Hi there!

Cont. reading: A Visit To MoA’s HQ

Just listened to Bashar Assads's interview with Hizbullah's TV station Al-Manar in the English language live translation by Press TV. Some points from my notes:

The interviewer asked why the recent more offensive reaction against the foreign supported insurgents only came so late.

Assad responded that there first had to be a change in public opinion. Many people first believed that this was a "revolution". They took time to understand that this was a foreign assault. Now many of the Syrian fighters have stopped to fight and the balance of power has changed. There are now mostly tens of thousands of foreign fighters against our troops.

Q: Is the action in Qusayr to connect to a Damascus connection to the Alawi land on the coast.

A: That is nonsense. There are no road connections there [we pointed this out in an earlier post – b]. The purpose is to cut the insurgents off from the borders to diminish their supplies.

Q: S-300?

A: Russia is committed to our contracts and those will will be fulfilled. Parts of the contracts have been fulfilled [no direct confirmation that S-300 are already in Syria -b].

Q: Geneva conference?

A: We will ask who the SNC represents. Who are the people on the other side? What is their legitimation? Who do they represent? They are just slaves of foreign powers.

Q: Conditions for Geneva?

A: No preconditions. Results will have to go to a referendum for the Syrian people to decide. Constitution says the president stays on. The government (prime minister etc.) may change while president stays on.

Q: Change of position in Arab League or Turkey?

A: No detectable change. Just rhetoric. They still support insurgents with money and weapons. They receive orders from outside.

Q: What if Geneva fails?

A: That is possible. Some try to make it fail. Russia plays down expectations. Would not change things on the ground.

Q: What do you say to our friends.

A: We confront a campaign against the resistance. This is a World War against us and the resistance.

—

The above is just from my shortened notes. I will link to transcript as soon as one is available.

—

UPDATE: The official English transcript posted by the Syrian news agency SANA: Interview Given by President al-Assad to Lebanese Al-Manar TV.

I have not read it yet (and have no time to do so now) and therefor have not yet corrected any of my impressions posted above.

The Syrian exile opposition is becoming irrelevant. It has been destroyed due to the rivalities between Saudi Arabia and Qatar and is now denounced by all other parts of the Syrian opposition. The U.S. has thereby lost one of its key political instruments to drive the Syrian government out. It now has no one to present as negotiating partner opposed to the Syrian government side in the planned Geneva II conference.

Hassan Hassan writes from Istanbul about the failed "western" attempt, with Saudi support, to make the exile opposition more relevant and to dislodge the Muslim Brotherhood from the leading role in the Syrian National Coalition:

The Syrian political opposition, in its current form, is a hopeless case.

…
One member of the coalition told me Mr Al Sabbagh has been pushed by Doha to block any changes to "give the impression that the new sponsors of the Syrian dossier have failed". By new sponsors, he meant Saudi Arabia, which has assumed responsibilities of sponsoring the Syrian opposition, pushing Qatar aside.

…
It is time for Syrians to realise that the political opposition is an important factor behind the stalemate.

The Syrians have realized that. Michael Kilo (a secular Marxist(!)) the U.S./Saudis alliance wanted to push into a leadership role is rather scathing:

"The real, real, real problem is in the Coalition," Kilo told Saudi-owned broadcaster Al-Arabiya, after some dissidents accused Riyadh of imposing his entry into the warring country's main opposition group.

…
Though still in Istanbul, it was unclear early Wednesday whether Kilo would stay on in the Coalition.

…
The opposition has long been marred by internal divisions and bickering, giving rise to doubts over its ability to present a united front with the proposed peace talks ahead.

The Local Coordination Committee as well as some other opposition groups inside Syria join the criticism and demand a place at the table for themselves:

The revolutionary forces that have signed this statement will no longer bestow legitimacy upon any political body that subverts the revolution or fails to take into account the sacrifices of the Syrian people or adequately represent them.

We consider this statement to be a final warning to the SC, for the Syrian people have spoken.

