drove to Srebrenica and addressed the surviving civilians and prisoners of war while on camera and surrounded by the press crops, and then he personally guaranteed their safety.  Now, ask yourself a basic question: no matter how evil you think Mladic was, do you really believe that he would show up in person and deliver such a message right in front of numerous cameras if he had any intention of massacring anybody?  Of course not!  He would have made darn sure to be as far away as possible to generate what the CIA calls "plausible deniability".  And then, let's look just one step further: at the time of the so-called "Srebrenica genocide" who was winning the war and who was losing it?  The fact is that by 1995 the Bosnian-Serbs had comprehensively won the civil war.  In this context, does anybody seriously believe that killed a large number of Bosnian-Muslims was in their interest?

Of course not.  So this is why the corporate press inevitably describes these people as "beasts" "monsters" "bloodthirsty Chetniks" or equally "bloodthirsty Shabiha".  The idea here is not only to demonize, but to explain away seemingly illogical acts by suggesting that these people are such bloodthirsty monsters that they are unable to rationally assess their situation and that they are compelled to torture and murder just because of their bestial and maniacal nature.  This, of course, is utter nonsense.  Why?

Because while it is true that in any country, ethnic group or religion you will find a percentage X of people who will gladly indulge in horrors, massacres and other unspeakable atrocities, these people are very rarely in command positions and, when they are, then they still do not lose sight of their own self-interests.  There is a reason why Lenin, Hitler, Churchill and all the American Presidents liked to kiss small children: it is to appear kind and decent.  Even when they are genocidal maniacs, they engage in this kind of behavior only when they feel that it will give them a tangible advantage, not just because they like to torture or kill.

Notice that in Syria, Assad has just re-subordinated the Shabiha to the regular armed forces precisely to try to stop them from committing atrocities.  This, by the way, exactly what Karadzic and Mladic were trying to do with Serbian irregulars in Bosnia, but now all this is down the memory hole...

Bottom line:, civil wars truly bring out the worst in people, and they provide an ideal environment for the small number of real  bloodthirsty maniacs to indulge in atrocities.  And this is why I submit that the crime of initiating a civil war is even a worse crime than the crime of international aggression.

This still leaves an important question: can there be norms of behavior in civil wars or do we simply have to accept that any civil war will inevitably result in a completely uninhibited orgy of unspeakable horrors for which nobody should be answerable?

Here I can only offer my subjective opinion, and I freely admit that I cannot prove my point.  I want to share it with you only as a basis for discussion:

I believe that the killing of civilians in modern wars, both civil and international is simply inevitable.  In an attempt to minimize so-called "collateral damage" specialists of international humanitarian law and the laws of war have come up with the concept of "proportionality".  The basic idea here is that you not bomb a hospital just because there is a sniper hiding on its roof (well, hospitals should be protected anyway, and no armed combatants should have access to them, but nevermind, you get the idea).  It is a good idea, but not a practical one.

Any good military commander feels a profound sense of responsibility for the men under his command.  In many cultures, the commanding officer is considered morally responsible before the parents of his soldiers for their well-being and survival.  And many officers, in particularly good ones, take this responsibility very very seriously.  It is often the case that generals sometimes address their soldiers (though not officers) by such words as "my son".  For such a commander the life of only one of his soldiers is far more important that the lives of even many enemies, in particular during a civil war where the hatred for the other side is particularly strong.

Ask yourself this simple question: if you are the commander of, say, and armored company, and while you pass a village your soldiers get shot from the rooftops, while you send your men in to do a house-to-house search (and inevitably suffer even more casualties) or will you call in an artillery strike?

Or this: you are the commander of a special operations unit deep inside the enemy territory and while you are moving at night you stumble upon young girl watching over a herd of goats.  She sees you and your men.  What do you do?  If you let her go, she will report you to her village.  If you take her with you, she won't be able to follow you and by her very presence she will compromise your security.  Or do you quietly slit her throat and hide her body?

These are all real situations, which were shared with me by officers who had to take these decisions and who still suffer internally from what they had to do, but they did that to protect that which was the most precious thing for them: the lives of their own men whom they felt responsible for first and foremost.

And then there is this: in the good old days, wars used to have fronts and even battlefields.  Armies had the good taste of fighting in the fields near little known villages like Austerlitz or Borodino.  Now, the very nature of war has completely changed.

To explain this, I will use an metaphor: traditionally wars looked very much like a American football game: a line of scrimmage, two lines of deployed adversaries, a clearly identifiable "front" and "rear".  Modern warfare is much more like European soccer: both teams are deployed all over the field, and each player "covers" one other player, while the game is constantly in motion.  What does that mean for civilians?  That there is no more FEBA (forward edge of battle area) and no "front".  As soon as hostilities begin the full strategic depth of each side becomes as much part of the area of operations, of the battlefield, as any other.  In other words, from now on combat operations will always and inevitably happen right next to and in the middle of civilian areas.  This is why the argument of "hiding behind civilians" is so stupid: civilians will be everywhere, you simply cannot fight at all unless you accept the fact that you will fight in civilians areas.

All this is inevitable for any modern war, civil or international.

Civil wars, however, do have their own unique horrors.

It is not politically correct to say so, but in most civil wars you do not take prisoners.  At all.  Zero.  Why?

Well, for one thing the parties to the civil war rarely have the infrastructure to process and hold large groups of prisoners.  Then, remember what Robert said, in civil wars your enemy is not a patriot of his country, he is a traitor to your country.  And what do traitors deserve?  Yup.  Death.  That is a universally accepted idea.  Finally, in a highly mobile combat environment there is simply not enough time to deal with the issues of prisoners.  So what normally happens is this: you try not to make prisoners in the first place.  If you still end up taking some prisoners, you quickly interrogate them (we are talking for 10-15 mins per prisoner unless the guy caught is really important), and then you shoot them and leave.

This is how it is done.  I am not saying that this is right or that I approve of it.  But this is how it is done by all sides in every conflict.  This, sadly, is the norm.  Again, if you don't like that, if these facts make you uncomfortable, don't start civil wars because this is how civil wars are fought.  All of them.

So, are there things which are truly beyond the pale even in civil wars?

Yes.

Things like torture, rape, deliberate and useless execution of civilians.  Not only are these simply unjustifiable - there can be no military rationale for such acts - but they are also extremely corrupting for the units engaged in them.  Units who engage in these kind of practices always end up losing their cohesion and discipline and the necessary military hierarchy rapidly deteriorates and commanders and commanded all become accomplices.

By the way, the worst offenders in this kind of crimes are typically poorly trained and poorly commanded units.  While a special operations commander might not hesitate to slit a girls throat to protect his men, he will never allow his men to engage in such behavior or, even less so, engage in it himself.

What about torture to extract information?

Well, as I just said, poorly trained and poorly commanded units might think that torturing an enemy prisoner might yield some important information.  But the reality is that 99% of the prisoners have very little information worth sharing and that 99% of these prisoners will be so terrified and depressed anyway that they will talk hoping that this might save their life (it won't) and it makes no sense to spend more than 10-15 minutes to interrogate them.  Sure, those are unlikely to be a pleasant 10-15 mins, you can expect threats, screams, punches, slaps, kicks and rifle-butts in your face, but nothing too gory or medieval.  As for the high value prisoners, they will be sent away to be interrogated by specialists and, unlike what these morons in Guantanamo thought, the best way to "break them open" is not at all to torture them, but to outsmart and out-think them.

