http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=military Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:51:25 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=military Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:29:50 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff9_1371648483 AlunHill US Military Women To Fight On Front Line In Syria, Not Make Drinks / Do Paperwork As well as doing paperwork and making cups of coffee for (real) male US military soldiers, American women will soon be able to serve in many combat positions previously reserved for men, including potentially fighting against the Russian Federation's huge Army in Syria. Military officials announced plans Tuesday to open thousands of combat jobs to women by 2016. Zlatica Hoke reports. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff9_1371648483 AlunHill US <span class="highlight">Military</span> Women To Fight On Front Line In Syria, Not Make Drinks / Do Paperwork us soldier, us military, us women soldier, syria, russian army, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:32:24 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=077_1371634248 AlunHill Russia v USA Military In Syria: Russian Army Prepares For Victory While USA Has Cutbacks As the US and Rusisan military forces prepare to face each other in Syria, resulting inevitably in potentially thousands more deaths America cuts back on military spending on aircraft, training, food and even food for its forces. Meanwhile Russia flexes their muscles once again and prepares for a victory as the US Military takes the side of terrorists against the elected Syrian Government. Here we see the machinery which will take part. The soldiers are training, ready.... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=077_1371634248 AlunHill Russia v USA <span class="highlight">Military</span> In Syria: Russian Army Prepares For Victory While USA Has Cutbacks us military, russian army, syria, us cutbacks Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:17:16 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5e_1371629650 Komrad_Krivtsoff Syrian air defenses carried a military exercise in modern weapons advanced their readiness discovered all goals in the and destruction. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5e_1371629650 Komrad_Krivtsoff The third day of the Syrian <span class="highlight">military</span> maneuvers. Syrian air defense, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:10:21 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=612_1371614723 riseagainst1964 http://abordagempolicial.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/pmesp4.jpg http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=612_1371614723 riseagainst1964 <span class="highlight">Military</span> Police Join The Protesters In Brazil, Crowd Shouts ''No Violence'' brazil riots clash sao paulo protest Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:54:46 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23f_1371645976 jimbo469 The vast majority of Americans, regardless of their opinions on the increasing scope of international law, agree with the proposition that children should not be used as soldiers. Accordingly, much of the United Nations literature that addresses children and guns deals with this military-related issue. However, a second theme is quickly found in virtually all UN pronouncements about child soldiers and weapons. UN child's rights advocates believe, teach, and promote the idea that all private gun ownership is dangerous for children, and that children have the right to grow up in a gun-free community. As the campaign to seek ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) intensifies, it is important for all Americans to understand the application of this children's rights treaty to the issue of private gun ownership by American citizens. Limiting the rights of gun ownership is not some secret agenda of the UN, but is open for all to see. UNICEF, the official UN agency charged with the worldwide advancement of children's rights, has published a four-color brochure entitled No Guns, Please: We Are Children. The quotation given at the opening of this article is taken from the front cover of this UNICEF brochure. Inside this brochure, we find the following assertions about guns and children: "Small arms* and light weapons kill and disable more children and adults than any other instrument of violence, in conflict and post-conflict situations and on the streets of cities worldwide. Deaths linked to small arms and light weapons every year run into the hundreds of thousands, with those injured exceeding 1 million." "Small arms and light weapons cause profound physical and emotional damage, particularly to children, and affect their welfare." "In societies destabilized by the use of small arms and light weapons, children are denied many of their human rights, including their rights to freedom from violence and exploitation, survival and development, health care, education and care within a family environment. As a result, hard-won developmental gains are often lost and may even be reversed." "In communities enjoying relative peace, children witness and are traumatized by the use of small arms and light weapons in domestic violence and in disputes. Children also become accidental victims because adults fail to keep the weapons out of their reach." Two crucial conclusions can be drawn from these assertions: First, the UN intends to address far more than children in war; its object is to eliminate the "threat" posed by guns from the lives of all children whether their community is characterized as "in conflict," "post-conflict," "destabilized," or "enjoying relative peace." Guns are a threat "on the streets of cities worldwide." Second, the UN contends that the threat posed by guns violates the "human rights" of children. There can be no doubt that the UN believes that the CRC is applicable to this issue. In this same pamphlet it declares: "The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out comprehensive principles and standards to guide all actions and attitudes towards children." Thus, a nation that willingly accepts this treaty has made a legally binding agreement of international law to regulate its public policy towards all issues in a manner that is consistent with the UN vision on children's human rights. If this statement were made in some other context, there might be some room for argument that the UN doesn't really mean to include gun ownership within the sweep of comprehensive "standards to guide all actions and attitudes towards children." But this statement was made in an official brochure entitled No Guns, Please: We Are Children. This official UN brochure then clarifies the kind of public policy required towards firearms based upon these human rights of children: "Efforts must be ongoing to overcome the destructive messages that small arms and light weapons are essential instruments for survival and protection in daily life." "Governments must support communities in eliminating the insecurity, fear and instability that often lead people to acquire and keep guns." "Regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children." The UN believes that the idea that small arms are "essential instruments for survival and protection" is destructive. Remember that the CRC purports to govern all actions and attitudes. The very belief that guns are necessary for protection is therefore considered a destructive attitude that violates the "respect for human rights" required by the CRC.