The Prisoner Exchange Shows Who Controls The Terrorists

May 12, 2012

Two Turkish journalists who went missing while reporting on the uprising in Syria two months ago were released on Saturday with Iran’s help, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced.

The release of the pair demonstrated Iran’s influence with its ally Syria, which lost Turkey’s friendship when it cracked down on pro-democracy protests that erupted last year. Iran and Syria, both isolated by the West, have stuck by each other.
…
In remarks on his Twitter account, Mr. Davutoglu said the Turkish government was sending a plane to bring them home. His Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Salehi had told him earlier that the journalists had been freed, he added.
…
Hopes for their release soared after Turkish officials revealed on Thursday that Iran was acting as a go-between. It was not immediately clear who had been holding them.

Other western media carry similar stories. But I have found none yet that reports the real one.

This was a prisoner exchange and it does not "demonstrate Iran’s influence with its ally Syria" but it demonstrates Turkey's influence over its puppet Free Syrian Army.

Two Iranians abducted by an armed group fighting against the Syrian government have been released, Press TV reported.

Abdolreza Shaqaqi, the spokesman of Iran's embassy in Ankara, told Press TV's correspondent that the two men, named Shahmorad Najafi and Shahqoli Ghalavand, were handed over to Turkey's gendarmerie in the southeastern province of Hatay on Friday.

Shaqaqi stated that the Iranian Embassy is taking the necessary measures to repatriate the two Iranian nationals as soon as possible, adding that it is expected that the two men will leave Turkey for Tehran on Saturday.

The Syrian government held two purported Turkish journalists and some FSA gang held two purported Iranian pilgrims. These prisoners on either side were exchanged and Iran was not a go between but a direct party of this exchange.

But if you only read western media you would not know that. There only the Turkish prisoners count and there is no connection and influence at all of Turkey over the FSA.

In reality though the Turkish intelligence service, under the guidance of the CIA, is the heart and brain of the FSA. It can simply order them to release Iranian prisoners if it benefits its plans.

There is another intelligence service, also under the guidance of the CIA, that is the heart and brain of the terrorists that blow up suicide car bombs in Syria.

Tony Cartalucci reminds us of a 2007 Seymour Hersh report in the New Yorker on the new plans the Bush government developed in 2007:

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

Hersh further reports that this project is done in cooperation with the Saudi prince Bandar who promised to activate and control Salafi terrorists to fulfill it:

Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

The Salafi suicide terrorists who are blowing up people in Syria are not just a random group of lunatics. They are controlled by Saudi Arabia and work for a bigger U.S.-Saudi project.

I strongly recommend to reread the full Hersh report about Bush's 2007 change of policy in the region towards destabilization of the "Shia Axis". It seems to still be followed as much as possible.

By now, of course, no one will be surprised that the Obama administration policies are just a continuation of such lunatic Bush policies with the only change being a slightly modified rhetoric.

Posted by b on May 12, 2012 at 16:14 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Brilliant background to the war of terror. US instead of fighting against the terrorists, are using them as a resource.

Posted by: Alexander | May 12 2012 16:48 utc | 1

The Salafi suicide terrorists who are blowing up people in Syria are not just a random group of lunatics. They are controlled by Saudi Arabia and work for a bigger U.S.-Saudi project.

Although the media are still trying to pretend that yesterday’s bombings could be the work of the regime, it’s a difficult claim. Pro-revolt activists are continuing to maintain the claim that the regime could be blowing itself up. Frankly Syrians are not that subtle, and the regime would not seriously damage itself. You have to observe Israel to see what black operations are like. They don’t damage themselves, or only lightly, like the bombings of synagogues in Baghdad after 1948, in order to persuade Iraqi Jews to move to Israel.
The bombings are genuine, by Salafis. It is evident that Salafi bombers in Syria are supported from Saudi and the Gulf.
I’ve been wondering whether it was official or unofficial support. That is, close to the King, or further out among wealthy Saudis or Gulfis. One could say there is not much difference: Saudi is a King, an enormous royal family, and closely related families who have benefited from oil wealth, like, for example, the Bin Ladins.
The Bandar quote seems decisive. But it is from a long time ago, 2007. It was from a time when the Sunni world had just exploded with anti-Shi’a feeling. For example, Abdullah of Jordan had just made anti-Shi’a remarks, which he hasn’t done since. I found that period very bizarre. Irrational anti-Shi’a remarks were being made everywhere.
I have no doubt that the same sentiments continue, particularly amongst the dinosaurs of Saudi and the Gulf. They have eternal fear of the Shi’a.
The question is who? Is it Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, an official policy, or others further out?
The question all the more serious, as it is evident that the same thing is happening in Iraq as in Syria. There is no more internal revolt in Iraq, only external destabilisation. Sunni jihadis, evidently supported from Saudi and the Gulf. Looks to me like a similar phenomenon.

Posted by: alexno | May 12 2012 20:32 utc | 2

Those who are controling the terrorists are not making it a secret that the current bombing campaign is bad for the regime. They are using it as an argument for intervention.
Only western journos are putting their heads in the sand maybe out of fear of having to think for themselves…

Posted by: Sophia | May 12 2012 22:11 utc | 3

I remember the Saudi ambassador in the Us changed a couple of times during the years 2004-2007, reflecting changes in that regime’s foreign policy; finally Bandar, the neocons’ friend, was reappointed
it was a demonstration of Us colonialism’s ability to adapt: the “war on terrorism”, the neocons’ way, had practically ended in 2006 with a 360° failure: in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Palestine (Hamas), Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan (the return of the Talibans), etc; the Saudis were mad at Bush because its policies had strengthened Iran and were delegitimizing all its allies; just like today the Saudis are in panic mode since the Us let Mubarak fall
now instead we have a Holy War in the Middle East that attracts many young jihadists against the heretics; and our Holy War against “Terrorism” has been accordingly toned down and substituted with R2P; Turkey is on board, Nato completely reconverted to its new mission; the Us stay in the back seat, while Israel is keeping a low profile, considering who is guiding it
the net result is that Nato is now helping the effort of medieval monarchies of the Gulf to defend human rights in Syria through radical religious terrorists – hypocrisy at its highest
if 911 was blowback for Afghanistan, what will the blowback for this crazyness be? for how long can the Saudis manipulate the jihadis’ targets, before all this violence and radicalism gets out of their control?

Posted by: claudio | May 13 2012 1:13 utc | 4

@alexno

The Bandar quote seems decisive. But it is from a long time ago, 2007. It was from a time when the Sunni world had just exploded with anti-Shi’a feeling

true; playing on the sectarian divide in the ME has been, since 2007, an option sponsored by the Saudis and the neocons but which didn’t gain much traction;
the “Arab spring” is was fueled it: it put the Saudis, the other Gulf monarchies and the West, for different reasons, in panic mode (remember also the revolts in Yemen and Bahrein), and offered British and French an opportunity to revive old colonialist schemes and at the same time demonstrate their willingness to intervene in first person leaving the Us and Israel in the backseat
so now, as b says, we are back to neocon schemes; not only with a change of rhetoric, though, also with a considerable different tactic, “multilateral” and indirect

Posted by: claudio | May 13 2012 1:42 utc | 5

It seems to me overt hypocrisy on your part that you employ Seymour Hersh– a journalist who has repeatedly been used as a conduit of CIA and Pentagon misinformation campaigns – in your sententious posts about Syria and Iran.
Doesn’t really surprise me, as you use anything, no matter how discreditable, in order to support your massive generalizations.

Posted by: slothrop | May 13 2012 2:07 utc | 6

A 2007 New Yorker article written by renowned journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a plan under the Bush Administration to organize, arm, train, and deploy a regional army of Sunni terrorists, many with ties directly to Al Qaeda, in a bid to destabilize and overthrow both Syria and Iran. The plan consisted of US and Israeli backing, covertly funneled through Saudi proxies to conceal Washington and Tel Aviv’s role, in building the Sunni extremist front
etc
http://www.prisonplanet.com/sunni-extremists-ravaging-syria-created-by-us-in-2007.html

Posted by: brian | May 13 2012 2:41 utc | 7

US hypocrisy?
U.S. Embassy Damascus
Yesterday
The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the recent bomb attacks in Damascus. Violence that results in the indiscriminate killing and injury of civilians is reprehensible and cannot be justified.
===========
slo wha about the drone bombings in places like Afghanistan and pakistan
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/7/us_drone_kills_16_year_old

Posted by: brian | May 13 2012 2:42 utc | 8

‘A more telling example of what Andrew McCarthy has termed “willful blindness” could hardly be imagined: Opponents of Assad can flaunt their adherence to the most retrograde current in Islam – displaying the al-Qaeda flag in broad daylight and even posting a video of the gesture on the internet – and still the American government and the American news media refuse to see the reality of Islamic extremism that is right in front of their eyes. The attitude of the media is perhaps more important in the present context, since it is the “willful blindness” of the American media that risks condemning the American public to involuntary ignorance of the truth about the Syrian opposition. ‘
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/05/10/Al-Qaeda-Ladies-Choir-Struts-Its-Stuff-in-Rebel-Syria

