Search Result in All

Yemeni protesters call for transitional government Jun 28, 2011 English

Yemen protesters set up transitional council Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:18PM English

[05 Aug 2012] Somalia draft constitution to go to referendum - English Somalia has endorsed a draft constitution that is set to replace an eight-year old Transitional Federal Charter that governed Somalia since 2004. However contrary to many developed countries where people vote for or against the document through a referendum, in Somalia, 621 elders endorsed the draft that ended the Transitional period.

Darwin's Dilemma explores one of the great mysteries in the history of life: The geologically-sudden appearance of dozens of major complex animal types in the fossil record without any trace of the gradual transitional steps Charles Darwin had predicted. Frequently described as “the Cambrian Explosion,” the development of these new animal types required a massive increase in genetic information. “The big question that the Cambrian Explosion poses is where does all that new information come from?”

Deposed Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi has died of injuries he sustained during his capture by the National Transitional Council (NTC) fighters in the northern city of Sirte.

[30 July 2012] Syrian opposition meet in Qatar - English Syrian opposition has met in Doha to discuss formation of a transitional government predicated on the overthrow of the Assad regime. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on July 28, "Our Western partners... together with some of Syria's neighbors are essentially encouraging, supporting and directing an armed struggle against [the Syrian government]." On Wednesday, the first diplomatic blunder occurred in the London Olympics games when the South Korean flag rather than the North Korean flag was shown before women's football match. Meanwhile, the UK economy is in worsening recession. The economy is now smaller than it was when the Tory-Lib Dem coalition came into power in 2010. The Bank of England is going to print more notes probably up to 500 billion pounds more in an effort to stimulate growth.

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 talks continue in Geneva, we\'ll continue to strengthen the moderate opposition\" that was what President Barak Obama said while hosting France in a lavish ceremony in Washington, a stance that was shared by France as well. Why does the US continue to think that arming the opposition will lead to a positive outcome, never mind what they call the moderate opposition? In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss the prospects of the Geneva conference, which the Syrian delegation says the focus should be terrorism, not the transitional governing body, and why the prospects of parallel talks between Russia, US and int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi also look to lead no-where. Guests: - Journalist & Political Commentator, Richard Millet (LONDON). - Author & Historian, Webster Griffin Tarpley (WASHINGTON). Subjects: 1. The US is adamant in its arming of the opposition, the moderate one: Does the US even know who the moderate opposition is, why this persistence, again, making this announcement again during Geneva talks? 2. Another repeated announcement, by the US: the threat of foreign fighters 7,000 of them from some 50 countries, including Europe, with some American, tied to al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front, who aspire to attack the United States 3. This piece of news did not make it to major for a variety of reasons: that the intel. Western intelligence agencies have visited Damascus for talks on combating terrorist groups: Faisal Mekdad told state TV BBC that there was a schism between Western security officials and politicians who are pressing President Bashar al-Assad to step down; the growing numbers of foreign terrorists from Europe means there are common concerns 4. On the Geneva negotiations: the divided SNC: today we presented our main document which includes the steps and principles in transitional process: 22 points: formation of transitional governing body, made by the 2 parties...and some other points. The Syrian delegation response: comprehensive document detailing the horrendous deaths by the hands of these foreign backed insurgents: Why such resistance against first rooting out terrorism inside Syria/ 5. Parallel talks seemed like a good idea: Originally a Russian proposal, floated again, to originally include Turkey Saudi Arabia and IRan, along with the US and Russia: now narrowed to the US and Russia, with int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, slated for Friday? 6. Get Iran involved in the peace talks: Increase chances for a solution: Geneva track record obviously proves these talks have failed, except for the evacuation of some civilians trapped in Homs: What\'s the hold-up? 7. Reaction: Syria Media advisor: Botheina Sha\'aban: The West and Israel wanted to change regional balance and power to their own benefit: the outcome of the conflict: a proxy war, with Turkey Qatar and Saudi Arabia as the main supporters of the war under western and US influence: Has this failed, or is that still the goal?

