My Response to Paul Danahar from BBC news report to Syria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18420858
I
was not very optimistic when opening up your article about the point-of-view
that you would be reporting from after reading many of your tweets. In your
tweets you stated that that Diplomats or opposition told you statements but in
your article you stated them things that happened.
“They [Syrian Government] told the Alawite community, from which
most of the leadership is drawn: "This is not a Syrian revolution, it is a
Sunni revolution, so get on the right side." They gave militias guns and
they told them to protect themselves.”
Sure
I believe you were told this, but did you investigate this statement? Did you
go into Alawite communities and look for these militias? Did you see a lack of
male presence in these communities to conclude they were off fighting? From the
lack of this information in your article shows me you did not.
A
“Sunni Revolution?” I beg to differ that the government would say that to any
group of people in Syria. This statement is meant to build fear and hatred
against the Alawite sect and to build an image that the government exerts
influence and control over the Alawite community. As if this community cannot
draw their own conclusion about what is happening around them.
Let
us look logically at this “Syrian/Sunni revolution.” Alawites are said to make
up of 12% of the Syrian population and Sunnis estimated to be around 75% of the
population. Syrian Army is estimated to be above 300,000 soldiers. So one could
reasonably conclude the majority of the Syrian Army (and even Police and
Security Forces) is Sunni. Correct?
So going off of this notion, a Sunni revolution would mean
the Syrian Army against the “Shabihas” or Alawite Militias or the supposed
Syrian Army Generals, who are said to be all Alawites. But this scenario is not
what is happening in Syria is it? There is not a mass defection of the Syrian
Army to the rebel “FSA” fighters?
But
the Alawites are not smart enough to see that the Army is protecting them and
country so they have to believe these supposed statements by the government?
Hold that thought, lets look at something else…
Let
us look at Syrian Government; all Prime Ministers have been Sunni Muslims, no
defection. Both of the Vice-Presidents are Sunni Muslims Najah al-Attar and
Farouk al-Sharaa. With one of them being from Daraa and the other being a
FEMALE. No defection from either. To top it all off Al-Attar’s brother is an
exiled leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.
But
the Alawite community took the supposed statement from government and began
pre-emptive attacks on their Sunni neighbors?
If
true, pre-emptive? Lets go back almost a year to last summer to Homs, when
young Alawite men were slaughtered and thrown on the side of the road, eyes
ripped out. You may have missed this since there was no International
condemnation of this event.
During
my interview with BBC Radio, I choose not to make the following statement:
Sectarianism flows through the armed opposition and the exiled opposition. From
the beginning they have wronged the Alawites and belittled them by sectarian
statements.
1.
We have been ruled by the minority for 40 years and oppressed by them.
What oppression of religion has this minority given them?
There has been no religious oppression on any group in Syria. They were not
barred from political positions or influence because of they were Sunni as VPs
and Prime Ministers as prime examples of this.
2.
Christians to Lebanon, Alawites to the Grave. Allahu Akbar.
A phrase repeated at many videotaped “peaceful” protests
in Syria. Democratic much?
3.
Alawites are the only ones that benefited from the Assad Government.
False. As I stated in my interview, all sect have benefited
from this government. Alawites has the rich and the poor, as do Sunnis and
Christians and Shias. The number one thing the Alawites have benefited from
this government is the same thing that all sects have benefited from. Protections
from extremists and religious protection and freedom.
Average
citizens of Syria do not think this way not before the crisis and not now. Pro-reform
or Pro-government citizens do not feel or think this way. Have you thought to
publish their statements or even ask them? Have you thought to publish
sectarian statements from opposition?
Sir, you were on ground, you had an opportunity go
investigate statements said to you. You had the opportunity to go visit Alawite
poor communities and rich communities. You could have sat and talked to
“pro-reform” people about the situation, their hopes and fears (and I hope if
you are still in Syria or going back that you go visit these communities,
especially the poor Alawite areas.)
Nir Rosen said when accused of
being “pro-regime,” that he was not embedded with only opposition or “FSA” to
only see one point-of-view, he was able to get the full 360 image in Syria. You
had that chance but you choose to show the 180 image of situation. Nothing
worth-wild since that’s the route majority of reporters have decided to take.
Only reason this upsets me, is you are helping the fueling of anti-Alawite
images and are wronging them. As a human being and Sunni-Syrian I feel wronged
by your published words.
Qubair Massacre, just like the
Houla Massacre, is a horrifying event for Syria and Syrians. I have no doubt that
the scene you saw will always stay in your mind. Whoever committed these crimes should be held responsible and
I am sure we agree on that point. With that said, your analysis of what
happened in Qubair is one-tracked agenda abiding.
“But the army's
account deserves attention because they were clearly at the village - the
tarmac on the road leading to it had been chewed up by the tracks of their
military vehicles.
So what was their role? The timing of this attack,
as Kofi Annan went to the UN to report on his findings so far, could not have
been worse for the regime.
That suggests that some
of the militia the government has been accused of creating have spiralled
beyond their day-to-day command and control, leaving the army to try to clean
up their mess in Qubair before it was met by the world's gaze.”