Edward Dark (a nom de guerre) was one of the original organizers of opposition demonstrations in Aleppo. He witnessed the destruction the armed insurgents waged in his city and has given up on his hopes:

Cont. reading: Syria: The Deadbeat Opposition And A Russian Checkmate

The Washington Post claims: Liberal hawks were vocal on involvement in Iraq but have been quiet on Syria

[A]mid the burst in outside engagement, one influential group seems noticeably silent. The liberal hawks, a cast of prominent left-leaning intellectuals, played high-profile roles in advocating for American military intervention on foreign soil
…
[E]ven as the body count edges toward 100,000 in Syria and reports of apparent chemical-weapons use by Assad, liberal advocates for interceding have been rare, spooked perhaps by the traumatic experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan and the clear reluctance of a Democratic president to get mired in the Middle East. Call them Syria’s mourning doves.

The piece than names eight "liberal hawks" who argue for intervention in Syria (Vali Nasr, Bill Keller, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Paul Berman, Samantha Power, Michael Ignatieff, George Packer) and two "liberal hawks" who argue against it (Tom Friedman, Fareed Zakaria).

How can the central thesis of the piece be true when the author finds four times as many pro-war as anti-war "liberal hawks"?

Fact is that the "liberal hawks", like their fellow neoconservatives, have been quite noisy arguing for intervention in Syria. Fact is also that the U.S. has intervened from the very beginning of the "revolution" and continued to do so by providing thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition, foodstuff as well as other secret support to the insurgents. It is also managing, not successful though, the exile opposition.

What then is the purpose of a page 1 piece in the Washington Post pushing the obviously false claim that "liberal hawks" are quiet?

so·phis·ti·cat·ed

Adjective (of a person or their thoughts, reactions, and understanding)

"Aware of and able to interpret complex issues; subtle."

—–

According to a writer at the Washington Post the level of sophistication of an election campaign in Iran is measured by its numbers of English language spokespersons:

With fluent English speakers on staff available to address media requests, Rouhani’s campaign team is also more sophisticated than those of his competitors.

That sentence (and the whole report) is stupid on various levels.

1. English is taught as mandatory second language in all pubic and many private schools in Iran. About everyone who finishes at highschool level in Iran will have had at least 5 years of English language education. All candidates for the presidential election will have capable English speakers on their staff.

2. Any election campaign's aim is to maximize the number of voters that will choose it. One probably could measure a campaigns sophistication by its ability to get the votes. To use the existence of English capable spokesperson in a Farsi speaking country as a measurement of sophistication is just nuts. While Americans might like to believe otherwise fact is that English language capabilities in non-English speaking countries have zero effect on a local candidates capability to attract the local vote.

3. By writing that sentence the author shows his own lack of sophistication. Reporting from Tehran on elections while emphasizing English campaign spokesperson seems to be a confession that the reporters capabilities in understanding Farsi are less than those spokespersons' English capabilities. It certainly doesn't inspire confidence in anything else that author may write.

Hassan Nasrallah announcement to use Hizbullah's full power on the side of the Syrian government brings a new quality to the fight. Hizbullah has a record of successful military operations against the most powerful and brutal enemies. When Nasrallah promises victory, as he yesterday did, the odds are that he will deliver. In his speech he justified Hizbullah's intervention by the danger the "western" supported takfiris pose to the resistance against Israel.

That Nasrallah defined the insurgents as takfiris is important. A takfiri is one who declares everyone who does not strictly follow his version of believe an unbeliever that should be punished and killed. As one of the Jabhat al-Nusra guys asserted in an interview:

There is a difference between the basic kuffar [infidels] and those who converted from Islam. If the latter, we must punish them. Alawites are included. Even Sunnis who want democracy are kuffar as are all Shia. It’s not about who is loyal and who isn’t to the regime; it’s about their religion. Sharia says there can be no punishment of the innocent and there must be punishment of the bad; that’s what we follow.

By defining the enemy solely as takfiris Nasrallah can justify his call to arms as a non-sectarian fight. Not every Sunni will buy it but many likely will. Following that announcement attacks were and will be mounted against Hizbullah in Lebanon but those will be more of a nuisance than a real danger.

The fight in Qasayr is ongoing. The Syrian military had some successes but the urban combat proves again to be a hard slog. Several of the opposition leaders have urged insurgents from other areas to join the fight in Qasayr. That was a mistake. Few of the reinforcements seem to have reached their target but were caught in the Syrian army cordon around Qasayr. Many of them (video) were killed. For some weeks now the Syrian Observatory's casualty count shows that about double as many insurgents are getting killed than troops on the government side. Some of the insurgents are killed in unnecessary conflicts with Kurds or other groups, some of them by missile fire and many in street combat. I doubt that the killing of 11 Chechen in Syria will lead to more Chechen joining the fight. The takfiris are training kids (video) but those will have little chance against Hizbullah's or the Syrian army's seasoned troops. At a certain point the general insurgency will die down for lack of manpower. When the Syrian government regains full control of the country a terrorist element will likely continue to exist. But it will no longer be an existential danger to the Syrian state.

Senator McCain claimed that the U.S. will create a no fly zone should, as is likely, the Geneva talks fail. I doubt this very much. It is just one of the scare points brought up by the U.S. to increase pressure on the Syrian government. Other such points are Jordan's request for Patriot missiles deployment and the announcement of a large scale multinational maneuver in Jordan.

Under international pressure to join the Geneva talks the exile opposition is in Istanbul again trying to unite but, like in every one of these events before, this attempt is likely to fail. The Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Turkey and Qatar, is unwilling to give up its (somewhat hidden) majority, does not stick to its earlier commitments and inserts new demands:

When [Al Sabbagh] was asked in front of the foreign ambassadors: "What is your priority? Especially that we are facing the challenges of Geneva 2. These demands will lead to the failure of the plan or even the fracture of the coalition which might consequently lead to Bashar Al Assad staying in power". He answered with this (literally): "My conditions are more important and urgent".

These are the people the U.S. wants to install in Syria? Do these exiles look like they would gain control of the takfiris? No and no.

The U.S may soon recognize that its Syria project has come to a dead end. There is no viable replacement for the Syrian government and the takfiris are a serious danger. If the U.S. were sure about a positive outcome should the insurgency win it would certainly do more to help them. Instead it presses European countries to deliver weapons to them. If one, like Nasrallah, is convinced of ones case, one will use all ones own might to win and not ask proxies for help. That the U.S. is doing such is telling

News & views …

Only one of the following headlines is mostly correct. Guess which one.

Obama restricts drone strikes overseas
LA Times
Obama Resets War on Terror
Wall Street Journal
Obama pledges new rules on use of armed drones
Washington Post
President Barack Obama defends US drone strikes – but moves to rein them in
The Independent
Obama limits U.S. drone strikes in shift from constant war footing
Globe And Mail
Pivoting From a War Footing, Obama Acts to Curtail Drones
New York Times
Obama restricts drone killings and foresees end to 'perpetual war'
Guardian
Obama speech suggests possible expansion of drone killings
McClatchy

As usual McClatchy comes nearest to the truth. Here is the White House "Factsheet" on the "new" policies: U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities (pdf).

One can easily fly dozens of drones through the obvious holes in those "new" rules. I for one can think of no past drone strike Obama ordered that would not be allowed under these "new" policies.

By now everyone should know that when Obama says "A" the people will hear their preferred "B" while what Obama will be doing is "C". "A" is great rhetoric, "B" is vague content and the wish to believe while "C" will be a bad policy. Why do most media still fall for this?

A 75-year-old man stabbed to death yards from his home may have been targeted in a racially motivated attack, according to police.

Mohammed Saleem, who used a walking stick, was stabbed three times in the back as he returned home from prayers at his local mosque in Small Heath, Birmingham, on Monday night.

The blows were struck with such violence they penetrated to the front of his body.

The father of seven also had no defensive wounds in what has been described as a swift, vicious and cowardly attack by the man leading the murder investigation, Detective Superintendent Mark Payne of West Midlands police.
Birmingham murder may have been racially motivated, say police – 2 May 2013

Dramatic footage has emerged of the suspected terrorist attack near the London barracks that left one man dead, showing a suspect with blood-covered hands using jihadist rhetoric to justify the violence.

On Wednesday night the prime minister, David Cameron, vowed that Britain will "never buckle" in the face of terrorist incidents, and condemned the "absolutely sickening" killing in Woolwich.
Man killed in deadly terror attack in London street – 22 May 2013

The recent bombing that killed 51 in the Turkish town Reyhanli received only scant coverage in the local media. While the Turkish president Erdogan accused the Syrian government of committing the crime he did not want the facts to be out in the public. But he is not the only one to have power in Turkey.

The Turkish hacker collective RedHack liberated several documents from the Turkish gendarmerie intelligence. The documents mention that Turkish intelligence had since April 25 information that the Jihadist Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria was preparing three car bombs for attacks in Turkey. If these documents are as genuine as they look the Turkish press will hardly ignore them and Erdogan will have to do some explaining.

The Reyhanli cover up and this leak point to a growing spat between the Erdogan followers and the followers of his former allies in the Gulen movement:

Beyond such arguments that there might be a cover-up in the establishment, there are even bigger mysteries. For instance, nobody explained yet why a corpse was tied to one of the car bombs with copper wires, even though this photo was in almost all newspapers in Turkey including Hurriyet, Milliyet, Sabah and Aksam just after the bombing.

In the end, fifty people died, Turkish society is even more divided and many people don't have any trust for the official investigation. The only indisputable outcome of this process is how the crime scene became another arena in the silent fight between the Gulenist-dominated police force and the Erdoganist-dominated national intelligence service (MIT).

The other countries in Syria's a neighborhood also experience related interior trouble. In Lebanon the issue has turned bloody and the northern city of Tripoli has seen several days of now heavy fighting including mortar barrages:

Cont. reading: Syria: The Messed Up Neighborhood

Lebanese youth from the city of Saida, south of Beirut, began Wednesday signing up for armed Jihad in Syria, responding to a call yesterday by firebrand Sunni cleric Ahmad Assir.

Individuals in charge of enlisting Jihadists at Bilal Bin Rabah mosque told Al Arabiya that “hundreds” have signed up so far and that the number is expected to reach thousands.
Lebanese Sunni youth sign up for holy war

Following a circuitous route from Saudi Arabia up through Turkey or Jordan and then crossing a lawless border, hundreds of young Saudis are secretly making their way into Syria to join groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, GlobalPost has learned.
With Official Wink And Nod, Young Saudis Join Syria's Rebels

Cont. reading: Syria: Obama Expresses Concern About Some Foreign Fighters

The New York Times:

Mr. Assad could probably take Qusayr, a crucial area because it lies near the border and links Damascus with the rebel-held north and the government-held coast.

The Wall Street Journal:

The bloody battle over the city of Qusayr, near the Lebanese border, has the potential to transform Syria’s conflict, say fighters, diplomats and analysts. A government victory there could give the regime of President Bashar al-Assad a corridor of territory connecting Damascus to Syria’s pro-Assad coastline and to Lebanese territory controlled by Iran-backed Hezbollah.

The Globe & Mail:

The small city, about 100 miles northwest of the Syrian capital, Damascus, is crucial to supply routes for both sides. Qusair is a conduit for rebel supplies and fighters from Lebanon, and it links Damascus to the Mediterranean coast, which is the heartland for Mr. al-Assad’s minority Alawite sect.

A map of south-west Syria shows Damascus at the bottom, Homs in the upper right and Tartus at the cost in the upper-left. The marker “A” points to the city of Qusayr. It lies across road number 4 which runs from the north-east to the south-west connecting Homs with Baalbek in Lebanon.

bigger

Notice that there is no road through Qusayr running from the south-east to north-west. There is not even a minor connection from Damascus to Tartus that runs through the town. If you were planning a trip from Damascus to Tartus would you consider passing through Qusayr? Unless you would want to walk you likely would not do so. Why then are journalists asserting that the Syrian government would do so?

Cont. reading: Syria: Journalists Are Misreading The Map

The Syrian army seems to be successful in capturing Qusayr. It has thereby opened the transport routebetween Damascus and Lebanon while denying it as a resupply line for the insurgents in Homs governate. Within Qusayr an old armored Israeli Jeep (video) that had been used by the insurgents was found. There must be an interesting story behind this find.

There was a lot of twittering today between pro-insurgency folks about this or that insurgent group that had allegedly sold out or skipped away from the battle in Qusayr. The hundreds of insurgency "brigades" are disunited. The do not have the same motives and aims and therefor lack cooperation. That is one of the reasons why they get beaten back:

Abu Akram, a rebel commander in the city of Maaret al-Numan from the Islamist Suqoor al-Sham brigades who was part of an operations team planning the battle, was a little clearer about the disputes: “The main reason was the lack of supplies, and we started blaming each other and saying ‘so-and-so has more than me, you pledged to work, why aren’t you?’ until it reached the point that Ahrar al-Sham wouldn’t work with the Martyrs of Syria [brigade], and the Martyrs of Syria wouldn’t work except with so-and-so. So we had to end the battle, and plan for a new one.”

While the insurgency continues to retreat, Russia's maneuvering is successful in deterring any chance of outright "western" intervention. Israel remains the wild card. Should Netanyahoo miscalculate and order another Israeli air raid on Syria the local conflict in Syria will escalated into a much greater confrontation.

Doug Saunders writes for the Globe & Mail. His book Arrival City takes a somewhat contrarian view of the migration into city and is pretty good. I found it therefore pretty disgusting to read his recent totally conventional and uniformed missive on Iran: The Iranian threat isn’t nuclear – it’s political

The openeing graphs:

During the eight years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran has become an increasingly dangerous place. That danger, however, is not posed by nuclear weapons – which remain an uncertain and, at worst, long-term threat – but more urgently from Iran’s own self-imposed collapse.

Far worse than Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comic-book sabre-rattling at Israel and the West, worse than his increasingly ineffective support of extremists and demagogues, has been his effect on his own country. A decade ago, Iran was a hopeful place, moving away from the excesses of its theocratic revolution and into the outer edges of normalcy and co-operative relations with the world. The Ahmadinejad era reversed that, plunging the country into self-isolation, poverty, mismanagement and paranoia.

Where to begin?

Was it Ahmedinejad that made Iran internationally more isolated than a decade ago? Iran had cooperated with the United States to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan and to install the Karzai government. The U.S. not-so-grateful response was to name Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil and soon to introduce sanctions and more sanctions. That happened on January 29 2002. Ahmedinejad came to office only in August 2005.

Is it really then, as Saunders says, Ahmedinejad who reversed co-operative relations with the world? Did Ahmedinejad impose sanctions on Iran?

The nonsense continues:

Every Iranian feels the pain of the Ahmadinejad years. Inflation is out of control, with basic staple foods and vegetables unaffordable to many working families. The rial, Iran’s currency, has plummeted in value. Unemployment is the norm, with little economic activity beyond the dysfunctional state – and army-controlled enterprises.

Every sentence in the above paragraph is factually wrong. During the Ahmedinejad years the purchase power parity GPD of Iran has increased through every year. The subsidized gas and oil prices in Iran were best for those who used the most energy, the rich. When Ahmedinejad cut those subsidize and replaced them with direct payments the poor Iranians gained a lot despite an increase in inflation. That is why they would likely vote for anyone he will support:

“A pro-Ahmadinejad candidate will have a good number of votes,” said Abolfazl Zahei, a proreform activist. “There are 2,000 villages in South Khorasan province, and most people in those villages have benefited from Ahmadinejad’s government. People care about making their ends meet and welfare, not politics.

While inflation in Iran is high, staple prices are price controlled and have not increased that much. They are surly not unaffordable for working families. Yes, the rial has plummeted. As it should. Japan under prime minister Abe just willfully devalued the Yen and revived Japan's lagging export industry. A plunging Rial will have exactly the same result for Iran. Imports of luxury goods will be more expensive but many people will now find work in growing export businesses. While unemployment in Iran is likely higher that the official 8%. compared to say Spain it is rather benign. Private economic activity in Iran is not low and the economy is not army-controlled. Those companies in semi public hands are owned by various insurance like pension funds that have their own interests divergent from the army or the revolutionary guards.

One wonders how Doug Saunders could come up with so much nonsense. But he also seems to believe that former president Rafsanjani can win in the upcoming presidential election in Iran. Rafsanjani is a neoliberal ultra-rich cleric who was trounced by Ahmedinejad in the 2005 presidential election. He may get, like the "reformers" in 2005, the votes from the upper middle-class people in north Tehran. But as the 2005 election proved any election in Iran is decided by the votes of rural and poor masses. They will vote for the candidate that has the support of the rather social-democratic president Ahmedinejad.