\"As talks continue in Geneva, we\'ll continue to strengthen the moderate opposition\" that was what President Barak Obama said while hosting France in a lavish ceremony in Washington, a stance that was shared by France as well. Why does the US continue to think that arming the opposition will lead to a positive outcome, never mind what they call the moderate opposition? In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss the prospects of the Geneva conference, which the Syrian delegation says the focus should be terrorism, not the transitional governing body, and why the prospects of parallel talks between Russia, US and int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi also look to lead no-where. Guests: - Journalist & Political Commentator, Richard Millet (LONDON). - Author & Historian, Webster Griffin Tarpley (WASHINGTON). Subjects: 1. The US is adamant in its arming of the opposition, the moderate one: Does the US even know who the moderate opposition is, why this persistence, again, making this announcement again during Geneva talks? 2. Another repeated announcement, by the US: the threat of foreign fighters 7,000 of them from some 50 countries, including Europe, with some American, tied to al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front, who aspire to attack the United States 3. This piece of news did not make it to major for a variety of reasons: that the intel. Western intelligence agencies have visited Damascus for talks on combating terrorist groups: Faisal Mekdad told state TV BBC that there was a schism between Western security officials and politicians who are pressing President Bashar al-Assad to step down; the growing numbers of foreign terrorists from Europe means there are common concerns 4. On the Geneva negotiations: the divided SNC: today we presented our main document which includes the steps and principles in transitional process: 22 points: formation of transitional governing body, made by the 2 parties...and some other points. The Syrian delegation response: comprehensive document detailing the horrendous deaths by the hands of these foreign backed insurgents: Why such resistance against first rooting out terrorism inside Syria/ 5. Parallel talks seemed like a good idea: Originally a Russian proposal, floated again, to originally include Turkey Saudi Arabia and IRan, along with the US and Russia: now narrowed to the US and Russia, with int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, slated for Friday? 6. Get Iran involved in the peace talks: Increase chances for a solution: Geneva track record obviously proves these talks have failed, except for the evacuation of some civilians trapped in Homs: What\'s the hold-up? 7. Reaction: Syria Media advisor: Botheina Sha\'aban: The West and Israel wanted to change regional balance and power to their own benefit: the outcome of the conflict: a proxy war, with Turkey Qatar and Saudi Arabia as the main supporters of the war under western and US influence: Has this failed, or is that still the goal?

Hundreds of people around the world have held demonstrations near Egyptian embassies to support the ongoing protests against President Hosni Mubarak. In Turkey, groups of people gathered outside the Egyptian Embassy in Ankara in a show of solidarity with protesters in Egypt. In London, demonstrators called on the Egyptian authorities to avoid the use of force against protesters. In the Tunisian capital of Tunis, a similar rally was held in front of the Egyptian Embassy to support the uprising in Egypt. "We are here to say that the Tunisian people are behind the Egyptian people. They have suffered in the way that we suffered. It's time for change," AFP quoted one protester as saying. A demonstration is also expected in Germany to show solidarity with Egyptian protesters. Egyptian security forces have clashed with protesters in the capital Cairo and several other cities where rallies are held against the government of Mubarak. Thousands of protesters have defied an overnight curfew and to stay on Cairo's streets. Security forces have been replaced with army troops on the streets of Alexandria. Latest reports at least three people have been killed during Friday's protests, bringing to 12 the number of those killed in the unrest. Scores of others have been wounded in the massive protests. Egypt's largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, earlier called on all Egyptians to take to the streets. Sources say the opposition leaders brace for massive arrests across the country. The Egyptian government has cut all cell-phone and Internet services amid anti-government demonstrations that began after the Friday prayers. The army has also been brought in and military vehicles are seen on the streets of the capital following violent clashes between police and protesters. Opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei was among other top figures, who attended the rally. Reports say ElBaradei has been placed under house arrest after joining the massive anti-government protests in Cairo. Security forces initially prevented ElBaradei from leaving a mosque in Giza. The mosque was under siege for several hours before ElBaradei was put under house arrest. ElBaradei has said he would help head a transitional government if Mubarak steps down. Many more people including opposition activists have been arrested. Protesters want an end to the decades-long rule of Mubarak.

