What do evil dictators  look like?  What do they talk like?  Just how wicked is an evil dictator’s wife ?  Should she be toppled along with her husband?  Who am I talking about? President Assad of …


Publié dans Uncategorized | Laisser un commentaire

President al-Assad’s interview given to Associated Press


22 September، 2016

Damascus, SANA, President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to Associated Press published Thursday, following is the full text:

Journalist: President Assad, thank you very much for this opportunity to be interviewed by the Associated Press.

President Assad: You are most welcome in Syria.


Question 1: I will start by talking about the ceasefire in Syria. Russia, the US, and several countries say a ceasefire could be revived despite the recent violence and the recrimination. Do you agree, and are you prepared to try again?


President Assad: We announced that we are ready to be committed to any halt of operations, or if you want to call it ceasefire, but it’s not about Syria or Russia; it’s about the United States and the terrorist groups that have been affiliated to ISIS and al-Nusra and Al Qaeda, and to the United States and to Turkey and to Saudi Arabia. They announced publicly that they are not committed, and this is not the first attempt to have a halt of operations in Syria. The first attempt was in last February, and didn’t work, I think, because of the United States, and I believe that the United States is not genuine regarding having a cessation of violence in Syria.


Question 2: Do you believe there could ever be a joint US-Russian military partnership against the militants, as outlined in the deal?


President Assad: Again, practically, yes, but in reality, no, because the United States doesn’t have the will to work against al-Nusra or even ISIS, because they believe that this is a card they can use for their own agenda. If they attack al-Nusra or ISIS, they will lose a very important card regarding the situation in Syria. So, I don’t believe the United States will be ready to join Russia in fighting terrorists in Syria.


Question 3: This week, the US has said the coalition attack on Syrian troops was an accident. Do you accept that explanation?


President Assad: No, no. It’s not, because it wasn’t an accident by one airplane for once, let’s say. It was four airplanes that kept attacking the position of the Syrian troops for nearly one hour, or a little bit more than one hour. You don’t commit a mistake for more than one hour. This is first. Second, they weren’t attacking a building in a quartier; they were attacking a huge place constituted of many hills, and there was not terrorist adjacent to the Syrian troops there. At the same time, the ISIS troops or the ISIS militants attacked right away after the American strike. How could they know that the Americans are going to attack that position in order to gather their militants to attack right away and to capture it one hour after the strike? So it was definitely intentional, not unintentional as they claimed.


Question 4: Did Syria or Russia launch the attack on the Red Crescent convoy this week, and should Moscow be held responsible, as the White House has said?


President Assad: No, first of all, there have been tens, maybe, of convoys from different organizations around the world, coming to different areas in Syria for the last few years. It has never happened before, so why to happen now, either by the Russians or the Syrians? No, it’s a claim. And regarding the claim of the White House yesterday, accusing either the Syrians or the Russians. In that regard, I would say whatever the American officials said about the conflicts in Syria in general has no credibility. Whatever they say, it’s just lies and, let’s say, bubbles, has no foundation on the ground.


Question 5: So what happened to the convoy? Who should be held responsible?


President Assad: Those convoys were in the area of the militants, the area under the control of the terrorists. That’s what they should accuse first: the people or the militants, the terrorists who are responsible for the security of this convoy. So, we don’t have any idea about what happened. The only thing that we saw was a video of a burnt car, destroyed trucks, nothing else.


Question 6: Several eyewitnesses have told AP that 20 missiles were launched against the convoy. There is footage of torn bodies. This does not seem as though it would be anything but an attack from the air. Eyewitnesses are also talking about barrel bombs, and as you are aware, your administration has been accused of using barrel bombs in some circumstances. You still think this was an attack from the ground by rebels?


President Assad: Yeah, first of all, even the United Nations said that there were no airstrikes against that convoy. That was yesterday. Second, at the same time of that event, the terrorists were attacking the Syrian troops by missiles. They launched missile attacks, we didn’t respond. Third, you cannot talk about eyewitnesses for such judgment or accusation. What are the credibility of those eyewitnesses, who are they? We don’t know.


Question 7: We have eyewitnesses that were relatives, we have the White Helmets, we have many people saying that they witnessed helicopters in the air. Now, only the Syrians and the Russians have helicopters. Are you saying this is just invented?


President Assad: Those witnesses only appear when there’s an accusation against the Syrian Army or the Russian, but when the terrorists commit a crime or massacre or anything, you don’t see any witnesses, and you don’t hear about those White Helmets. So, what a coincidence. No, actually, we don’t have any interest in doing so for one reason: because if we attack any convoy that’s going to the civilians, we are working for the interest of the terrorists, that will play into their hands directly, in that regard we are pushing the civilians toward the terrorists, we put them in their laps, and we are providing the terrorists with a good incubator, something we wouldn’t do. This is first. Second, we are, as a government, as officials, we are committed morally toward the Syrian people, morally, constitutionally, and legally, to help them in every aspect to have the basic needs for their livelihood.


Question 8: Your administration has denied the use of chemical weapons, of barrel bombs, despite testimony and video and the results of a UN investigation. We also are hearing similar denials about airstrikes on civilians and medical workers. Can this all be false allegations by your opponents?


President Assad: First of all, the first incident of gas use in Syria was in Aleppo about more than three years ago, and we were the ones who invited the United Nations to send a delegation for investigations about the use of chemical weapons, and the United States objected and opposed that action for one reason; because if there’s investigations, they’re going to discover that the terrorists used gas, not the Syrian Army. In that regard, in that case, the United States won’t be able to accuse Syria. That’s why they were opposing that delegation. In every incident, we asked the United Nations to send a delegation, and we are still insisting on that position, that they have to send delegations to make investigation, but the United States is opposing. So, actually, if we’ve been using that, we wouldn’t ask for investigation.


Question 9: To the international community, it seems as though none of the charges or accusations stick, that everything is denied, everything here is ok, by your administration. Do you not feel that that undermines the credibility? In other instances, the Americans for example admitted the attack on the Syrian military was a mistake. Now, you don’t accept that, but from the Syrian administration, all the international community hears is denial.
President Assad: Regarding which issue?


Question 10: Regarding the accusations of violations of human rights, of barrel bombs…


President Assad: Look, if you want to talk about mistakes, every country has mistakes, every government has mistakes, every person has mistakes. When you have a war, you have more mistakes. That’s the natural thing. But the accusations have no foundation regarding Syria. When they talk about barrel bombs, what are barrel bombs?
It’s just a title they use in order to show something which is very evil that could kill people indiscriminately, and as I said, because in the media “when it bleeds, it leads.” They don’t talk about bombs; they call it barrel bombs. A bomb is a bomb, what’s the difference between different kinds of bombs? All bombs are to kill, but it’s about how to use it. When you use an armament, you use it to defend the civilians. You kill terrorists in order to defend civilians. That’s the natural role of any army in the world. When you have terrorists, you don’t throw at them balloons or you don’t use rubber sticks, for example. You have to use armaments. So, it’s not about what the kind of armament, it’s about how to use it, and they want to use it that time to accuse the Syrian Army of killing civilians. We don’t kill civilians, because we don’t have the moral incentive, we don’t have the interest to kill civilians. It’s our people, who support us. If you want to kill the Syrian people, who’s going to support us as a government, as officials? No one. So, in reality, you cannot withstand for five years and more against all those countries, the West, and the Gulf states, the petrodollars, and all this propaganda, the strongest media corporations around the world, if you don’t have the support of your own people. That’s against the reality. So, no, we don’t use it. I wouldn’t say that we don’t have mistakes. Again, that many mistakes that have been committed by individuals, but there’s a difference between a mistake or even a crime that’s been committed by an individual, and between a policy of crime that’s been implemented or adopted by a government. We don’t have such a policy.


Question 11: And yet the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who are fleeing the country, many drowning on the way, many of them say they are fleeing your forces. What exactly are they fleeing if this campaign doesn’t exist, if this campaign of violence, indiscriminate against them…?


President Assad: You have to look at the reality in Syria. Whenever we liberate any city or village from the terrorists, the civilians will go back to the city, while they flee that city when the terrorists attack that area, the opposite. So, they flee, first of all, the war itself; they flee the area under the control of the terrorists, they flee the difficult situation because of the embargo by the West on Syria. So, many people, they flee not the war itself, but the consequences of the war, because they want to live, they want to have the basic needs for their livelihood, they don’t have it. They have to flee these circumstances, not necessarily the security situation itself. So, you have different reasons for the people or the refugees to leave Syria. Many many of them supported the government in the recent elections, the presidential elections, in different countries. So, that’s not true that they left Syria because of the government, and those accusations mean that the government is killing the people, while the terrorists, mainly Al Qaeda and al-Nusra and other Al Qaeda-affiliated organizations or groups protected the civilians. Is that the accusation? No-one can believe it, actually.


Question 12: Let’s turn our attention to the people that can’t flee, the people who are in besieged cities around Syria. For example, Aleppo. To go back to the ceasefire agreement, aid was supposed to get into the city, but you did not hold up your end of the agreement. Why was that, and how can you really justify withholding aid to cities?


President Assad: Again, if we talk about the last few years, many aid convoys came to different cities, so why does the Syrian government prevent a convoy from coming to Aleppo for example, while allowing the others to reach other areas? This is contradiction, you cannot explain it, it’s not palatable. This is first. Second, if you look at the others areas under the control of the terrorists, we’re still sending vaccines from the Syrian government’s budget, we’re still sending salaries to the employees from the Syrian government’s budget. So, how can we do this and at the same time push the people toward starvation in other areas? More importantly, the terrorists who left liberated areas under what you call reconciliation or certain agreements in different areas, they left to fight with other terrorists in Syria while they send their families to live under the supervision of the government. Why didn’t we put those families to starvation? So, this is contradicting, I mean what you’re talking about is contradicting the reality, and we don’t contradict ourselves.


Question 13: But the world saw the reality of Aleppo. There were UN convoys of aid that were not allowed into the city. Are you denying that that was the case?


President Assad: The situation has been like this for years now. If there’s really a siege around the city of Aleppo, people would have been dead by now. This is first. Second, more importantly, they’ve been shelling the neighboring areas and the positions of the Syrian Army for years, non-stop shelling of mortars and different kinds of lethal bombs. How could they be starving while at the same time they can have armaments? How can we prevent the food and the medical aid from reaching that area and we cannot stop the armaments form reaching that area, which is not logical?


Question 14: So what is your message to the people to Aleppo, who are saying the opposite, that they are hungry, that they are suffering malnutrition, that there are no doctors, that doctors have been targeted and killed in airstrikes, that they are under siege and they are dying? What is your message to them?


President Assad: You can’t say “the people of Aleppo” because the majority of the people of Aleppo are living in the area under the control of the government, so you cannot talk about the people of Aleppo. If you want to talk about some who allegedly are claiming this, we tell them how could you still be alive? Why don’t you have, for example, an epidemic, if you don’t have doctors? How could you say that we attacked, they accuse Syria of attacking hospitals, so you have hospitals and you have doctors and you have everything. How could you have them? How could you have armaments? That’s the question. How can you get armaments to your people, if you claim that you have people and grassroots while you don’t have food? They have to explain; I don’t have to explain. The reality is telling.


Question 15: Yet, they say the opposite. They say they are surviving on whatever they can, on meager means, and they are a city under siege. You do not accept that Aleppo is a city under siege with people starving and hungry?


President Assad: Again, how can I prevent the food, and not prevent the armament? Logically, how? If I can prevent food, I should be able to prevent armaments. If I don’t prevent armaments, that means everything else will pass to Aleppo.


Question 16: Have you been to Aleppo recently? Will you go to Aleppo?


President Assad: Of course I will go.

Question 17: And how does it feel for you to see the devastation in parts of what was known as the jewel of Syria?


President Assad: Devastation is painful, of course, but we can rebuild our country. We’re going to do that. Someday the war will stop. The most painful is the devastation of the society, the killing, the blood-shedding, something we live with every hour and every day. But how would I think? I think when I see those pictures how would Western officials feel when they look at this devastation and these killing pictures and they know that their hands are stained with their blood, that they committed the crime directly in killing those people and destroying our civilization. That’s what I think about.


Question 18: Yet, to the outside world, it feels as though the end justifies any means in your war on terror. Do you accept that?
President Assad: They don’t have morals, of course. This is a Machiavellian principle; the end justifies the means. We don’t accept it, no. Your policy should be a mixture between your interests and how you reach your ends, but based on values. It cannot be only the end justifies the means, because for the criminals, ends justify the means, for thieves, for every illegal and immoral action, the end justifies the means. That’s exactly what you mentioned in your question, this is the base, the foundation of the Western policy around the world these days.


Question 19: What is your message to the Syrians who have fled the country? Some of them didn’t make it, others did. Do you call on them to come back, do you expect them to come back?


President Assad: Of course. It’s a loss, it’s a great loss. The worst loss for any country is not the infrastructure or the buildings or the material loss; actually, it’s the human resources loss, something we want to see coming back to Syria, and I’m sure that the majority of those Syrians who left Syria, they will go back when the security and when the life goes back to its normality and the minimal requirements for livelihood will be affordable to them, they will go back. I am not worried about this.


Question 20: Do you have any expectation of when that will happen, when Syria will be pacified to some degree that they can come back?
President Assad: If we look at it according to the internal Syrian factors, I would say it’s very soon, a few months, and I’m sure about that, I’m not exaggerating, but when you talk about it as part of a global conflict and a regional conflict, when you have many external factors that you don’t control, it’s going to drag on and no-one in this world can tell you when but the countries, the governments, the officials who support directly the terrorists. Only they know, because they know when they’re going to stop supporting those terrorists, and this is where the situation in Syria is going to be solved without any real obstacles.


Question 21: So, let’s just dwell on that point for a moment. Do you believe that within a couple of months the situation in Syria will have dramatically changed in your favor to the point that refugees can come back?


President Assad: No, because I don’t believe that in a couple of months Erdogan and the United States regime, and the Western regimes in general, and of course Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are going to stop the support of the terrorists. I don’t see it in the next two months.


Question 22: So how can you really incite Syrians to come back in two months as you said?


President Assad: I said if there are no external factors. I said if you look at it as an isolated case, as a Syrian case, which is theoretical, I mean, this is where you can say that in few months you can solve it. But now you’re talking about an arena which is part of the international and regional arena, not isolated. So, this is why I said no-one has the answer when will it end.


Question 23: It’s now one year since Russia got involved in the war. Before the intervention you were losing territory and control. Did you ever feel like you were losing the war?


President Assad: We didn’t look at it that way, to lose the war, because whenever you have Syrians working with the terrorists, it’s a loss. How to lose the war, this is hypothetical question, to be frank. It’s not about your feeling; it’s about the reality. In the war, you lose areas, but you recapture another area. So, it is difficult to tell whether you are losing or gaining or it was a standstill. No-one has this answer. But definitely, after the Russian intervention and supporting the Syrian Army, legally of course, we felt much much better. We captured many main cities, many main positions at the expense of the terrorists’ areas.


Question 24: Even if you were to win the war, what would be left of your country and Syrian society? Will you have to think again about the prospect of a partition in Syria?


President Assad: No, we never thought about it, and the majority in Syria don’t believe in this, and I don’t think the reality, in spite of this savage war, has created the atmosphere for such partition. Actually, in many areas, the social situation is much better, because when you want to talk about partition you need to find these borders between the social communities. You cannot have partition only on political bases or geographic bases. It should be social first of all when the communities do not live with each other. As a result of the war, many Syrians understand that the only way to protect your country is to live with each other with integration, not only in coexistence, which is actually more precise to call cohabitation, when people interact and integrate with each other on daily basis in every detail. So, I think in this regard I am more assured that Syria will be more unified. So, the only problem now that we face is not the partition, but terrorism.


Question 25: And yet you are not seen as a unifying force in Syria; people think that the society is torn apart. Just to use one example, on a personal level, you trained as a doctor and yet your administration stands accused of targeting medical and rescue workers as they race to save lives. How do you make peace with this?
And is this a society that, after suffering such consequences, can really just forget the past and move on?


President Assad: I cannot answer that question while it’s filled with misinformation. Let us correct it first. We don’t attack any hospital. Again, as I said, this is against our interests. If you put aside the morals, that we do not do it morally, if I put it aside, I am talking about now, let’s say, the ends justify the means, if I want to use it, we don’t have interest. This is how we can help the terrorists if we attack hospitals, schools, and things like this. Of course, whenever you have a war, the civilians and the innocents will pay the price. That’s in any war, any war is a bad war. There is no good war. In any war, people will pay the price, but I’m talking about the policy of the government, of the army; we don’t attack any hospital. We don’t have any interest in attacking hospitals. So, what is the other part of the question? Sorry, to remind me.


Question 26: That’s ok, that fits into the general question, but I would like to follow up with: others say the opposite, including medical workers and including the Syrian White Helmets. If you value their work, racing to the scene of whatever it may, to try and save lives, does that mean you would support the recent nomination of the White Helmets for a Nobel Peace Prize?


President Assad: It is not about the White Helmets, whether they are credible or not, because some organizations are politicized, but they use different humanitarian masks and umbrellas just to implement certain agenda. But, generally if you want to talk about the humanitarian support, how can I attack hospitals while I am sending vaccines, for example? Just explain it. You tell me two different things, two contradicting things; one that I am talking about is reality, because everybody knows that we are sending vaccines, the other one is that we are attacking hospitals. They do not match.


Question 27: Would you support them for a Nobel Peace Prize?


President Assad: Who?


Question 28: The White Helmets.


President Assad: What did they achieve in Syria? And how un-politicized is the Nobel Prize? That’s the other question. So, if I get an answer to these two questions, I can answer you. But I would only give a prize to whoever works for the peace in Syria, first of all by stopping the terrorists from flowing towards Syria, only.


Question 29: My last question: The US election is now just a few weeks away. How do you expect that a Clinton or Trump presidency would differ in terms of US policy towards Syria, and specifically towards you?


President Assad: The problem with every American candidate regarding the presidency, I am not talking only about this campaign or elections, but generally, that they say something during the campaign and they do the opposite after the campaign. As we see now the American officials, they say something in the morning and they do the opposite in the evening. So, you cannot judge those people according to what they say. You cannot take them at their words, to be frank. We don’t listen to their statements, we don’t care about it, we don’t believe it. We have to wait till they become presidents, we have to watch their policy and their actions and their behaviors. We do not have a lot of expectations, we never had. We have hopes that we can see rational American presidents; fair, obey the international law, deal with other countries according to mutual respect, parity, etc., but we all know that this is only wishful thinking and fantasy.


Journalist: Thank very much, President Assad.

President Assad: Thank you.


Assad: No Siege Around Aleppo


Assad: Blame ‘Terrorists’ For Convoy Attack

Assad: Airstrike On Syrian Troops Intentional



مقابلة الرئيس الأسد مع وكالة أسوشيتد برس

L’ interview Complet



Publié dans al assad, Uncategorized | Tagué , , , | Laisser un commentaire

WARNING : Russia Issues New « Rules of Engagement » in Syria: Any Aircraft Threatening the Syrian Army WILL BE SHOT DOWN (US/Turkey/Israel in the cross-hairs!)