There is a change in the global political position towards Syria. Here are three recent indicators. Via FLC we learn of a significant position change in Tunisia:

Tunisia wants to reopen its embassy in Syria which has been closed for more than two years and has sent a request in this vein to the government in Damascus. Tunis is yet to receive a reply from Syria’s foreign ministry and a diplomatic source said that the letter has been sent to the foreign ministry since “last week.”
…
Tunisia quickly closed its embassy when the uprising against the Assad regime began in 2011. It will become the first country to reopen its diplomatic office in Syria if its request receives a positive response from the foreign ministry.

Tunisia is especially significant as it is part of the Arab League and its government is led by the Ennahda party which is ideological affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Tunisia is threatened by the Ansar al-Sharia Salafist movement, some of who's supporters are fighting on the Syrian insurgency side, and the Ennahda government recently moved against that group.

Another sign that the international wind is changing was last weeks United Nation General Assembly vote on a nonbinding Qatari resolution against Syria. The resolution itself had to be rewritten some six times and while it gained the vote of 107 states a similar resolution last year was favored by 130 states.

A third sign is the seemingly changing position in Israel where a political mood is turning towards keeping the Syrian president Bashar Assad in power:

“Better the devil we know than the demons we can only imagine if Syria falls into chaos and the extremists from across the Arab world gain a foothold there,” one senior Israeli intelligence officer was quoted as saying.

A weakened, but intact Assad regime would be preferable for Syria and the Middle East, the Times reported intelligence sources as saying.

That view will likely later be reflected in Washington where the "Assad must go" crowd has yet to weaken its position.

While the above three indicators point to a change in position the Israeli change adds what can be understood as a new demand:

The situation that Assad survives, maintaining power in Damascus and in the corridors to the large coastal cities, would entail the breaking up of Syria into three separate states.

The Zionist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy have propagandized for such a breakup for quite some time:

[T]hree Syrias are emerging: one loyal to the government, to Iran and to Hezbollah; one dominated by Kurds with links to Kurdish separatists in Turkey and Iraq; and one with a Sunni majority that is heavily influenced by Islamists and jihadis.

“It is not that Syria is melting down — it has melted down,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of “In the Lion’s Den: An Eyewitness Account of Washington’s Battle with Syria.”

“So much has changed between the different parties that I can’t imagine it all going back into one piece,” Mr. Tabler said.

I do not believe that a split of Syria is going to happen. The Kurds in Syria may gain some additional cultural autonomy but they will not join any other state or create one of their own. The Jihadist insurgency will be beaten and most Sunnis in Syria, as well as the minority Alawite and Christians, will not want their state to split but want to rebuild it.

Israel does not have the power to break Syria into weak statelets and other states have no interest to do so. It would only invite more trouble.

In this recent interview Bashar Assad presents himself again as a self secure statesman. There is no way that man would let Syria get chopped up though he is still expecting some additional outright intervention:

"[Intervention] is a clear probability, especially after we've managed to beat back armed groups in many areas of Syria. Then these countries sent Israel to do this to raise the morale of the terrorist groups. We expect that an intervention will occur at some point although it may be limited in nature."

Any further intervention will only come after the Geneva conference fails as it will because the disunited Syrian opposition will not be able to guarantee that its side will adhere to any negotiated clause.

But that failure is still many weeks away and meanwhile the trend towards more international support of Syria and against the insurgency will gain speed. Without broad international support a U.S. or Israeli intervention is likely to fail.

Back from traveling here are some links to recent developments around Syria.

There is some background on a video that shows a Saudi al-Nusra fighter executing 12 captured and bound men. There is also new information on al-Mesreb village where locals clashed with al-Nusra terrorists who killed villagers and burned down houses.

Two suicide bombers opened an all out attack on the central prison in Aleppo which houses some 4,000 prisoners. I interpret this attack as an attempt to free prisoners to urgently get more personal for the insurgency. The attack was repelled by prison guards with significant losses for the attackers.

There are more reports of civilians clashing with insurgents as well as of fighting between various insurgency groups.

The Syrian army is still preparing to liberate the city of Qusayr which is situated on one of the main supply routes for both the insurgency as well as for the army. Civilians fleeing the surrounded city report that about a thousand insurgents in the city are digging in but are low on ammunition.

Anonymous U.S. intelligence people claim that Russia delivered a new version of anti-ship missiles to Syria. There is no mentioning of when exactly that is supposed to have happened. Last month, last year or three years ago? It also not clear why that is supposed to be a change. Syria already has able coast defense forces that would make a supply of the insurgents via a sea route quite dangerous. Additionally, as U.S. media only now note, there is new permanent Russian navy force in the Mediterranean that could challenge any attempts of a coastal siege or even a no-fly zone. The "new weapons" story seems to be a plant (to "Iraqi WMD" reporter Michael Gordon) to allege recent Russian delivery of arms to Syria even if there is no proof for such. But the claim can be used to justify the delivery of U.S. weapons to the insurgents.

The exiled Syrian opposition is now demanding new arms as a condition for agreeing to peace talks. The seem to understand that the current losing state of the insurgency does not give them any leverage in negotiations.

For the third time insurgents have abducted UN observers in the Golan height zone and looted their observation post. The Syrian government claims to have an email that prove contacts between the Qatari government and the UN kidnappers in one of the earlier cases. Qatar is said to have invested about $3 billion to keep the insurgency in Syria going and to be disliked by every side.

"Western" pro-insurgents "experts" claim that Syria is breaking up into various parts. As the facts on the ground would not yet agree to that, this campaign suggest that such a breakup is the aim of the "expert's" sponsors.

Obama met with the Turkish sultan Erdogan. There seems to be no agreement between them on how to continue their onslaught on Syria. The only point they agree on is a meaningless "Assad has to go" which would then be a starting point for "something". Zionist lobby "experts" urge the U.S. to further intervene with a no fly zone to save Erdogan's endangered political position and U.S. "credibility". In the run up to World War I it was Germany's "credibility" towards a misbehaving ally that had to be saved. That did not end well.

… busy …

News & views …

Time magazine has a piece about a video which shows a Syrian insurgency fighter cutting the heart and liver from a man and then eating it.

I swear by God, we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog! Takbeer! Heroes of Baba 'Amr, [inaudible] cut out their hearts to eat them!

The man has been seen in other videos. He is known as Abu Sakkar of Baba Amro, Homs, also known as Khaled Al Hamad. He was a senior commander of the "moderate" Al Farouq brigade. "Was" because he is now dead. And no, he did not die of food poisoning. The Farouq brigade is part of the Free Syrian Army which is supported by the United States.

The British intelligence operation known as Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has put up new numbers of the allegedly total killed in Syria (it is certainly not incidentally that these numbers are put out the day Cameron meets Obama):

More than 80 thousand people killed since the beginning of the Syrian uprising

As of 11/5/2013, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has documented the deaths of 70,257 people since the beginning of the Syrian revolt (in 18/3/2011), with the first martyr falling in Der'a that day.

The dead:
34,473 civilians, including: 4,788 children and 3,048 women.
2,368 unidentified persons (individually archived with pictures and video).
12,916 rebel fighters.
1,847 unidentified rebel fighters.
1,924 defectors.
16,729 regular soldiers.

The SOHR estimates that more than 12,000 pro-regime militia, Shabiha, and "informants" were killed by rebels.

First notice the weird "civilian" numbers. If the Syrian government is "indiscriminate" in killing "its own civilians" why is it that nine times more men have died than women? Were these really "civilians"?

Second: By this count the total number of killed insurgents (rebel fighters + unidentified rebel fighters + defectors) is about equal the number of regular soldiers killed.

Third: How come the number of civilians, insurgents and regular soldiers are counted exactly while the 12,000 allegedly killed "Shabiah" are only estimated? What is the difference between a "civilian" and an "informer"? Or is this new addition to the estimate just a Cameron-sees-Obama bonus?

But as unreliable these numbers may be it is still interesting to look at changes within these numbers.

Looking at some of the daily data the SOHR is putting out we find that a significant trend change has taken place. While the total numbers of dead soldiers and insurgents listed by the SOHR in this conflict is nearly equal, the daily reports over the last weeks show that now more than double as many insurgents die as regular soldiers.

Yesterday:

35 civilians, 25 rebel fighters, 2 defected soldiers, a defected officer, 8 unidentified rebel fighters and at least 17 regular soldiers.

Disregarding the "civilians" 36 fell on the insurgency side while 17 fell on the government side.

Friday (Saturday data is missing):

38 civilians, 36 rebel fighters, 1 defected captain, 2 defected soldiers, 8 unidentified rebel fighters and at least 18 regular soldiers.

47 insurgents versus 18 regular soldiers.

Thursday

27 civilians (including 12 children), 20 rebel fighters, 9 unidentified rebels, 18 regular soldiers, 5 defected soldiers.

34 insurgents versus 18 regular soldiers.

The trend of twice the casualties rate on the insurgency side than on the government side has been holding for some weeks now. As I noted earlier this changed ratio, as well as some other factors like their savage behavior, is likely diminishing the insurgency's personal capacity faster than it can attract and integrate new fighters.

The Washington Post lauded the intervention in Libya. The demise of Gaddhafi threw the country into deep chaos. The Washington Post is now working to instigate a like intervention in Syria. To be able to do so it has to hide the chaos in Libya. Thus we get this news report:

Growing concerns over protests roiling Libya prompted the State Department to begin evacuating some diplomats from Tripoli, as the Pentagon put troops stationed at nearby European bases on high alert.

The U.S. is evacuating diplomats and alarming troops because of some protests? Aren't their protests in many countries all the times without such measures taken? What are these protests about?

The protests that have spread in Libya over the past week stem largely from the passage of a law that bars from public office officials who served in key roles under the deposed Libyan regime of Moammar Gaddafi.
…
The unrest worsened after the country’s new legislature last weekend overwhelmingly passed the bill barring certain figures from serving in government. It could unseat officials who currently hold important jobs.

That is all you will learn from the Washington Post news report. Some law was passed, with an overwhelming majority we are told, that threatens some bureaucrats with being fired. Someone is protesting about that.

Except, of course, that is NOT what happened.

For over a week some unidentified heavily armed gangs had set siege onto the Foreign Ministry in Libya. They also occupied the Justice Ministry:

Cont. reading: WaPo Fudges Libyan Protests

As I wrote yesterday:

But don’t bet on a turn around yet. I expect some nefarious things are being cooked up right now. There are lots of talks of “massacres” without any evidence that such happen. We may soon see one with “evidence” and then should be careful when attributing that to the responsible side.

Now here is a “massacre” as tweeted by the BBC’s Jon Williams:

Reports up to 25 dead after explosions in Turkish town of #Reyhanli on #Syria border. Transit point for rebels going in, refugees coming out.

Here is a first gruesome video of the incident. Looks like a big one went off. Some gunfire can be heard in the background.

We can expect the Turkish prime minister to accuse the Syrian government over this incident and to demand at least retaliation if not outright war.

But we do not know yet how those explosions happened. There is talk of Scud missile but that seems unlikely. As I said we have to very careful with attributions.

This tweet by the Turkish journalist Mahir Zeynalov may help with assessing the incident:

Two explosions outside Reyhanlı municipality and post office, many wounded. This place is predominantly populated by pro-Assad Alawites.

Update: The Turkish interior minister claims a “car bomb” exploded. At least 4 dead and 18 wounded.

Update: Up to 4 carbombs, 18 dead, 22+ injuried. Some harsh words towards Erdogan from people interviewed on Turkish TV.

Update: In this video one can see the damage of the first explosion and then hear/see a second (smaller?) one aimed at first responders. Typical “double tap”?

Update: 40+ dead, 100+ wounded 30+ seriously

No direct blame on Syria yet from the Turkish government but this could get serious:
Turkey sends military reinforcements to Syrian border after blast

The Turkish military dispatched additional troops to the Syrian border after car bombs killed at least 40 people in the Reyhanlı district of Hatay on Saturday.

The Cihan news agency said the military began deploying huge number of air and ground military reinforcements to Reyhanlı on the Syrian border after the blasts.

Update: Why is this guy looking so satisfied?