Hundreds of people around the world have held demonstrations near Egyptian embassies to support the ongoing protests against President Hosni Mubarak. In Turkey, groups of people gathered outside the Egyptian Embassy in Ankara in a show of solidarity with protesters in Egypt. In London, demonstrators called on the Egyptian authorities to avoid the use of force against protesters. In the Tunisian capital of Tunis, a similar rally was held in front of the Egyptian Embassy to support the uprising in Egypt. "We are here to say that the Tunisian people are behind the Egyptian people. They have suffered in the way that we suffered. It's time for change," AFP quoted one protester as saying. A demonstration is also expected in Germany to show solidarity with Egyptian protesters. Egyptian security forces have clashed with protesters in the capital Cairo and several other cities where rallies are held against the government of Mubarak. Thousands of protesters have defied an overnight curfew and to stay on Cairo's streets. Security forces have been replaced with army troops on the streets of Alexandria. Latest reports at least three people have been killed during Friday's protests, bringing to 12 the number of those killed in the unrest. Scores of others have been wounded in the massive protests. Egypt's largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, earlier called on all Egyptians to take to the streets. Sources say the opposition leaders brace for massive arrests across the country. The Egyptian government has cut all cell-phone and Internet services amid anti-government demonstrations that began after the Friday prayers. The army has also been brought in and military vehicles are seen on the streets of the capital following violent clashes between police and protesters. Opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei was among other top figures, who attended the rally. Reports say ElBaradei has been placed under house arrest after joining the massive anti-government protests in Cairo. Security forces initially prevented ElBaradei from leaving a mosque in Giza. The mosque was under siege for several hours before ElBaradei was put under house arrest. ElBaradei has said he would help head a transitional government if Mubarak steps down. Many more people including opposition activists have been arrested. Protesters want an end to the decades-long rule of Mubarak.

Hundreds of people around the world have held demonstrations near Egyptian embassies to support the ongoing protests against President Hosni Mubarak. In Turkey, groups of people gathered outside the Egyptian Embassy in Ankara in a show of solidarity with protesters in Egypt. In London, demonstrators called on the Egyptian authorities to avoid the use of force against protesters. In the Tunisian capital of Tunis, a similar rally was held in front of the Egyptian Embassy to support the uprising in Egypt. "We are here to say that the Tunisian people are behind the Egyptian people. They have suffered in the way that we suffered. It's time for change," AFP quoted one protester as saying. A demonstration is also expected in Germany to show solidarity with Egyptian protesters. Egyptian security forces have clashed with protesters in the capital Cairo and several other cities where rallies are held against the government of Mubarak. Thousands of protesters have defied an overnight curfew and to stay on Cairo's streets. Security forces have been replaced with army troops on the streets of Alexandria. Latest reports at least three people have been killed during Friday's protests, bringing to 12 the number of those killed in the unrest. Scores of others have been wounded in the massive protests. Egypt's largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, earlier called on all Egyptians to take to the streets. Sources say the opposition leaders brace for massive arrests across the country. The Egyptian government has cut all cell-phone and Internet services amid anti-government demonstrations that began after the Friday prayers. The army has also been brought in and military vehicles are seen on the streets of the capital following violent clashes between police and protesters. Opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei was among other top figures, who attended the rally. Reports say ElBaradei has been placed under house arrest after joining the massive anti-government protests in Cairo. Security forces initially prevented ElBaradei from leaving a mosque in Giza. The mosque was under siege for several hours before ElBaradei was put under house arrest. ElBaradei has said he would help head a transitional government if Mubarak steps down. Many more people including opposition activists have been arrested. Protesters want an end to the decades-long rule of Mubarak.

Journey Inside The Cell

God and Evolution - Can you be a Darwinist and a theist

Front-Loading & Theistic Evolution Dr. Stephen Meyer Explains

Former MP George Galloway and the UK co-ordinator for the Libyan Transitional National Council, Guma El-Gamaty debate whether the Libya campaign should continue

It is the world's biggest humanitarian crisis and it seems to be getting worse. Thousands of people are on the move fleeing from both war and famine and of all the countries affected, its Somalia which is most stricken with half of its seven million population at severe risk. While the UN sponsored transitional government has complained of food holding by some aid agencies the al-Shabaab militia says these NGO's have no business in the areas they control.

Imam Musa Sadr A member of Lebanese Amal Movement has described the abduction of Lebanon\'s Shia cleric Imam Moussa al-Sadr as a deliberate ploy by the United States and international Zionism. Khalil Hamdan, who headed a delegation representing the Amal Movement, told reporters in the Iranian capital of Tehran that the US and \'Zionists\' used Libya\'s fugitive ruler Muammar Gaddafi to implement the ploy in order to undermine the Lebanese movement, IRNA reported on Monday. Sadr, the founder of Lebanon\'s Amal Movement, was a popular and highly revered Lebanese Shia cleric of Iranian descent that disappeared on August 31, 1978 while visiting Libya. Hamdan further made reference to Sadr\'s endeavors to illuminate and spread the values of the Islamic Revolution and noted that Imam Moussa had elaborated on the point in his last article before his abduction. Accompanied by two of his companions, Mohammed Yaqoub and Abbas Badreddin, Sadr was scheduled to meet with officials from the then government of Gaddafi. At the time, Libyan authorities claimed that the Iranian-born influential cleric and his associates had boarded a flight to Rome, Italy. However, Italian officials said the three men were never found on the plane. Born in the Iranian city of Qom, Sadr went to Lebanon in 1959 to work for the civil rights of Shias in the southern city of Tyre. In 1974, a year before Lebanon\'s 15-year civil war broke out, he founded the Movement of the Deprived, attracting thousands of followers. In 1975, Sadr founded Amal, the first major resistance and political force for Lebanon\'s Shias, who were historically under the rule of Christians and Sunnis. Most of Sadr\'s followers are convinced that Gaddafi ordered his assassination in a dispute over Libyan payments to Lebanese groups, but the Imam\'s family argues he could still be alive in a Libyan jail. In 2008, the Lebanese government issued an arrest warrant for Gaddafi over Sadr\'s disappearance. Lebanon has recognized Libya\'s Transitional National Council (TNC), saying it would work with \"emerging authorities\" in the North African country to uncover the fate of the missing cleric.

END of TYRANTS Saddam Killer of Baqir Us Sadar Qadafi Killer of Mosa Sadar (Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - According to Al-Alam Network on Sunday, in an interview with the Egypt-based paper, Al-Youm, the representative of Libyan Transitional Council uncovered the reason behind disappearance of Imam Mousa Sadr and his accompanying delegation during their visit to Libya. He noted that during the visit of Imam Mousa Sadr and his accompanying delegation to Libya, and following talks between Gaddafi and Imam Mousa Sadr about Shiism, Imam Mousa Sadr accused Gaddafi of unawareness about Islamic teachings and the Islamic branches of Shiism and Sunnism and betrayal, following which Gaddafi ordered the murder of Imam Mousa Sadr and his accompanying delegation. Imam Mousa Sadr went missing during an official visit to Libya upon the invitation of the Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi, in the year 1978.

Hundreds of thousands of Protesters gathered in Tahrir Square in another Friday Demonstration dubbed " saving democracy and handing over power", the days demonstration comes after the army-backed government proposed a supra-constitutional document which entailed privileges to the army regarding the privacy of its budget as well as stating that the army is protector of constitutional legitimacy, a clause many felt was paving the way for the army's intervention in state affairs even after handing power to a civilian government. A large number of Egypt's politcal forces from far left to right participated in the demonstration but the overwhelming majority belonged to islamic factions, most prominently the Muslim brotherhood who said that they will continue adding pressure on the military council till the proposed constitutional document is withdrawn and specific dates of the transition of power to a civilian government is set in place for no later than mid 2012. Another main demand for protesters was the immediate end to military trials for civilians. over 15,000 civilians have been trailed and are currently serving time in harsh military prisons, which is what propelled activists to launch a large campaign against these military tribunals that have been repeatedly used against those who oppose the ruling military council's political decisions. many of those in the square felt that the there was a sense of unity among protesters despite different political affiliations, they criticized the military council's performance during the transitional period which they felt was extremely poor with ordinary egyptians still feeling economic difficulties and suffering from security conditions which have not been restored to normal since police were forced to withdraw off the streets in late january. The proposal of the Supra-Constitutional document drove out hundreds of thousands of egyptians in protest in a seen reminiscent of the early days of the revolution and they say they will not leave till the document is withdrawn and a clear timetable to the transition of power is issued.