To talk about this we have to bring up the Houla Massacre
that took place not too long before Qubair. We cannot be so blind to say that
no one benefits from these killings and “massacres.” Syria and the Syrian
government definitely do not benefit since every massacre gets more rhetoric
from the West for foreign intervention. The Syrian government is condemned
before any investigation and the United Nation meets. We cannot be blind to say
that the armed opposition, external/exiled opposition does not benefit from
these events politically. (One may think this is inhumane to state but it is
what it is and needs to be said.)
The Houla Massacre did wonders for the opposition, videos
of the dead, international headlines, expelling of diplomats from majority of
Western nations. There were calls for an investigation that never happened.
Why? Maybe because as facts started to roll out, those who died by knives and close-ranged
gunshot wounds and were videotaped were mainly Alawite. That some of those kids
were of the family of two MPs in the Syrian government.
But the Syrian government is guilty until proven innocent
but when innocence is on the horizon the story is dropped. Then comes a planned
United Nations meeting on Syria. In comes the Massacre of Qubair. A town of
around than 130 people. All killed, burnt, with their houses and their
livestock.
You state that military tracks confirm army was at the
sight, I do not doubt that, but that the army is being forced to clean up the
mess and murders of the militia they are losing control of. These militias are
supposedly mainly Alawites that are working for/with the government against
anti-government opposition, whether armed or not. So the logic is that they
have no sense of right or wrong, that they do not know what actions “benefit”
their image or the image of the Syrian government? This group is so out of
control that they would enter into a small village and kill a whole village
because they are Sunni, the day before a United Nations meeting on Syria?
Excuse me if I find this
hard to wrap my head around this.
“The men the UN met at Qubair blamed a neighbouring village of
Alawites, a sect from which the ruling elite of Syria are drawn.
One man claimed those villagers had
coveted the land we stood on and, with the help of the Syrian army, had
launched a scorched earth attack on the hamlet.”
By chance did YOU or the UN
monitors go visit these neighboring Alawite villages? Did you try? I mean if I
was there and was told such information, first thing I would want to do is go
visit the villages that are being accused of killing their fellow countrymen.
At least go make sure that such “Alawite villages” exist in close-range to this
village.
In one of your tweets you
wrote that a man that was battered approached you and said he saw the whole thing
but the UN monitors said that his story is questionable and they think he
followed the convey to village. What was his “side” of the story? Would you not
like to share some of the lies being shared with you or did you put him into
your story keeping out what the UN monitors said to you.
Lets look at the other side;
the West and media condemned the Syrian government quickly and harshly after
the Houla Massacre. The only thing that was wrong with the storyline of militia
or army killing them was those who were killed. Story of the ethnicity and affiliation
of those killed started to come out even though it was never publicized. But
the armed opposition and those who want foreign intervention truly benefited
from this horrific event. So another United Nations meeting was scheduled and
the day before, a small Sunni village was massacred.
Why would you not question
that those who politically benefited from the first massacred would want this
second one to occurred or would have done this themselves? Just this time they
decided to not go for the Alawites but to go for Sunni to make it look
sectarian. Picking a small town that they could handle and destroy with no true
witnesses.
This town has, as far as I am
concerned, has never been on You Tube for having opposition or protests. There
was no knowledge if they were pro-government either. I conclude this town was
possibly the “silent majority” that just wanted to live their life and make
their living. For random “Alawite Militia” to attack them and kill them all
raises many flags for me. But for armed terrorists to attack them for their
benefit does not.
A lot of people have stated
that this massacre is different on one factor that the activists were not there
first to videotape and post the videos on You Tube as quickly. In fact the
first people I, myself, heard about this massacre was from pro-news. That this
logically means that the government or pro-government militia committed this
crime. However, if we are going to run off that logic that means that EVERY
OTHER massacre happened by opposition armed groups since they were ALWAYS the
first there to videotape and post. EVERY OTHER!
Cause it has been interesting
to me the way logic works in these massacres, army shells, then gets into city
kills civilians with knives and close-range shootings, then leaves for the “activists”
to come in and videotape it. Why shell if you have access to the city? Why kill
then leave bodies behind? Apparently common-logic has escaped all when it comes
to the Syrian situation.
“"Terrorists" is the word they use for the armed
elements of the opposition.”
No, sir, that is the term we
use for all armed elements in Syria that are not part of the Syrian Armed
forces.
What else to do you call those
who have been bombing natural resources of Syria (i.e. gas and oil pipelines),
planning and executing suicide bombings in major cities in Syria, throwing
sound bombs in neighborhoods, burning factories, threatening shops that are open during strike periods, and shooting at army, police, and security forces?
Dictionary.com defines “terrorist”
as:
ter·ror·ist noun
1. A person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
I think that settles that, these people
are terrorist to the Syrian people and the Syrian government.
FINAL
NOTE:
I
wait to see you write and article that refers to Alawites but does not in the
same sentence refer to them as “Assad’s sect” or “a
sect from which the ruling elite of Syria are drawn.” As I have stated before in
this blog and in my interview with BBC Radio, I invited you to go to the poor
areas of the Alawites in Syria but at the same time I invited you to the rich
areas of the Sunnis. They both exist, as do the rich of the Alawites and the
poor of the Sunni. I would love to see you write about that experience.
Sectarian
fueling and one-sided storyline is how you write. The uninformed are now bias
and misinformed from your published work.
Cheers.