Again, none of the above applies to irregular units formed of self-proclaimed "patriots" who really are only poorly trained criminal thugs who love to torture and kill out of viciousness.  Yes, they will also be out there during a civil war, but they will not be acting under orders of the regular military command who typically will feel an intense dislike and distrust for them (and rightly so, I would add).

I thought that it was important to write to these basic reminders of what wars and civil wars are really like.  We are all too conditioned by a "CNN view" of wars which has no resemblance with reality at all.  And I hope that the next time you hear some pious outrage about some horrible dictator and "new Hitler" engaging in all kinds of atrocities you will keep these few considerations in your mind to try to make sense of what has really happened or not.

The Saker

PS: Having thought about it all, I have to add a small caveat here.  What I wrote above does not apply to Africa where, for a number of reasons I do not want to discuss here, the historical record seems to indicate that wanton atrocities are the norm and where the very concept of "regular armed forces" is rather removed from reality.

Full dubbed speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah on May 9th, 2013

A small but victorious skirmish in a much larger battle of a even bigger war - but a victory nonetheless.

It is impossible to predict what will happen following the recent meetings between US Secretary of State Kerry and President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov in Moscow.  After all, all which can come out of such a meeting are only words.  Still, words matter, and in the case of the highest level officials of the two major powers on the planet, they matter a lot.  And a lot of very important words were spoken in Moscow, in particular about Syria, and I believe that they deserve a closer look.

First and foremost, it is undeniable that the USA has had to back down from its previous "re-interpretation" of the Geneva Agreement.  While the Russian side said that all the parties must negotiate together to appoint their representatives and task them with forming a transitional authority, the Americans declared that it was categorically unacceptable to have Assad or his representatives participate in these negotiations.  But that was when the State Department was run by this bellicose russophobic and, frankly, imbecile bitch Hillary Clinton.  John Kerry is a very different person who is maybe not in the same league as the outright brilliant James Baker, but who is nonetheless a smart and shrewed realist and a competent diplomat.  It appears that he understands the futility of Hillary Clinton's ideological stance since he has clearly indicated that it was for the Syrian people to decide who represents them and for the opposing parties to choose their leaders.  In other words, the USA accepts to negotiate with Assad.

Foreign Minister Lavrov even indicated that the Russians had carefully coordinated their stance by means of personal consultations with President Assad who was fully informed of, and agreed with, the Russian position.  In other words, the Americans are already negotiating with Assad.

Second, Secretary Kerry appeared to fully accept and even endorse the Russian line that external "extremists" are using the Syrian conflict for their own purposes and that these extremists represent a real threat for the entire region.   Kerry confirmed this by stating that the USA supports the Syrian territorial integrity and the multi-ethnic and, most importantly, multi-confessional nature of the Syrian society.  In other words, the USA is also accepting the Russian thesis that the al-Qaeda types cannot be allowed to seize power in Syria.

Thirdly, in regards to the canard about the Syrian military using chemical weapons, Kerry did say that these claims must be very carefully investigated before any conclusions are drawn.   At this point Foreign Minister Lavrov revealed that the US and Russian intelligence services would work very closely to draw a common conclusion about what actually happened on the ground.  Foreign Minister Lavrov said that "we all know that there are parties to this conflict which have a demonstrated capability to organize "provocations" (which, in the Russian language, really implies what is called "false flag" operation in the West) and that the USA and Russia had agreed not to allow that to happen.  Secretary Kerry was clearly not to eager to comment about all this, but he did acquiesce and he most definitely did not contradict Lavrov.   In other words, the USA has dumped any plans it might have had of blaming Assad for using chemical weapons.

I don't know about you, but to me this looks like a full-spectrum victory for the Russian diplomacy who appears to have forced the USA to yield on all key points concerning the Syrian conflict.

There was a rather amusing and very uncharacteristic moment at the end of the joint Kerry-Lavrov press conference when Lavrov suddenly asked the reporters "do you know who won the Russia-USA hockey match today?" (the two teams were playing each other in the playoffs for the world championship) with a totally innocent look on his face.  And when Lavrov "learned" from a Russian reporter that Russia had beat the US (with a score of 5-3 if I remember correctly) - he turned to Kerry and said "it appears that Russia has won!!!".  Kerry, being an savvy diplomat, also laughed at that, and the two were soon back-slapping each other.  Frankly, I think that Lavrov made the American pay with this little comment for all the stupid crap that this bitch Clinton had said about Russia.  Yes, the Russians would kindly agree to work with the USA, but only on Russian terms which they had stated from Day 1 and on which they yielded nothing.  Lavrov really sent a clear message to the American elites: "if you play by civilized rules and treat us as equal partners, we will do our part.  If you f**k with us, then you are on your own and we and the Chinese will watch you fail".  That is, I believe, what this "it appears that Russia has won" really meant.  A kind tease, but a very serious message.

The credit for this positive, if provisional, outcome goes to the firm yet careful stance of the Russian diplomats and to Putin personally for having had the patience to carefully play his hand.  But even before any credit is given to the Kremlin, the one party which deserves the most praise and gratitude is the Syrian military whose excellent performance, courage and skills on the battlefield nothing forced the Americans to come back to the negotiating table.  Had the Syrian military collapsed (as so many had predicted) there is absolutely nothing the Russians could have done to force Kerry to make all the concessions he has made.

This conflict is far from over.  For one thing, there are forces inside the USA - the "deep state" if you wish - who hate Obama, hate Kerry, hate Syria and, above all, hate Russia and who have huge resources which they can use to sabotage Kerry's approach.  Furthermore, the current US and Russian position is placing a wedge between the al-Qaeda crazies (who represent primarily foreign interests and, therefore, also most of the firepower) and the more moderate opposition (who probably represents more Syrians than the al-Qaeda crazies) and it remains to be seen how these two groups will deal with each other.

Still, if - and that is a big "if" - a small step was finally made to force the West to accept that Syria will not be handed over to the Wahabis, partitioned or turned into another failed state a la Somalia, then this is truly thanks to the patriotic courage of the Syrian soldiers and, in particular, the Syrian officer corps which resolutely stood in defense of their country.

And this is how it should be.  Russia, China or Iran cannot "save" Syria.  Nor should they.  Only the Syrians can save Syria, of course.  What Russia, China and Iran can do is stand by those forces in Syria who are carrying the heavy burden of fighting against the US/NATO/al-Qaeda/Israeli coalition.  So while the behind the scenes role of China, Iran and even Hezbollah does not appear to have much to do with the events in Moscow, I am also sure that Russia alone would appear much weaker to the Americans than a informal but nevertheless highly effective alliance of Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah.

To repeat - this is only a small but victorious skirmish in a much larger battle of a even bigger war and this is a small victory of words only, not of actual facts on the ground.  Things can still change a million times over and over again.

But even with these caveats and disclaimers, I call this one as an unequivocal victory for Syria and its *real* friends.

The Saker

Syrian government statement in response to Israeli the airstrikes

The Syrian Information Minister, Omran al-Zoabi, reads a statement by the Council of Ministers (the Syrian Cabinet), in which he directly links Israel to the Takfiri Islamist mercenaries fighting in Syria to topple the Syrian government.

I think that this is a very good reaction: its make the US/NATO and Israelis pay the maximal political price for that aggression by using the Israeli attack as a proof that the Zionists and the Wahabis are working hand in hand, while refusing to take the bait and reply to the provocation by military means while leaving all options on the table.

So far so good - the Syrians are taking the correct stance.

The Saker
 

The recent Israeli air strikes are a clear sign that the US/NATO/al-Qaeda/Israeli war against Syria is now entering into a qualitatively new phase

The latest Israeli airstrikes are now the clear proof that the US/NATO/al-Qaeda insurgency is currently losing the war against Syria.  I submit that the purpose of these strikes is rather obvious: to trigger a Syrian response which would give Israel a pretext to wage what Pepe Escobar aptly called a "mini shock and awe" campaign against Syria, tipping the balance in favor of the US/NATO/al-Qaeda insurgency.  Here is how that plan would play out:

If the Syrians reply by shooting a number of missiles at Israel, the Israelis will then claim "self-defense" and hit key government installations, command and control nodes, ammunition dumps, command centers, air bases, etc all as part of their "legitimate right of self defense" (nevermind that Israel is already clearly guilty of undeniable acts of war and aggression).  If needed, the Israelis could also initiate an air campaign aimed at restricting the mobility of Syrian troops and armor (by claiming that anything moving on a Syrian road is a "convoy of terror weapons destined to Hezbollah" or something equally predictable).

If the Syrians refrain from any retaliation, then these airstrikes would at least give the Israelis a sense of satisfaction: having failed to take on the Big Guy (Iran) they at least had the "guts" to attack Syria.  This is not a pleasant option - believe me, I wish to see the Israelis pay for what they did as much as the next guy - but it is absolutely imperative for Assad not to fall into this trap.  He needs to stay put and ride out the Israeli attacks.

The sad reality is that Syria is in no position to confront Israel militarily while at the same time fighting a US/NATO/al-Qaeda insurgency.
I have said it many many many times over on this blog, the way to defeat US/Israeli style air force or cruise missile attacks is not to shoot down their aircraft or to retaliate with your own strikes, but to deny them a lucrative target.  This is what the Serbs did to perfection in Bosnia, and this is what Hezbollah did to perfection in Lebanon.

If the Syrians learned the lessons from the Hezbollah victory against Israel during the "Divine Victory" war, then their military should be ready to fight in a very decentralized manner, their means of communications should be extremely redundant, and their forces dispersed in a way to deny the Israelis a lucrative target.  Of course, such a posture has the disadvantage of dramatically reducing the mobility of the Syrian army, in particular at the operational level, but as long as most of the war effort is carried by tactical subunits this should not be too much of a handicap.

Also, unless the Syrians respond and fire back the Israelis will not have a pretext to do much more than what they are doing right now: provoking.  Their provocations are extremely offensive and morally repugnant, but they are much preferable to a real Israeli close air support campaign which the Israelis could launch in support of the US/NATO/al-Qaeda insurgency with thousands of sorties.

The Israeli involvement also have a beneficial side effect: it goes to prove a very simple but fundamental thesis: anybody supporting the Syrian insurgency is a "useful idiot" who, whether he understands that or nor, supports the US Empire, NATO, al-Qaeda and the Zionists. Yes, if you support the "FSA" you are in bed with Netanyahu.

What the Syrians need to do now is press on their advantage on the ground.  If possible, they should deny the US/NATO/al-Qaeda coalition the possibility of using any part of the Syrian territory as a conduit to bring in more weapons.  This can be best done by sending in numerous special forces groups inside"FSA" controlled territory to disrupt their operations and strike at their forces.

Just as the Russian only defeated the Chechen insurgency when the Russian commanders convinced the Kremlin of the importance of sending Spetsnaz forces deep inside the forests and mountains of Chechnia, the Syrians will only defeat this insurgency if they deny the Wahabis any type sanctuary. 

This type of operation are very counter-intuitive for regular army officers who are used to think in terms of "fronts" or "terrain held" and who loathe the idea of sending a tiny force deep behind enemy lines.  And yet, these tactics are crucial to deny the insurgency the big advantage that it enjoys when engaging regular forces: in a typical "insurgency versus regular forces" the insurgents always have the initiative, they choose when and where to engage, and they can withdraw to areas in which regular forces either cannot penetrate, or can only do that at a huge cost.  Only autonomous special forces have the training needed to turn the tables on the insurgency and hunt it down in its own lairs.

Spetsnaz GRU in the mountains of Chechnia

In Chechnia the insurgency mistakenly believed that it was invulnerable to Russian attacks in the forests covered hills and mountains.  However, instead of sending big bulky and very vulnerable armored forces into these mountains the Russians covertly send numerous Spetsnaz units deep inside these forests and mountains.  These units attacked the Chechens mostly at night, usually destroying their hidden camps and weapons caches.  Such night raids created a sense of panic amongst the Chechen insurgents who had never expected to be attacked deep inside "their own" territory.  They tried to flee to Georgia and other neighboring republics only to be blocked by covertly inserted Russian Airborne troops.  In a relatively short time the insurgency was crushed.

Something similar needs to happen in Syria now.  The Syrian military must absolutely deny the "FSA" any kind of "safe territory".  Furthermore, by sending in special forces teams they deny the Israelis the option to engage in close air support: special forces teams are undetectable and their strikes are too short and too devastating to call in close air support.  By multiplying such "hit and run" operations the Syrian military could capitalize on its recent more conventional successes.

I don't know if the Syrian military does have the type of units needed to conduct such operations, but if not I am sure that Iran and Russia can send enough qualified advisers to provide them with the basic training to prepare and execute such a campaign.

The Israeli aggression against Syria is a clear sign that the war is now entering into a qualitatively new phase.  The Syrian armed forces have proven that they had what it take to very skillfully adapt to a conflict which turned out to be very different from the one they had trained for, and I hope that they will now again show the flexibility and skills needed to adapt to this new phase which will be decided by the correct use of special operation forces.

The Saker

Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah of April 30th, 2013

I take refuge in Allah from the stoned devil. In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Peace be on the Seal of prophets, our Master and Prophet, Abi Al Qassem Mohammad and on his chaste and pure Household and on his chosen companions and on all messengers and prophets.

I would like to offer my felicitations first on the anniversary of the birthday of the daughter of the Prophet of Allah (Peace be upon her) – the Lady of the world ladies - Fatima Al Zahraa (Peace be upon her). Second, I felicitate all the laborers in Lebanon on Labor's Day for their hard work, effort, toil, and struggle.

In fact, I will tackle some topics in the time available tonight. In Lebanon, everything is subject to analysis. It is supposed, if we stayed alive, that I deliver a speech on the occasion of the anniversary of the establishment of Al Nour Radio Station which will be held in several days. However, I was scrutinizing the topics and the nature of the occasion. I found out that the time available will not be enough to cover several sensitive issues especially after this break off that lasted for a period of time. Thus I found that I divide the topics in mind. Thus I will tackle some topics today and keep some topics to be tackled on the day of the ceremony Inshallah. So I will tackle some topics today and some in the days to come Inshallah.

We come to the first topic which I would like to tackle today – and I will try to talk a bit quickly to make use of time because the topics are sensitive and critical. Thus we all must follow them. The public opinion must follow them up whether in Lebanon or in the region because they have to do with our fate altogether whether on the regional or the local levels.

First, we will tackle the Israeli topic. The most important point in the Israeli topic is what took place several days ago when the Israelis claimed that they downed a drone alleging that it penetrated from the Lebanese airspace to Occupied Palestine airspace. They said it was downed near the city of Haifa – and more precisely the coast of Haifa.

Indeed, Israeli media, analysts, and observers accused us directly saying we stand behind this honor that we do not claim. According to the follow up by the concerned sides in Hezbollah, no official accusation was made so far by official Israeli officials to Hezbollah except for the very first moments when the Israeli war vice minister made such an accusation in a haste; however, he did not reiterate it later.

Indeed, some Lebanese sides directly held us responsible of launching the drone and started playing the tones you know by now. Because it knows that it did not send the drone first and because it knows the sensitive situation in the region second, Hezbollah issued an intact state. It was a one-sentence-statement denying that Hezbollah had dispatched the drone to Occupied Palestine airspace. It did not comprise two sentences – no preludes and no conclusions.

Why was the text as such? When I proceed in my comment, I will hint to that. Well, the great question came to be: if it was not Hezbollah who dispatched the drone, who was it then?

As for the facts, so far the Israelis did not broadcast footages or shots which are supposed to be recorded for the alleged drone. So far we do not know whether they have found the ruins of the alleged drone or at least that was not aroused seriously in the media. Where are the ruins? This also comes under the title of facts.

When we come to analysis, first everybody knows that Hezbollah has the courage to assume the responsibility and claim any act it undertakes especially if it has to do with the Israeli enemy.

We own the courage and we are proud of a brave act of this kind if we stage it. That does not worry us or annoy us. Many accusations or reservations or various readings do not annoy us if they were made with good intentions. What was said on this airplane is not more important or more dangerous from Hezbollah claiming the responsibility of Ayyoub Drone which penetrated to the south of Occupied Palestine and approached Dimona Reactor.

Thus first Hezbollah all through its struggle with the Israeli enemy never undertook any action then denied it. We have a long history. While some people are accustomed to lying, this is our history. For 31 years of struggle with the Israeli enemy, we have always acknowledged what we do. We do not denounce any of our deeds. We even are proud of what we do. Then whoever believes us, let him believes us and whoever doesn't, let him not. Whoever believes us is free to do so. We will not trouble ourselves with such an issue.

Second, I would like to tell the Lebanese and the public opinion. Nothing in fact asserts the incident so far. I am not denying that it took place. I am not saying that the drone did not penetrate. However, nothing asserts that a drone penetrated the northern airspace of occupied Palestine. Nothing asserts that. No evident was presented so far. No ruins were seen so far. Even the UNIFIL said we are not sure of such an incident. The same was said by the Lebanese official security bodies.

Thus there is an assumption which we must take into consideration which says that all what was said is fabricated and groundless.

Nothing proves this assumption. However so far nothing was presented that denies this assumption. Well, let's take this event for granted. Let's say that there is a drone and that it penetrated from the Lebanese airspace and that the Israelis are troubled. Some say it has a reconnaissance mission. Others say its aim is only to violate the airspace. Others say it is armed and it had definite aims. Let's take the incident for granted. Who might have dispatched it? So far the Israelis – who own strong radars and information apparatuses and who resort to international intelligence and to marvelous powers also which exist in the Mediterranean – could not specify who launched the drone and what track it took. This is weird. They did not even announce anything of this kind so far. Thus so far, it does not seem there are any official Israeli accusations. Indeed, Israeli TV stations, channels, journalists, analysts and experts are talking about suppositions.

If we are to go with what the Israelis are saying or what they may suppose, there would be several suppositions. Notice that I do not talk in such a way for doing so. It is rather because the issue is important and may lead to repercussions in the upcoming stage. The suppositions are:

The first supposition which was mentioned by Israeli analysts is that the drone was dispatched by the Iranian Revolution guards and that truly Hezbollah has nothing to do with it. Here I am telling you that this supposition is not true, not realistic, and impossible.

The second supposition is to think positively and seriously say that there is a friendly side –whether Palestinian or Lebanese - which is present on the Lebanese territories and which owns the capability to launch a small drone – because they are talking about a small drone which does not have the size of Ayoub Drone – to the airspace of Occupied Palestine. This is a possibility. However we do not have any data to this effect. In fact, we are searching for such a side – if it was a friendly side – to cooperate and coordinate with it as far as this issue is concerned. This is a supposition but it has not indication. Still the possibility exists.

The third possibility is that an unfriendly side – I will not say a hostile side or the like- apart from Israel and without the knowledge of Hezbollah or the Lebanese state or Israel too, launched the drone from the Lebanese territories or from other territories and let it penetrate into Occupied Palestine with the following background in mind. Here we will have bad intentions: the Israelis will make haste and accuse Hezbollah, and in such a sensitive situation, the Israelis would stage a direct military reaction. Hezbollah would then undertake a direct defensive act and consequently, they would have pushed Lebanon to a confrontation between Israel and the resistance and more precisely Hezbollah in this timing when the situation is tensed in the region. When taking the bad intentions into consideration, some may have such possibilities that Hezbollah is busy in Syria and they may suppose that Hezbollah is perplexed and worried and does not own the will to confront or the like. So in such timing, let's drag Lebanon and the region into a war between Hezbollah and Israel or between Israel and Hezbollah.

This supposition also exists. It has no indications but when the time is corrupt it is a good intention to have bad intentions as the saying goes. Thus we say that this supposition exists.

The fourth supposition which is being evoked and which must not be ruled out is that Israel itself had entered the drone to the Lebanese airspace and then returned it to the Palestinian airspace and downed it so as to make a definite atmosphere and to issue definite threats and achieve several psychological, moral, deterrent, political and media goals. We may talk lengthily about the desired goals and results of this supposition. You know the country is vulnerable. The Israelis may let the drone enter Lebanon and then dispatch it. They may enter it via the airspace or the sea. You know Israelis nets are active; they are active on the shores especially. So this is possible to a very high degree.

So these are the suppositions.

The Lebanese have to scrutinize these suppositions. Some people feel relaxed when they say that Hezbollah dispatched the drone. We thus do not want to trouble ourselves or to make any discussions. Well, this is wrong. Here I am saying that this is wrong.

I hope that the officials in the state, the officials in the security bodies, and the political forces in Lebanon especially those who categorize themselves in the antagonistic side would not drag everything that have to do with Israel into internal bargains and antagonisms because here we started talking about a dangerous, sensitive area that does not tolerate jests, antagonisms and grudges.

Sometimes we feel that some men and as a result of antagonism and grudge think like young children as far as this issue is concerned. Thus we hope that they scrutinize this issue, and indeed we will follow it up. Indeed there are worrisome indications in the region in general. That is true; notice the alert, mobilization, and summoning towards northern Lebanon which they talk about. A while ago the Israeli army official spokesman talked to this effect. We still believe that these things influence the developments in Syria more than Lebanon. In a direct way and apart from Syria, there are indeed worrisome indications concerning Gaza. That was said in media outlets. What increases these worries are the news of new US-Arab-Gulf efforts to reach a kind of a settlement to the Palestinian cause which impose further conditions on the Palestinians or solutions which the Palestinians did not previously accept. Well, this is the sphere of anxiety. That's because when a settlement is sought or when political conditions are imposed on the Palestinians, or both, such things are often preceded by an aggression which aims at shaking the will, courage, and determination of the Palestinians so as to impose conditions on them. Thus from the post of fraternity, unity and the comradeship of arms with the resistance movements in Palestine and especially in Gaza, I call on them in this stage to be careful and alert especially in the movement of the military leadership and to follow up this issue.

However, I would like to wrap up the Israeli topic saying that anyone in the region or in Lebanon or anywhere in the world who thinks or has the illusion that the resistance in Lebanon might be in a state of weakness, feebleness, confusion or vagueness now at this stage and as a result of what is taking place in Syria, Iraq, and the region and as a result of the pressures exerted on the Islamic Republic in Iran and what is taking place in Palestine is totally mistaken and erroneous. I warn the Israeli enemy and those who back the Israeli enemy against perpetrating any blunder in Lebanon or towards Lebanon. That's because the resistance and despite all the preoccupations here and there, still has an alert eye, mind and heart and has its finger on the trigger. It has the will, determination, and resolution to defend Lebanon and its land and people and all the victories and achievements made by the Lebanese people, the Lebanese resistance and the Lebanese army all through thirty years of confrontation with the Israeli enemy. We will confront any aggression with the highest degree of bravery, awareness, competence, ability and capability which can't be imagined by anyone. We will also gain victory in any future confrontation Inshallah. So as far as this point is concerned, I call on everyone not to make wrong considerations.

The second topic is the Syrian topic and it is more important, critical, and serious not only as far as Syria is concerned but also concerning Lebanon, Palestine, and all the peoples and states in the region. Whoever tries to spare this cause under whatever title or term used in Lebanon or abroad is hiding behind his finger. Under this topic there are several subtopics which I will tackle one after the other. Though I have made a table of content, I will not mention it because in case I run out of time, I will put off some points to another meeting.

First and before talking about the general stance and the general vision from what is taking place in Syria and consequently some of the detailed issues which directly touch the Lebanese and the Lebanese affairs, I must make some clarifications in this prelude. In the past few weeks, much was said and a very broad media and political mobilization took place. In fact they did not spare any politician, journalist, writer, religious men, sheikh, Sayyed, scholar, or professor. In the past few weeks, anything which might be said has been said by others and not by us. Now allow us to talk for a while. Everything which might be written was written whether it might cross one's mind or not. Things were at times said in a harsh tough way. We listened to all of that in all the atmospheres. Anyway, all what took place was an attempt to touch our stance, vision, position, action, conduct, determination, awareness, nerves, emotions, and minds. However, all of that flopped and will flop. This is not the first time we face a psychological war of this kind in an issue of this kind and a cause of this kind. For thirty years we have been living a psychological war at every day, hour and moment. We also used to live in the heart of security war every day, every hour, and every moment. Well, yes we used to live military confrontations from time to time.

One of the details which was focused on and which I would like to highlight before going back to my major topic – because they believe that such lies may be influential – is talking about the number or convoy of martyrs. In the past few weeks, some Lebanese and some Lebanese and Arab media outlets have staged an auction. Some say fifty martyrs, a hundred martyrs, a hundred and eight martyrs, a hundred and thirty martyrs, a hundred and thirty eight martyrs, two hundred martyrs, three hundred martyrs, and five hundred martyrs.

Yesterday, Al Arabiya Channel sources said we had 30 martyrs who fell yesterday only. I added the number of martyrs according to some channels – especially Al Arabiya and the Future – among other channels and websites during the past few months – as they have a daily average of 30, 40 and 50 martyrs. They also talk about mass burials, hiding the bodies of the martyrs, funerals at retail…. I added the number and it was not less than 1000 martyrs as they suppose. Well let's divide them by two to have 500 martyrs. By God, O Lebanese, you know that our country is too small and nothing may be hidden in it. Media exists even in villages and neighborhoods. Who may hide 500 or 1000 or 100 or 50 martyrs? Who may keep these martyrs from his people or society or the residents of towns or families. We haven't acted as such previously. We never hid our martyrs then made funerals in retail. I tell you faithfully and seriously that whenever any brethren is martyred anywhere, his family is informed and a funeral is held for him the following day. At times his family knows before we know because of mobile phones and the internet which are open and available.

So this is absurd. This is used as part of the psychological war and all of those who talked to this effect have done so without knowing – that is if I am to think positively of them – or are mistaken. However, no! This is intentional lying, and the rule which is followed as far as this issue and other issues are concerned is: Lie and lie. When they lie day and night, some people might believe them though our audiences and families do not believe lies. They have also got accustomed to their lies for long years. Whoever is martyred is bid farewell openly. We are proud whenever a martyr falls anywhere; we are especially proud of the martyrs who fell in the past few weeks and those who preceded them. We are not ashamed of our martyrs. We are not embarrassed with them. We are rather proud of them. We raise our heads high as their families also do. All of the atmospheres which were evoked are not true. By the way, I would like to seize the opportunity to salute the families of the great and honorable martyrs whom my brethrens in Hezbollah leadership and the various officials have visited and conveyed to me their messages and feelings. I thank them for their stances, patience, insight, and historic awareness. This is our expectations from them, and all what was conveyed from the fathers, mothers and families of martyrs make us more certain and determined to carry on.

I liked to mention this detail before moving to the general stance from the Syrian topic because from it I will move to some details such as Reef Al Qasir and Sayyeda Zeinab among other issues which I may tackle briefly.

For two years the general stance was:

We must comment on the goals of what is taking place in Syria very briefly. Taking into consideration the field events, facts and developments as well as the international, US, and European stances, the clear Israeli stances, the stances of the regional forces, the stances of the Syrian opposition forces and the various groups who are fighting in Syria, man reaches a decisive conclusion. When we want to build a stance, we must build a vision based on comprehension and analysis. The goal of what is taking place in Syria is not anymore omitting Syria from the axis of the resistance. This was what we used to say previously. The aim has become something else. It is not only omitting Syria from the axis of the resistance and the Arab-Israeli struggle formula. The goal is not also seizing the authority from the current regime and leadership for whatever price. We may decisively say that the goal of all of those who back the war in Syria is destroying Syria as a state, as a people, as a society and as an army.

The field result would be that Syria would not be anymore a strong central country, and that Syria would become a futile feeble state which is unable even to take decisions related to its oil, gas, sea, land, borders, and shores as what is taking place now in some so called Arab Spring countries – and I do not want to mention names. You may follow the statements made by senior leaderships in the current state and in the previous oppositions. They talk about definite states which prevent forming an army and prevent forming a central state. The best image in any country is the presence of armed groups. Every group seizes a part of land. It is the skeleton of a state. It is a week feeble state. Each of these armed groups is linked to an intelligence body or an Arab state or a western state which controls the fate of that state and its oil, gas, and wealth while leaving the people of that country for antagonism, fighting, and combating while experiencing security instability. This is first.

I also like the Syrians who are hearing me and who aren't hearing me to know that it is required that they have no strong central state in the future regardless of the government that will lead their country whether the current leadership or any other leadership. They further want to destroy Syria so that it would be crossed from the regional equation. Some Arab countries used to accuse Syria that it was practicing a regional role which was larger than its natural size, and that is not true.

What is required now is crossing Syria from the regional equation and the regional influence while Syria which was one way or another a partner in what used to take place or in the consequences of what used to take place or in drawing the lines or the tracks on the level of the region whether in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Iraq besides other places in the region is now meant to become a marginalized, hungry, demolished, combating Syria in which every Syrian has no time or breath to think of what is taking place in the region. This is the goal of what is taking place now in Syria apart from the target and specifying the target. Indeed some may ask that some in the Syrian Opposition know that – and indeed many of them know that – and many are moving with this target whether they know or not.

Apart from the target, what is taking place now in Syria and is going on is very dangerous, challenging, threatening and harmful to Syria itself and to the Palestinian cause as we used to say in the first days. Today what is being weaved to the Palestinian cause in the stage of Palestinian exhaustion, obscurity and unknown future, in the stage of Israeli arrogance and in the stage of the return of the Americans forcefully to the region as a result of the sedition which some torched mounts to the risk of real official liquidation. This has its repercussions on Lebanon – let's not hide behind our fingers – Iraq, Jordan, Turkey as well as the whole region - no one argues about this except the arrogant – while Israel would ascend the throne, mobilize its forces, and seize the opportunity to take the initiative and reap the crops for us to hear and see.

Third: Since the very beginning up till now there has been a struggle in Syria in which friends and foes from abroad and even from within Syria are partaking in two camps. The other side is fighting the regime and opposes the regime. There are also the friends and the loyalists who say that they don't agree on toppling the regime in Syria and do not agree on fighting in Syria and we are part of the latter side. So there are two tracks:

The first track went to the furthest point which is toppling the regime. Thus they went to the military choice. They linked great expectations to the military choice. They resorted to fighting, killing, attrition, and the worst forms of killing – slaughtering, beheading, and throwing from rooftops – and summoning international intervention on the military and political levels. The recent game of chemical weapons which was played in the past few days is no more than a new attempt to summon foreign intervention so that these come and demolish Syria. Some issued severe fatwas which are still broadcast on satellites and are still found as audio-visual footages on websites. Even some senior scholars who are categorized as moderate had issued absurd and weird fatwas even from a religious perspective. I do not want to get engaged in jurisprudential or specialized argument as far as this issue is concerned. One of these senior scholars was asked whether it is permissible to target whoever supports the Syrian regime. He was even asked whether it is permissible to kill all the militants though some militants may have thought of splitting but haven't had the opportunity to do so. Fatwas were even issued against these poor militants. The answer is: "How am I to know? All those who work for the authority must be killed whether militants or civilians, and whether literate or ignorant." Then he says: "Whoever is with the tyrant, arrogant, oppressive authority – scientific authenticity requires that I quote the whole text – in Earth and which had killed people unjustly is an oppressor like the authority and is judged similarly. Thus anyone who fights must be fought." So fatwas were issued against scholars, civilians, militants, and the ignorant people. Afterwards, if some people were oppressed, Allah would send them to Heaven. As such and for two years we faced a stream of fatwas and announcements for jihad. This is not new. For two years fatwas and calls for jihad were being made. The instigations for jihad are not new. They have nothing to do with accusing Hezbollah of intervening in Syria or not. The fatwa I quoted was made in the first stage of the events. So the servant in the Syrian state who wants to make reparations following power cuts in this or that province is now being killed according to this fatwa. A municipality servant who is cleaning the street may be killed because he is working with the regime. The same applies to a civilian who works in a hospital or a medical center or to an agricultural engineer. We know these fatwas tell you that the blood of an employer in this oppressive state is permissible. Thus they kill and kidnap scholars as well as ordinary people. They find a fatwa for all of these. Well where would such a track lead Syria to? That leads to destroying Syria.

The second track which we consider ourselves a part of is summed in the call we made from the first day. From the very first day we warned against the seriousness of what is taking place in Syria on Syria and its people whether Muslims or Christian, on Lebanon, on the Palestinian cause, on Iraq, on Jordan, on Turkey, and on the region. We always have called for political dialogue, political solution, and a political settlement. I want to address you all with this question: Do you find in this track – the second track – scholars – whether Shiites and they include Shiites or Sunnites and they include Sunnites or Muslims or Christians – who issued a fatwa that says that the blood of whoever cooperates with the Syrian opposition and whoever backs the Syrian opposition is permissible, and thus kill them whether they are militants, civilians, scholars, or ignorant? Name me one scholar who issued a fatwa of this kind. There isn't because such a fatwa does not have anything to do with religion, jurisprudence, Shari'a, the interests of Muslims or the interests of the nation. This second track has always pushed towards dialogue and a political solution.

The followers of the first track have always refused dialogue and a political solution. They insist on toppling the regime and are making wrong considerations. Even as far as this point is concerned, there are Syria's friends or those who call themselves Syria's friends – who are offering more money and arms and instigating and calling for international military intervention. If anyone in the Syrian opposition ever thought of political dialogue, he would be oppressed. I know that, and I even have names and data. At one of the stages, no one in the Syrian opposition – especially those abroad – could dare to talk about political dialogue. Nobody could dare. He would fear the states which sponsor the war and the armed groups who run the war.

There is another kind of Syria's friends including Iran, Russia, China, The BRICS and other countries who from the first day have been calling for dialogue and are pushing towards dialogue.

Fourth, this title would tackle the wrong considerations and wrong bargains which were made for field facts. Here I am not talking analyses. Many who had met with presidents, princes, sheiks, and foreign ministers of states which are fighting now in Syria indirectly have heard from them clear evaluations which say that the regime would stand for two months. Then they renewed for another two months and later on for three extra months. Then they specified last month of Ramadan before they said the current Month of Ramadan which passed a couple of months ago. Every week or fortnight, they show up on Arab satellites and say it is the decisive battle in Damascus. Still things do not move as such.

Well, two years have passed on the war and the bloody fighting in Syria. Where to would field events lead? Some are practicing pressure especially in the coming few months. So let's be frank. Some people are looking forward to Obama-Putin Summit. Things are being pushed towards the worst stage so as to impose political facts via field facts. Well, where might Syria go in this case?

Here I would like to move to the stance so that I would not remain discussing the vision. Based on this vision, I may tell you that you can't topple Damascus. You are not able to topple the regime militarily. The battle is long, and we – and all of our track, international, regional, local, Islamic, Sunnite, Shiite, Durzi, Christian, Alawite or whatever group – and even the regime never called for ending the debate militarily even if it is able to end it militarily. We do not instigate for such a track also for reasons that have to do with the shar'i vision and stance. However, here we are telling you that you are not able with your military power to topple the regime militarily.

After two weeks and through field facts – the data and field facts – show inefficiency in this issue. Do not pay attention to what is said in some Arab and international satellite channels who say lies. Notice that you are still fighting who is fighting you – namely the Syrian Army and the popular forces loyal to the regime in Syria – this is to refute some of what is being said in the media. So far, there aren't Iranian troops in Syria. Everybody knows that. Nobody claimed that except some Arab satellites unfortunately. Should the Americans or the English or the French or the Europeans have had any data to this effect, they would have aroused this issue and made a big fuss about it. Everybody knows that there aren't any Iranian troops in Syria. There might be some experts in few numbers; however, they have been in Syria for decades before these events. So you are fighting the Syrian Army and the popular forces which are loyal to the regime. Whatever is said on troops and interventions contrary to this is either groundless or extremely exaggerated.

If this is the case so far, what would be the case in the future, should things mount to what is more serious and lead to the actual intervention of states or forces or resistance movements in the field confrontation in Syria?

I want to say two things which constitute the stance;

First I will say in broad lines – and as they end a scientific research: Take notice, understand and reflect: Syria has in the region and in the world true friends who would not allow Syria to fall in the hand of America or Israel or Takfiri groups. They will not allow that. How? Details and interpretations would come later. When I say so, I do so based on information and detailed follow up and not based on prediction, analysis or expectations.

The second point is readdressing a call – and not saying something new – to the Arab peoples, Islamic peoples, the Arab states, the Islamic states, to all the Syrians, to all who want to save Syria, all who claim that their hearts bleed on the Syrian people regardless of their sects, all who mourn daily the blood which is being shed in Syria, who have mind, morals, religion and values, who don't want to lose the Palestinian cause in new liquidation projects, the Lebanese who want Lebanon's interest, the Iraqis who want Iraq's interest, the Jordanians who want Jordan's interest, the Turks who want Turkey's interest, and all the peoples in the region: This is the only path. This is the only address to the crisis and catastrophe of the emigrants. Jordan is calling on the General Assembly to hold a session to this effect. Lebanon is yelling. None of the promises was realized. Lebanon is lurking under the impact of a million emigrants. The radical solution to the crisis of the emigrants is that they return to their villages, houses and country honorably, dignified, and free. This is made possible via a political settlement. The shar'i, political, national, and moral duty is that everyone seeks a political settlement and a political solution.

As for going on bargaining, I say no for that. That's because some people may misunderstand things. No! From the very first day, we called for this. Today too we call for that, and we assert that bargaining on military options are great adventures that will not lead anywhere. That would rather lead to more damage and attrition of the peoples of the region and all the interests of the nation whether of Muslims or Christians. Whoever is concerned about Muslims, Christians, Shiites, and Sunnites, must seek to find a political solution and a true political settlement in Syria as soon as possible.

What I know in this framework is that the regime has announced a long time ago its willingness to carry dialogue and reach a political settlement. What I also know is that the regime has informed the names of the Syrian delegation which is charged of dialogue and which represents the regime. However, the other side still refuses to carry dialogue and reach a political settlement and imposes conditions that cripple dialogue and push things towards a great confrontation and international military intervention. We have all watched the resigned head of the coalition who when on the first day announced his willingness for dialogue was charged with treason and attacked harshly only because he used the term "dialogue".

Today the solution which realizes the interests of Syria and its people, army, future, present day, regional position as well as the interests of the Lebanese, the Palestinians and the peoples of the region is this track. Any insistence on refusing dialogue and on refusing a political solution would push things to what is worse. How are we to judge on people who think in such a way? This is as far as the general stance and the general vision is concerned. This is how we used to see things and we still view them in such a way. Never a fatwa was issued from this track which labels the blood of people permissible. Unfortunately, in the other track, states, governments, sheiks and even politicians issued fatwas which label blood permissible pursuant to a political stance and a political vision.

As for Reef Qasir, I have tackled this issue previously and mentioned that there are more than 30 thousand Lebanese people – whether Muslims or Christians - in a number of villages. So the issue is not that of the followers of one sect. I said that these Lebanese are targeted and were targeted. Their houses were subject to fire; some of their villages were occupied; they were subject to killing and kidnapping; they were prevented from going to their work and to their fields; their very existence in these villages was threatened. I did not invent this threat. This threat exists on mobile messages and websites and in the psychological wars which were launched on the residents of that area. What made the state graver in the past few months is that due to the field facts, the Syrian army was obliged to vacate some of these villages and consequently these people became face to face with the armed groups.

In the course of my speech, I also said that we always used to push the residents of these towns and villages to make reconciliations in their neighborhoods and to reach a truce. So whenever a truce was reached or a reconciliation was made, we used to back it. However, armed groups used to breach any truce or reconciliation reached among the residents of that region because their plot is something else. They do not have a local project.

In the latest period, the rate of aggressions increased in these villages. Moreover, there is confirmed information that a great number of fighters are being prepared to control these villages which are resided by Lebanese. A day may come when we may say names and facts and figures as some Lebanese are involved in this. It was normal that the Syrian Army and the popular forces loyal to the army and the residents of this area be supplied with the appropriate or available assistance to confront this threat. Thus things went as they did in the past weeks in Reef Qasir and they did not end yet as these villages and areas are still subject to aggressions, sniping, shelling, and operations. Anyway, things went as they did, and tables were turned.

The country went into uproar. Much was said. Indeed some of what was said evaluated that as a reaction. Some of what was said labeled that as a reaction. Some people issued fatwas for jihad and called for dispatching fighters to Al Qasir and to Syria. Here I would like you to recall - so that none would begrudge anyone anything – that for two years in Lebanon everyone who could issue fatwas did – and even those who couldn't did too. Everything they could do in Lebanon and Syria they did: fatwas, speeches, instigation, sending money, arms and fighters not only via the borders but also via Turkey, Jordan and Iraq. So let no one present himself as a civilized civilian who has a political stance and who is standing aside. If you like, when it’s due, we will provide you with details, names, and facts and figures.

What took place afterwards? Well yes some of what was not said openly was said openly as some Lebanese fought in the past and also partook in aggressions against Lebanese in Reef Qasir.

Some said if some had a hand in Reef Qasir, who charged you to fight there? It is the responsibility of the state. Well, we always say that this is the responsibility of the state. However, what did the state do? Now I will not let the Lebanese state hold what it can't tolerate. In fact, what is the Lebanese state able to do? Let's be objective. Is the Lebanese state or the current, previous or upcoming government able to send the Lebanese Army to Syrian villages with Lebanese residents within the Syrian territories? Another state may do that. However the Lebanese state – and according to its nature and composition – can't do that. The utmost thing the Lebanese state can do is that it makes an objection at the Arab League.

Well, the Arab League is the one arming, funding, instigating and running this battle!!! Are we to plead with the executioner? Indeed, as we have previously said, these have the natural right to defend their existence, themselves and to do everything required to establish their existence and presence and to be provided with the appropriate assistance. That does not require a decision from anyone. This is a moral and humanistic decision. Here we are not talking about Lebanese of a definite sect. We are talking about all the Lebanese who reside in the villages and towns of Reef Qasir.

I wrap up this point saying: away from all the uproar, we clearly say that we will not desert the Lebanese in Reef Qasir who are subject to attacks and aggressions by armed groups. We will not hesitate to support them with whatever help, assistance and anything necessary for their steadfastness and existence.

The other point which is also very critical is the area of Sayyeda Zeinab (Peace be upon her). Let me give a general idea or to call everyone's attention. That's because at times there is a big and a complicated scene with details which are very serious and other details which are not with that degree of seriousness. Well these serious details are very grave and critical.

In Damascus, there is a region called Sayyeda Zeinab which houses the Shrine of Sayyeda Zeinab the daughter of Imam Ali Bin Abi Taleb (Peace be upon them) for hundreds of years. It is not important how you comprehend this idea. However, what is important is how others comprehend this. Is there tolerance as far as this point is concerned? For a period of time, the armed opposition sought among its priorities to seize the Eastern Ghota and the Western Ghota and to practice a firm siege over Damascus. The armed opposition and the armed groups could control some villages in the western Ghota in the neighborhood of Sayyeda Zeinab (Peace be upon her). Now for some months ago, some armed groups have been positioning in points that are only hundreds of meters away from the Shrine of Sayyeda Zeinab (peace be upon her). This is the fact apart from who is intruding and who is not. Well, this issue is extremely grave. Why? That's because the armed groups – especially those who belong to the Takfiri track – had sent clear messages and threatened even on the websites saying: "If we entered and controlled that region, we will ruin the shrine". Do they believe in what they say? Yes they do. That's because they have a jurisprudential problem in this issue. We have seen in Mali, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Somalia, when these Takfiri group enter any country, before seeking to achieve security, stability, peace, healthy water, the daily bread, and human dignity for the people, they search for any shrine, tomb, or monument which they label as idols and destroy them. Well that would lead to grave repercussions.