After the United States and « Coalition » aircraft attacked Syrian Army positions « by mistake » – which killed 62 and injured over 100 Syrian Soldiers – Russia says the next mistake will be the pilot’s last, as new Rules of Engagement are now in effect.

Two days ago, on 17 September, US-led coalition jets bombed Syrian government forces’ positions near the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, killing 62 troops and « paving the way » for Islamic State militants, the Syrian Army General Command told the state television.

The bombing took place on al-Tharda Mountain in the region of Deir ez-Zor and caused casualties and destruction on the ground, Syria’s official SANA news agency reported on Saturday.


Publié dans Uncategorized | Laisser un commentaire

Senator Richard Black SAF BOSTON


Senator Richard Black SAF BOSTON 1/2

Senator Richard Black SAF BOSTON 2

VA Senator Richard Black meeting with New England chapter of SAF at St John’s of Damascus church in Dedham





Publié dans Documentary Videos, Uncategorized | Tagué , , | Laisser un commentaire



Syrie : Les rebelles de « l’opposition modérée » décapitent un enfant palestinien


Une nouvelle atrocité qui n’est hélas pas une nouveauté en soi : une milice de l’opposition syrienne modérée admise par Washington et les Occidentaux, sans oublier les monarchies arabes et la Turquie,  a égorgé puis décapité un enfant palestinien du camp palestinien de Handarate, dans la province nord d’Alep.

En réalité, depuis le début de leur insurrection contre le pouvoir syrien, jamais les rebelles syriens modérés ne se sont fait remarquer par leur humanisme. Leur répertoire regorge d’atrocités, dont ils se targuaient en postant les images sur la Toile. Comme leur image en a été profondément écornée, ils ont cessé de le faire. C’est la première fois depuis bien longtemps qu’ils postent les images de leurs crimes. 

En effet, c’est une vidéo postée par les auteurs du crime sur la Toile qui a révélé ce crime horrible commis contre Abdallah Issa, (âgé de 10 ou 12 ans selon les sources)  et qui a eu lieu mardi matin.

Les images montrent son arrestation qui a eu lieu dans le camp palestinien de Handarate, dans la province ouest d’Alep, où de violents combats ont lieu alors que les forces régulières tentent de le récupérer. Le petit Abdallah y paraissait terriblement apeuré.

Elles filment aussi son égorgement et sa décapitation.
Ainsi que la revendication des miliciens du groupuscule Mouvement Noureddine al-Zenki lequel occupe le camp de Handarate au côté d’autres milices takfiristes.


Ils la justifient en disant qu’il fait partie du groupe armé « Brigades d’al-Quds», un supplétif de l’armé syrienne régulière, et allèguent qu’il les espionnait pour son compte. Tout en se moquant de cette brigade, en disant «qu’elle n’a plus d’homme et leur envoie désormais des enfants ! »

Selon l’AFP, le groupe en question a nié toute appartenance de cet enfant à son mouvement, soutenant qu’il s’agit d’un réfugié palestinien de 12 ans. « Blessé au ventre et à la jambe, il a été enlevé de l’hôpital où il était soigné », précise le groupe. Il était atteint par la talacémie aussi. Sur les images vidéo, il est apparue avec  des tubes de perfusion médicale plantés dans le bras droit.

Son exécution horrible s’est faite sur le champ et sans même recourir à l’Instance législative,  consultée en principe pour ce genre de verdict.

Le Mouvement Noureddine Zinki qui fait partie de l’Armée syrienne libre (ASL) est, selon la BBC, soutenu financièrement et militairement aussi bien par les Etats-Unis que la Grande Bretagne, la France, la Turquie, le Qatar et les autres pays du Golfe. 

Selon la télévision al-Mayadeen, il combat surtout dans les provinces nord et ouest d’Alep. Le plus souvent aux côtés de la milice wahhabite d’Al-Qaïda, le front al-Nosra. Des observateurs ont révélé  qu’il a reçu dernièrement des missiles anti-blindés américains de type TOW. 

Le Hezbollah condamne: une marque de honte

Dans un communiqué, le Hezbollah a violemment condamné cette atrocité, et s’est dit totalement sidéré par « le ton ostentatoire de ses auteurs lequel constitue une marque de ces mouvements meurtriers qui œuvrent dans le cadre de la soi-disant opposition » syrienne.

« Les tentatives de certains régimes d’occulter ce caractère criminel à ces mouvements terroristes sont le plus souvent mises en échec par les exactions horribles qu’ils commettent eux-mêmes », a condamné le Hezbollah. Avant de conclure : «  l’assassinat de cet enfant est une marque de honte sur le front des terroristes et de tous ceux qui  les soutiennent, et ceux qui justifient leurs crimes ».

Épinglé par Amnesty International: crimes de guerre

Pour sa part, le commandement du Mouvement Noureddine Zenki a reconnu indirectement ce crime, le qualifiant « de crime individuel » et prétendant « qu’il constitue une violation et ne reflète pas l’état général du mouvement ». Il a indiqué avoir arrêté ses auteurs et les avoir traduits devant une commission d’enquête.

Sachant que selon les agences, cette milice a été épinglée au debut du mois par Amnesty International qui a révélé et condamné dans un rapport détaillé les abus commis par ses miliciens, les accusant d’être coupables de crimes de guerre et responsables « d’une effrayante vague d’enlèvements, de tortures et d’exécutions sommaires ».



Note d’identification

Dans une note d’identification, Media de Guerre, instance médiatique de la résistance œuvrant en Syrie, dévoile que cette milice est plutôt d’obédience et de financement turcs.

Elle a dès les premiers jours des événements syriens en 2011 lancé la lutte armée contre le pouvoir syrien, à partir du village Qabtane-AlJabal, dans la province ouest d’Alep. Elle était a cette époque dirigée par Tawfik Chéhabeddine, connu pour ses tendances takfiristes. 

Cette milice s’est fait surtout remarquer par ses chamboulements au niveau de ses alliances : en juillet 2012, il a rejoint Liwa al-Tawhid, puis l’Association des brigades « fa-stakim kama oumirt » ( Tiens-toi droit comme on te l’ordonne). Avant de le quitter en juin 2013. Le but de ces deux ralliements était d’obtenir le soutien de la Turquie. 
En 2014, il va rejoindre Jaïch al-Moujahidine, et le quitter la même année.

Depuis, il est l’allié de la branche d’Al-Qaïda en Syrie et participe entre autre au pilonnage régulier des quartiers résidentiels loyalistes d’Alep, tuant et blessant des centaines de civils. Il ne manque pas de se targuer de le faire en postant les images sur la Toile.


Washington pourrait reconsidérer sa position


Toujours selon Media de guerre, ce groupuscule dispose du soutien sans limite de la cellule MOK, située en Jordanie et dirigée par les Etats-Unis.  Il fait partie des milices qui jouissent du plein soutien des Américains lesquels le présentent dans les conférences internationales comme étant un mouvement modéré.

Selon l’AFP, à Washington, le département d’Etat a indiqué avoir été informé de « l’ horrible » incident et fait savoir que son soutien au groupe rebelle pourrait être reconsidéré.

« Nous enquêtons pour avoir plus d’informations », a affirmé mardi son porte-parole Mark Toner. « Si ces allégations s’avèrent fondées, nous réexaminerons tout lien ou  coopération que nous pourrions avoir avec ce groupe, a-t-il ajouté.


Sources: Al-Akhbar, Al-Mayadeen; AFP, al-Manar; Média de guerre


En savoir plus sur

Les combattants du groupe Nour al-Din al-Zenki, groupe considéré comme faisant partie de l’opposition modérée, ont décapité un Palestinien âgé de 11 ans accusé d’espionnage.

L’exécution a été filmée. Dans la vidéo, des membres du groupe emmènent l’enfant dans une voiture, puis l’un d’entre eux coupe la tête du garçon avec un couteau sous les cris d' »Allah Akbar! », rapporte le Daily Mail.
En savoir plus sur






Publié dans Alep mon Amour, terrorismes, Uncategorized | Tagué , , , | Laisser un commentaire

Attentat à Nice: encore une fois des victimes innocentes


Attentat à Nice: la préfecture demande aux habitants de rester cloîtrés

Un camion a foncé jeudi soir dans la foule sur la Promenade des Anglais à Nice pendant le feu d’artifice du 14 juillet, faisant plusieurs victimes selon la mairie et des témoins sur place. La préfecture des Alpes-Maritimes évoque un attentat et demande aux habitants de rester cloîtrés.


La maire de Nice a évoqué sur Twitter des dizaines de victimes. Vers 23H20, un important périmètre de sécurité était délimité à proximité, autour de la place Masséna. « Les gens courent, c’est la panique. Il est monté sur la Prom et il a foncé sur tout le monde » explique notre collègue. « Il y a du monde en sang, sans doute plein de blessés », explique un journaliste de Nice Matin présent sur place.

(CNN)« Probably » 30 people were killed and 100 injured when a truck drove through a crowd on Bastille Day in Nice, France, a local prefecture official told CNN.

Christian Estrosi, the head of the regional council of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, said late Thursday: « Dear Nice residents, the driver of a truck appears to have caused tens of deaths. Stay for the moment in your homes. More info to come. »
CNN affiliate BFM-TV reported that police and the truck occupants exchanged gunfire.
BFM posted an image of the truck that reportedly was involved in the incident. The photo shows what appears to be bullet holes in the windshield of the white truck.
Eric Dartell was eating at a restaurant on the street where the incident happened.
« You can see wreckage all along the way, a body, bicycles, street lamps and debris everywhere, » he said.


Tragédie barbare est incompréhensible, paix aux âmes des victimes et je suis de tout cœur avec leurs familles.’AZOUZI’

EN DIRECT – Attentat sur la promenade des Anglais à Nice



Publié dans France, Uncategorized | Tagué , , | 1 commentaire

President al-Assad’s interview with NBC News

Damascus, SANA, President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to NBC News published Thursday, following is the full text:

Journalist: Mr. President, thank you for having us and allowing NBC News to ask you some important questions.
President Assad: You’re most welcome in Damascus.

Question 1: A few weeks ago, you told lawmakers here that you would retake every inch of Syria. The U.S. State Department called that “delusional.” You’re a long way from winning this war, aren’t you? Never mind retaking every inch of Syria.

President Assad: Actually, the Syrian Army has made a lot of advancement recently, and that is the goal of any army or any government. I don’t think the statement for the United States is relevant. It doesn’t reflect any respect to the international law, to the Charter of the United Nations. It doesn’t reflect respect of the sovereignty of a country that it had the right to take control of its full land.

Question 2: But how long do you think this will take you to win this war?

President Assad: You’re talking about something that is related to many factors. The most important factor is how long are the supporters of those terrorists are going to keep supporting them, especially Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with the endorsement of some Western countries including the United States. If you don’t have that support, it won’t take more than a few months.

Question 3: More than a few months. You see, I’ve been here ten times, and I’ve heard your governors say “it will take a month to retake Homs, it will take six months to retake somewhere else.” It always takes longer than that. So, realistically, this will take years, won’t it?

President Assad: That’s why I said that depends on how much support the terrorists are going to have, how much recruitment are you going to have in Turkey with the Saudi money, to have more terrorists coming to Syria. Their aim is to prolong the war, so they can prolong it if they want, and they’ve already succeeded in that. So,
that depends on the question. If you’re talking about how much it’s going to take as only a Syrian conflict, an isolated conflict, this is where it won’t take more than a few months. But if it’s not isolated, as is the case today with the interference of many regional and international powers, it will be going to take a long time, and no-one has the answer to the question you have posed. Nobody knows how the war is going to develop.


Question 4: A year ago, the war was going quite differently. You made a speech in which you said you were short of troops, you had to give up some areas reluctantly. What changed after that? Was it that Russia entered the war? That’s the real reason this war is turning, isn’t it? That Russia is on your side.

President Assad: Definitely, the Russian support of the Syrian Army has tipped the scales against the terrorists.

Question 5: It’s the crucial factor?

President Assad: It is, it is, definitely. At the same time, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have sent more troops since that Russian legal intervention started, but in spite of that, it was the crucial factor, as you just mentioned.

Question 6: So, you owe President Putin a lot.

President Assad: Everyone who stood beside us; Russians, Iranians, and even the Chinese stood, but each one in its own way, whether political, military, or economic, because it’s not one factor; you cannot only talk about the firepower or the human resources. It’s a multi-factor issue. All those countries supported Syria, beside other countries who supported to a lesser degree.

Question 7: Has President Putin demanded anything of you? What’s the deal?

President Assad: When he wanted to intervene? He didn’t ask for anything.

Question 8: Nothing?

President Assad: For a simple reason: first of all, their politics are built on values. This is very important. The second thing, their interest is common interest with us now, because they are fighting the same terrorists that they should fight in Russia. We are fighting the terrorists that could be fighting in Europe, in the United States, anywhere else in the world. But the difference between President Putin and the other Western officials is that he could see that clearly while the other officials in Europe or in the West in general couldn’t see that. That’s why his intervention is based on values, and at the same time based on the interest of the Russian people.

Question 9: Do you speak much with him?

President Assad: When there’s something to speak about, of course we speak, or through officials.

Question 10: How often, for example, this year, have you spoken with him?

President Assad: I didn’t count them, but many times. We spoke many times.

Question 11: And how would you describe your relationship with him?

President Assad: Very frank, very honest, mutual respect.

Question 12: But he has demanded nothing of you, is that the case?

President Assad: Nothing at all, nothing at all.

Question 13: Because the suspicion is that Russia may be working in concert with the United States, and Secretary of State Kerry is meeting Vladimir Putin Thursday in Moscow. The suspicion is that they are coming to some sort of deal that might be bad news for you.

President Assad: First of all, regarding the first part, if he wanted to ask for something, he would ask me to fight the terrorists, because this is where his interest as a president and as a country – I mean Russia – lies. Second, regarding that allegation from time to time, that the Russians met with the Americans and they discussed something about the Syrian issue, like, in order to give the impression that they are deciding what is going to happen in Syria. Many times, the Russian officials many times said clearly that the Syrian issue is related to the Syrian people, and yesterday Minister Lavrov said that clearly; said we cannot sit with the Americans to define what the Syrians want to do. This is a Syrian issue, only the Syrian people can define the future of their country and how to solve their problem. The role of Russia and the United States is to offer the international atmosphere, to protect the Syrians from any intervention. The problem in that regard is that the Russians are honest, the Americans didn’t deliver anything in that regard. But, this is not to take the decision about what we have to do as Syrians.

Question 14: So just to be clear: neither Foreign Secretary Lavrov nor President Putin has ever talked to you about political transition, about a day when you would leave power? That’s never come up?

President Assad: Never, because as I said, this is related to the Syrian people. Only the Syrian people define who’s going to be the president, when to come, and when to go. They never said a single word regarding this.

Question 15: And you’re not worried in the least about Secretary Kerry meeting Vladimir Putin and coming to an understanding in which you may have to leave power?

President Assad: No, for one reason: because their politics, I mean the Russian politics, is not based on making deals; it’s based on values. And that’s why you don’t see any achievement between them and the Americans because of different principles. The American politics are based on making deals, regardless of the values, which
is not the case for the Russians.


Question 16: But of course it’s not just Russia that’s bombing your enemies; it’s the United States. Do you welcome American airstrikes against ISIS?

President Assad: No, because it’s not legal. First of all, it’s not legal.

Question 17: It’s not legal for Russia to do it, is it?

President Assad: No, they are invited legally and formally by the Syrian government. It’s the right of any government to invite any other country to help in any issue. So, they are legal in Syria, while the Americans are not legal, with their allies, of course all of them are not legal. This is first. Second, since the Russian intervention, terrorism has been, let’s say, regressing, while before that, and during the American illegal intervention with their allies ISIS was expanding and terrorism was expanding and taking over new areas in Syria. They’re not serious. So, I cannot say I welcome the un-seriousness and to be in Syria illegally.

Question 18: Thousands of missions, hundreds of airstrikes… the United States is not being serious in Syria?

President Assad: The question is not how many strikes. What is the achievement? That’s the question. The reality is telling, the reality is telling that since the beginning of the American airstrikes, terrorism has been expanding and prevailing, not vice versa. It only shrank when the Russians intervened. So, this is reality.
We have to talk about facts, it’s not only about the pro forma action that they’ve been taking.


Question 19: So, American airstrikes are ineffective and counterproductive?

President Assad: Yes, it is counterproductive somehow. When terrorism is growing, it is counterproductive. That’s correct.

Question 20: Whose fault is that? Is that a military fault, or is President Obama simply not being, let’s say, ruthless enough?

President Assad: No, first of all it’s not about being ruthless; it’s about being genuine. It’s about the real intentions, it’s about being serious, it’s about having the will. The United States doesn’t have the will to defeat the terrorists; it had the will to control them and to use them as a card like they did in Afghanistan. That will reflected on the military aspect of the issue. If you want to compare, more than a hundred and twenty or thirty Russian airstrikes in a few areas in Syria, compared to ten or twelve American allies’ airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, it means militarily nothing. But that military ineffectiveness is a reflection of the
political will.


Question 21: There was a political will, as you put it, to remove you from power. That was the will of Washington. That seems to have changed. Have you any idea why the United States has changed its mind apparently about your future?

President Assad: No, because the problem with the American officials is that they say something and they mask their intentions, they go in a different way. They say something, they say the opposite. They say something, they do something different. So, you cannot tell what are their real intentions. What I’m sure about is that they don’t have good intentions towards Syria. Maybe they are making tactics, maneuvers, but they haven’t changed their intentions, as I believe.

Question 22: President Obama wanted you out. He’s leaving office soon, and you’re staying. Did you win?

President Assad: No, it’s not between me and him. It’s between me and whoever wants to destroy this country, and mainly the terrorists within Syria now. This is where we can win as Syrians; if we can get rid of those terrorists, if we can restore the stability in Syria, this is where we win. Otherwise, we cannot talk about winning.
That’s true, they didn’t succeed, but if they don’t succeed in their plans, if it went into a fiasco, it doesn’t mean we win the war. So I have to be realistic and precise about choosing the terms in that regard.


Question 23: But one of the president’s key aims, which was to remove you from power, has clearly failed, or do you believe it’s failed?

President Assad: Yeah, I said he’s failed, but that doesn’t mean I win, because for him the war is to remove me, for me the war is not to stay in my position; for me the war is to restore Syria. So, you’re talking about two different wars; for me I’m not fighting my war, I’m not fighting the war that the president should stay. My war is to protect Syria. I don’t care about if I stay or not as long as the Syrians don’t want me to be in my position. For me, I don’t care about what the other presidents want; I care about what the Syrians want. If they want me to stay, I’m going to stay, if they want me to leave, I’m going to leave. So, it’s different, a completely different thing.

Question 24: Do you feel the United States has fundamentally misunderstood your war with ISIS, with what you might call a common enemy?

President Assad: Again, it’s not a common enemy, because for us we are genuine in fighting not only ISIS but al-Nusra and every affiliated to Al Qaeda organization within Syria. All of them are terrorists. So, if you want to talk not about ISIS, about the terrorist groups, we wanted to get rid of the terrorists, we wanted to defeat those terrorists, while the United States wanted to manage those groups in order to topple the government in Syria. So, you cannot talk about common interest unless they really want to fight those terrorists and to defeat them, and they didn’t do that. They’ve been in Iraq in 2006, they didn’t try to defeat them.

Question 25: But America is very genuine about fighting ISIS. ISIS is a threat to the American homeland. How can you say America is not serious about fighting ISIS?

President Assad: Because ISIS has been set up in Iraq in 2006 while the United States was in Iraq, not Syria was in Iraq, so it was growing under the supervision of the American authority in Iraq, and they didn’t do anything to fight ISIS at that time. So why to fight it now? And they don’t fight it now. It’s been expanding under the supervision of the American airplanes, and they could have seen ISIS using the oil fields and exporting oil to Turkey, and they didn’t try to attack any convoy of ISIS. How could they be against ISIS? They cannot see, they don’t see? How the Russians could have seen it from the first day and started attacking those convoys? Actually, the Russian intervention unmasked the American intentions regarding ISIS, and the other terrorist groups, of course.

Question 26: Three years ago, President Obama made a threat against you. He drew a red line, and then withdrew from that and did not attack you. What do you feel about that? Is that the sign of a weak president?

President Assad: That’s the problem with the United States. They’ve been promoting for years now that the only good president is ruthless or tough and who should go to war. This is the definition. Otherwise, he’s going to be a weak president, which is not true. Actually, for the American administrations since the second World
War, they have shared in stoking the fire in conflicts in every part of this world. And as the time goes by, those administrations are becoming more and more pyromaniac. The difference now between those administrations is only about the means, not about the goal. One of them sends his own troops, like Bush, the other one is using surrogate mercenaries, the third one using proxies, and so on, but the core is the same, nothing has changed.


Question 27: But to go back to that moment three years ago, was that the sign of a weak United States and a weak president?

President Assad: No, because if you want to talk about the core, which is the war attacking Syria, they’ve been attacking Syria through proxies. They didn’t fight ISIS, they didn’t make any pressure on Turkey or Saudi Arabia in order to tell them “stop sending money and personnel and every logistic support to those terrorists.”
They could have done so, they didn’t. So, actually they are waging war, but in a different way. They didn’t send their troops, they didn’t attack with missiles, but they send mercenaries. That’s what I meant. I mean, it’s the same.


Question 28: Did it surprise you that they didn’t attack?

President Assad: No, no. It wasn’t a surprise, but I think what they are doing now had the same effect. So, between mercenaries and between missiles, this one could be more effective for them. So, no, I couldn’t say that I was surprised.

Question 29: You’re a leader. By drawing a red line and not following through, has that damaged America’s credibility, not just in the Middle East, but in the world?

President Assad: But this credibility hasn’t ever existed for us, at least since the early 70s, to be frank with you, since we restored our relations with the United States in 1974 we never saw any administration that has real credibility in every issue we dealt with. They never had it. So, I cannot say that it is harmed. Many of
their allies don’t believe them. I think the American credibility, not because of what you mentioned, because of their politics in general, their mainstream politics, are at an all-time low. That’s how we see it.

Question 30: An all-time low in terms of its credibility in the world?

President Assad: Generally, yeah. Regarding the politics in general, not regarding Syria. Yeah.

Question 31: Do you welcome the end of President Obama’s term of office?

President Assad: It means nothing for us, because if you change administration but you don’t change politics, it means nothing. So, it’s about the politics, and in Syria we never bet on any president coming or any president going. We never bet. Because what they say in their campaign is different from what they practice after they are elected.

Question 32: You’ve talked about presidents being the same, never changing their policy, but there will be a new president in the United States next year. Do you hope for a new relationship? Do you believe anything like that is possible?

President Assad: Yeah, of course. We always hope that the next president will be much wiser than the previous one, less pyromaniac as I said, less militaristic, adventurist president. That’s what we hope, but we never saw. I mean the difference is very marginal. So, we keep hoping, but we don’t bet on that hope.

Question 33: So, there will be a new president. There are two main choices: one of them is Donald Trump. What do you know of Mr. Trump?

President Assad: Nothing. Just what I heard in the media, and during the campaign. That’s what I say, we don’t have to waste our time hearing what they say in their campaign; they’re going to change after they are elected, and this is where we have to start evaluating the president, after the campaign, not during the campaign.

Question 34: And you’re here in Damascus, what are you hearing in the media about Mr. Trump?

President Assad: The conflict between the Americans, but we don’t pay much attention to it. I mean, even this rhetoric between the different, let’s say, nominees, is changing during the campaign. So, what you hear today is not relevant tomorrow. So, we cannot build our politics on day-to-day politics.

Question 35: But you’re following this election?

President Assad: Not really, not really. Because as I said, you don’t follow anything that you cannot consider as connected to the reality yet. It’s only connected to the reality when they are in office. So far, it’s only rhetoric. We don’t have to waste our time with rhetoric.

Question 36: Simply rhetoric. So, for example, talking about Mr. Trump; anything Mr. Trump says, you wouldn’t necessarily believe that would be the policy of a President Trump?

President Assad: No, we cannot. Whether Trump or Clinton or anyone. I’m talking in general, it’s not about the names. It’s a principle for every American president in every campaign.

Question 37: He’s made very few comments about Syria or the Middle East, but he’s described you as a “bad guy.” Does that worry you?

President Assad: That’s his opinion. No, it’s a personal opinion. He doesn’t have to see me as a good guy. The question for me: do the Syrians see me as a good guy or
a bad guy, not an American person or president or nominee. I don’t care about it. It’s not part of my political map, let’s say.


Question 38: One of the things he’s said and been very clear about is that he would be much tougher on ISIS. You would welcome that, wouldn’t you? Because you just said President Obama isn’t serious.

President Assad: You don’t have to be tougher. This word doesn’t have any meaning in reality, in real life, in this region. You have to fight ISIS in different ways.
ISIS is not only fighters you have to attack with the strongest bomb or missile. It’s not like this. The issue of terrorism is very complicated, it’s related to the ideology. How can you be tough against the ideology of ISIS? That’s the question. How can you be tough regarding their economy, how they offer money and donations?
How can you deal with that?


Question 39: I think Mr. Trump is talking about military toughness. He wants to-

President Assad: It’s not enough, it’s not enough. You have to be smart. It’s not enough to be tough. First of all, you have to have the will, you have to be genuine, then you have to be smart, then you can be tough, and being tough and being militarily active, this is important, but this is the last option when you fulfill the first criteria.

Question 40: From what you know of Mr. Trump, is he smart enough?

President Assad: I don’t know him. When I sit with him face-to-face, I can judge him, but I only look at the person on the TV, and you know on the TV you can manipulate everything, you can make, how to say, you can rehearse, you can prepare yourself, so that’s not the issue.

Question 41: Do you like what you see on TV of Mr. Trump?

President Assad: I don’t follow the American elections as I said, because we don’t bet on it. We don’t follow it.

Question 42: He seems to respect President Putin. Does that give you hope that maybe he’s a man you could do business with?

President Assad: If he’s genuine, I think he’s saying the right thing, because every person on Earth, whether they agree or disagree with President Putin, should
respect him, because he’s respectable. He respects himself, and he respects the other, he respects his values, respects the interests of his own people, and he’s
honest and genuine. So, how can’t you respect someone with those descriptions? If he’s genuine, I think he’s correct. That’s what I can say.


Question 43: Mr. Trump has also made comments about Muslims, and not allowing Muslims into the United States. Did that anger you, upset you?

President Assad: Yeah, especially in Syria as a melting pot country made of many, many religions and sects and ethnicities, we think this diversity is richness, not the opposite. It’s the way the government and the way the influential forces in the society that made it a problem or a conflict. If you can have all those people living in one society with real integration, with harmony, this is richness, this is for the interest of any society, including the United States.

Question 44: So, Mr. Trump should not have made those comments about Muslims?

President Assad: Anyone shouldn’t make any discriminative rhetoric in any country. I don’t believe in this kind of rhetoric, of course.

Question 45: Mr. Trump has no experience in foreign policy. Does that worry you?

President Assad: Who had this experience before? Obama or George Bush or Clinton before? No-one of them had any experience. This is the problem with the United States. You have to look for a statesman who has real experience in politics for years, not because of having a position in Congress for a few years or being minister
of foreign affairs for example. That doesn’t mean you have the experience. The experience in states should be much much longer. So we don’t think that most of the presidents of the United States were well-versed in politics.


Question 46: So, a man with no experience in foreign policy in the White House is not necessarily dangerous in your view?

President Assad: Anyone who doesn’t have experience in any position, in the White House or in the Presidential Palace in Syria or any other country, is of course dangerous for the country, generally. Of course, the United States as a great power, could have more impacts on the rest of the world. But it’s not only about the experience. At the end, when you have institutions, they can help. It’s about the intention. Is he going to be with good experience but with militaristic intentions?
Destructive intentions and so on? So, you have to talk about many factors. It’s not enough to talk only about the experience.


Question 47: Someone with more experience in foreign affairs is Hillary Clinton. She is known to you, in one sense. What would the consequences be if Hillary Clinton wins the election?

President Assad: Again, the same, I have to repeat the same answer. It depends on her politics. What politics is she going to adopt? Is she going to prove that she’s tough and take the United States to another war or to make escalations? This is where it’s going to be bad for everyone, including the United States. If she’s going to go in another direction, that will be good. And again, we focus more about the intentions before talking about the experience. The experience is very important, but the intention is the most crucial thing for any president. So, can you ask them the question: can they tell genuinely the American people and the rest of the world what their real intentions about their politics are? Are they going to make escalation or we’re going to see more entente around the world?

Question 48: Well, one difference between them clearly is that Mrs. Clinton is determined, it seems still, to get rid of you. At least that’s her stated position. Mr. Trump says he’s focusing on ISIS, leave you alone. That’s a clear difference between the two. Hillary Clinton, well, I’ll ask you the question: does Hillary Clinton represent more of a threat to you than Donald Trump?

President Assad: No, because since the beginning of this crisis we heard the same motto “Assad must go” many times from nearly every Western official in different levels, whether leader or foreign official or any other official. We never cared about it. So you cannot talk about this as a threat; this is interfering in our internal issues we’re not going to respond to. As long as I have the support of the Syrian people, I don’t care about whoever talks, including the president of the United States himself. Anyone. So it’s the same for us. That’s why I say Clinton and Trump and what Obama said, for me, nothing. We don’t put it on the political map, we don’t waste our time with those rhetoric, or even demands.

Question 49: But if Hillary Clinton as president establishes a no-fly zone over your territory, over northern Syrian for example, that makes a huge difference.

President Assad: Of course. This is where you can talk about threat, that’s why I said the policy is the crucial thing for us. When they started supporting the terrorists with such projects or plan or step, this is where you can have more chaos in the world. That’s another question: does the United States have an interest in having more chaos around the world, or the United States have more interest in having stability around the world? That’s another question. Of course, the United States can create chaos. They’ve been creating chaos for the last 50-60 years around the world. It’s not something new. Are they going to make it worse, more prevailing? That’s another question. But it’s not about me. It’s not about the president. It’s about the whole situation in the world, because you cannot separate the situation in Syria from the situation in the Middle East, and when the Middle East is not stable, the world cannot be stable.

Question 50: Let me just probe you about how far you might want a new relationship with the United States. ISIS is headquartered in your country in Raqqa. If you knew that ISIS was about to attack the United States, would you warn America?

President Assad: As a principle, yes, because they may attack civilians, and I cannot blame the innocents in the United States for the bad intentions of their officials. This is not correct. And as I said many times, I don’t consider the United States as a direct enemy as they don’t occupy my land. But at the same time, this is, let’s say, not realistic, for one reason; because there’s no relation between us and the United States. This kind of information or cooperation needs security cooperation based on political cooperation. We have neither. So you cannot have it anyway.

Question 51: I’ve spoken to your [Deputy] Foreign Minister Dr. Fayssal Mikdad many times, and he’s described to me the danger of Syria and its crisis exploding, not just across the Middle East, but across the world, and that has clearly happened. Is, as ISIS is driven back or broken, is there a danger that their fighters scatter?
Is there a danger that as you defeat ISIS, the United States becomes more vulnerable to terrorism?

President Assad: No. If we defeat ISIS we are helping the rest of the world, because those terrorists coming from more than a hundred countries around the world, including the Western countries, if they aren’t defeated they will go back with more experience, more fanaticism, and more extremism, and they’re going to attack in those countries. So, if we defeat them here, we are helping every other country, including the United States.

Question 52: But ISIS fighters may leave Raqqa, and as we’ve seen with terrorist attacks in Europe, they come to France, they come to Belgium. They could come to the United States as well and attack. That is a real risk, isn’t it?

President Assad: Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. I said if we defeat them here, if we defeat terrorism in the meaning they cannot go back, we are helping then. If they leave, if they escape, if you keep having this terrorism, this is where you can start exporting those terrorists to Europe, as what happened in France
recently. So what you said is correct, that’s what I mean. If we defeat them here, and they cannot go back, this is where we help the others. If they go back, they will be a danger to the rest of the world.


Question 53: Like any war, there are two sides. Your forces have been accused of doing some terrible things. I’ve been here many times and I have seen some of the terrible things as a result of your forces’ airstrikes, bombardments, and so on. Do you believe one day you will face an international court?

President Assad: First of all, you have to do your job as a president. When you are attacked by terrorists, I mean as a country, you have to defend your country, and that is my job according to the constitution. So, I’m doing my job, and I’m going to keep doing it no matter what I’m going to face. Let’s be clear about this.
Defending the country cannot be balanced with the personal future of the president, whether he is going to face a criminal court or anything like that, or to face death. It doesn’t matter. If you don’t want to face all these things, leave that position and give it to someone else.


Question 54: But the reason people are saying you should face a war crimes tribunal is that you are clearly using any means whatsoever. I mean, I know you don’t agree that there are such a thing as a barrel bomb. Never mind the metal, the charges that you are using, indiscriminate force, indiscriminate weapons in civilian areas. That’s true, isn’t it?

President Assad: First of all, those people, do they have any criteria that what the means that you should use with the terrorists? They don’t have. So, this is irrelevant. It has no meaning from a legal point of view and from a realistic point of view. Second, if you talk about indiscriminate, no army would use indiscriminate armaments in such a situation where there’s nearly intermingle between the two sides.

Question 55: With respect Mr. President, I have seen a bomb thrown from a helicopter. That was indiscriminate.

President Assad: Let’s say, technically, this is not the issue whether to throw it from a helicopter or from an aircraft. So, this is not the issue. The more important thing, if you want to talk about precise, let’s say we are using precise armaments like the Unites States using the drones and the highest precision missiles in Afghanistan, how many terrorists have they killed so far? They have killed many, many folds of civilians and innocents.

Question 56: Even if that’s true, that doesn’t make anything that you do right.

President Assad: No, no, no. I mean, first of all, the kind of armament that you are using is not related to what you have mentioned. It is not whether you use high precision or less precise armaments. There’s no such criteria. This is only part of the media campaign recently. I’m talking now legally. So, we had the right-

Question 57: With respect, it is not just a media campaign. The United Nations, as you well know, has spoken about this. Human rights groups have spoken about this, not just indiscriminate use of weapons against civilians, but the UN spoke this week about the problems in Aleppo, in Darayya, which is just very close to here, of the use of starvation as a weapon of war, sieges. That’s going on right now close to us, isn’t it?

President Assad: We’re going to talk about the siege. Now, regarding the armaments, the only thing that the government cannot use in any war is the armaments that’s been banned by international law. Any other armaments that you’ve been using against terrorism, it’s your right. So, it’s our right to use any armament to defeat the

Question 58: And you know there’s a charge that you have used chemical weapons, which you deny.

President Assad: We didn’t. So far, it has been three years and no one had offered any evidence regarding this, only allegations.

Question 59: There is plenty of evidence but you reject them.

President Assad: No, no. There is no evidence, actually, only pictures on the Internet and any one can-
Question 60: Photographic, scientific, eyewitness…

President Assad: Nothing. You have a delegation coming from the international organization of chemical weapons. They came to Syria and they didn’t have any evidence. They went and collected everything, samples and everything to offer evidence, but they couldn’t. There is no evidence. So, we didn’t use it, and there is no logic in
using it.


Question 61: Let’s talk about the methods your forces are using close to here which is cutting off an area and besieging it, and there are thousands of civilians very close to here, who are starving. Do you recognize that?

President Assad: Let’s presume that what you are saying is correct, let’s presume that. Now, you are talking about encircled or besieged by the army for years now, not for months, for years. They don’t have food, and every basics because the government doesn’t allow them, but at the same time they have been fighting for two years, and they have been shelling us with mortars and killing civilians from their area. It means, according to this narrative, that we are allowing them to have armaments, but we don’t allow them to have food, is that realistic?

Question 62: That’s what the UN says. The UN says, for example, in Madaya it’s only managed to get four aid convoys in, in all these years.

President Assad: How do we prevent them from having food and we don’t prevent them from having armaments to kill us? What is the logic in this? This is contradiction. We either besiege everything or we allow everything. This is first. Second, the proof that this is not correct is that you have every video about the convoys coming from the United Nations to reach those areas. Otherwise, how could they survive for years if they are under the siege? It’s been years, they have been talking about the same narrative, repeating, reiterating for years now, but people are still alive, how could they live without food?

Question 63: As you know, targeting civilians in a war is a war crime and just recently, the family of Marie Colvin, an American journalist, has launched a suit in the United States charging you and your government with deliberately targeting and killing her. You know Marie Colvin; she was a friend of mine.

President Assad: Yeah, a journalist, yeah.

Question 64: Did your forces target Marie Colvin and her colleagues with an intention to kill her?

President Assad: No, very simply. First of all, the army forces didn’t know that Marie Colvin existed somewhere, because before that we hadn’t known about Marie Colvin. So, it’s a war and she came illegally to Syria, she worked with the terrorists, and because she came illegally, she’s been responsible of everything that befall on her, this is first. Second-

Question 65: She is responsible for her own death?

President Assad: Of course, she came illegally to Syria. We can be responsible of everyone within our country when they come legally to Syria. She came illegally, and she went with the terrorists. We didn’t send her anywhere, we don’t know anything about her.

Question 66: As you know, that doesn’t explain why missiles hit the house that she was in in Homs?

President Assad: No, no, nobody knows if she was killed by a missile or which missile or where did the missile come from or how. No one has any evidence. This is just allegations, because it’s a conflict area, it’s a war. You know about crossfire, when you are caught in a crossfire somewhere, you cannot tell who killed who. So, these are allegations. Second, we had hundreds of journalists who came to Syria legally and illegally, and they covered for the terrorists, not for the government, and we didn’t kill them. So, why to single out this person in order to kill her? There is no reason. This is second. Third, tens of journalists working for the government and support the government have been killed, did we kill them? We didn’t. So, this is war. Have you heard about a good war? I don’t  think that anyone has
heard about a good war. It’s a war. You always have causalities, you always have innocent people being killed by any means, and no one can tell how.


Question 67: You see the impression you give, Mr. President, is of a man who feels he bears no responsibility for the terrible things that are done in his name to the Syrian people. You have an air of “oh well, it really does not matter.”

President Assad: You only bear the responsibility for the decision that you take. You don’t bear the responsibility for the decision that you didn’t take.

Question 68: But some of the decisions you’ve taken have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

President Assad: Like?


Question 69: Attacking certain areas, launching campaigns, airstrikes, the use of certain weapons.

President Assad: The only two decisions that we’ve taken since the beginning of the crisis are to defend our country against the terrorists, and that’s a correct decision. The second one is to make dialogue with everyone. We made dialogue with everyone, including some terrorist groups who wanted to give up their armaments, and
we made it. We’re very flexible. We didn’t take any decision to attack any area that doesn’t include terrorists or where terrorists don’t shell the others’ cities adjacent to them.
Question 70: Do you ever see pictures, photographs, videos of children, for example, in rebel-held areas? And I wonder if you have seen these photographs, what do you feel? Sorrow, regret, nothing?

President Assad: My question is, how could you verify that those children that you saw on the internet are in their area?

Question 71: You see, there you go again, Mr. President. An answer like that simply reinforces people’s view that you are evading responsibility-

President Assad: No, no, no.

Question 72: That actually you don’t care for the people on the other side that your forces kill.
President Assad: That question could be answered, if you answer that question: how can you blame now Bush for the one million Iraqis dead since the war in Iraq in 2003?


Question 73: I’m not talking about President Bush; I am here to ask you-

President Assad: No, no. I’m talking about the principle now; it’s about the principle. The same principle. He attacked a sovereign country, while I defend my country. If you want to use one standard, it is one thing, but if you want to do a double standard, that is another thing.

Question 74: You’re still not giving me the impression that actually you care very much.

President Assad: No, no. I talk to an American audience, so there must be an analogy between the two things, because it is about the logic that you use to explain something. It is not only about my answer. He attacked a sovereign country while we are defending our country. He killed Iraqi people on their land, we are defending
mainly against terrorists who are coming from different places in that world. So, this is our right, while to talk about a clean war where there is no causalities, no civilians, no innocent people to be killed, that doesn’t exist. No one could make it. No war in the world.


Question 75: Is this how you explain the war, for example, to your children at the breakfast table, I am sure they are very-

President Assad: Of course, I’m going to talk about the reality, about the facts, while to talk about children being killed, children of who, where, and how? You are talking about propaganda and about media campaigns, and about sometimes fake pictures on the internet. We cannot talk but about the facts. We have to talk about the
facts. I cannot talk about allegations.


Question 76: Have you ever cried about what happened to Syria?

President Assad: Crying doesn’t mean you are a good man, and doesn’t mean you have a lot of passion; it’s about the passion that’s within your heart, it is not about your eyes, it is not about the tears. This is first. Second, as a president, it’s about what you’re going to do, not about how you’re going to feel. How are you going to protect the Syrians? When you have an incident, bad incident, and you have it every day, do you keep crying every day, or you keep working? My question is how I can help whenever I have a bad event or incident. I ask myself how can I protect the other Syrians from having the same problem.

Question 77: What are you going to do next? Are you just going to go on and on and on? You and your father have been in power for forty-six years, is that right?

President Assad: No, it’s not right, because he is a president and I am another president. So, it’s not right. The description is not right at all. He was elected by the Syrian people, and I was elected after he died. He didn’t put me in any position, so you cannot connect. I’m a president, and he’s a president. I have been in power for sixteen years, not for forty-five years.

Question 78: You have been in power for sixteen years, my question is: are you going to go on and on and on?

President Assad: Ah, in my position? In my position, you have to ask the Syrian people. If they don’t want me, I have to leave right away, today. If they want me, I have to stay. It depends on them, I mean, if I want to stay against their will, I cannot produce, I cannot succeed, and I do not think I have the intention not to


Question 79: How do you think history will remember you?

President Assad: How I hope history will remember me. I cannot foretell; I am not a fortuneteller. I hope that history will see me as the man who protected his country from terrorism and from intervention and saved its sovereignty and the integrity of its land.

Question 80: Because you know what the first draft of history is saying, that you’re a brutal dictator, you are a man with blood on your hands, more blood on your hands than even on you father.

President Assad: No, again, I will draw that example if you have a doctor who cut the hand because of a gangrene to save the patient, you do not say he’s a brutal doctor. He’s doing his job in order to save the rest of the body. So, when you protect your country from the terrorists and you kill terrorists and you defeat terrorists, you are not brutal; you are a patriot. That is how you look at yourself, and that’s how the people want to look at you.

Question 81: And that is how you see yourself, as a patriot?

President Assad: I cannot be objective about looking at myself. The most important thing is how the Syrians look at me, that is the real and objective opinion, not my opinion. I cannot be objective about myself.

Journalist: Mr. President, thank you very much for answering NBC’s questions and for taking time to talk to me. Thank you very much.

President Assad: Thank you.



Publié dans al assad, Uncategorized | Tagué , , , | Laisser un commentaire

Le président al-Assad à la chaîne australienne “SBS” : Le règlement de la crise en Syrie réside dans le dialogue inter-syrien et la lutte antiterroriste


Damas /Le Président Bachar al-Assad a affirmé que le règlement de la crise en Syrie est très clair et simple et réside dans le dialogue inter-syrien sur un processus politique et en même temps dans la lutte contre le terrorisme et les terroristes en Syrie.

Dans une interview qu’il a accordée à la chaîne australienne “SBS”, le président al-Assad a assuré qu’il est impossible de parvenir à un véritable règlement sans la lutte contre le terrorisme.

“En cas de l’arrêt de tout soutien logistique apporté aux terroristes par des pays occidentaux ou régionaux, tels que la Turquie, l’Arabie Saoudite et le Qatar, de la participation des Syriens au dialogue et de la tenue d’un débat sur la constitution et sur l’avenir de la Syrie et du régime politique, le règlement sera très proche et ne sera point inaccessible”, a-t-il martelé.

Quant à la durée de la récupération de Raqqa des mains des terroristes de Daech, le président al-Assad a fait savoir que Raqqa a la même importance d’Alep, Damas et toute autre ville, disant : “Le danger des groupes terroristes n’est pas représenté dans le territoire qu’ils occupent, car cette guerre n’est pas conventionnelle. La question dépend de leur capacité à semer leur idéologique dans les raisons de la population de la zone où ils se trouvent. L’accès à Raqqa n’est pas très difficile du côté militaire, c’est une question de temps”.

Et le président al-Assad de poursuivre : “Si on parle de la Syrie en tant que terrain militaire isolé, on pourra accéder à toute zone dans quelques semaines ou mois, mais sans prendre en compte les efforts turcs dans le soutien aux terroristes”.

En outre, le président al-Assad s’est étonné des rapports disant qu’il y a un combat entre l’armée syrienne et le Hezbollah. “L’armée syrienne et le Hezbollah, en soutien des forces aériennes russes, luttent contre tous les groupes armés que ce soient Daech, le Front Nosra ou tous les autres groupes affiliés à Al-Qaïda”, a martelé le président al-Assad.

Le président al-Assad a fait allusion à la réunion tenue récemment entre les ministres de la Défense de la Syrie, de la Russie et de l’Iran, assurant que cette réunion signifie l’existence d’une bonne coordination dans la lutte contre le terrorisme.

A la question de savoir s’il classifie tous les groupes opposants comme terroristes, le président al-Assad a dit : ” Bien sûr que non. Le groupe opposant qui adopte des moyens politiques n’est pas terroriste. Le terroriste c’est celui qui porte une mitrailleuse ou n’importe quelle arme, terrifie les gens et attaque les civils et les propriétés publiques et privées. L’opposition doit être syrienne et ne doit pas œuvrer par procuration d’autres pays, tels que l’Arabie Saoudite ou tout autre pays”.

A propos de l’accord de cessez-le-feu, le président al-Assad a indiqué que cet accord est mis toujours en vigueur dans la majorité des zones, mais il ne l’est pas dans certaines d’autres, faisant savoir qu’il ne faut pas oublier que les groupes terroristes violent quotidiennement l’accord et que les forces gouvernementales ont le droit, en vertu de l’accord, de leur riposter quand ils les attaquent.

Questionné sur son point de vue sur la raison du début de la crise en Syrie, le président al-Assad a fait noter : “Certains gens ont manifesté pour la réforme et on ne peut pas dire que tous étaient terroristes ou mercenaires, mais la majorité des manifestants recevaient de fonds du Qatar pour manifester avant d’obtenir de fonds de cette monarchie pour passer aux actes armés”, assurant que l’histoire des enfants, qui avaient été arrêtés, est illusoire et n’était pas arrivée.

Abordant la réforme en Syrie qui a principalement commencé en 2000, le président al-Assad a dit : “Nous avons mené toutes les réformes demandées après le début de la crise il y a cinq ans, et rien n’a changé. La question n’a rien à voir avec la réforme, mais elle dépend de l’afflux de fonds du Qatar. La majorité des personnes qui avaient réclamé la réforme avec sincérité au début de la crise ne manifestent pas actuellement et ne s’opposent guère au gouvernement”.

Questionné sur sa riposte à la dissidence de certains ministres pour ce qu’ils avaient prétendu des mesures sauvages menées par le gouvernement, le président al-Assad a souligné que ceux-ci avaient fait défection sur demande de l’Arabie Saoudite et dans certains cas de la France, indiquant qu’ils appartiennent actuellement aux pays mentionnés, non pas aux Syriens et qu’ils n’ont pas de valeur en Syrie. “Leur dissidence n’a rien changé et n’a pas influé sur la réalité en Syrie”, a précisé le président al-Assad.


Par ailleurs, le président al-Assad a insisté sur le soutien à tout dialogue avec toutes les parties syriennes, mais en fait ces pourparlers n’avaient pas commencé jusqu’à présent. “Ce que nous avons fait jusqu’à présent, c’est des négociations avec de Mistura”, a-t-il évoqué.

Le président al-Assad a fait allusion à la compréhension erronée en Occident et à la propagande médiatique disant que la Russie et l’Iran soutiennent le président, affirmant que la question n’a rien à voir avec le président ou avec une personne.

Et le président al-Assad de poursuivre : “La question dépend de la situation dans son ensemble. Le chaos en Syrie aura un effet de domino dans la région et influera sur les pays voisins, l’Iran et la Russie, ainsi que sur l’Europe. L’Iran et la Russie défendent leur stabilité et leurs intérêts en défendant la Syrie. Ils défendent le peuple syrien et son droit de se protéger”.

A la question de savoir s’il mène un dialogue direct ou indirect avec les Etats-Unis, le président al-Assad a dit : “Non, il n’y a aucun dialogue. Mais on peut dire qu’il y a un dialogue indirect par le biais de différents canaux”.

“Il y a des hommes d’affaires qui voyagent et rencontrent des responsables aux Etats-Unis et en Europe pour transmettre des messages donnés. Mais rien de sérieux, car nous ne croyons pas que l’Administration américaine est sérieuse dans le règlement du problème en Syrie”, a-t-il précisé.

Questionné sur le fait que plus de 50 diplomates américains avaient appelé à des frappes militaires effectives et efficaces contre la Syrie, le président al-Assad a assuré que rien de nouveau et que la politique de toutes les Administrations américaines est la même. ” Cette politique se base sur la militarisation, mais par de différents moyens”, a-t-il abordé.

A la question de savoir s’il a un candidat préférable pour gagner la présidentielle américaine, le président al-Assad a souligné : ” En fait, non, nous ne misons point sur n’importe quel président américain, car ce qu’ils disent habituellement dans les campagnes électorales est différent de ce qu’ils font après qu’ils deviennent présidents. On doit attendre pour voir la politique qu’ils adopteront, sans prendre en compte qui est-ce qui gagnera la présidentielle”.

Quant aux retombées de la décision de la Grande-Bretagne de se retirer de l’Union européenne sur la Syrie et la crise dans ce pays, le président al-Assad a indiqué que ” les responsables qui m’avaient donné des conseils sur le traitement avec la crise en Syrie et qui disent que le président al-Assad doit partir et qui est déni de la réalité, sont eux-mêmes dénis de la réalité en raison de leur demande de mener ce référendum”.

Et le président al-Assad d’ajouter : “Si une nouvelle Administration arrive et comprend que la question des réfugiés dépend du problème dans notre région, il y aura une politique différente qui aura des effets positifs sur nous. Mais, je n’ai pas beaucoup d’espoir à cet égard”.

De même, le président al-Assad a favorablement accueilli tout effort dans la lutte contre le terrorisme en Syrie, soulignant que cet effort doit être réel, non pas formel comme c’est le cas actuellement au nord de la Syrie, où 60 Etats n’ont pas pu interdire à Daech de se propager. “L’expansion de Daech a arrêté juste après le début du soutien aérien apporté par la Russie”, a-t-il martelé.

Il a ajouté que cet effort doit être déployé par le biais du gouvernement légitime en Syrie.

“La présence de tout étranger en Syrie sans l’admission du gouvernement est illégale s’il veut lutter contre les terroristes ou toute autre partie”, a dit le président al-Assad.

Le président Bachar al-Assad a fait savoir que la contradiction entre les déclarations des responsables australiens et la position officielle de l’Australie à l’égard de la Syrie exprime la politique de double critère adoptée par l’Occident en général.

Le président al-Assad a souligné que “les pays occidentaux attaquent politiquement la Syrie et envoient ensuite, en secret, leurs responsables, surtout leurs responsables de sécurité, pour traiter avec nous”.

“La majorité des responsables occidentaux répètent uniquement ce que les Etats-Unis veulent”, a-t-il dit.

Le président al-Assad a indiqué que toutes ces déclarations n’ont rien à voir avec la réalité. “Je lutte, ainsi que notre armée, contre les terroristes. Notre gouvernement et toutes nos institutions sont contre les terroristes. Donc, si quelqu’un veut qualifier de “boucher” celui qui lutte contre le terrorisme, çà sera une autre question”.

Questionné sur son message aux réfugiés syriens se trouvant en Australie et dans d’autres pays dans le monde, le président al-Assad a fait noter que la majorité des réfugiés qui avaient quitté la Syrie veulent la regagner, soulignant que la chose la plus humanitaire est d’aider ces réfugiés à retourner à leur pays en contribuant au rétablissement de la stabilité en Syrie et en interdisant tout appui aux terroristes.

Concernant la prise pour cible préméditée des hôpitaux, le président al-Assad a indiqué que toute attaque contre les hôpitaux et les civils versent dans l’intérêt des terroristes, affirmant : “Le gouvernement syrien n’a pas d’intérêt dans le meurtre des civils et dans l’attaque contre les hôpitaux. Nous envoyons toujours des vaccins aux zones qui sont sous contrôle des terroristes. Donc, comment envoyons-nous des vaccins et attaquons-nous en même temps les hôpitaux ?”.

Entretien du Président al-Assad avec le canal « SBS » Australien







Publié dans al assad, Uncategorized | Tagué , , , , | Laisser un commentaire

Le Président al-Assad rend visite aux héros de l’armée qui se positionnent dans les lignes de confrontation à Ghouta est


Banlieue de Damas / Le président Bachar al-Assad a rendu visite aux héros de l’armée arabe syrienne qui se positionnent dans les lignes de confrontation à Ghouta est dans la banlieue de Damas.

Le Président al-Assad a fait une tournée dans les points avancés dans les fermes d’Aghawani dans la localité de Marj Sultan dans la zone de Kharabo, s’y enquérant de la situation des forces opérant dans la zone et qui avaient réalisé de nombreux accomplissements héroïques face aux réseaux terroristes qui y avaient attaqué les habitants, saboté leurs propriétés et détruit leurs infrastructures.

Le Président al-Assad a fait savoir que ce sont les batailles, menées par l’armée arabe syrienne face aux groupes terroristes, qui écrivent l’histoire, assurant que l’héroïsme des soldats de l’armée arabe syrienne avait préservé la Syrie face à la guerre sauvage déclenchée contre elle. “Tous les Syriens inspirent leur force et leur optimisme de cet héroïsme”, a-t-il précisé.

Et le président al-Assad de poursuivre : “La fermeté et la solidité des soldats de l’armée arabe syrienne étaient un paramètre fondamental dans la consolidation de la détermination des Syriens et dans les accomplissements qu’ils avaient réalisés”.

De leur côté, les héros de l’armée ont affirmé au président al-Assad que la visite qu’il leur avait rendue aux champs de batailles rehausse leur moral, affirmant que leur slogan permanent est “la victoire ou le martyre” et qu’ils sont déterminés à faire face aux réseaux terroristes jusqu’à la libération de tout pouce du sol de la Syrie.

Au terme de la tournée, Le Président al-Assad, commandant en chef de l’armée et des forces armées, a partagé l’Iftar avec un certain nombre d’héros de l’armée arabe syrienne se trouvant à l’aéroport de Marj Sultan.



Publié dans al assad, Uncategorized | Tagué , , , , , | 1 commentaire

12 martyrs et 55 blessés dans un double attentat terroriste à Sayeda Zeinab… Le Conseil des ministres condamne l’attentat

sayeda zainab

Banlieue de Damas/ Douze personnes sont tombées en martyr, alors que 55 autres ont été blessées, dans un double attentat terroriste, qui s’est produit ce matin dans la zone de Sayeda Zeinab dans la banlieue de Damas.

Une source du commandement de la police du gouvernorat de la banlieue de Damas a déclaré à SANA que parmi les victimes figuraient un certain nombre d’enfants et de femmes.

La source a  souligné auparavant qu’un double attentat terroriste s’était produit ce matin dans la localité de Sayeda Zeinab, précisant que le premier avait été exécuté par un terroriste kamikaze qui avait actionné sa ceinture explosive à l’entrée de la localité de Sayeda Zeinab en direction de Dhyabiya et le deuxième par un terroriste kamikaze avec une voiture piégée dans la rue de Tine aux environs de la localité.

Pour sa part, le correspondant de SANA a indiqué que les attentats terroristes avaient causés des dégâts considérables dans nombre de maisons, de voitures et de magasins.

Lors de son inspection avec le Secrétaire de la branche de Damas du Parti Baas Arabe Socialiste le lieu du double attentat, le gouverneur de la Banlieue de Damas, Hussein Makhlouf, a indiqué que les attentats terroristes visant les civils sont une riposte de la part des terroristes takfiristes aux victoires réalisées par l’armée arabe syrienne dans les différentes régions syriennes.


Publié dans terrorismes, Uncategorized | Tagué , , , , | 1 commentaire