* There can be no doubt of the meaning of the statement: "Regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children." The official UN pamphlet makes it plain that nations need to "implement laws to protect children ... from having access to small arms." Moreover, the UN says that states should "collect and destroy small arms ... through community programs in which civil society plays a key role." The UN actively promotes the idea that small arms conflict with the human rights of children protected by the CRC. Yet another UN publication, the Small Arms and Children: UNICEF Fact Sheet, states: UNICEF, together with the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs, has designed an exhibit, shown around the world, called "Taking Aim at Small Arms: Defending Child Rights". The exhibit documents the scourge of small arms and light weapons, emphasizing their prevalence worldwide and the toll they take on human lives-especially children. Thus, it is clear that UNICEF believes that in order to comply with the principles of children's rights contained in the CRC, the United States would need to adopt regulations to make it difficult for adults to acquire small arms and light weapons. Moreover, we would need to adopt regulations that prohibit weapons from ever being accessible to children. In another UN official publication, Guide to the Implementation of the World Program of Action for Youth, the following laws are advocated as necessary for the protection of children's rights: "Explore enacting bans on all handguns to civilians or certain cheap models that are attractive to youth." "Call for restrictions on the number of guns that can be purchased in a one-month or one-year period." It is essential to understand the interplay between treaties and state laws. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. In Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), the state of Missouri challenged the constitutionality of federal interference with the state hunting laws concerning migratory birds. Federal game officials had intervened in Missouri based upon a treaty with Canada. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the treaty, and not Missouri's state laws on hunting, was supreme. State law-including state hunting laws-must give way to treaties. Thus, even if current state laws permit children to obtain hunting licenses and possess and discharge firearms for these purposes, such laws would have to give way to a treaty that contends that firearms should "never be accessible to children." The UN agenda for children does not stop with the direct disarming of individuals. Article 29 of the CRC imposes educational standards on nations who become parties to the treaty. This includes "peace education," which in other UN contexts means disarmament education. The UN World Congress on Disarmament Education adopted the following statements: Definition of disarmament: "For the purposes of disarmament education, disarmament may be understood as any form of action aimed at limiting, controlling or reducing arms, including unilateral disarmament initiatives, and, ultimately, general and complete disarmament under effective international control. It may also be understood as a process aimed at transforming the current system of armed nation States into a new world order of planned unarmed peace in which war is no longer an instrument of national policy and peoples determine their own future and live in security based on justice and solidarity." Links with human rights and development: "As an integral part of peace education, disarmament education has essential links with human rights education and development education, in so far as each of the three terms peace, human rights and development must be defined in relation to the other two. Moreover, disarmament education offers an occasion to elucidate emerging concepts such as the individual and collective rights to peace and to development, based on the satisfaction of material and non-material human needs." If the U.S. Senate ratifies the CRC, we will have become willing parties in a regime that obligates us to disarm our citizens, keep guns from children, and indoctrinate American children to believe in the utopia of world disarmament. This will cause our nation to surrender our own defenses and rest in the "security" of a world based on "individual and collective rights." * The UN pamphlet defines small arms as follows: "Small arms are designed for personal use. They include revolvers and self-loading pistols, assault rifles, sub-machine guns, rifles and carbines and light machine-guns." * Read the full text of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child at http://www.parentalrights.org. In no way would I ever support this or UNICEF. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/234. The arms trade treaty The General Assembly , Guided by the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming its respect for and commitment to international law, Recalling its resolutions 46/36 L of 9 December 1991, 51/45 N of 10 December 1996, 51/47 B of 10 December 1996, 56/24 V of 24 December 2001, 60/69 and 60/82 of 8 December 2005, 61/89 of 6 December 2006, 63/240 of 24 December 2008 and 64/48 of 2 December 2009, and its decision 66/518 of 2 December 2011, Expressing disappointment that the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, convened from 2 to 27 July 2012, was unable to conclude its work to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the international transfer of conventional arms, Noting that the draft text of the Arms Trade Treaty submitted by the President of the Conference on 26 July 2012 in conference room paper A/CONF.217/CRP.1 reflects progress in the negotiations, while being mindful of requests by some States for further time to consider that document, Determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty, 1. Notes the report of the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty as contained in document A/CONF.217/4; 2. Decides to convene in New York, from 18 to 28 March 2013, the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, to be governed by the rules of procedure adopted on 3 July 2012 and contained in document A/CONF.217/L.1, in order to finalize the elaboration of the Arms Trade Treaty, in an open and transparent manner, utilizing the modalities, applied mutatis mutandis, under which the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty operated; A/RES/67/234 2 3. Also decides that the draft text of the Arms Trade Treaty submitted by the President of the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty on 26 July 2012 in conference room paper A/CONF.217/CRP.1 shall be the basis for future work on the Arms Trade Treaty, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text; 4. Requests the Secretary-General to undertake consultations for the nomination of the President-designate of the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty; 5. Requests the President-designate to undertake prior to the Conference in 2013 consultations on the basis of the draft text of the Arms Trade Treaty submitted by the President of the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in conference room paper A/CONF.217/CRP.1; 6. Requests the Secretary-General to render the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty all necessary assistance, including the provision of essential background information and relevant documents, bearing in mind those made available to the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty; 7. Decides to remain seized of the matter during its sixty-seventh session, and in doing so calls upon the President of the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty to report on the outcome of the Conference to the General Assembly at a meeting to be held as soon as possible after 28 March 2013; 8. Also decides to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-eighth session an item entitled "The Arms Trade Treaty". 62nd plenary meeting 24 December 2012 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23f_1371645976 jimbo469 International Law - Child Soldiers UNICEF, disarming, child soldiers Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:17:29 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4c8_1371644030 whyyouwanna KABUL, Afghanistan The Taliban claimed responsibility Wednesday for an attack in Afghanistan that killed four American troops just hours after the insurgent group announced it would hold talks with the U.S. on finding a political solution to ending the nearly 12-year war in the country. The deadly attack underscores the challenges ahead in trying to end the violence roiling Afghanistan via peace negotiations in Qatar with militants still fighting on the ground. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said the insurgents fired two rockets into the Bagram Air Base outside the Afghan capital, Kabul, late on Tuesday. American officials confirmed the base had come under attack by indirect fire -- likely a mortar or rocket -- and that four U.S. troops were killed. The attack came as the Taliban opened a political office in the Qatari capital of Doha, and announced they were ready for peace talks. The decision was a reversal of months of failed efforts to start negotiations while Taliban militants intensified a campaign targeting urban centers and government installations across Afghanistan. The Taliban announcement followed a milestone handover in Afghanistan earlier Tuesday, as Afghan forces formally took the lead from the U.S.-led NATO coalition for security nationwide. It marked a turning point for American and NATO military forces, which will now move entirely into a supporting role. It also opened the way for the withdrawal of most foreign troops in 18 months. President Obama cautioned that the peace talks with the Taliban would be neither quick nor easy, but called their opening a political office in Doha was an "important first step toward reconciliation" between the Islamic militants and the government of Afghanistan. In setting up the office, the Taliban said they were willing to use all legal means to end what they called the occupation of Afghanistan -- but did not say they would immediately stop fighting. American officials said the U.S. and Taliban representatives will hold bilateral meetings in coming days. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's High Peace Council is expected to follow up with its own talks with the Taliban a few days later. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57589954/taliban-we-killed-4-u.s-troops-at-afghan-air-base/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4c8_1371644030 whyyouwanna Taliban: We killed 4 U.S. troops at Afghan air base afghanista, taliban, peace, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:53:03 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8e_1371627822 Curious_George June 18, 2013 President Bashar al-Assad gave the following interview to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper: Interviewer: Mr President, how do you view the situation in your country? The Syrian Army has lost control over large parts of Syria, in other words those areas are outside the control of central government. What's your take on the situation? President Assad: Your question requires us to put things into their proper context: this is not a conventional war with two armies fighting to control or liberate particular areas or parts of land. What we are in fact dealing with is a form of guerrilla warfare. As for the Syrian Army, there has not been any instance where our Armed Forces have planned to enter a particular location and have not succeeded. Having said this, the Army is not present - and should not be present - in every corner of Syria. What is more significant than controlling areas of land, is striking terrorists. We are confident that we can successfully fight terrorism in Syria, but the bigger issue is the ensuing damage and its cost. The crisis has already had a heavy toll but our biggest challenges will come once the crisis is over. Foreign element seeks politically and militarily to prolong crisis Interviewer: In your recent interview with Al-Manar it appeared as though you were preparing the Syrian public for a protracted struggle. Was that your intention? President Assad: No, this was not specific to Al-Manar. From the early days of the crisis, whenever I was asked, I have stated that this crisis is likely to be prolonged due to foreign interference. Any internal crisis can go in one of two ways: either it is resolved or it escalates into a civil war. Neither has been the case for Syria because of the foreign component, which seeks to extend the duration of the crisis both politically and militarily; I think its fair to say that my predictions were