My Response to Paul Danahar from BBC news report to Syria

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2012  - by 

The Deer of Syria



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 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.
2. A person who terrorizes or frightens others.

I think that settles that, these people are terrorist to the Syrian people and the Syrian government.

FINAL NOTE:

Sectarian fueling and one-sided storyline is how you write. The uninformed are now biased and misinformed from your published work.
Cheers.
-
This article is written by the "Deer of Syria", please see the source of the article below

---

No comments: