Search Result in All

On the war on Syria: is there a policy shift from the US? Take for example, what US national security advisor, Susan Rice has said: The White House is currently revisiting both old and new options on how best to approach the Syrian crisis, saying it could become a breeding ground for terrorists, fearing its fragmentation, with the ouster of Bashar al-Assad no longer the number one priority. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss why this policy shift, whether it has any connection to Saudi Arabia\'s new appointment of the Syrian file, Prince Nayef, and how reverting to fighting terrorism as a priority sounds a lot like what the Syrian govt. delegation said at the failed Geneva 2 talks. Or is this a possible sign of US military intervention?

On the war on Syria: is there a policy shift from the US? Take for example, what US national security advisor, Susan Rice has said: The White House is currently revisiting both old and new options on how best to approach the Syrian crisis, saying it could become a breeding ground for terrorists, fearing its fragmentation, with the ouster of Bashar al-Assad no longer the number one priority. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss why this policy shift, whether it has any connection to Saudi Arabia\'s new appointment of the Syrian file, Prince Nayef, and how reverting to fighting terrorism as a priority sounds a lot like what the Syrian govt. delegation said at the failed Geneva 2 talks. Or is this a possible sign of US military intervention?

[15 Mar 2013] Tanzania shift toward Israel (II) - Press TV Documentary - English

[15 Mar 2013] Tanzania shift toward Israel (I) - Press TV Documentary - English

Saudi Arabia says it plans to make a major shift in its dealings with the United States. The Saudi intelligence chief says Riyadh\'s ties with Washington have been deteriorating for a while over several issues. A source close to Bandar bin Sultan says Riyadh\'s new stance is in protest at Washington\'s inaction over the war in Syria and the issue of Palestine. He\'s also voiced concern about the U-S growing closer to Iran. Bandar bin Sultan also criticized Washington for failing to back his country when it deployed forces to crush the popular uprising in Bahrain. The source close to the Saudi prince has hinted that the planned change in policy would have wide-ranging consequences, including for arms purchases and oil sales.

Saudi Arabia says it plans to make a major shift in its dealings with the US to protest Washington\\\'s inaction over the war in Syria. The Saudi intelligence chief has also voiced Riyadh\\\'s concerns over Washington\\\'s overtures to Iran. Bandar Bin Sultan has criticized Washington for failing to back his country when it deployed forces to crush anti-regime protests in Bahrain. How divided are Washington and Riyadh over Syria, Bahrain and Iran? Can Saudi Arabia successfully pursue its foreign policies without US support?

Story of a Policeman Short Movie - شيفت شب - Night Shift - Farsi sub English

[Movie] The next shift سینمایی - شیفت بعدی - Farsi sub English

[08 June 2014] PA calls for intl. pressure on Australia over shift in policy on East Jerusalem al-Quds - English

The Syrian army has been recently re-taking parts of Damascus from the hands of foreign-backed militants. We discussed that with retired army general Elias Hanna.

