Search Result in All

British media: UK directly involved in Saudi war on Yemen

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE MERCIFUL THE BENEFICENT The Consulate General of Pakistan Toronto, ON PROTEST MEMORANDUM We, as Pakistanis, condemn the Official Visit of Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and disassociate ourselves from his criminal acts around the globe. We demand the Govt of Pakistan to not welcome Aal e Saud criminals in Pakistan, rather there should be a protest against his inhumane acts as; 1. Aal e Saud, from the very beginning till now has been disrespecting Islam by demolishing the graves of Holy Ahlulbayt (as) and Sahaba (ra) 2. Saudi Arabia is directly involved in the killings of innocent human beings in Yemen, Syria, Iraq etc. 3. Saudi Arabia has been constantly targeting Shias of Alqateef Province 4. Basic human rights of everyone has been constantly violated in Saudi Arabia 5. Freedom of Speech is completely banned in Saudi Arabia 6. Saudi Arabia is directly responsible for destroying Muslim Unity and is especially backing extremist banned outfits in Pakistan 7. It has been witnessed that Hujjaj at the Shrine of Rasoolallah (saww) have been ridiculed and abused by extremist Wahhabi Mullahs on Govt payroll and has become a routine There should have been a protest against the heinous crimes committed by Aal e Saud especially Bin Salman, not a warm welcome. Seems as if the Govt of Pakistan is following the foot steps of Saudi Arabia by banning the protests against Bin Salman’s visit to Pakistan. Islamic Republic of Pakistan has already suffered in the so called ‘Afghan Jehad’ because of Aal e Saud and till today the nation is paying the price. Therefore, Pakistan should not take part in any of Saudi Global Destructive agenda anymore. Quad e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (ra) founded Pakistan so that it becomes exemplary for the rest of Umma, not a play ground for Saudi Wahhabi Extremist Aal e Saud Regime. Now, being patriotic Pakistanis we have our apprehensions that in the past Saudi ‘Riyal’ has got Pakistanis killed, therefore, we demand a transparency in the use of funds given to Pakistan and that there is no hidden/sectarian agenda behind it. May our beloved mother land Islamic Republic of Pakistan be safe and prosperous till the day of Judgement. Amin. Pakistan Zinda Bad … Hay’at Ulama e Shia (Pakistan) Toronto

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE MERCIFUL THE BENEFICENT The Consulate General of Pakistan Toronto, ON PROTEST MEMORANDUM We, as Pakistanis, condemn the Official Visit of Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and disassociate ourselves from his criminal acts around the globe. We demand the Govt of Pakistan to not welcome Aal e Saud criminals in Pakistan, rather there should be a protest against his inhumane acts as; 1. Aal e Saud, from the very beginning till now has been disrespecting Islam by demolishing the graves of Holy Ahlulbayt (as) and Sahaba (ra) 2. Saudi Arabia is directly involved in the killings of innocent human beings in Yemen, Syria, Iraq etc. 3. Saudi Arabia has been constantly targeting Shias of Alqateef Province 4. Basic human rights of everyone has been constantly violated in Saudi Arabia 5. Freedom of Speech is completely banned in Saudi Arabia 6. Saudi Arabia is directly responsible for destroying Muslim Unity and is especially backing extremist banned outfits in Pakistan 7. It has been witnessed that Hujjaj at the Shrine of Rasoolallah (saww) have been ridiculed and abused by extremist Wahhabi Mullahs on Govt payroll and has become a routine There should have been a protest against the heinous crimes committed by Aal e Saud especially Bin Salman, not a warm welcome. Seems as if the Govt of Pakistan is following the foot steps of Saudi Arabia by banning the protests against Bin Salman’s visit to Pakistan. Islamic Republic of Pakistan has already suffered in the so called ‘Afghan Jehad’ because of Aal e Saud and till today the nation is paying the price. Therefore, Pakistan should not take part in any of Saudi Global Destructive agenda anymore. Quad e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (ra) founded Pakistan so that it becomes exemplary for the rest of Umma, not a play ground for Saudi Wahhabi Extremist Aal e Saud Regime. Now, being patriotic Pakistanis we have our apprehensions that in the past Saudi ‘Riyal’ has got Pakistanis killed, therefore, we demand a transparency in the use of funds given to Pakistan and that there is no hidden/sectarian agenda behind it. May our beloved mother land Islamic Republic of Pakistan be safe and prosperous till the day of Judgement. Amin. Pakistan Zinda Bad … Hay’at Ulama e Shia (Pakistan) Toronto

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE MERCIFUL THE BENEFICENT The Consulate General of Pakistan Toronto, ON PROTEST MEMORANDUM We, as Pakistanis, condemn the Official Visit of Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and disassociate ourselves from his criminal acts around the globe. We demand the Govt of Pakistan to not welcome Aal e Saud criminals in Pakistan, rather there should be a protest against his inhumane acts as; 1. Aal e Saud, from the very beginning till now has been disrespecting Islam by demolishing the graves of Holy Ahlulbayt (as) and Sahaba (ra) 2. Saudi Arabia is directly involved in the killings of innocent human beings in Yemen, Syria, Iraq etc. 3. Saudi Arabia has been constantly targeting Shias of Alqateef Province 4. Basic human rights of everyone has been constantly violated in Saudi Arabia 5. Freedom of Speech is completely banned in Saudi Arabia 6. Saudi Arabia is directly responsible for destroying Muslim Unity and is especially backing extremist banned outfits in Pakistan 7. It has been witnessed that Hujjaj at the Shrine of Rasoolallah (saww) have been ridiculed and abused by extremist Wahhabi Mullahs on Govt payroll and has become a routine There should have been a protest against the heinous crimes committed by Aal e Saud especially Bin Salman, not a warm welcome. Seems as if the Govt of Pakistan is following the foot steps of Saudi Arabia by banning the protests against Bin Salman’s visit to Pakistan. Islamic Republic of Pakistan has already suffered in the so called ‘Afghan Jehad’ because of Aal e Saud and till today the nation is paying the price. Therefore, Pakistan should not take part in any of Saudi Global Destructive agenda anymore. Quad e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (ra) founded Pakistan so that it becomes exemplary for the rest of Umma, not a play ground for Saudi Wahhabi Extremist Aal e Saud Regime. Now, being patriotic Pakistanis we have our apprehensions that in the past Saudi ‘Riyal’ has got Pakistanis killed, therefore, we demand a transparency in the use of funds given to Pakistan and that there is no hidden/sectarian agenda behind it. May our beloved mother land Islamic Republic of Pakistan be safe and prosperous till the day of Judgement. Amin. Pakistan Zinda Bad … Hay’at Ulama e Shia (Pakistan) Toronto

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE MERCIFUL THE BENEFICENT The Consulate General of Pakistan Toronto, ON PROTEST MEMORANDUM We, as Pakistanis, condemn the Official Visit of Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and disassociate ourselves from his criminal acts around the globe. We demand the Govt of Pakistan to not welcome Aal e Saud criminals in Pakistan, rather there should be a protest against his inhumane acts as; 1. Aal e Saud, from the very beginning till now has been disrespecting Islam by demolishing the graves of Holy Ahlulbayt (as) and Sahaba (ra) 2. Saudi Arabia is directly involved in the killings of innocent human beings in Yemen, Syria, Iraq etc. 3. Saudi Arabia has been constantly targeting Shias of Alqateef Province 4. Basic human rights of everyone has been constantly violated in Saudi Arabia 5. Freedom of Speech is completely banned in Saudi Arabia 6. Saudi Arabia is directly responsible for destroying Muslim Unity and is especially backing extremist banned outfits in Pakistan 7. It has been witnessed that Hujjaj at the Shrine of Rasoolallah (saww) have been ridiculed and abused by extremist Wahhabi Mullahs on Govt payroll and has become a routine There should have been a protest against the heinous crimes committed by Aal e Saud especially Bin Salman, not a warm welcome. Seems as if the Govt of Pakistan is following the foot steps of Saudi Arabia by banning the protests against Bin Salman’s visit to Pakistan. Islamic Republic of Pakistan has already suffered in the so called ‘Afghan Jehad’ because of Aal e Saud and till today the nation is paying the price. Therefore, Pakistan should not take part in any of Saudi Global Destructive agenda anymore. Quad e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (ra) founded Pakistan so that it becomes exemplary for the rest of Umma, not a play ground for Saudi Wahhabi Extremist Aal e Saud Regime. Now, being patriotic Pakistanis we have our apprehensions that in the past Saudi ‘Riyal’ has got Pakistanis killed, therefore, we demand a transparency in the use of funds given to Pakistan and that there is no hidden/sectarian agenda behind it. May our beloved mother land Islamic Republic of Pakistan be safe and prosperous till the day of Judgement. Amin. Pakistan Zinda Bad … Hay’at Ulama e Shia (Pakistan) Toronto

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE MERCIFUL THE BENEFICENT The Consulate General of Pakistan Toronto, ON PROTEST MEMORANDUM We, as Pakistanis, condemn the Official Visit of Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and disassociate ourselves from his criminal acts around the globe. We demand the Govt of Pakistan to not welcome Aal e Saud criminals in Pakistan, rather there should be a protest against his inhumane acts as; 1. Aal e Saud, from the very beginning till now has been disrespecting Islam by demolishing the graves of Holy Ahlulbayt (as) and Sahaba (ra) 2. Saudi Arabia is directly involved in the killings of innocent human beings in Yemen, Syria, Iraq etc. 3. Saudi Arabia has been constantly targeting Shias of Alqateef Province 4. Basic human rights of everyone has been constantly violated in Saudi Arabia 5. Freedom of Speech is completely banned in Saudi Arabia 6. Saudi Arabia is directly responsible for destroying Muslim Unity and is especially backing extremist banned outfits in Pakistan 7. It has been witnessed that Hujjaj at the Shrine of Rasoolallah (saww) have been ridiculed and abused by extremist Wahhabi Mullahs on Govt payroll and has become a routine There should have been a protest against the heinous crimes committed by Aal e Saud especially Bin Salman, not a warm welcome. Seems as if the Govt of Pakistan is following the foot steps of Saudi Arabia by banning the protests against Bin Salman’s visit to Pakistan. Islamic Republic of Pakistan has already suffered in the so called ‘Afghan Jehad’ because of Aal e Saud and till today the nation is paying the price. Therefore, Pakistan should not take part in any of Saudi Global Destructive agenda anymore. Quad e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (ra) founded Pakistan so that it becomes exemplary for the rest of Umma, not a play ground for Saudi Wahhabi Extremist Aal e Saud Regime. Now, being patriotic Pakistanis we have our apprehensions that in the past Saudi ‘Riyal’ has got Pakistanis killed, therefore, we demand a transparency in the use of funds given to Pakistan and that there is no hidden/sectarian agenda behind it. May our beloved mother land Islamic Republic of Pakistan be safe and prosperous till the day of Judgement. Amin. Pakistan Zinda Bad … Hay’at Ulama e Shia (Pakistan) Toronto

As part of the geopolitical relationship between the two sisterly countries, the security situation in Lebanon goes hand in hand with the military escalation in Syria. With continuous rockets being launched across the border and clashes occurring between groups supporting and opposing Syrian President Bashar Assad in Lebanon\'s Tripoli, the Lebanese government no longer acknowledges a full dissociation policy.

LETTER4U - One of Ayatollah Khamenei\\\\\\\'s 10questions for the youth in Europe& N.America: Have you read Quran directly?

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday, Following is the full text of the interview: Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President. President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness? President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else. Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example. President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces. Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria? President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir. Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel. President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference? President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else. Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command? President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance. Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance? President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now? President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak? President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change. Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game? President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan. Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do? President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons. Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles? President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis? President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names. Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups? President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves. Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month? President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend. Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options. President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see. Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions? President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear. Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term? President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government. Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014? President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk. Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League? President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League. Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations? President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them. Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted? President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house. Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel? President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world. Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon. Al-Manar: Thank you.

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday, Following is the full text of the interview: Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President. President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness? President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else. Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example. President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces. Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria? President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir. Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel. President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference? President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else. Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command? President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance. Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance? President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now? President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak? President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change. Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game? President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan. Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do? President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons. Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles? President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis? President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names. Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups? President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves. Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month? President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend. Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options. President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see. Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions? President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear. Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term? President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government. Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014? President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk. Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League? President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League. Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations? President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them. Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted? President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house. Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel? President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world. Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon. Al-Manar: Thank you.

August 21, 2008 presentation by Stacey Bent for the Stanford University Office of Science Outreach's Summer Science Lecture Series. Meeting the world's growing energy needs in a sustainable fashion is one of the most pressing problems of our time. Professor Bent introduces the scope of the energy problem and some of the options for sustainable energy, then will focus on two main devices: solar cells and fuel cells. Solar cells convert the energy of the sun directly into electricity, while fuel cells convert chemical energy directly into electricity. Current research at Stanford is studying the use of new materials to develop the next generation of solar cells and fuel cells. The Stanford Summer Science Lecture Series is a set of informal lectures about cutting edge research from four of Stanford's most esteemed professors.

Friends, let this not come as a surprise to you. This is the reality we are living in where it is ‘estimated that one billion people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition. That’s roughly 100 times as many as those who actually die from these causes each year. About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger related causes… Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five.’ --HOW YOU CAN HELP -- Don’t waste natural resources. Be thankful to God for His gifts and blessings. Be mindful of your responsibility toward other human beings. Think about what the Prophet (saws) would do. Have mercy and compassion toward all humankind. Next time you spend money on those unnecessary luxuries of your life, think for a moment about the plight of the poor and oppressed around the world. Be aware of the materialistic forces and the contradictions of the dominant economic systems that are at the roots of global inequality. Don’t become a part of this system. Don’t become a slave of consumerism and endless materialistic competition. Understand that it is not enough to just keep yourself from engaging in consumerism. It's not always easy to protect yourself and your family against the multi-billion dollar industry of marketing. Join forces with other like-minded people. Strengthen your communities that can serve as a buffer against corporations. Engage in collective action. Transform people's consciousness and hyper-consumeristic lifestyles. Among other things, join a local organization that is working against subtle forms of oppression, like hunger, poverty, illiteracy, domestic violence, anorexia and bulimia, perfect body images, and endless materialistic competition. If there isn’t any, start one today! For ideas, you can look into doing online activism. Check out moveon.org’s work. Some online organizations also invite web surfers to click on their sites regularly. They say every click earns them revenue to support their causes. The Hunger Site is an example. Some may also invite you to buy their T-shirts and other souvenirs. I guess, you can buy these items if you think they can help spread the word and encourage people to join a good cause. But, in general, more shopping and more consumption cannot be a solution to human suffering. Selling consumers to products through clicks or ads is exactly what we need to shun. Because that feeds into the same loop of consumerism. My suggestion: Donate directly! And, encourage others to do the same! Lastly, remember the advice Imam Ali gave in his Last Will: “My advice to you is to be conscious of Allah and steadfast in your religion. Do not yearn for the world, and do not be seduced by it. Do not resent anything you have missed in it. Proclaim the truth; work for the next world. Oppose the oppressor and support the oppressed.” Become a friend and supporter of oppressed people and an enemy of oppressors and all forms of oppression."

Latest News: 15th May 2008 Saudi-Israeli plot against Hezbollah Thu, 15 May 2008 16:36:28 Prince Bandar bin Sultan (L), Ehud Olmert Former Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin Sultan asks Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert to move against Hezbollah. Saudi's Prince Bandar bin Sultan has formally requested Olmert to move the Zionist regime's military forces in the north of the Occupied Lands on the border with Lebanon as a threat against Hezbollah if the latter did not stop attacking government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Filkka - Israel website revealed Wednesday. Bandar bin Sultan arrived in the Occupied Territories in his private plane directly from Jeddah airport to Lod Airport in Tel Aviv. Bin Sultan asked Olmert to do what is necessary to support PM Siniora, offering to bear all the financial costs of any Israeli war against Hezbollah. Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert who is under investigation in a bribe case, said that he could not do so now, assuring his guest that he could not wage a war on behalf of Saudi Arabia, but he will discuss the issue with the Israeli officials in order to carry out military maneuvers in the south of Lebanon. Old News UK bribery disgrace in trade with Saudi Arabia: Former Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan received hundreds of millions of pounds in secret payments from Britain's top defence manufacturer with the knowledge of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, according to the BBC. The payments made by BAE Systems were actually a conduit to Bandar for his role in the multi-billion al-Yamamah arms agreement, Britain's biggest ever export deal signed in 1985, the state-funded broadcaster said it had learned Thursday. The alleged bribes were said to have been discovered during a year-long inquiry conducted by Britain's Serious Fraud Office (SFO), but which was abruptly halted last December after Blair said the investigation was a threat to national security. The dropping of the investigation also came amid concerns that it might jeopardize a new multi-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia to supply Eurofighters. The BBC said that the payments, believed to total more than Pnds one billion (Dlrs 1.9 bn), were sent to two Saudi embassy accounts in Washington, were written into the government-to-government arms deal contract in secret annexes. Allegations previously made in the British press have also suggested that Mark Thatcher, son of the British prime minister at the time, was also involved in the deal. The al-Yamamah deal included the supply of more than 100 Tornado aircraft and is estimated to have been worth over Pnds 40 billion (Dlrs 78 bn) over more than a decade. The new claims, to be made in the BBC's current affairs Panorama programme next Monday prompted the head of parliament's committee which investigates strategic exports, Labour MP Roger Berry, to call for a proper investigation into the allegations. Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said that if ministers in either the present or previous governments were involved there should be a "major parliamentary inquiry". "It is one thing for a company to have engaged in alleged corruption overseas. It is another thing if British government ministers have approved it," Cable said

Latet News: 15th May 2008 Saudi-Israeli plot against Hezbollah Thu, 15 May 2008 16:36:28 Prince Bandar bin Sultan (L), Ehud Olmert Former Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin Sultan asks Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert to move against Hezbollah. Saudi's Prince Bandar bin Sultan has formally requested Olmert to move the Zionist regime's military forces in the north of the Occupied Lands on the border with Lebanon as a threat against Hezbollah if the latter did not stop attacking government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Filkka - Israel website revealed Wednesday. Bandar bin Sultan arrived in the Occupied Territories in his private plane directly from Jeddah airport to Lod Airport in Tel Aviv. Bin Sultan asked Olmert to do what is necessary to support PM Siniora, offering to bear all the financial costs of any Israeli war against Hezbollah. Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert who is under investigation in a bribe case, said that he could not do so now, assuring his guest that he could not wage a war on behalf of Saudi Arabia, but he will discuss the issue with the Israeli officials in order to carry out military maneuvers in the south of Lebanon. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=55813§ionid=351020203 Old News : This is a Broadcast that hit mainstream UK TV. Please send link out. It exposes The UK Labour Party protecting illegal corporate activities of BAE and the notorious Prince Bandar whom the Bush`s nicknamed "Bandar Bush" because of the close family ties shared since the 70`s. The Scotland Yard Fraud Squad was about to seize The Princes Swiss Bank accounts, till Tony Blair and his puppetmasters pulled the plug on a 3 year investigation, citing "National Security". The very nature of letting this corruption continue in favor of weapons contracts is sheer blackmail. Whats good for the economy isnt always best for people.The Evidence of kickbacks and slushfunds uncovered by Scotland Yard proves its clear whos intrests they are covering up $%@{ The Law is the Law, and no one, including middle east royalty should be above it.

