Assad Condemns "Savage" Paris Attacks, Blames French Foreign Policy

Tyler Durden's picture

On the morning after the stunning and tragic wave of terror attacks that turned the streets of Paris into a veritable warzone on Friday evening, the French (not to mention the world) are searching for answers. 

And we don’t mean in terms of assigning blame. ISIS has claimed responsibility and indeed, despite some early suggestions by terrorist “experts” that the attack looked more like the work of al-Qaeda, there was never any real question as to who would be blamed and who would take “credit.”

Rather, the questions now revolve around how it could have come to this. Between last night’s massacre in the streets of Paris and a refugee crisis that to most Europeans probably seems to have come out of nowhere, it must appear to some as if the world has inexplicably descended into chaos over the past six or so months.

Of course that’s not the case. The events that ultimately led to the enormous people flows into Europe and to Friday’s attacks in Paris have been unfolding in Syria for the better part of five years and because this probably isn’t the time for a scathing Western foreign policy critique on our part, we simply present comments below from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with not further comment. The first passages are from mid-September, the second from today. 

*  *  *

From September

(via CNN)

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is blaming Western nations for fueling the refugee crisis by supporting opposition groups in his country's bloody civil war.

"If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists," he said in an interview with Russian news organizations. "That's what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees."

"Europe is responsible because it supported terrorism," he said in the interview at his home in Damascus, the capital.

The European Union in May 2013 ended an arms embargo on rebel groups fighting the Syrian government. The United States, meanwhile, has been offering limited support to moderate Syrian rebels in the fight against ISIS.

"Can you feel sad for a child's death in the sea and not for thousands of children who have been killed by the terrorists in Syria?" al-Assad said, referring to images of a dead Syrian boy that shocked the world. "And also for men, women, and the elderly? These European double standards are no longer acceptable."

Despite his bitter accusations, al-Assad said he was willing to shake hands with any leader who would join the fight against ISIS and hoped to cooperate with the West and Saudi Arabia in building a "real antiterrorist coalition," the Russian news agency Interfax reported.

He said his forces weren't communicating or cooperating tactically with the U.S.-led coalition that's carrying out airstrikes against ISIS positions in Syria and Iraq.

"They cannot accept the reality that we are the only power fighting ISIS on the ground," he said in reference to the United States. "For them, maybe if they cooperate with the Syrian Army, this is like a recognition or our effectiveness in fighting ISIS."

He accused the U.S. government of "willful blindness" on the matter.

*  *  *

From today 

(via Reuters)

Syrian President Bashar al Assad condemned Friday's attacks in Paris and said that such acts of terror were similar to what his people had faced in years of violent civil war.

"What France suffered from savage terror is what the Syrian people have been enduring for over five years," the Syrian President was quoted as saying on state media and Lebanese TV station al Mayadeen

(via AFP)

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said Saturday that French policy had contributed to the "spread of terrorism" that culminated in attacks claimed by the Islamic State group which killed 128 people in Paris.

In a meeting with a delegation of French lawmakers in Damascus, Assad said France's "mistaken policies... had contributed to the spread of terrorism."

"The terrorist attacks that targeted the French capital Paris cannot be separated from what happened in the Lebanese capital Beirut lately and from what has been happening in Syria for the past five years and in other areas," he said.

Assad was referring to twin bombings claimed by IS which killed 44 people on Thursday in the southern suburbs of Beirut, a stronghold of his Lebanese ally, Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

Assad regards all the rebel groups fighting his forces inside Syria as "terrorists", not just IS.

Assad said he had "warned against what would happen in Europe for the past three years."

"We said, don't take what is happening in Syria lightly. Unfortunately, European officials did not listen," he said, in comments to the delegation broadcast by France's Europe 1 radio.

He said French President Francois Hollande "should change his policy."

"The question that is being asked throughout France today is, was France's policy over the past five years the right one? The answer is no."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
strannick's picture

Exactly. Assad has lived with attacks like this for years, thanks to the US CIA sanctioned/created ISIS versus a staged pic of a boy on a beach, who was on his way to Europe from Turkey, not Syria.

The US and France attack Syria for years so they can push thru a Saudi Quatari pipeline despite the signed agreement of Syria Iraq and Iran for an alternate pipeline, and then create horror and massacre for children and people in Syria to stop it. 

The US will undoubtably use this attack to maxium effect, to further their petrodollar foreign policy, which brings ruin to the MENA region. There will be no press in Syria wringing their hands and lamenting the massacre of Syrians from the increased US and French bombs that will use this attack as a rationale, and the CIA funded ISIS.

If you dont want terror, stop creating and funding terrorists.

But the Wolfowitz doctrine wants to ''destabilize the region'', and so they do want terror.

Paris is what happens unfortunately

Francis Marx's picture

What is crazy is Saddam, Kadaffi, and Assad all kept this people in line. Where is the US goes in and kills them off and then the panic ensues for the rest of the world.

 

 My conclustion is that the CIA cant be that stupid and are just trying to ensure that the US has perpetual bases in the middle east.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Not the US. The Obama regime.   We didnt kill Saddam.  The Iraqi government tried and executed Saddam.  We also didnt just break the regime there and leave.  We set about nation building.  Obama stopped that cold to let the crazies and akready islamic regimes of the area run roughshod there.   

strannick's picture

We create Al Queda for Afghanistan and ISIS in Jordan for Syria.

This provides the cover to send in troops abroad, and militarized policing at home.

Qui bono?

A perfect perpetual fuck up machine.

Billy the Poet's picture

What is crazy is Saddam, Kadaffi, and Assad all kept this people in line.

 

Libyans practiced direct democracy. Often proposals made by Kaddafi were voted down by the people, sometimes not and all was well. It was the most prosperous nation in Africa.

 

Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention
Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

~"Assad Condemns "Savage" Paris Attacks, Blames French Foreign Policy"~

Well ruck me funning, and all this time I thought the problem was the totalitarian fascist nature of Islam. I guess that goes to show what I know.

 

Isy's picture

Obama will not finish his second term! This will scare millions! Current Events Linked to Ancient Biblical Prophecy!

http://motivationdose.com/alive-after-the-fall/

Billy the Poet's picture

Isn't it bad enough that I have to look at Hillary and Trump for at least a whole 'nuther year without having to read that same post over and over again as well?

Tall Tom's picture

The "attack" was a staged event. 

 

Here is a video and the story of a "crisis" actor who makes the claim that he was talking on his cell phone which took a bullet and "saved his life".

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/cell-phone-stops-projectile-saves-man-in-pa...

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/paris-terror-attacks-man...

 

Look at his face. IT IS NOT EVEN BRUISED. No CUTS. NO INJURY.

 

Anybody who has ever been shot wearing body armor is bruised from the impact of a bullet.

 

Bullets have MOMENTUM. And that MOMENTUM would have transfered to the phone which would have smacked that man on the side of his face. (He claims to have been talking on it.) But there is no swelling, no brusing, no evidence, whatsoever, other than a Cell phone.

 

And then the bullet magically passed through his hand??? Hold a Cell Phone up to your face. How much of it is covered by your hand?

 

Now what are the odds that your hand is not injured? (Percentage of the area of Cellphone not covered by your hand to the entire area of the Cellphone).

 

Now look at the screen of that phone...Look at where the damage is located.

 

Looking at the pictures of the victims..there is no blood on the sheets and the scene is just too antiseptic...just like it was a Hollywood production.

Thinkor's picture

He must have had the Bible on his cell phone to stop the bullet.

So It Goes's picture

Oh cmon - this story is just silly.  You can't draw any conclusion from this.  Someone shout Baba- Bouey!!!!

lesamourai's picture

Most news services reported it as a shrapnel fragment.  Which is possibly more plausible:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/nov/14/man-shows-mobile-phon...

Tall Tom's picture

Put up your cell phne toyour face and see how much ofyour hand covers it. His hand would habe been even more likely to have been hit if it were an irregularly shaped shard of shrapnel

Amicus Curiae's picture

yup

try this one

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/survivor-of-bataclan-theatre-massacre...

absolute trash

if she was lying in "pools of blood" for hours..

then that bloody vest is teflon coated

theres some lying going on alright.

rwe2late's picture

TBT

Can you really be that dense?

It wasn't merely about killing off Saddam.

It was about a DECEITFUL military invasion of Iraq which killed thousands,

destroyed their government, their infrastructure and economy,set up death squads,

tortured many,

and intentionally fanned sectarianism for occupation purposes (divide & conquer).

The US nation built Iraq? (lol)

The puppet government of miliarily occupied Iraq "tried and executed" Saddam? (rotfl)

 

BorisTheBlade's picture

Nation building in Iraq, that's not even laughable, that's beyond absurd. Paul Bremer took away most meaningful points out of the plan, which was drawn for post-war Iraq using blueprints or Marshall plan, disbanded military, 'De'Baathed' command structure of the government, essentially ensuring protracted civil war. Watch "No End in Sight" documentary, it details pretty well what was happening right after Saddam was deposed, there are plenty of points supporting the idea that today's ISIS was born out of the ashes of Iraqi army. Ever wonder why most ISIS commanders are ex-Saddam military and government?

TBT or not TBT's picture

"Iraq" was created by western powers drawing maps after.WWI.   Sykes-Picot.  The post-WWII international regime set up by the WWII allies known as the UN made those borders and that country name "sovereign" and sacrosanct.   The collection of peoples there was never meant to be one nation, but the Bush folks tried anyway.  

BorisTheBlade's picture

That goes for entire Middle East, all countries including KSA were carved out out of the Ottoman empire post WW1. Bush folks didn't try to plaster Iraq together, never intended to, that's quite obvious and I don't believe it was a blunder.

rphb's picture

Of course America killed Saddam, it was their puppet government that they installed that officially did the deeds yes, but, but if we consider him a war criminal, he should have been tried and convicted in Den Haag.

Also America did NOT try to build up the nation of Iraq, they destroyed it. History speaks for itself with the chaos it have wrought.

And just as one small example, they had no respect for the Iraqi culture, as ancient Babylonian ruins were destroyed in 2003 by the Americans in order to make room for a helipad.

rphb's picture

Of course America killed Saddam, it was their puppet government that they installed that officially did the deeds yes, but, but if we consider him a war criminal, he should have been tried and convicted in Den Haag.

Also America did NOT try to build up the nation of Iraq, they destroyed it. History speaks for itself with the chaos it have wrought.

And just as one small example, they had no respect for the Iraqi culture, as ancient Babylonian ruins were destroyed in 2003 by the Americans in order to make room for a helipad.

uhland62's picture

When you have a Saddam and Gaddafi there are less possibilities to 'direct' the country. What they want is democratically elected leaders from a 2 party system (alternating in phases between 8 and 12 years), because these can be bought by the corporations. Gaddafi and Saddam could not be directed or bought by the corporations, they were strong men. Egypt has a strongman again, but he is financially dependent on the US, so that works smoothly.

Assad must be replaced by a democratically elected (hoops, bought) leader from a party duopoly so that the pipeline can be put through and the Russian ships no longer have a port in the Mediterranean. That's why Hillary said "Assad must go" - revealing that the State Department determines who comes and goes. But it ain't so simple.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Islam, the religion, it texts and its adberents, refer to any and all infidel regions as the House of War.

Since 13 centuries running, no matter what your foreign policy is, you live in the House of War. 

France is just hutting the.stage.of their islamisatiin where the islamic minority starts to extend its control beyond the occupied public slum cities to impose their totalitarian values on the greater.public.  Bars, restaurants and nightclubs with drinking, dancing uncovered women were targeted.   You cant read the Koran and Hadiths and Sharia dictates and fail to understand the choice of targets.  

scraping_by's picture

As People of the Book, Christians and Jews are allowed their own religions and customs. The Islamists, exactly like American Evangelicals, are a small idiot minority. Even then it takes someone to organize and direct them. Otherwise, they'd just be embarassing party guests.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

"Yeah, those American Evangelicals with their suicide bombers yelling "John 3:16!" as they indiscriminately blow up random innocents are the real problem in the world today"...said no person, ever.

Put down the crack pipe and start living in the real world, you fucking delusional retarded dipshit.

Muh Raf's picture

"Since 13 centuries running, no matter what your foreign policy is, you live in the House of War". Totally wrong, the non-Muslim lands are the House of Disbelief (Daar ul Kufr) unless the House of Islaam is attacked, at which point self-defence becomes an obligation if called for by the Leader (Imaam/Khalif). The Qur'aan explicitly forbids acts of aggression and so the status change from House of Disbelief to House of War (Daar ul Harb) is totally down to whether or not the non-Muslims lands act aggressively against the Muslims. It is not even a foreign policy, it is a domestic policy.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

 

"The Qur'aan explicitly forbids acts of aggression..."

I guess you have a different version of the Koran than everyone else does.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

Question:

Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?


Summary Answer
:

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.  

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God; however this works both ways.  Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence.  Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny.  Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.  Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

Rhett72's picture

The Qur'an says point blank: "Fight in the way of God against those who fight you, but do not commit aggression.  Truly God does not love aggressors" (2:190).

 

Both Wahabbi cultists and anti-Muslim bigots do this sham cut-and-paste approach of singling out some Qur'anic verses regarding war and ignoring other verses that teach restraint and ethics in warfare, thus removing any context and creating an imaginary evil Islam that has no basis in history.

http://www.aboutjihad.com/terrorism/quran_misquote_part_2.php

And you are claiming the Old Testament is more civilized with regard to war?  The Old Testament has dozens of verses calling for the kiillng not just enemy men, but women, children and babies in their cribs.  Read the Book of Joshua to see how the Bible promotes killing children and babies and holds such acts as heroic. Islam was the first of the Abrahamic religions to establish that killing civilians in war is haraam (forbidden) and that priests and monks of other reiigions were not to be molested.  It was the Biblical injunctions that motivated the Crusaders and the Spanish Conquistadores to slaughter millions of women and children in the name of Christ, while it was the Qur'anic injunctions that restrained Muslim warriors like Saladin from committing massacres of Christians and Jews in battle.

 

Compared to the Bible, the Qur'an is a pacifist tex:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Laying-Down-Sword-Ignore-Violent/dp/0061990728

 

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Ignorant bullshit. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.  

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God; however this works both ways.  Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence.  Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny.  Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.  Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

sun tzu's picture

You're one those useful idiots that still believe Islam is the religion of peace and Muslims are all victims of those mean old European atheists, East Asian Buddhists, Indian Hindus, and Christians. 

Tell use where is the new version of the Koran that teaches peace? How is it in this day and age, so many Muslims are still going around blowing people up and chopping off heads if the Koran is so pacifist? I don't see Christians, Buddhists or Hindus across the world chopping off heads. Why weren't their religions hijacked by cultists? The truth is 90% of Muslims are Wahhabists. That means your religion of peace is a psychopathic cult. All you Muslim fanatics can do is point to a randon act of violence by other religions every decade or so or maybe something that happened 1000 years ago. Islam today is much worse than anything any other religion has ever done. It cannot transform itself into a religion of peace because it is a violent and controlling political cult like Nazisim or Communism.

scraping_by's picture

No, they were a problem back in the 80's when they were burning/blowing up abortion clinics. But ever since Bush 41 put the ATF onto them, they've settled for assasinating physicians.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Oh, right, yeah. Half a dozen abortion clinics versus 27,269 acts of Islamic terrorism since 9/11?

You are making a clown of yourself.

scraping_by's picture

Over 200, nationwide. And there was no wealthy royal family financing them.

sun tzu's picture

Over 200? You're more full of shit than the Saudi royal family. Atheist nutjob cultists have killed far more people than all religions in the world combined. Second is the Muslims. 

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Yeah, those Homicide Droners, going by names like Aaron, Adam, Ben, Jonathan, Levi... Zach. Real Christians have OT names, don't ya know? /s

Killdo's picture

all the (mutually exclusive and invented by kleptocrats) invisible masters are bad for us (and good for them) - priming bovine mases to be mental slaves (through what's basically child abuse)

Seer's picture

Yup!  Fanatics are fanatics.  All of them want to rule the world. Fucking hypocrites. Pawns of deception.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Some fanatics want to impose freedom in these hell holes, human right as understood in the West.   Other fanatics, foreign and domestic, do indeed want to impose abject tyranny.  Know your fanatic types.  

sun tzu's picture

Where are these fanatics that want to impose freedom? The vast majority of idiots in the world today think that mob rule is freedom. Freedom is an individual right, not the right of the majority to impose their will on the minority.

kgw's picture

Tell me about the responsibilities of freedom as an individual right. . .

BarkingCat's picture

There are more Muslims in the world than Christians.

uhland62's picture

None of the religions is worth its salt. All religions are more trouble than they are worth. 

carlnpa's picture

This is really about the control and ownership of the Golan Heights and the associated water and oil there.

Israel will continue to foment until it is theirs.

SWRichmond's picture

We fanaticized some folks

BullyBearish's picture

What do you call the country that has the world record in killing people and destroying lives?

TBT or not TBT's picture

Oh oh oh pick me!   Is it Russia?   China you tell me?  Damn.  They arent even tied?  

NoDebt's picture

Shep Smith is having kittens right now that one of the suicide bombers had a Syrian passport on him showing he came through Greece with the rest of the refugees.

Me, personally, I always carry my passport on me when I'm going to blow myself up.  Plus they're well known to be very tough documents that are rarely damaged even in the middle of a high yield bomb explosion.

I'm going camping in a few minutes.  Had enough of this shit for one weekend.  See y'all on Monday.