[Reproduced below are two reports on the alleged truce concluded between the "Moderate" rebels and the ISIS in Syria. The first report is circulated by the Genocidal Assad's PR network in India, with evident glee; the caption says it all: 'Syrian "Moderate" Rebels and Islamic State Jihadists "Make Peace". What Will Obama do Now?' The second report is hosted on a major Russian (English language) website. Before taking up an instructive comparison between the two, we'll draw attention of the readers to a few other pertinent facts.
I. The website hosting the first report is generally known for dishing out fairly outlandish and highly slanted propositions. But, one may argue that it's a matter of subjective assessment. So, what is even more significant in the current context, is that in the very recent past the website had hosted report to the effect that "(t)he former employee at US National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden, has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." (Source: <http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-trained-by-israeli-mossad-nsa-documents-reveal/5391593>. Posted on July 16.) It bears mentioning that this was also circulated by the Assad regime's PR network in India, on August 18, with a significant level of elation. It, however, was pointed out that this appears to be just a grand hoax as the report does not mention mention to whom Snowden made his revelation and, far more importantly, till date all Snowden revelations were unfailingly shared with the Guardian and and the Guardian religiously carried these, while in this case there is no corroborating report from the Guardian. The exposure could not elicit any meaningful response. II. Another mail circulated, on July 5, by the same network proclaimed from the rooftop that "America's newest poster boy [is] Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi". (Source: <http://www.crescent-online.net/2014/07/meet-al-baghdadi-the-new-poster-boy-yusuf-dhia-allah-4540-articles.html>, dated July 2014.) Just compare this with: "[Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi] became the United States' second-most sought-after terrorist, after Ayman al-Zawahri, the leader of Al Qaeda. The United States government has offered a $10 million reward for information leading to his capture." (Source: <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/world/asia/iraq-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-sermon-video.html?ref=world&_r=1>, dated July 5 2014.) III. Yet another mail circulated, on August 23, by the same network asserted: "For my part, I have always said that there was no difference on the ground between the Free Syrian Army, Al-Nosra Front, the Islamic Emirate etc ... All these organizations are composed of the same individuals who continuously change flag. When they pose as the Free Syrian Army, they fly the flag of French colonization and speak only of overthrowing the "dog Bashar." When they say they belong to Al-Nosra Front, they carry the flag of al Qaeda and declare their intention to spread Islam in the world. Finally when they say they are the Islamic Emirate, they brandish the flag of the Caliphate and announce that they will clean the area of all infidels. But whatever the label, they proceed to the same abuses: rape, torture, beheadings, crucifixions." (Source: <http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html>, dated August 18.) Even if we for the moment opt to ignore the sheer absurdity of the claim, how can there be a "truce" now ending the ongoing war between the two camps if they were in fact one and the same!? And, what's there to be elated about it!? Now let us come to the two reports proper. The first report opens with the following: "*Well, Well, Well, what do we have here?* "*According to a new report by Agence-France Presse (AFP) "Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus, a monitoring group said on Friday."* "What will the Obama administration do now?" Then it further informs: "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that moderate and Islamist rebels had signed a ceasefire deal for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus. "The two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found, and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy" to be Assad's government and his forces." Compare with the second report: "The moderate rebels who signed the deal include four distinct groups, including the US-backed Syria Revolutionary Front, reported Charles Lister, an analyst at the Brookings Institute. The SRF was considered moderate enough to merit the West's support and a part of the Free Syrian Army, a loose coalition of secular and moderate groups fighting to topple the Assad government with the blessing of Washington." So the impression conveyed by the first report that ***all*** the "moderate" rebels have signed a truce with the ISIS is conclusively negated by the second report. Even if we opt to disregard any doubt about the veracity of the report about the truce, this changes the scene quite substantively. There are many more "moderate" groups who are no party to the truce.] I/II. http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrian-moderate-rebels-and-islamic-state-jihadists-make-peace-what-will-obama-do-now/5401564 Well, Well, Well, what do we have here? According to a new report by Agence-France Presse (AFP) "Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus, a monitoring group said on Friday." What will the Obama administration do now? Originally President Obama said in a televised speech that he will support "military assistance to the Syrian opposition." Here is what he said: Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria's crisis once and for all. This is an interesting development since Washington wants to authorize airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or ISIS on Syrian territory. It is a move that the Assadgovernment and Russia say that would be an act of aggression and a breach of International law. Will the mainstream media report this peace agreement between these two organizations? Washington would welcome this development because both groups consider the Assad government a common enemy. Online news organization Middle East Eye reported that both moderate Syrian rebels and the Islamic State's common enemy is the Assad government: The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that moderate and Islamist rebels had signed a ceasefire deal for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus. "The two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found, and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy" to be Assad's government and his forces. They forgot to mention that the U.S. and other Western allies consider the Assad government their enemy as well. Although this truce is a new development, it should not surprise anyone. The U.S. has been supporting the Syrian rebels' right from the start to remove Assad. Many of them joined the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and other terrorist groups in the region including those in Iraq. Washington would welcome a truce between both groups because they will target the Syrian government. Washington will most likely launch airstrikes against these same terrorists in Syria as a justification to enter Syrian territory. The AFP detailed exactly what was agreed upon between both groups: The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the ceasefire deal was agreed between IS and moderate and Islamist rebels in Hajar al-Aswad, south of the capital. Under the deal, "the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime." Nussayri is a pejorative term for the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs. The world needs to stop this war. If the U.S. does launch airstrikes into Syria to target these terrorist organizations, it will be considered an aggression against the Assad government. If innocent civilians or Syrian government forces are killed in the airstrikes, the Assad government would most likely respond with military action. Russia, China and most nations around the world would condemn U.S. actions on Syria's sovereign territory. The U.S. wants Assad out of power. ISIL was created by the U.S. and its allies in the region. Is this the start of World War III? I hope not. The Syrian government can defeat ISIL on their own if Washington would stop sending arms into the region. The question we must ask is who will receive U.S. arms shipments now. ISIL? II. http://rt.com/news/187580-isis-deal-syrian-rebels/ ISIS and moderate Syrian rebels strike truce... with Al Qaeda's help - reports Published time: September 13, 2014 15:17 Reuters/ Osama Al-dulaimi The militants of Islamic State have reportedly struck a deal with moderate Syrian rebels not to fight each other and focus on toppling the government. Some reports say the deal was brokered by the Al-Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda branch in Syria. The IS, formerly known as ISIS/ISIL, is preparing its forces in Syria for likely bombings by the US, which now considers itself at war with the extremist movement. In addition to spreading out from their known facilities, the group that took over portions of Syria and Iraq to build a caliphate is apparently seeking to safeguard itself from attacks of other armed groups in the war-torn country. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a London-based conflict watchdog, the IS has signed a non-aggression pact with moderate fighters, who control the Hajar al-Aswad neighborhood of Damascus. Under the deal, "the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime," AFP reported. "Nussayri" is a derogatory name for the Shiite Alawite sect, to which Syrian President Bashar Assad and many of his officials belong. READ MORE: US 'at war' with ISIS: White House and Pentagon upgrade 'Al-Qaeda style' op According to Orient Net, the truce is meant to stop fierce fighting that engulfed the neighborhood for over 40 days and was brokered by the Al-Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda affiliate that has frequently clashed with the Islamic State, which itself splintered from the terrorist network to pursue an independent struggle for power in the region. The moderate rebels who signed the deal include four distinct groups, including the US-backed Syria Revolutionary Front, reported Charles Lister, an analyst at the Brookings Institute. The SRF was considered moderate enough to merit the West's support and a part of the Free Syrian Army, a loose coalition of secular and moderate groups fighting to topple the Assad government with the blessing of Washington. An Islamist Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra fighter.(Reuters / Hamid Khatib ) An Islamist Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra fighter.(Reuters / Hamid Khatib ) In an earlier interview with the Independent, SRF leader Jamal Maarouf said that Al-Qaeda was not his problem and that he would welcome "anyone who fights against the regime inside Syria." The news comes as the US Congress is considering a $500 million request from the Obama administration to train and arm moderate rebel groups in Syria. Washington refuses to send its own troops on the ground against the IS and will limit its military action to reconnaissance and airstrikes instead. READ MORE: Over 2,700 Iraq air missions preceded Obama's anti-ISIS campaign expansion This means that the shooting part of the war against the Islamists, which Obama declared, would have to be fought by forces like the Kurdish militia, which already receives arms from the US and some European countries, and moderate Syrian rebels. The reported alignment of supposedly moderate SRF with America's enemies raises the question whether Washington would be able to vet the recipients of its military aid to ensure that those arms and training would not be eventually used against it. The Obama administration seems to be confident of this. "We have been working with the Syrian opposition now for a couple of years, providing them assistance, non-lethal at first but then we [now] provide them with some military assistance, so we know them better today than we did a year, two years ago," deputy national security adviser Ben Rhode told The Huffington Post before the news of the deal broke. "If we were to try to run a play with Assad, we would ensure that they were turned against us, and in fact we would be taking sides in a sectarian war against one side," he added. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