Let no one say we are exaggerating. In the past, the Takfiri groups bombarded the Shrines of the two Askari Imams in Samerra in Iraq. All of us remember these black days which led to grave repercussions in Iraq and abroad. Here in Lebanon was it not for the doubled and multiple efforts exerted by Shiites, Sunnites, scholars, leaderships and politicians to contain the stance, it would have led to grave repercussions. As far as Sayyeda Zeinab is concerned, let no one hide behind his finger. If Takfiri groups bombed or demolished the shrine, that will lead to grave repercussions. Things will be uncontrollable. Then neither I nor you will be able to do anything.

Thus I say there are several responsibilities:

The first responsibility is to be assumed by the Syrian opposition. It is not enough that the Syrian Opposition Coalition or the political opposition sides issue statements that object or condemn attacking this shrine or our sanctities or the sanctities of others in Syria. Who would take this seriously? No one will take this seriously. That's because the armed groups are present on the ground and they turn a deaf ear to all these coalitions which exist abroad.

The states which stand behind these Takfiri groups and which fund and arm these groups are held responsible. Thus these states must prevent these groups from taking such a serious step with such a magnitude. This is the required position.

On the other hand, there are some people who are defending this area and who are being martyred while defending this area. In their defense, blood, and martyrdom, they are preventing sectarian sedition. It is not that they are opening the gate before sectarian sedition. No, they are rather preventing sectarian sedition. Yes, this holy shrine is for all Muslims whether Sunnites or Shiites. We do not ever accuse the Sunnites. I am a Shiite and I do not accuse the Sunnites. When the Shrine of the two Askari Imams was bombed, you remember that we staged a massive demonstration in Lebanon. I then delivered a speech and told the Shiites in Lebanon and the Shiites around the world that the problem is not with our Sunnite brethrens. That's because the Shrine of the two Askari Imams as well as the Shrine of Sayyeda Zeinab has been under the guardianship and care of Sunnites for hundreds of years. However, our conflict is with the Takfiri groups who kill and slaughter Sunnites as well as Shiites, ruin the shrines of Sunnites and Shiites, and label Sunnites and Shiites as unbelievers. What is the way to prevent these Takfiri groups from pushing Sunnites and Shiites to sedition and combating? It is that we all stand in their face whether as scholars who issue fatwas or as politicians or even on the battlefield levels as the fighters and the honorable are doing now. They are preventing the fall of the area of Sayyeda Zeinab or the Shrine of Sayyeda Zeinab in the hands of the Takfiri groups and preventing them from ruining the shrine because that will lead to grave repercussions.

I have watched some TV outlets in Lebanon who made interviews to the effect that the one buried in Damascus is not Sayyed Zeinab who is actually buried in Egypt. Now there is no time for such intellectual luxury. Does that change anything in the equation? That does not make any change in the equation. What is the significance of making a scientific traditional investigation? Hundreds of millions of Muslims deal with this shrine as being an honorable, blessed and holy shrine. So stop playing such games and wasting time. Who are to be held responsible in Lebanon or abroad? There are countries which I will not name now – perhaps time might come when we name them – who fund and arm and even call on these Takfiri groups to take steps of this kind. These countries must deter them. In the field there is who is deterring them. That does not lead to sectarian sedition. On the contrary, this is what is protecting everyone against sectarian sedition. Sectarian sedition would open its gate if we underestimated this issue and were content with words, literature, poetry, and intellectual luxury from here and there.

I have a final word concerning the detainees of Aazaz before wrapping up my speech. I have two other points which I will postpone talking about. We will tackle the Lebanese affairs Inshallah in the few days to come.

As for the detainees of Aazaz, indeed it is very painful that their cause is still going on for today. The scene of the families, women and children moving their demonstration from one street to another and from one place to another is also very painful.

The state has not so far reached a conclusion. That leads us to say that someone who kidnaps some persons and keeps them alive is kidnapping people. He does not want to kill them. He is practicing kidnapping for a definite goal. What is the goal of the kidnappers?

In fact, there is not in Lebanon an understanding or a vision for the goal of these kidnappers. What do they want? Do they want a ransom? Do they want money? Do they want a swap with prisoners in Syria? Do they want to practice political pressure?

If they want to practice political pressure, that failed from the very first days. Pursuant to our stance from what is taking place in Syria which is based on a national, Islamic, strategic vision which has to do with the entire region, no one can practice pressure on us or on our stance via these inhuman practices.

Well then, what do you want? Do you want money? Say then that you want money. Someone might say they asked for money. Whom from did they ask for money, and is that demand which was made true or untrue? We do not know. Do you want a prisoners' swap? We have heard in the past days or weeks that they want the female prisoners in the Syrian prisons. Well, I contacted Lebanese officials and called on them to verify if these demands are true. If this is true, I am ready to go to Damascus and to contact the Syrian leadership to this effect. However, afterwards, these demands were clearly denied in the media. Well then, what do you want? What are your demands? Where do you want to lead things? Demonstrations and sit-ins here and there may not lead to a solution. Negotiations held by the Lebanese state with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and other countries for several months by now did not yield any results. Do you believe that we can go on waiting and watching women and children moving from one street to another while the catastrophe carries on without taking any action? Do you believe that is possible? Where to do they want to push things in this cause? Here in fact pops in the mind a possible idea. Perhaps some do not want the kidnappers to make a demand which may be achieved, and some may not want the kidnappers to set the detainees free before an appropriate political timing. Underline this idea and we will elaborate it later. This is shameful. If there is such a supposition, that'll be shameful. Take the Lebanese detainees in Aazaz away from the political struggle sphere. They are visitors of holy shrine who made no crime or sin. Pursuant to what used to be said in the past, I say that it is we who are fighting you and you who are fighting us. However, these visitors are innocent. The same applies to the other Lebanese detainees from Miqdad Family. There are Lebanese families who also lost some of their members within the Syrian territories. This also applies to the religious men who are kidnapped in Syria namely the two patriarchs who were recently kidnapped. Anyway, we must find an end to this case.

Anyway, I would like to wrap up my speech with a word to the Lebanese and to anyone who hears me. We do not want any conflict in Lebanon, and we do not want the struggle to be imported to Lebanon. I even tell you more. We know Lebanese groups who staged aggressions against Lebanese in Reef Qasir. We know the names, the groups and those who sent them. Still we did not take any action. That's because from the very beginning we committed ourselves to keeping Lebanon away from any confrontation or struggle or fighting. That's because we are cautious and not afraid and because of love and not because of greed and because of the national, shar'i, moral and fraternal responsibility. However, I want to tell everyone that what is taking place in Syria concerns us all. Time is over or almost over for Lebanese and others to be content with expectations and emotional expressions to seek quittance through the issuance of statements.

The Lebanese people, Lebanese political forces, Muslims and Christians alike, the state, the government, and all who have relations abroad with foreign and Arab governments must hear one voice which seeks stopping what is taking in Syria. The war in Syria must be halted. It is shameful that when a senior religious man whether Christian or Muslim expresses such a stance, he would be dubbed as an ambassador to the Syrian regime. Anyone who expresses this stance – whether Christian or Muslim – would be expressing values, religion, morals, and national interests. Whoever wants to take Syria and our region to demolition is the one who must be accused in his mind, religion, background, and stance from what is taking place in this nation.

I conclude saying: Do not bargain on the field. Pushing the battlefield towards dangerous tracks will not stop at any limits. He who cares for the blood, wealth, honor, fate, and national interests must assume the responsibility of seeking a grand political solution which will bestow its blessings over Syria and Lebanon and the entire region. The rest will come later Inshallah. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.