right. Genuine re-construction is reconstructing mentalities, ideologies and conceptions Interview: Mr President, how do you expect to overcome the large-scale destruction that has been inflicted in Syria? President Assad: In the same way you, in Germany, overcame the devastation after World War II, and in the same way many other nations have progressed and been rebuilt after their wars. I am confident Syria will follow the same path. As long as we have resilient people, we can rebuild the country. We have done this before and we can do it again, learning from all we have been through. In terms of funding, we have been a self-sufficient country for a very long time. Of course we will need to be more productive than before as a result of the situation. Friendly countries have helped us in the past and continue to offer their support, maybe in the form of loans in the future. It may take a long time, but with our determination, our strength and our solidarity, we can rebuild the country. However, the more arduous challenge lies in rebuilding, socially and psychologically, those who have been affected by the crisis. It will not be easy to eliminate the social effects of the crisis, especially extremist ideologies. Real reconstruction is about developing minds, ideologies and values. Infrastructure is valuable, but not as valuable as human beings; reconstruction is about perpetuating both. Interviewer: Mr President, during the crisis some areas of the country have become either more self-reliant or more reliant on external support. Do you think this could potentially lead to the re-drawing of borders? President Assad : Do you mean within Syria or the region in general? Interviewer: The region - one hundred years after the Sykes-Picot Agreement. President Assad: One hundred years after Sykes-Picot, when we talk about re-drawing the borders in our region, we can use an analogy from architecture. Syria is like the keystone in the old architectural arches; by removing or tampering with the keystone, the arch will collapse. If we apply this to the region, to the world, - any tampering with the borders of this region will result in re-drawing the maps of distant regions because this will have a domino effect which nobody can control. One of the superpowers may be able to initiate the process, but nobody - including that superpower, will be able to stop it; particularly since there are new social borders in the Middle East today that didn't exist during Sykes-Picot. These new sectarian, ethnic and political borders make the situation much more complicated. Nobody can know what the Middle East will look like should there be an attempt to re-draw the map of the region. However, most likely that map will be one of multiple wars, which would transcend the Middle East spanning the Atlantic to the Pacific, which nobody can stop. Interviewer: Mr President, in your opinion what will the region look like in the future? President Assad: If we rule out the destructive scenario of division in your last question, I can envisage a completely different and more positive future, but it will depend on how we act as nations and societies. This scenario involves a number of challenges, first of which is restoring security and stability; our second challenge is the rebuilding process. However, our biggest and most important challenge lies in facing extremism. It has become extremely clear that there has been a shift in the societies of our region away from moderation, especially religious moderation. The question is: can we restore these societies to their natural order? Can our diverse societies still coexist together as one natural whole? On this point allow me to clarify certain terms. The words tolerance and coexistence are often used to define our societies. However, the more precise and appropriate definition, of how our societies used to be - and how they should be, is harmonious. Contrary to perception, the issue is neither about tolerance - since there will come a day when you are not tolerant, nor is the issue about coexistence - since you co-exist with your adversaries, but rather it is about harmony. What used to characterize us in the region was our harmony. You cannot say that your hand will coexist with or tolerate your foot because one compliments the other and both are a part of a harmonious whole. Another challenge is political reform and the question of which political system would keep our society coherent: be it presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary, as well as deciding the most appropriate legislation to govern political parties. In Germany, for example, you have the Christian Democratic Party. In Syria we could not have religious parties, neither Christian nor Muslim, because for us religion is for preaching and not for political practice. There are many other details, but the essence is in accepting others. If we cannot accept each other we cannot be democratic, even with the best constitution or the best legislation's. we are a secular state that essentially treats its citizens equally Interviewer: Mr President, where do you see secularism in the midst of the rising Islamic current in the region? President Assad: This is a very important question; many in the region do not understand this relationship. The Middle East is a hub of different ideologies. Arab society is primarily based on two pillars: Pan-Arabism and Islam. Other ideologies do exist, such as communism, liberalism, Syrian nationalism, but these are not nearly as popular. Many people understand secularism as synonymous with communism in the past, in that it is against religion. In fact it is the complete opposite; for us in Syria secularism is about the freedom of confession including Christianity, Islam and Judaism, and the multiple diverse sects within these religions. Secularism is crucial to our national unity and sense of belonging. Therefore we have no choice but to strengthen secularism because religion is already strong in our region, and I stress here that this is very healthy. What is not healthy is extremism because it ultimately leads to terrorism; not every extremist is a terrorist, but every terrorist is definitely an extremist. So in response to your question, we are a secular state that essentially treats its citizens equally, irrespective of religion, sect or ethnicity. All our citizens enjoy equal opportunities regardless of religious belief. Syria is passing through most difficult circumstances, definitely not a spring Interviewer: Mr President, how do you view the two-and-a-half years since the so-called 'Arab Spring?' President Assad: This is a misconception. Spring does not include bloodshed, killing, extremism, destroying schools or preventing children from going to their schools, or preventing women from choosing what to wear and what is appropriate for them. Spring is the most beautiful season whilst we are going through the direst circumstances; it is definitely not Spring. Is Spring compatible with what is happening in Syria - the killing, the slaughtering, the beheading, the cannibalism, I leave it to you to decide. Interviewer: What are the issues that the so-called "Arab Spring" is supposed to resolve? President Assad: The solution doesn't lie in the 'Spring' or in anything else, the solution lies in us. We are the ones who should provide the solutions, by being proactive instead of reactive. When we address our problems proactively we ensure that we get the right solutions. Solutions imposed re-actively by the 'Spring' will only lead to deformed results. Like many countries in the Middle East, we have numerous problems that we are aware of and view objectively. This is how these problems should be solved, in that the solutions are internally manufactured and not externally administered, as the latter would produce a distorted or stillborn solution. It is for this very reason that when we call for dialogue or solutions, they need to be home-grown in order to ensure that they lead to the Syria we aspire to. what is happening in Iraq now, and in Lebanon previously, are repercussions of the situation in Syria Interviewer: Mr President, you have rejected any form of foreign intervention and have warned that this would extend the battle to wider areas, have you reached this? President Assad: Let's be clear about this, there are two types of foreign intervention: indirect through proxies or agent s, and direct intervention through a conventional war. We are experiencing the former. At the beginning of the crisis I warned that intervention in Syria - even indirectly, is similar to tampering with a fault line, it would lead to shockwaves throughout the region. At the time, many people - especially in the media, understood this as President Assad threatening to extend the crisis beyond Syria's borders. Clearly they did not understand what I meant at the time, but this is exactly what is happening now. If we look at the reality in front of us, we can see clearly that what is happening in Iraq now, and in Lebanon previously, are repercussions of the situation in Syria, and this will only extend further and further. We are seeing these ramifications and the intervention is still indirect, so imagine the consequences of military intervention? The situation will, of course, be much worse and then we will witness the domino effect of widespread extremism, chaos and fragmentation. Relations with Russia and Iran are cooperation guaranteed by international law Interviewer : You criticize countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Britain for their interference in the Syria crisis, isn't it true that Russia and Iran are also involved? President Assad: There is a significant difference between the co-cooperation of states as opposed to the destabilization of a certain country and interference in its internal affairs. Cooperation between countries is conceived on the concept of mutual will, in a way that preserves their sovereignty, independence, stability and self-determination. Our relationship with Russia, Iran and other countries that support Syria are cooperative relations certified under international law. The countries you mentioned, have adopted policies that meddle in Syria's internal affairs, which is a flagrant violation of international law and our national sovereignty. The difference therefore, is that cooperation between countries is intended to preserve stability and perpetuate the prosperity of these nations, whilst foreign interference seeks to destabilize countries, spread chaos and perpetuate ignorance. Interviewer: Sir, you have discussed the repercussions of the Syrian crisis on Iraq and Lebanon whose societies are based on what one might call a sectarian system. Do you think that such a system with Sunni and Shiite pillars could be established in Syria? President Assad: Undoubtedly, sectarian systems in neighboring countries, sectarian unrest or civil wars - as in Lebanon 30 years ago, will inevitably affect Syria. That is why Syria intervened in Lebanon in 1976 - to protect itself and to safeguard Lebanon. It is for this reason that we are observing carefully the unfolding events in Iraq - they will affect us directly. This was also for this reason that we adamantly opposed the war on Iraq, despite a mixture of American temptations and threats at the time. We rejected losing our stability in return for appeasing the Americans. Sectarian systems are dangerous and that is why we insist on the secular model where all citizens are equal regardless of religion. Jabhat al-Nusra is a branch of al-Qaeda, they uphold same ideology Interviewer : Mr President, you are fighting Jabhat Al-Nusra." Can you tell us about it, what is this organization, who supports them, who supplies them with money and weapons? President Assad : Jabhat Al-Nusra is an Al-Qaeda affiliated group with an identical ideology whose members live in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan as well as other Arab and Muslim countries; they are very well financed and have plenty of arms. It is difficult to trace their sources due to the fact that their support resides in a covert manner through wealthy individuals and organisations that adopt the same ideology. Their primary aim is to establish an Islamic State in accordance to their interpretation of Islam. Central to their political thought is the Wahhabi doctrine - comparable to Al-Qaeda's in Afghanistan. This ideology is administered wherever they are present, especially on women. They claim to be applying Sharia Law and the Islamic Religion; however, in reality their actions are a complete distortion of the real religion of Islam. We have seen examples of their brutality on our satellite channels taken from footage they publish on purpose on YouTube in order to spread their ideology; a recent example was the beheading of an innocent man, which was aired on Belgian TV. Interviewer: What is the motivation for Saudi Arabia and Qatar to assist and arm the terrorists against you, what do they seek to achieve? President Assad: Firstly, I believe that this is a question they should be answering. I will respond by raising a few questions. Do they support the armed gangs because of their vehement belief in freedom and democracy as they claim in their media outlets? Do they harbor any form of democracy in their own countries, in order to properly support democracy in Syria. Do they have elected parliaments or constitutions voted on by their people? Have their populations decided at any time during the previous decades on what type of governing system they want - be it monarchy, presidency, principality or any other form? So, things are clear: they should first pay attention to their own nations and then answer your question. France and Britain look for puppets to carry out their interests Interviewer: In this quagmire, why do Britain and France delegate leadership to Saudi Arabia and Qatar? What do they hope to achieve? President Assad: I also cannot answer on behalf of Britain or France, but I can give you the general impression here. I believe that France and Britain have an issue with the 'annoying' Syrian role in the region - as they see it. These countries, like the United States, are looking for puppets and dummies to do their bidding and serve their interests without question. We have consistently rejected this; we will always be independent and free. It seems as though France and Britain have not forgotten their colonial history and persist in attempting to manipulate the region albeit through proxies. Indeed, Britain and France can direct Saudi Arabia and Qatar on what they should do, but we must also not forget that the policies and economies of France and Britain are also dependent on petrodollars. What happened in Syria was an opportunity for all these countries to get rid of Syria - this insubordinate state, and replace the president with a "yes man." This will never happen neither now nor in the future. Interviewer: The European Union has not renewed the arms embargo imposed on Syria and yet it has not approved arming the opposition. What is your assessment of this step? President Assad: Clearly there is a split within the European Union on this issue. I cannot state that the EU is supportive of the Syrian government; there are countries, especially Britain and France, who are particularly hostile to Syria. On the other hand, there are countries - Germany in particular, which are raising logical questions about the future consequences of arming the terrorists. Well firstly, that would perpetuate the destruction in Syria, forcing the Syrian people to pay an even heavier price. Secondly, by supplying arms, they are effectively arming terrorists, and the Europeans are well informed that these are terrorists groups. Some are repeating the American rhetoric of "good fighters and bad fighters," exactly as they did a few years ago with the "good Taliban and bad Taliban, good Al-Qaeda and bad Al-Qaeda." Today there is a new term of "good terrorists and bad terrorists" being promoted. Is this logical? When terrorism prevails, it will spread towards Europe They are aware that weapons sent to the region will end up in the hands of terrorists, which will have two consequences. First, Europe's back garden will become a hub for terrorism and chaos, which leads to deprivation and poverty; Europe will pay the price and forfeit an important market. Second, terrorism will not stop here - it will spread to your countries. It will export itself through illegal immigration or through the same terrorists who returned to their original countries after being indoctrinated and trained more potently. These pressing issues in my opinion are creating a considerable split or disagreement within the European Union; they may not like it, but they have no other choice than to cooperate with the Syrian government, even if they disagree with it. Interviewer: Your Excellency has stated that if European countries were to send weapons to Syria, they would effectively be arming terrorists. Do you consider all armed militants as terrorists? President Assad: As a European or German citizen I will pose the following question: does your country allow you to carry arms, intimidate or kill innocent people, vandalize and loot? Any individual or group excluding the army and police who carries arms, kills people, threatens and intimidates public safety are by definition terrorists, this is a norm in every country. Regardless of their background, be it extremists, criminals or convicted felons, those who are carrying weapons in Syria are essentially committing these acts. Therefore, they are terrorists. We differentiate between terrorists and conventional opposition groups, since the latter is a political entity and has a political agenda. Killing and slaughtering is terrorism and plunges the country back years into regression. Interviewer: So Mr President, you see the future as being against terrorism? President Assad: This is the logical conclusion; however in Europe you have many illogical, unrealistic and irresponsible politicians who are applying their negative sentiments instead of their reason. Politics should not be fueled by love or hatred, but by interests. As a German citizen, you should ask yourself what do you stand to gain from what is happening in our region? Basically, what is happening now is against your national interests, your genuine interest lies in fighting terrorism. Interviewer: Some view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization; we know that it has fought alongside Syrian troops in al-Quseir. We have also heard that there are fighters from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fighting with you. Do you really need these forces? President Assad: The media is trying to portray Hezbollah as the main fighting force on the ground and the Syrian Army as weak and unable to achieve victory. In reality, over the last months we have achieved significant victories on the ground in different parts of Syria; in all of these victories, some of which were more important than al-Quseir, the Syrian army fought alone. None of this is highlighted in the media. One of the reasons for these victories is the National Defence Forces - local citizens fighting alongside the army to defend their communities and regions. Al-Quseir received more international attention because of statements by western officials projecting it as a strategic town, to the extent that even some United Nation's officials claim to understand the situation in al-Quseir! There was a lot of exaggeration, but there were also a large number of arms and militants. These terrorists started attacking the bordering towns loyal to Hezbollah, which warranted their intervention alongside the Syrian army in order to restore stability. The Syrian Army is a large army capable of accomplishing its missions across Syria, with the support of the local communities. If we were in need of such assistance, why not use these forces in the rural parts of Damascus, close to the capital? Damascus is certainly more important than al-Quseir, as is Aleppo and all the other major cities; it doesn't make any sense. But as I said at the beginning, the aim of this frenzy is to reflect an image of Hezbollah as the main fighting force and to provoke Western and International public opinion against Hezbollah. Interviewer: How strong and large are the Hezbollah brigades currently in Syria? President Assad: There are no brigades. They have sent fighters who have aided the Syrian army in cleaning areas on the Lebanese borders that were infiltrated by terrorists. They did not deploy forces into Syria. As you are aware, Hezbollah forces are positioned towards Israel and cannot depart Southern Lebanon. Additionally, if Hezbollah wanted to send fighters into Syria, how many could they send? A few hundred? The Syrian Army has deployed hundreds of thousands of troops across the country. Several hundred would make a difference in one area, but it would not conceivably constitute enough to tip the balance across all of Syria. Interviewer: Mr President, Britain and France claim to have clear evidence that chemical weapons have bee n used. The White House has stated that it possess information to ascertain this claim, which consequently led to the death of 100 to 150 people in one year, in addition to that you have denied the UN investigators access to areas in Syria except for Aleppo. How do you explain the situation? President Assad: Let's begin with the statement from the White House regarding the 150 casualties. Militarily speaking, it is a well-understood notion that during wars, conventional weapons can cause these number of deaths, or even higher, in a single day, not in a year. Weapons of mass destruction generally kill thousands of people at one given time; this high death toll is a primary reason for its use. It is counter-intuitive to use chemical weapons to create a death toll that you could potentially reach by using conventional weapons. America, France, Britain and some European officials claimed that we have used chemical weapons in a number of areas. Regardless of whether such weapons exist or not, we have never confirmed or denied the possession of these weapons. Had they obtained a single strand of evidence that we had used chemical weapons, do you not think they would have made a song and dance about it to the whole world?, then where is the chain of custody that led them to a such result? These allegations are ludicrous. The terrorist groups used chemical weapons in Aleppo; subsequently we sent an official letter to the United Nations requesting a formal investigation into the incident. Britain and France blocked this investigation because it would have proven the chemical attacks were carried out by terrorist groups and hence provided conclusive evidence that they (Britain and France) were lying. We invited them to investigate the incident, but instead they wanted the inspectors to have unconditional access to locations across Syria, parallel to what inspectors did in Iraq and delved into other unrelated issues. We are a sovereign state; we have an army and all matters considered classified will never be accessible neither to the UN, nor Britain, nor France. They will only be allowed access to investigate the incident that occurred in Aleppo. Therefore, all the claims relating to the use of chemical weapons is an extension of the continuous American and Western fabrication of the actual situation in Syria. Its sole aim is to justify their policies to their public opinion and use the claim as a pretext for more military intervention and bloodshed in Syria. Interviewer: The protests started in Syria peacefully before they turned into an armed struggle. Your critics claim that you could have dealt with the protests through political reforms, which makes you partly responsible for the destruction in Syria . What is your take on this? President Assad : We started the reforms from the first days of the crisis and, perhaps even to your surprise, they were initiated years before the crisis. We issued a number of new legislation's, lifted the emergency law and even changed the constitution through a referendum. This is a well-known fact to the West; yet what the West refuses to see is that from the first weeks of the protests we had policemen killed, so how could such protests have been peaceful? How could those who claim that the protests were peaceful explain the death of these policemen in the first week? Could the chants of protesters actually kill a policeman? From the beginning of the crisis, we have always reiterated that there were armed militants infiltrating protesters and shooting at the police. On other occasions, these armed militants were in areas close to the protests and shot at both protesters and police forces to lead each side into-believing that they were shot at by the other. This was proven through investigations and confessions, which were publicized on a large scale in the media. Interviewer: Mr President, it is reported that the Syrian Army has bombarded certain areas. Was there no other option? President Assad : We are pursuing terrorists who repeatedly infiltrate populated areas. If we take Al-Qseir as an example, there was a western media frenzy claiming that there were 50,000 civilians, which is more than the town's original population. In fact, when the terrorists entered the area, the inhabitants consequently fled; when we entered we did not find civilians. Usually wherever the terrorists infiltrate, civilians flee and battles occur afterwards. The evidence clearly shows that most of the casualties in Syria are from the armed forces. Civilians mostly die in suicide bombings. They also die when terrorists enter an area, proceed to carry out executions and use them as human shields. The rest of the causalities are either foreign or Syrian terrorists. Interviewer: After the momentum you have achieved in Al-Qseir, do you feel it is now time to extend a hand to the opposition and consider reconciliation? President Assad: From day one we have extended a hand to all those who believe in dialogue; this position has not changed. At the start of the crisis, we held a national dialogue conference whilst simultaneously fighting terrorists. But when we talk about the opposition, we should not put them all into one basket; it is imperative to differentiate between terrorists and politicians. In Germany, you have an opposition but they are not armed. Opposition is a political act, and so when we refer to the opposition, we mean the politicians to whom we are always committed to dialogue, regardless of what happened in Al-Qseir. As to national reconciliation, I do not think that it can be accurately applied to Syria. It implies a scenario of civil war, as was the case in Lebanon, or the conflict between black and white in South Africa. In our case it is about a national dialogue to determine a way out of the crisis and for the terrorists to put down their weapons. In any case, we are awaiting the Geneva conference, which essentially aims at the same political solution. However there are external impediments; Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France and Britain, continue to exert all their