Posted by: brian | May 13 2012 2:43 utc | 9

I’m far from convinced that Turkey is in the West’s pocket, and continue to believe that it is doing little more than paying lip service to the US-NATO-Saudi plot in Syria.
This article, also from Cartalucci, articulates a few of the contradictions and obstacles through and around which Turkey has to navigate.
The go-to part is at the end, marked by a red banner bearing the words
US-Turkey Relations
A New Relationship
Brookings Announces Next Move in Syria: War
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/brookings-announces-next-move-in-syria.html
I hope it’s superfluous for me to remind people here that the only thing the Yankees are really any good at is believing their own bullshit.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 13 2012 5:23 utc | 10

A year late the Washington Post finally finds out that the Syrian national Council is just the Muslim Brotherhood in disguise: Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood is gaining influence over anti-Assad revolt

After three decades of persecution that virtually eradicated its presence, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has resurrected itself to become the dominant group in the fragmented opposition movement pursuing a 14-month uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.
Exiled Brotherhood members and their supporters hold the biggest number of seats in the Syrian National Council, the main opposition umbrella group. They control its relief committee, which distributes aid and money to Syrians participating in the revolt. The Brotherhood is also moving on its own to send funding and weapons to the rebels, who continued to skirmish Saturday with Syrian troops despite a month-old U.N.-brokered cease-fire.
…
The Brotherhood is eager to distance itself from the jihadists, whose radical vision of an Islamic caliphate spanning the globe bears no resemblance to its philosophy.
As the Brotherhood starts distributing weapons inside the country, using donations from individual members and from Persian Gulf states including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, it is going to great lengths to ensure that they don’t fall into the hands of extremists, Drobi said.

Anyone who has watched the many videos of the FSA demonstrations with AlQaeda flags should recognize that the last two graphs are a lie.

Posted by: b | May 13 2012 8:05 utc | 11

Yeah, pathetic isn’t it?
As the Brotherhood starts distributing weapons inside the country, using donations from individual members and from Persian Gulf states including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, it is going to great lengths to ensure that they don’t fall into the hands of extremists, Drobi said.
It should be obvious that anyone “distributing weapons inside the country” is, by definition, distributing them to extremists.
Just off the top of my head I can’t think of one country in the world in which distributing weapons to anti-govt ‘protestors’ would be seen as anything other than ‘insurgents’ BEGGING to be crushed with as much violence as necessary to thwart them.
If this was happening in Oz, for example, and the Army and Airforce weren’t out there slaughtering them without mercy, I’d be on the phone to my local Federal MP demanding to know why not.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 13 2012 9:35 utc | 12

Hoarsewhisperer, Cartalucci’s article you linked to is very interesting
but that Turkey won’t accept the Wests’ poisoned gifts is, at this stage of the game, wishful thinking; Turkey is presently training rebels, providing safe havens, and producing propaganda pieces where Erdogan poses as protector of the Sunnies

Posted by: claudio | May 13 2012 10:26 utc | 13

Claudio, it could be wishful thinking, and it’s true that the Cartalucci article isn’t a comprehensive Q.E.D. for my pov on Turkey. But there are other factors. For example, Turkey is being and has been treated as ‘not white enough’ for the EU. How keen do you suppose Turkey is now, in 2012, to pursue its (out-dated) dream to join the drain-circling EEC, when it would be welcomed with open arms into BRICS, whose fortunes, and critical mass, make BRICS membership the only game in town – and a no-brainer for Turkey?
Someone’s making a huge mistake about Turkey’s place in the world and I’ve seen no evidence so far that it’s the Turks.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 13 2012 12:33 utc | 14

HP #10, it’s no horseshit; Brooking’s Doha director was a participant at this year’s annual conference of the illustrious at Herzliya. Add it to the brew.

Posted by: www | May 13 2012 12:39 utc | 15

@ 12; “If this was happening in Oz, for example, and the Army and Airforce weren’t out there slaughtering them without mercy, I’d be on the phone to my local Federal MP demanding to know why not.”
Yes, exactly!
@ 10: Good link, thanks

Posted by: ben | May 13 2012 14:17 utc | 16

slothrop @ 6
generalizations, and misinforming sources? Hello? You noticed he used 5 different sources to derive the real truth on that story, yeah?

Posted by: Alexander | May 13 2012 14:22 utc | 17

‘b’ is over-interpreting what we know and what we don’t know. In particular, contrary to ‘b’, we do not know that “the Syrian government held two purported Turkish journalists”. The Globe and Mail is correct that “it was not immediately clear who had been holding them.” We should wait for the two journalists to tell their story before we jump to any conclusions, my friends.
It is correct that the Syrian rebels abducted some Iranians in Syria and are holding them captive. Here’s news dated 30 March and 6 April 2012, which is maybe more detail than you’d want about these abducted Iranians.

In late 2011 seven Iranian electrical engineers working in Syria were abducted. In January they appeared at Youtube in the custody of the notorious rebel Abdul Razzaq Tlass. They are all still held captive or they are all dead somewhere. Separately from that, in late January eleven other Iranians were abducted off a bus in Syria. They were visiting Syria on a religious pilgrimage. Five of these were released in late March in the Turkish province of Hatay near the Syria border, with cooperation from the Turkish authorities, and without any prisoner exchange. They were then flown to Istanbul, and thence to Tehran. Date 30 Mar 2012, they are released: http://www.presstv.com/detail/233852.html . Date 6 Apr 2012: Interview with the five released men in Tehran: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/234904.html PS: 11 minus 5 minus 2 equals 4. So 4 of the Iranian pilgrims are still held captive in Syria.
By the way:

One of the released Iranian men reported after his release: “Our captors told us to say that we are Iranian soldiers that have come to kill the people of Syria, and if we don’t do as they say they will not free us and worse may even kill us. We thought to ourselves that they want us to falsely confess so that they will have an excuse to kill us. We said that lying is not allowed in Islam and we will not lie, do what you will.”
That attitude is the right attitude to take under the circumstances. A number of Syrians who have made false statements under threat of death have had the wrong attitude, in my opinion. The Attorney General of Hama, Adnan Bakkour, was abducted on 29 Aug 2011 and appeared in a video on the Internet on 31 Aug 2011 saying: “I have resigned in protest of the savage regime’s practices against peaceful demonstrators.” His body has not been recovered, but he is more certainly dead than he would’ve been if he’d said “I will not lie, do what you will”.

Posted by: Parviziyi | May 13 2012 17:16 utc | 18

‘b’ quotes a sentence in the Washington Post about the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood: “The Brotherhood is eager to distance itself from the jihadists, whose radical vision of an Islamic caliphate spanning the globe bears no resemblance to its philosophy.” Then ‘b’ remarks about that sentence: “Anyone who has watched the many videos of the FSA demonstrations with AlQaeda flags should recognize that … [it is] a lie.”
I say on the contrary, anyone who reads the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood’s philosophical and political output should recognized that the Washington Post’s sentence is the truth. The Brotherhood supports armed rebellion in Syria, but they are not “radical Islamists” in their philosophy today. They are rather similar to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in philosophy. It is an error by ‘b’ to confound AlQaeda with the FSA and the Brotherhood. Anybody who has watched as many videos of anti-regime demonstrations as I have knows that AlQaeda flags and suchlike radical Islamic sloganeering are only seen in a very small minority of cases, and do not represent the mainstream of rebellious sentiment. The radical Salafi element has been growing, yet it’s still only a minority. Some more detail from on the ground is in Nir Rosen’s long article “Islamism in the Syrian Uprising” http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/08/islamism_and_the_syrian_uprising . By the way, as a separate point, it’s one of the points correctly made by Nir Rosen that the Brotherhood as such has very little presence or direct conscious support on the ground in Syria.

Posted by: Parviziyi | May 13 2012 17:43 utc | 19

In a sitution of civil disturbances in any country, if moral and rhetorical support is given to the rebels by the Western powers and the international community, it weakens the established government’s position and it elevates the expectations of the rebels in their battle against the government. Foreign interventions of this rhetorical kind can make a conflict harder to resolve because they distort the domestic political landscape and the mechanisms which exist inside any country for resolving the conflict. Sergei Lavrov said last October: “If the international community promotes the theory that “the government is so bad it cannot orchestrate a National Dialog and it should resign from office no matter what the consequences”, of course, that would be incitement to violence and unrest in Syria.” Vladimir Putin said on 8 Feb 2012: “We must provide to the Syrian people the possibility to resolve their problems on their own…. Our task is limited to helping them do that without any foreign interference.” The Western powers are not aiming at helping the Syrians to resolve their problems on their own. They are aiming at supporting the rebellion against the government.
I argue, but won’t present the argument today, the only good pathway out of the crisis is to follow the institutional reform program the Assad government has introduced, and support fighting against the violent rebels with an iron fist; and anybody who is advocating for a different pathway is faning the flames of hell.
On 6 Mar 2012 and again on 13 Mar 2012 UK prime minister David Cameron said, and this appears to be the most widely held view in the West: “The shortest way of ending the violence is a transition where Assad goes, rather than a revolution from the bottom. Transition at the top rather than revolution at the bottom.” The Assad govermment represents and acts on behalf of the Syrian society’s Establishment, a thing which is bigger than the State. The Assad government is the Establishment’s leadership, and there is no prospect of emergence of an alternative leadership within the Establishment. Cameron is absolutely wrong when he thinks the Establishment is going to abandon its leadership (and equally wrong if he thinks an anti-Establishment uprising may succeed). No transition at the top is in the cards in Syria, because the broad social Establishment will stay fimly unified around its one and only leadership for at least as long as the uprising from the bottom is not thoroughly quashed.

Posted by: Parviziyi | May 13 2012 18:10 utc | 20

Parviziyi, lots of wishful thinking about what differentiates the various group of fundies, whether the Egyptian or the Syrian ones. Salafists, Wahabists, Muslim Brothers, in the end they all want the same return to their fundamentalist roots and the only thing that differs between them is the time they are willing to give for the transitional changes. The Brothers are prepared to give time for gradual changes as they don’t want to upset or spook the tourists whereas the others don’t want to wait at all. There are no such things as soft fundamentalists as you’re suggesting here about the ones in Syria.
As to the amount of support the Brothers have in Syria, they have the American and the Gulf ones as well as the support of Hamas so what more do they need?

Posted by: www | May 13 2012 18:28 utc | 21

@ Parviziyi,
I find most of your qualified assessments and insights to be logical, useful and persuasive.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 14 2012 3:05 utc | 22

As to the amount of support the Brothers have in Syria, they have the American and the Gulf ones as well as the support of Hamas so what more do they need?
That doesn’t mean much any more.
Less than nothing, actually.
It’s not so long ago that the neocons were telling each other that ‘the road to Tehran is through Damascus.’
Now that the road to Damascus appears to be through Russia (and possibly China, if necessary), don’t be too surprised if the lily-livered Yankees’ appetite for ‘war’ diminishes somewhat.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 14 2012 3:36 utc | 23

Not much but enough to kick off another Libya. Maybe you’re not seeing beyond Syria in all of this because you’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It has more to do with cutting off the road for the Russians and Chinese than opening ones to Teheran or Damascus.

Posted by: www | May 14 2012 4:06 utc | 24

Until our information system is purged of Israeli dual citizen mole traitors we are burnt toast with not even OJ to dunk it into to please the palate.And that is the whole MSM.
They feed US sh*t everyday,365 a year.
How does one address the WOT without bringing up 9-11?I mean the whole wacko thing sprang from it like Athena from Zeus(just like all our modern disaster started in 48 with the twin borg creations of the racist Israeli state and its CIA muscle) ,but some alleged antiwar sites refuse to let one mention it.
WTF?
Only liars and criminals fear the truth.

Posted by: dahoit | May 14 2012 14:26 utc | 25

Tunisian Islamists join jihad against Syria’s Assad

Houssein Mars, 34, is one of at least five Tunisians, all from the southeastern town of Ben Guerdane on the border with Libya, who are believed to have been killed in Syria. Two of their families agreed to be interviewed, as did the family of a sixth man, from the same town, whose fate is not known.
The families either received calls from their sons in Syria or calls from strangers telling them their sons were dead.
Though the families have seen no corpses or proof of the deaths, a video carrying the black flag of al Qaeda has appeared on Facebook eulogizing the five men to a backdrop of Koranic verses and stating they had been killed in Homs, which has seen some of the worst bombardment by Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
…
“There are bearded, religious people but that does not mean they are extremists,” he added. ” If you saw these boys you would be surprised if they killed a fly.”
The Syrian list of captured fighters suggests men from all over Tunisia have gone to fight in Syria. However, the Facebook video eulogizing the dead quotes Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the late Jordanian leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, praising the bravery of men from Ben Guerdane in particular. That suggests the town had a history of sending volunteers to the Iraqi conflict too.
…

Posted by: b | May 14 2012 18:02 utc | 26

“head for Syria – though some said there was a less clear case for jihad there than against foreign invaders in Iraq and Afghanistan”
That’s horrible.. naive young men trying to be good muslims, end up wasting their lives as puppets for USA and Israel.

Posted by: Alexander | May 14 2012 18:43 utc | 27

Back to Main