NATO-supported politicians in Syria are isolated since the national election. Meanwhile the UN has about-turned to announce the presence of al-Qaeda inside Syria. Press TV has interviewed Webster Griffin Tarpley, author and historian from Washington about the admission by UN and US heads that al-Qaeda is attempting to destabilize Syria from inside the country after so long refusing to admit its presence and surmises on why the announcement would be made at this point in time. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview. Press TV: How surprising is it to you to see UN Chief Ban Ki Moon expressing concern about the situation in Syria? And what does Ban Ki Moon's breaking of his own silence mean to the UN Security Council? Tarpley: In the case of Ban Ki Moon we must always suspect ulterior motives i.e. an evil intent. And in these circles that Ban Ki Moon speaks for, that is to say NATO and imperialism in general, the new line is no longer to deny the presence of al-Qaeda in Syria, but to begin to cite al-Qaeda as yet another reason why an invasion and bombing will be necessary that is to say, if this terrible situation goes on any longer that al-Qaeda might get the upper hand. We heard Hilry Clinton in a rare moment of candor in the past week also conceding the presence of al-Qaeda in Syria. However, we need to point out that the reason al-Qaeda is there is because these NATO heads of government, heads of state and other officials have brought al-Qaeda into the picture. Al-Qaeda is what it always was, the CIA Arab Legion and in particular some of the most experienced al-Qaeda operatives were brought from Tripoli in Libya all the way to southern Turkey to Iskandaron and other places in kind of an airlift by NATO some months ago. So much so that when Ambassador Jafari of Syria showed his CD at the UN - he said that the Syrian government has these confessions of foreign fighters including Turkish and Libyan foreign fighters and I think we can assume that's the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is therefore al-Qaeda. So, Ban Ki Moon is just as morally bankrupt as he always was, it's just that he has had to change his mode of attack. The entire situation of this resistance is of course desperate. As a result of the Syrian election a couple of weeks ago when more than half of the possible voters voted under the worst possible conditions, the Syrian National Council is breaking apart and the leader (Berhan) Ghalioun has now resigned, he's out. So, there is no coherent opposition so now they're less worried about trying to pretend that there's a political opposition and more with let's get on with the invasion. Press TV: Just imagine if those armed gangs who claim to be the saviors of the Syrian people, yet kill civilians and use the human population as a human shield according to reports - just imagine if they came to power, I mean, what kind of a government would we see? Isn't it paradoxical? Tarpley: This is of course the essence of the imperialist policy, it is partition, mini-states, micro-states and failed states. It's more or less what you see in Libya. We notice that the Western media have been much less interested in showing us the wonders of democracy, the singing tomorrows of the National Transitional Council in Libya because that country of course is tragically breaking up and you've got terrorist gangs and the beginnings of a separation of different parts of the country. This is what they would like to bring to Syria using NATO bombing, invasion… and the shock troops i.e. the people NATO has on the ground at the moment are these al-Qaeda types supplemented of course by mercenaries from France, turkey and other countries. The specific emphasis we have right now though is to try to cut a corridor - and it won't be a humanitarian corridor, it will be a terror corridor - starting with Tripoli to northern Lebanon and this Kleyate airport, which NATO would like to seize. That's why we've had an increase in terrorist assassinations in that area; we've had the kidnapping of the pilgrims… This is a thrust to try to get a corridor from the Mediterranean into Syria through Tripoli and the Kleyate airport. Press TV: What lies ahead for Syria in the long term especially in terms of the Assad government? How long can the Assad government resist and maintain its power? Tarpley: I think the Assad government politically is better off in the last two weeks than it was before because they've successfully carried out a national election, a multi-party election; the Constitution has been changed so that the Baath Party no longer has a monopoly of power. I think anybody who is sincerely interested in democratic reforms has participated in that election; some of them did get elected. The people who have been boycotting it have isolated themselves - they're now exposed as either al-Qaeda or fellow travelers with al-Qaeda. So it seems to me the NATO political situation has gotten desperate and the only way out of that is to try to escalate the military side. But there once again they risk the collision with Russia, China and others who are not going to allow them to do that at least under the UN cover. One of the places to look for a possible resolution for this is the Bilderberg-er meeting here in Washington SC at the end of next week, would typically be a place where a solution to that dilemma might emerge and therefore bears very, very careful watching.

[26 June 2012] Lebanese Committee criticizes Abdul Jalil remarks on Imam Moussa Sadr case - English

[06 July 2012] Syrians can determine their own destiny - English Last week, UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan proposed a transitional government to be set up during a meeting held in Geneva. Interview with George Jabour, political analyst

[07 July 2012] Geneva Meeting Clear or Cloudy Sky over Syria - English The latest meeting in Geneva on the current situation in Syria seems to lack executive mechanism as well as true will for its implementation. The special UN-envoy Kofi Annan says the meetings have not helped his plan, while the Syrian opposition outside the country has failed to form a unified political stance. Russia accuses the United States and its Western allies of trying to distort a previous deal reached by world powers on Syria in the Geneva meeting. On June 30, an agreement was made during the Geneva meeting on a Syrian-led transitional governing body that "could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups, and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent."

The Saudi Prince, Turki Bin Faisal, announced in a speech in Washington DC this week, that the kingdom\'s aid to Yemen is currently \"on hold\" amid the political uncertainty of the country. Saudi Arabia is a main player in Yemen\'s power transfer deal and is obliged to aid Yemen during the transitional period.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has called on the Syria\\\'s divided foreign-backed opposition to join the upcoming peace conference in Geneva. Kerry says the purpose of the Geneva Two conference is to find a way to install a transitional government. The US secretary of state says the opposition can veto any names for an interim leadership, including President Bashar al-Assad\\\'s. Kerry also says that the talks in Geneva are the only way to end the bloody conflict in Syria. The deeply divided foreign-backed opposition will vote Friday on whether to attend the peace talks which are scheduled for next week.

As if the Syrian talks in Geneva did not face enough challenges, a new one came into the picture, when US Congress approved continued support for what it called moderate Syrian rebels, raising the question again about a good and a bad terrorist. It also upped the bar on what type of aid: previously from non-lethal like night goggles, to small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll ask doesn\'t this contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Guests: - National Coordinator, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Brian Becker (WASHINGTON). - Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Lawrence Korb (WASHINGTON). Subjects: 1. From non-lethal aid, like nigh vision goggles and army uniforms, to a variety of small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. - Funded by the U-S Congress, in votes behind closed doors, through the end of government fiscal year 2014, which ends on September 30: THAT MEANS FOR THE NEXT 8 MONTHS. - Also the issue that arms may fall into the hands of \"bad terrorists\", something US experienced in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Syria. 2. What about the good terrorist/bad terrorist scenario: this differentiation just can\'t apply, especially to the terrorists inside Syria, which the US calls the moderate Syrian rebels? 3. American military aid, now with explicit congressional approval: Doesn\'t it contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Whatever happened to US Sec. of State John Kerry saying repeatedly that there is no military solution? - Russia is working with the US to find a political solution, and suddenly US arms supplies, which contradicts the initiative 4. On terrorists: John Kerry said during opening of Geneva talks: in reference to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad: \"The Assad regime is a magnet for terrorists. The regime\'s brutality is the source of the violent extremism in Syria today: Is the US completely turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia\'s support for terrorists? 5. Timeline: Beg. Dec.: the US and Britain announced that they had suspended non-lethal aid: Why? Reports that their aid supplies could end up in hostile hands. Then in late December, reversed that decision: Yet US Congress \"secretly\" approved sending small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets, also in Dec.: the US was not telling the truth, or given that this was done in secret, did not want it to be made public? 6. On the Syrian talks in Geneva: According to the divided opposition: the Syrian delegation has accepted the establishment of a transitional government body for the first time: Were it true, how what are the chances for the divided opposition to accept the govt. red line: Assad\'s departure? 7. Syria\'s divided opposition criticized a document presented by the Syrian govt which presented a statement of principles, calling for Syria \'s sovereignty to be respected, rejecting \"foreign interference\" and \"terrorism.\"? 8. Are we looking at u-turn from Turkey on Syria: AS we speak, PM Erodogan is in Iran holding talks with Ian\'s leader, its pres. and FM? 9. What may have happened if Iran was present?