On the war on Syria: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, warned that Saudi Arabia\'s political and religious ideology is \"a threat to the world\". Has Saudi Arabia\'s support for terrorists reached such an alarming level that UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki Moon has said it will discuss Saudi support for terrorists in Iraq with UN members? In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss how isolated Saudi Arabia and its policy in Syria have become. Turkey, that has long called for the ouster of President Bashar Assad, is now calling for a shift in government policy towards Syria. In addition, we\'ll discuss how the U-S has come to recognize that their support for these insurgents has backfired, and further analyze reports of Western intel. agencies wanting to cooperate with Syria, Iran, and Russia in battling these extremists. Guests: - Journalist & Middle East Analyst, Sharif Nashashibi (LONDON). - Author & Historian, Webster Griffin Tarpley (WASHINGTON). Subjects: 1. REAX: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, warned that Saudi Arabia\'s political and religious ideology is \"a threat to the world\". - He was referring to Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative tradition which is predominant in Saudi Arabia, a key backer of insurgents fighting the Syrian government. 2. Saudi Arabia\'s ambassador to Britain wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone: with statements like \"Nothing is ruled out in our pursuit of peace in the Arab World... Act independently by rejecting a seat on the UN. The way to prevent the rise of extremism: is to support the champions of moderation: financially, materially and yes, militarily, if necessary. Saudi Arabia will continue on this new track for as long as proves necessary - This seemed to reiterate the sentiment expressed by Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan back in October when he talked of shifting away from the alliance with the U.S.: 3. It appears Saudi support for insurgents from AL Qaeda groups to otherwise, has created havoc in the region: From Syria, to Lebanon, to Iraq: And partly in Jordan, so much so that the UN chief Ban Ki Moon has said it may discuss this with security council members? 4. Turkey, has been a supporter of President Bashar Assad\'s ouster. But now Turkish President Abdullah Gul is now calling for a shift in government policy towards Syria. President Abdullah Gul said on Tuesday that \"I am of the opinion that we should recalibrate our diplomacy and security policies given the facts in the south of our country (in Syria).\" What do you make of Gul\'s call for a change in his country\'s policy? 5. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT: The Syrian deputy foreign minister says Western intelligence agencies have been recently visiting Damascus for talks on combating extremist insurgents. Mekdad: Mekdad said that the contacts appeared to show a rift between the political and security authorities in some countries opposed to Assad. Has the US and other Western countries like France and the UK realized that support for these insurgents have now backfired? 6. If Western intel. agencies are cooperating with Syria, which by default will include Iran, then why is the US then insisting Iran not to participate n Geneva 2, or only participate on the sidelines, a precondition that Iran has rejected? 7. United States, the West, Iran, Russia, Syria and the geopolitical shift, which has left Saudi Arabia isolated: Yet the pattern of global terrorism has been sponsored by the US, Israel, and their Arab partners Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Will the US stop its support for terrorists? 8. How far will the US go to counter Saudi Arabia\'s destructive role at least regionally: Are the 2 countries headed for a clash?

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.

As the Syrian army makes more advances against foreign-backed terrorist groups, the United States and its Western allies are seeking to establish closer ties with the al-Qaeda-linked groups in order to shift the balance of power in favor of the insurgents. Now the US says it is ready to hold talks with an al-Qaeda-linked group called the Islamic Front. What are the motives behind this policy shift?

Violence takes many forms - physical... symbolic...structural. Hunger is a structural violence resulting from current international trade laws formulated by corporate greed. The various forms of violence also implies that the moral activists around the world cannot afford to focus on only one front - while neglecting other - of the prevailing global injustice. --- Across the world food riots are taking place. Scientist and activist Vandana Shiva explores whether the future will be one of food wars or food peace. She argues that the creation of food peace demands a major shift in the way food is produced and distributed and the way in which we manage and use the soil water and biodiversity which makes food production possible. 17th Annual Margolis lecture at UC Irvine. July 2008.

Eye opening montage of news clips and photos that tell the truth about the events in Gaza. Courtesy -whatreallyhappened.com --Strategically speaking Israel does not have much time left in the ongoing conflict. Consider that it chose the timing of the current aggression very carefully-when the administration in the White House is in transition - the potentially most radical segment of the population in America - the students - are away from campuses and could not be mobilized easily and the general public in America - and elsewhere - are still recovering from the Christmas and New Year celebrations- and are also preoccupied with the economic recession. Still to the Israeli surprise regular protests with huge turn outs have been occurring in the US and around the world stripping off the deceptive cover of being so-called peaceful democratic and civilized from Israel-s face. The protests and alternative media sources deserve much credit in this regard. What is important to understand here is that if we are just demanding a ceasefire it is already part of Israel-s strategy in this conflict. There are good chances that Israel will end its aggression within a week before the new administration assumes office in the White House or the latest by the February 10 elections in Israel. Israel also knows that most people come out for protest only in reaction. Once the aggression ends the protests will subside and the new White House administration would not be pressed to issue a drastic statement. And that is only to the extent of issuing a statement- something on the line that Israel should observe RESTRAINT. The Bush administration did not bother to do even that much. Given the team of pro-Israel Hawkish-Pragmatists that Obama has assembled in his cabinet - if that is any indicator - chances are very slim that we will see a significant policy shift immediately.-- For more information see gazaawareness.blogspot.com

"The Diamond Empire" is a documentary produced by Media Education Foundation in 1994. To purchase conflict-free diamonds or not, that is not the question. It is actually to re-think if we need diamonds at all to feel happy about ourselves or express our love toward others? More regulations on diamond trade - to purchase only certified diamonds - would only inflate its demand and reinforce the monopoly of De Beers and its likes. Even if somehow we manage to address the problem of "scarcity" by dismembering the diamond cartel and etc., would that solve the problem? If today we address diamond scarcity somehow, tomorrow the hearts-with-illness will desire for some other “precious” metal or material. Instead of De Beers, you will have some other unscrupulous, profit-driven company doing similar exploitation. This is not to suggest that people don't engage in political activism, pressuring politicians and companies through protests and boycotts. Just that doing that won’t be enough. What is needed is a deep cultural shift in how people think and desire and somehow re-orient the focus away from the rat race for bigger, better, faster, and more that you see in almost all parts of the world - those in the middle and upper classes that can afford such luxuries and among the working and poor classes who can't afford but their hearts long for these luxuries, and if tomorrow they become rich, they would join the rat race with similar enthusiasm.

More regulations on the diamond trade - specifically, to purchase only certified diamonds - would only reinforce the monopoly of De Beers and its likes. Human beings are exploited on both ends of the diamond trade. From the poor miners in Africa to those people who are made to believe that their love could only proven by diamond. They probably do not know how much blood is on that diamond. And some, despite knowing, have simply become indifferent and cold (and therefore, in-human). We need to re-think if we need diamonds at all to feel happy about ourselves or express our love toward others? A related question to consider is that Are diamonds really that rare. Is diamond scarcity real or artificial? See another clip on this site by the title "The Diamond Empire" Even if somehow we manage to address the problem of "scarcity" by dismembering the diamond cartels and etc., would that solve the problem? If today we address diamond scarcity somehow, tomorrow the hearts-with-illness will desire for some other “precious” metal or material. Instead of De Beers, you will have some other unscrupulous, profit-hungry business doing similar exploitation. People should definitely engage in political activism, pressuring politicians and companies through protests and boycotts. But just that doing that won’t be enough. What is needed is a deep cultural shift in how people think and desire and somehow re-orient the focus away from the rat race for bigger, better, faster, and more, that you see in almost all segments of society around the world - those in the middle and upper classes that can afford such luxuries and those among the working and poor classes who can't afford but their hearts long for these luxuries, and if tomorrow they become rich, they would probably join the rat race with similar enthusiasm. Change has to start from within ourselves, from transforming our hearts, from changing our standards of beauty and value. More than just sympathy we need to get angry at our complacency and at the exploitation of people and environment and turn our passivity into concrete action.

حقوق بشر: نقل و انتقالات محرمانه Human Rights: Secret Transfers - English sub Farsi

The 16th summit of the non-aligned-movement was held on the 30th and 31st of August 2012 in Tehran. After the summit Iran assumed the presidency of NAM which would last three years. The fact is that the policies NAM pursues can affect the lives of 4 billion of the world\'s population, and aid a shift in the imbalance of power in global political and financial arenas. In view of this the Islamic Republic of Iran has announced it plans to use the unique opportunity presented it by assuming NAM presidency to fight global crises. So what will Iran\'s strategy be for utilizing NAM potential to solve pressing global issues, especially those that effect NAM member states. In this edition of the show we will be discussing Iran\'s NAM presidency in the next three years.

Full English Voice-over of the speech of the secretary general of Hizbullah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah(HA) delivered on May 9, 2013 on the 25th Anniversary of the al-Nour Radio Station. Syria is to supply Hizbullah with game-changing weapons despite Israel\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s air strikes reportedly aimed at cutting off the flow of arms, Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Thursday, vowing to back \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the Syrian popular resistance in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. You Israelis say your objective is to stop the capability of the resistance from growing ... but Syria will provide (Hizbullah) with game-changing weapons it has not had before, Nasrallah said in a televised speech on the 25th anniversary of the establishment of Hizbullah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s al-Nour radio station. We declare that we are ready to receive any game-changing weapons and we\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'re competent to possess and protect such type of weapons and we will use them to defend our people, he added. Nasrallah said the shipments of new types of weapons would serve as the Syrian reaction to Israel\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s airstrikes. Syria has long been a conduit for Iranian weapons bound for Hizbullah. Israeli officials say the Lebanese group has tens of thousands of rockets, but that most of them are unguided. Israeli officials said the shipments targeted twice last week included precision-guided missiles. After the Israeli attacks, there had been speculation about whether Syria would retaliate, at the risk of drawing Israel into Syria\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s civil war. This is the Syrian strategic reaction, said Nasrallah of future weapons shipments. This is more important than firing a rocket or carrying out an airstrike in occupied Palestine, he said. Israel never formally acknowledged the airstrikes, but Israeli officials have said Israel would keep striking any shipments of advanced weapons meant for Hizbullah. Everyone knows what Syria has offered to resistance movements, especially the Palestinian resistance. Israel knows that the source of strength of the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine is Syria, that\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s why it wants to remove it from the equation and to besiege the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, said Nasrallah. The response was foiling the objectives of the aggression and this is what the Syrian leadership did, although friends and foes wanted Syria to respond and bomb the enemy, added Nasrallah. He noted that Syria\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s highly-strategic response against Israel involves the decision to open the door to popular resistance in the Golan. The same as Syria stood by Lebanon, we in the resistance declare that we will stand by the Syrian popular resistance that is aimed at liberating the Syrian Golan, Nasrallah pledged. I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'m not speaking out of enthusiasm or sentiments, but a calm evaluation says that the stances issued by the Syrian leadership prove its strength of nerve, said Hizbullah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s leader. He pointed out that Syria has \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"a wise leadership that oversees the battle with the Israelis through a strategic mind, not through anger. Commenting on the joint Russian-U.S. effort to organize a conference to end Syria\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s two-year-old conflict, Nasrallah said it is shameful that the U.S. is being depicted as Syria\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s savior through the proposed political solution. But he added that any time wasted means \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"further destruction and losses and this is all in the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s interest. Addressing the Palestinians, Nasrallah said: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You won\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t find anyone to stand by your side other than those who have stood by you since years. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Palestinians benefit from any serious efforts to achieve a political settlement in Syria and prevent its fall into the hands of the Takfiris, the Americans and the Israelis, he said. Nasrallah stressed that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the only choice is resistance for those who want to preserve al-Aqsa Mosque and the Christian holy sites and for those who want to give back Jerusalem to the Palestinian people and to the Ummah. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The choice is neither the Arab League nor the U.N., the choice has always been the resistance, he said. Nasrallah lamented that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"today, after this Arab Spring, the Arab regimes are more willing to offer compromises to the enemy. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Palestinians were hoping that the Arab Spring would make Arabs less willing to offer compromises, but the scene of the Arab foreign ministers making a dangerous compromise, with the U.S. secretary of state sitting in the middle, indicates that the Palestinian cause is in danger, Nasrallah added. Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassem has said an Arab League delegation that met U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington last month recognized the possibility of a land swap. His statement was welcomed by the United States, the main broker in talks between the Palestinians and Israel, and by Israel itself. The Palestinians have played down a shift in the Arab League\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s stance, saying they had already agreed in past talks with Israel on minor land swaps in which Israel would retain some settlement blocs in the West Bank.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Lawrence Davidson, professor at the West Chester University, about Saudi Arabia saying it plans to make a \'major shift\' in its dealings with the US over Iran, Bahrain, Palestine and Syria.

Tensions between Ukraine, Europe and Russia are running high over Kiev\'s decision to suddenly scrap plans to sign a deal with the European Union. Russia is now accusing the Europeans of blackmailing Kiev to sign an association agreement with the EU. The Russian president says the E-U is using threats and pressure to shift Ukraine out of Russia\'s orbit. Vladimir Putin has also criticized the E-U for supporting protests against scrapping the deal. Putin made the comments shortly after the E-U accused Kiev of bowing to Russian pressure. On Thursday, Ukraine suspended signing the association agreement with Europe, citing economic concerns and trade issues with Russia. The decision has sparked protests in Kiev. Demonstrators have taken to the streets to oppose the government move, with the opposition leaders joining the rallies.

The Sun has undergone a \\\"complete field reversal,\\\" with its north and south poles changing places as it marks the midpoint of Solar Cycle 24. Experts say that the reversal of the Sun\\\'s magnetic field is, literally, a big event and it is a regular part of the solar cycle. While it may seem like the event could have catastrophic repercussions for the galaxy, its effects are actually more subtle, mostly interfering with space exploration. Some researchers say cosmic rays are a danger to astronauts and space probes and might affect the cloudiness and climate of Earth. NASA has released a visualization of how the switch occurs. Beginning in 1997 and ending in 2013, it shows the green positive polarity switching with the purple negative polarity. Solar Cycle 24 has been viewed as quite unpredictable. First, it came late by about a year, with extremely low activity recorded throughout 2009. This prompted astronomers to shift a predicted 2012 peak to 2013.

Iran has rejected a US proposal for it to play a role on the sidelines of the Geneva conference on Syria. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said Tehran will only accept proposals that respect its dignity. US Secretary of State John Kerry said earlier this week that Iran could help on the sidelines of the Geneva conference. His comments were a policy shift from the earlier stance of Washington, which is the only party opposed to Tehran\\\'s participation. Iran has expressed readiness to attend the event, but without preconditions.

Perhaps it would be hard for any country with easy access to abundant oil and gas resources, to adapt itself with a parsimonious pattern of energy consumption. This is what is happening in Iran. In fact the country sees no alternative but to move towards clean renewable energy, at a time when most of its large cities are struggling with environmental pollution. This is the sixth year that companies from Iran and a number of foreign countries gather in the renewable energy exhibition to display their latest achievements based on clean and efficient energy. The main objective of the event is to promote the use of energy from non fossil fuel resources such as solar panels, wind turbines and geothermal heat. Some experts believe that a considerable shift from oil and gas to clean alternative substitutes is far from reach in a short time period.

Aisha El-Mekki’s mother didn’t believe in ‘sparing the rod’. She also had a deep respect for teachers, nuns and other authority figures; a respect that never trickled down to her youngest daughter. Discipline was real in the El-Mekki household, so from an early age she and her older sister formed an alliance. They promised not to tell on each other. Sometimes El-Mekki even took a beating for her sister. When she was in first grade, the two were sent away to a private, all-white boarding school. In third grade, El-Mekki was expelled. “As a child, if I got backed into a wall, I would refuse to do whatever you wanted me to do because you were trying to force me.” Upon returning to her home in Philadelphia, El-Mekki’s mother – who worked until five everyday – enrolled her daughter in the neighborhood school. It was around this time that El-Mekki met her best friend, Shakora. The two began spending afternoons together, deepening their friendship and getting into trouble. “One time I was on a bus. It was a Friday afternoon. The bus driver said my pass had expired; that I had to get a transfer…so he gave me a transfer while waiting for the next bus and the next bus was late. We waited for a while. There was a crowd of people by the time the bus came. [The next bus driver] said that my pass had expired and that I needed to get off the bus. Well I didn’t have any more money, so I said, ‘I paid my fare and I will ride.’ This man decided that he was going to send a message. So he stopped a police car and told them that I refused to pay. The police emptied the bus and told the driver to drive to the police station with just me on it….so he drives this empty bus to the police station and they arrested me. And this just infuriated me. My mother had to be called and of course she was just livid….she had to end up getting a lawyer, and had to go court, miss time from work…and eventually it was resolved but I mean they charged me. I had a record. It was ridiculous. That was my first incident with what I consider police brutality…and how they can escalate a situation unnecessarily.” Three years later, El Mekki graduated from an all-girls Catholic high school. It was at this point that she began to question the Trinity. She didn’t want to leave the church; she believed she would go to hell if she did. Still, the questions remained. So she kept her eyes open. After college, El-Mekki decided she wanted to become a social worker. She learned about a group called the Black Panther Party that was organizing programs for the needy. “When I heard about these people feeding children – and I worked on the midnight shift – I said, ‘you know what? I’m gonna go up there’. And there were tables and tables of children being fed cereal and toast, and I was really amazed. People were doing this out of the bottom of their hearts. They weren’t getting paid for it. But they wanted to make sure the children were getting a decent breakfast.” El-Mekki joined the group. At the same time, her religious search continued. “I had an aunt that was Muslim. I used to visit her. She was not aggressive, she was not pushy, she was not trying to convert me. Anytime I had a question, she would answer. Her husband was very nice. And I liked the way her family was so calm. It was so peaceful. And so I would go visit her often. During that time I was in the Black Panther Party, and she didn’t disapprove. Everybody else in my family said, ‘Here she goes again, doing something off the beaten path.’ But not aunt Mariam. One time when we knew that there was going to be a police raid, and we were trying to get the children out because I didn’t want the children to be there. And she just told me to bring them to her house. You know? And I just admired her. I just said wow, if her religion supports revolutionary acts like that, then I want to hear more about it. So she would always be listening to Shaheed Malcolm’s albums. She owned every word he ever said. And she’d often have his records on when I’d go over there. And she gave me his book to read because I was always asking questions about him. And that was like the answer to my prayer. You know? The part where he said that our religion doesn’t teach us to be aggressive, but if you lay a hand on me, then I can send you to the cemetery. And I said, ‘I can do that. That is the religion that I need.’ You know, that allows me to defend myself. That doesn’t encourage me to just constantly turn the other cheek. Nobody else is turning the other cheek. They’re turning the other side of their hand. And so i decided you know what, that’s when I decided Islam was for me because it allowed me to be religious and at the same time, be revolutionary.” innerrevolutions.net

Supreme Leader: Saudi Government Should Accept Responsibility for Mina Calamity. 27/09/2015 The following is the full text of the speech delivered on September 27, 2015 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, at the start of Dars-e Kharij. In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful‌ Today, after a long break, we will resume our discussion, but our hearts are full of sorrow and grief because of the sad event that occurred in Mina and that turned our Eid into mourning in the real sense of the word. Every year, during the hajj season - during these days when the hajj pilgrimage is over - the country experiences a public joy. Hajj pilgrims return and families are happy because fathers, children and spouses are back. Families celebrate the return of their hajj pilgrims and the success of their pilgrimage. Every year, this is the case. It is a time of celebration, but this year, this celebration time has turned into a time of mourning. In many provinces of the country, the number of casualties is large and the remains of the deceased should be returned. Therefore, hearts are truly mournful on these days. One cannot forget about this feeling of grief even for a single moment. In recent days, this feeling of grief has troubled our hearts and the hearts of others. The conclusion that we should draw is that the responsibility of this heavy incident and this grave disaster falls on the shoulders of the Saudi rulers. They should accept the responsibility for this matter. If they shift the blame on others, constantly accuse this and that person and praise themselves in an incessant manner, these actions will get them nowhere. These actions are fruitless. After all, the world of Islam has certain questions. Is the death of more than one thousand individuals from different Islamic countries and in one single incident a joke? And God knows how many hundreds of people from our country have lost their lives. Moreover, it is not clear where the missing people are. It is possible that many of them are among the deceased. Is the death of several hundred individuals in an event - the event of hajj - a minor incident? Is it a joke? The world of Islam should think about this. The first issue is that the Saudis should accept their responsibility and the requirements for accepting this responsibility should be acted on. If they engage in criticizing and accusing this and that person instead of apologizing to the Islamic Ummah and to the families, this will get them nowhere because nations are seriously pursuing this matter. This matter will not be forgotten. I hope- God willing- that God will ordain good.