This video has been put together regarding the documentary that was broad casted on channel 4 on Monday the 14th of July 2008 at 8pm. The documentary failed to meet its purpose of presenting actual information. This 10 minute documentary is documenting on the Channel 4 documentary. The Quran by highlighting only some of the major accusations and misrepresentations made during the documentary. It gave a total misrepresentation of the Shia faith. The documentary gave the impression that Shias do not pray directly to Allah swt and take the Imams alehysalam as their lords. They did not ask one Shia scholar to give examples of where the concept of intercession is supported in the Quran instead they had a Sunni professor say that it was incorrect. Some comments were not only not true but completely inaccurate and seriously allegations were made.

A seminar was organized by youth of KPSIAJ Karachi on the topic "Affiliation of SHIA schools in AKUEB?" with the aim of generating awareness in the community regarding AKUEB. Speakers in the seminar were Aga Zahid Ali Zahidi, Aga Syed Ali Murtaza Zaidi, Moulana Shabbir Maisami. This part contains short speech of Aga Ali Mubabbir (Vakil of Ayatollah Sistani) in which he informed regarding his conversation on telephone call directly with Ayatollah Sistani's Najaf office

On Wednesday December 17 2008 activists staged a Shoe In demonstration in front of the White House. The rally was in solidarity with Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al Zaidi. WASHINGTON, Dec 17: About 100 people gathered outside the White House on Wednesday to protest for the release of the Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George W. Bush over the weekend. Muntazer al-Zaidi, who works for the Al Baghdadia Television, has been in custody since disrupting President Bush’s weekend press conference with the size-10 projectiles. If convicted, Mr Zaidi may be jailed for up to seven years. The protesters brought a giant head of President Bush, threw shoes at it and covered it with shoes before ending their protest. They also brought bags of shoes representing Iraqis and US soldiers who have died since the Bush Administration’s “illegal invasion” of Iraq. The peace activists urged the Iraqi government to release Mr Zaidi without charges and have set up a fund to support him and his family. At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the president had “no hard feelings” about the Iraqi journalist who flung shoes at him. Asked if Mr Zaidi should be forgiven, Ms Perino said Mr Bush trusted Iraq’s legal system to decide an appropriate punishment for the assault. The protesters outside the White House also displayed names of thousands of Iraqis killed in the war. The display contained their names, ages, places where they were killed and how they were killed. “These are real people,” said Gael Murphy, one of the cofounders of the Code Pink which along with three of the groups had participated in the protest. “They were killed because of the US invasion.”Later, representatives for Code Pink, Women for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Veterans for Peace told a news conference that they had come to White House to remind the Bush administration and the American people that “Mr Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis and 4,200 US troops”. They noted that the war also displaced more than five million Iraqis. “Bush is the real criminal, not al-Zaidi,” said one of them. “Al-Zaidi speaks for millions of people across the world.” “Arrest Bush, not Zaidi,” chanted the protesters as they marched outside the White House. “Bush is a war criminal,” shouted the protesters as they spanked a giant picture of the US president with shoes. The speakers who addressed the news conference noted that Mr Zaidi had become something of a folk-hero in the Arab world, and his shoe-throwing had become a symbol of dissatisfaction with ‘Bush’s bungled war in Iraq’

Anti war protestors demonstrated in front of the White House and brought more than just signs they brought shoes WASHINGTON, Dec 17: About 100 people gathered outside the White House on Wednesday to protest for the release of the Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George W. Bush over the weekend. Muntazer al-Zaidi, who works for the Al Baghdadia Television, has been in custody since disrupting President Bush’s weekend press conference with the size-10 projectiles. If convicted, Mr Zaidi may be jailed for up to seven years. The protesters brought a giant head of President Bush, threw shoes at it and covered it with shoes before ending their protest. They also brought bags of shoes representing Iraqis and US soldiers who have died since the Bush Administration’s “illegal invasion” of Iraq. The peace activists urged the Iraqi government to release Mr Zaidi without charges and have set up a fund to support him and his family. At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the president had “no hard feelings” about the Iraqi journalist who flung shoes at him. Asked if Mr Zaidi should be forgiven, Ms Perino said Mr Bush trusted Iraq’s legal system to decide an appropriate punishment for the assault. The protesters outside the White House also displayed names of thousands of Iraqis killed in the war. The display contained their names, ages, places where they were killed and how they were killed. “These are real people,” said Gael Murphy, one of the cofounders of the Code Pink which along with three of the groups had participated in the protest. “They were killed because of the US invasion.”Later, representatives for Code Pink, Women for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Veterans for Peace told a news conference that they had come to White House to remind the Bush administration and the American people that “Mr Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis and 4,200 US troops”. They noted that the war also displaced more than five million Iraqis. “Bush is the real criminal, not al-Zaidi,” said one of them. “Al-Zaidi speaks for millions of people across the world.” “Arrest Bush, not Zaidi,” chanted the protesters as they marched outside the White House. “Bush is a war criminal,” shouted the protesters as they spanked a giant picture of the US president with shoes. The speakers who addressed the news conference noted that Mr Zaidi had become something of a folk-hero in the Arab world, and his shoe-throwing had become a symbol of dissatisfaction with ‘Bush’s bungled war in Iraq’

The documentary 'Lifeline to Gaza' about the Viva Palestina convoy A message from George Galloway More than 1,300 dead – more than 400 of them children – and still they are dragging bodies from the ruins. The death toll in Gaza is rising, while the world’s leaders and media look away in search of a new story. We will not look away. The Palestinians in Gaza need our help now, just as they did when Israel’s bombs and illegal weapons were dropping. Thousands of people have contacted me to say that they have marched, cried at the television pictures and feel helpless in the face of the suffering. That’s why I have launched a major initiative in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I will be leading an aid convoy from London to Gaza leaving on 14 February and travelling through France, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and through Rafah and into Gaza. It will bring material aid and raise the banner of Palestine in all the countries that we visit. The convoy will be led by a British fire engine, ambulances, and many trucks full of practical aid given by the various communities in Britain. It is quite an undertaking, which I anticipate will have a high public profile throughout its journey and on its arrival in Gaza, god willing, some 30 days later. The convoy is already supported by the Stop the War Coalition – which organised the largest demonstrations in British history – as well as the Anglo-Arab Organisation, several British trade unions and a large number of Muslim organisations. Fundraising for the convoy is taking place all over Britain. We urgently need your help Money: please organise fundraisers, collections, donations which the convoy will get directly to the people of Gaza. Cheques should be made payable to “Lifeline for Gaza” and sent to Lifeline for Gaza c/o Flat 6, 1-2 Bowling Green Place, London SE1 1YL. or donate online

(الثورة الإيرانية / انقلاب اسلامی) The revolution for many Iranians is a new concept that emerged more than 30 years ago. This collage of video footage describes the sactifice young Iranians made back then, and how the new generation will walk in their footsteps today. With background vocals by Mohammad Isfahani. The Revolution launched a widespread lliteracy campaign from 30-40% during the US-backed Shah dictatorship to a 90% literacy rate today. It has brought forward innovations in being self-sufficient in the field of vehicle and space technology, nano-tech, nuclear and medicine technology and energy, laser technology, architecture, voting turnout of more than 30-40 million, widespread meritocracy, Shiite calvinism, 70% of university students are women, among them from many poor families. Subsidized health care, insurance, oil money distribution, VAT tax that is distributed directly to the public, political independence and more

A shocking report on rising birth defects in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. BBC Reporter stops short of identifying the cause of this teribble trend as it would directly accuse US of using disproportionate force during invasion of Fallujah in 2004.

April 26, 2010 Around 50 Palestinians and internationals had managed to stop the work of the bulldozers for several hours in the village of Al Walaja, on 25.04.2010. The Israeli soldiers tried to remove people from the area, but demonstrators managed to stay until they were violently dragged one by one. The Israeli soldiers also used stun grenades and tear gas canisters directly at people, as well as pepper spray. One Palestinian got arrested and several were injured. Once completed the Wall will totally surround the village.

This parasite feeds directly on the vital organs from the inside-out.

A ranking official with the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has implicated "the US, Israel and some European countries" in the deadly blasts in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan. Yadollah Javani, the head of IRGC's political bureau, said late Thursday that the latest terrorist attack in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan points to the involvement of terrorist groups under the auspices of the United States, Israel and some Western countries, which seek sectarian division, Fars news agency reported. Two explosions in the front of Zahedan's Grand Mosque on Thursday left more than 20 martyrs and over 100 injured. The first explosion occurred at 9:20 p.m. local time (1650 GMT) in front of the city's Grand Mosque, and was followed by a second blast within minutes. "The enemy seeks out division between Shia and Sunni Muslims in order to create chaos in the country," Javani noted. "One could not doubt the involvement of secret foreign services in the efforts to generate tension amongst Muslims," he further explained. The Iranian official also noted that confessions made by Abdolmalek Rigi, the Pakistan-based Jundallah terrorist group's ringleader, before his execution last month, unveiled widespread US support for waging an insurgency against the Islamic Republic. "Rigi's confessions prove that the US, Zionists and some European countries are directly linked with the Zahedan blasts, because he had confessed that the US wants bomb attacks to be carried out across Iran," he said. After Rigi's execution, Jundallah was effectively disbanded and experts say that the group is highly unlikely to have carried out the latest blasts. It is widely believed that hard-line Wahabis and Salafis trained by the CIA in Pakistan are the main elements behind the bombings. GHN/HRF/MGH The death toll from the twin bomb blasts in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan has reached 27 while more than ten times as many have been injured. The late July 15 blasts hit outside the city's Grand Mosque, leaving widespread devastations in its trail, IRNA reported on Friday. The two explosions that took place in front of the mosque on also ripped through nearby shops. The first explosion occurred at 9:20 p.m. local time (1650 GMT) and was followed by a second blast within minutes, local officials said Thursday. Emergency efforts are underway to help those injured. It is widely believed that hard-line Wahabis and Salafis trained by the CIA in Pakistan are the main elements behind the bombings.

Lebanese Mariam to set sail to Gaza A Lebanese aid ship will kick off its journey to the Gaza Strip on Sunday to deliver humanitarian relief to the besieged people of Gaza. The ship Mariam is scheduled to leave Lebanon's northern port of Tripoli for Cyprus on Sunday, an organizer said Thursday. Since Lebanon is still technically at war with Israel, the ship cannot travel directly to Gaza, it should pass through a third country -- in this case, Cyprus. The Mariam would be carrying around 60 Lebanese, US and European women, as well as cancer drugs, organizer Yaser Qashlaq told Reuters. A second ship, the Naji al-Ali, would also sail a couple of days later, he added. Israel, which has imposed a blockade on Gaza since June 2007, has threatened to stop the vessels from reaching the coastal enclave. The mission comes after the Israeli military attacked the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters on May 31. The assault left nine Turkish activists on board the Turkish-flagged M.V. Mavi Marmara dead and about 50 other people, who were part of the team on the six-ship convoy, injured. Israel also arrested and later released nearly 700 activists from 42 countries who were on board the ships, which were attempting to break the siege of Gaza in order to deliver 10,000 tons of humanitarian assistance to the long-suffering people of the territory.

Complete Sermon of Prophet Muhammad SAWW at Ghadeer Khum by Agha Hassan Mujtaba Rizvi - English The Ghadir event and its significance Seventy days before his demise, when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) 1 was returning to Medina after his last pilgrimage to Mecca, he reached the pond of Khum (Ghadir Khum) near Juhfa. It was the 18th of the month of Dhul-Hijja of the year 10 AH (March 15, 632 AD). By this time, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) had conveyed all of the divine commandments to his nation except for the formal and explicit public announcement of his divinely appointed successors as the leaders, guardians, and guides for the believers for all days to come. By the order of Allah, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) stopped at the pond of Khum, gathered the crowd of pilgrims, and delivered his last universal speech. In this sermon, he presented his last religious instruction which finalized the last divine religion and made Islam the perfect religion in the sight of Allah. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (PBUH), the fifth Imam and successor of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: “The last obligatory duty that Allah sent down was al-Walaya(adherence to the guardian assigned by Allah). Then, He sent down the verse: ‘Today, I completed your religion…’1 once the Messenger of Allah established it in Juhfa area.” This message was the most unique in the entire mission of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) due to the revelation of Verse 67, Chapter 5 of the Holy Quran before his speech. In this revelation, Allah warned His Messenger that failing to deliver this last message would nullify his entire mission. This unprecedented warning proves that this last message contained the most important religious commandment of Allah for the Muslim nation. Moreover, the contents of this last message were so crucial to the faith that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) emphatically required all those who directly or indirectly heard the sermon of Ghadir Khum to convey it to people who were not aware of its details, and parents to convey it to their children for all generations to come. Hence, this sermon addresses all Muslim generations of the world until the Day of Judgement. This emphasis naturally implies that the content of this message has a vital role in the future of the Muslims, their spiritual health, and their felicity in the Hereafter. The main issue that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) addressed in his speech in Ghadir Khum was that Allah appointed Ali Ibn Abi Talib (PBUH) as the guardian (Wali), the master (Mawla), the leader (Imam), and the commander (Amir) of all believing men and women, the deputy and the executor of his affairs (Wasi), and his successor (Khalifa). His sayings and commands should be preferred over the opinions of all others in every matter. Obeying him is obeying Allah, and disobeying him is disobeying Allah. Whoever follows him (and his sayings) is a believer under the guardianship of Allah, and whoever turns away from him (or his sayings) is a disbeliever under the guardianship of Satan. Guardianship (al-Walaya) expresses a bilateral relation between the guardian and the people. Observing al-Walaya by people means adhering to the guardian and acknowledging his authority by heart, tongue, and action. On the other hand, the action of al-Walaya by the guardian means offering protection from evil, spiritual assistance, care, support, and guidance for his adherents. A divinely appointed guardian guards his adherents from misguidance, spiritual destruction, wrongdoing, and sin as much as they adhere to him and his commands. Establishing al-Walaya has been the ultimate goal of religion and the fruit of the entire efforts of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) during his mission. One who submits to Allah’s representative and adheres to him has indeed acknowledged Allah’s authority and guardianship and is a true monotheist in obeying Allah. Acknowledging the guardianship of the leaders that Allah appointed and submitting to them is the greatest pillar of faith. It safeguards the followers from the wrath and punishment of Allah. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (PBUH) said: “Islam is established by five things: prayer, charity, fasting, pilgrimage, and al-Walaya (adhering to the guardians authorized by Allah). None (among them) was called for as (emphatically as) al-Walaya was called for. However, people accepted the first four and abandoned al-Walaya. People who refused to submit to the leaders that Allah appointed resemble the Satan who refused to submit to the viceregent of Allah, Adam (PBUH), and consequently, became an outcast and went under the curse of Allah forever as mentioned in the Holy Quran.1 It is narrated that Imam al-Ridha (PBUH) said: “The similitude of the believers in accepting the guardianship of the Commander of the Believers (Ali) on the day of Ghadir Khum is that of the angels in prostrating before Adam (i.e., submitting to him), and the similitude of those who turned away from the guardianship of the Commander of the Believers on the day of Ghadir is that of the devil (Iblis). In one of his speeches on the anniversary of the day of Ghadir, Imam Ali (PBUH) said: “Allah does not accept the faith (of an individual) except after he acknowledges the guardianship of whom He required. He does not arrange the means of His obedience (for an individual) except after he adheres to His ropes and the ropes of His authorized people. Thus, Allah sent down to His Prophet (PBUH&HF) on the day of the large trees1 that which explained His will for His sincere and chosen servants. Allah commanded him to convey (the message) without being concerned about the hypocrites or the deviants, and guaranteed him protection against their evil... By that, Allah completed His religion, and delighted the eyes of His Prophet (PBUH&HF), and the believers. Some of you witnessed this event and some received its news. This (appointment) concluded the beautiful word of Allah for those who observe patience… ”

This is a ‘meccan’ surah. This surah refers to an incident in the history of Makka, as an example of how ALLAH (swt) deals with those who oppose HIS will. About fifty days before the birth of the Holy Prophet, Abraha, the Abyssinia\'s viceroy of Yemen, Christian by religion, proceeded against Makka, as the head of a large army, with the object of destroying the Kaabah, because he wanted that there should be no place or structure more glorious than the church he was building at Sana. He had with him elephants. Therefore he and his army is known as ashab al fil, those who brought elephants. At the outskirts of Makka he captured a large number of camels belonging to the chief of Makka, Abd al Muttalib, the grandfather of the Holy Prophet. After receiving the information that Abraha was coming to destroy the holy Ka-bah, Abd al Muttalib went to see him and said: \"I have come to collect my camels. The Ka-bah belongs to God. He will surely protect it from your evil design.\" Abraha gave the captured camels to Abd al Muttalib He returned to the city and asked the people to retire to the neighbouring hills, leaving the Lord of Ka-bah to protect it. When Abraha entered Makka, suddenly a large flock of birds, like swallows, came flying from the sea-coast and pelted the invading army with pebbles of baked clay. They all died. They were like a dead and useless field from which all the produce is eaten up and only straw with stubble is left. Abraha escaped and went directly to the king in Abyssinia. All the way a bird with a stone in her beak followed him. When the king asked Abraha as to what kind of birds they were, Abraha looked to the sky and the bird at once dropped stone in her beak and killed him on the spot.The lesson to be drawn is twofold. The pagans of Makka were forewarned that as the Holy Prophet was superior to the Kaabah, ALLAH, who protects whatever is HIS own, shall protect him from all their evil schemes. It is also a warning to men in all ages that \"if a man intoxicated with power comes out to defeat ALLAH\'s holy plan, he cannot prevail against ALLAH (swt), but his plan will fail and destroy him as well.“ It is narrated from Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (as) that whoever recites this surah in his faraa’idh prayers, the mountains will bear witness on the Day of Judgement that he prayed and he will be taken to Jannah on the command of ALLAH (swt). The person who recites this surah is kept safe from his enemies and has his difficulties and problems solved quickly. Recitation of this surah is also helpful in remaining safe from evil tyrant rulers.

http://www.developphp.com Learn how to easily create and import 3d polygon model animations directly into flash, and then allow user to control the animation with their mouse.