efforts at sabotaging dialogue in order to prolong the Syrian crisis and prevent a political resolution. Interviewer: How would you define the legitimate political opposition? President Assad: Essentially, any opposition party that does not support terrorism, does not carry weapons, and has a clear political agenda. But opposition groups are also linked to elections; their clout will depend on how well they fare in local administration elections and more importantly, in parliamentary elections. We are dealing with many groups who call themselves opposition, their success will be determined by two important questions: what is their popular base? And what is their political manifesto? We will then act accordingly. Interviewer: Segments of the opposition claim that you have not taken steps to form a united front with them against foreign intervention. Is this true Mr President? President Assad: On the contrary, in the national dialogue conference in 2011, there was an open invitation to all those who considered themselves in the opposition to come forward. Some chose to participate whilst others chose to boycott and blame us for not taking steps towards a solution. But we must ask ourselves, what do they mean by making advances towards them? What should we be offering? Ministerial positions in the government? The opposition in the current government has won hard-fought seats in parliament. When an opposition, made up of hundreds, does not have any seats in parliament how does one ascertain who deserves to be part of the government? We need clear criteria; it should not be haphazard. To put it another way, the government is not owned by the President for him to bestow gifts upon others in the form of ministries. It requires national dialogue and a political process through which the electorate can choose among other things their government an d the constitution. Interviewer: What are your set criteria for dialogue between you and the opposition, could this include foreign-based opposition? President Assad: We have no issues with autonomous opposition groups who serve a national agenda. With regards to the foreign-based opposition, we need to be very clear; its members live abroad and report to western foreign ministries and intelligence agencies. They are based outside their country and are in essence manipulated by the states that provide their flow of finance. They are best described as a "proxy opposition." As far was we are concerned, genuine Syrian opposition means representing the Syrian people - not foreign countries, it means being based in Syria and sharing the burdens and concerns of the Syrian people. Such an opposition would inevitably be pa rt of any political process. Interviewer: Fighting terrorism has become the priority now. In reference to your recent interview most probably on Al-Manar television, you stated that if you were to engage in a dialogue, you would rather do so with the master than the slave. To what extent are you prepared for dialogue with these entities in the future once you have effectively fought terrorism? President Assad: It is for this precise reason that we will attend the Geneva conference. I used the notion of the master and the slave to explain what we know will happen in reality. Negotiating with those who have no autonomy over their own decisions essentially means that you are in fact negotiating with the decision makers who dictate to them how to act, what to accept and what to reject. You will have seen on television recently footage o f the French Ambassador to Syria giving the external opposition orders and insulting them, or the American Ambassador to Syria shouting and insulting them. Therefore in reality, we are negotiating with the United States, Britain, France and their regional instruments, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Those groups who call themselves external opposition are mere employees; hence the masters and the slaves. We hope Geneva conference will push forward the dialogue process in Syria Interviewer: What are your expectations from the conference? Will it be followed by progress or a continued stalemate? President Assad: We hope that the Geneva conference will push forward the dialogue process in Syria especially since, earlier this year we presented a vision for a political solution based on the Geneva I communiqu'e. However, even though we will attend the conference with this understanding, we should be clear on the facts. First, the same countries I mentioned earlier that are supporting the terrorists in Syria have a vested interest in the talks failing. The logical question is: what is the relationship between the Geneva conference and terrorism on the ground? Simply, if the Geneva conference is successful - as is our hope, in preventing the smuggling of weapons and terrorists - there are over 29 different nationalities documented to be in Syria, then this would be a catalyst for resolving the Syrian crisis. However if the smuggling of weapons and terrorists continues, there is no value for any political solution. We hope that the Geneva conference will make this its starting point; it is the single most important element in the Geneva talks, which would ultimately determine its success or failure. Interviewer: If Geneva II fails, what are the consequences? President Assad: The countries I mentioned previously would continue to support the terrorists. Failing to solve the Syrian crisis will make it spread to other countries and things will only get worse. Logically speaking therefore, all parties have a vested interest in its success. As to the external opposition, if Geneva succeeds they will lose their funding; if you don't have money and you don't have popular support, you end up with nothing. Interviewer: Could Geneva II propose a government from different political entities? President Assad: This is what we have suggested in our political initiative. We proposed the formation of an extended government from diverse political entities that would prepare for parliamentary elections; the winners of these elections would have a role in the future. This is an approach that we have been open to from the beginning. Interviewer: Mr President, some of your critics claim that much blood has been shed in Syria; they blame the leadership and see it as an obstacle standing in the way of Syria's future. Would you consider stepping down in order to bring about a new Syria? President Assad: The president has a mandate in accordance with the constitution; my current term ends in 2014. When the country is in a crisis, the president is expected to shoulder the burden of responsibility and resolve the situation, not abandon his duties and leave. I often use the analogy of a captain navigating a ship hit by a storm; just imagine the captain jumping ship and escaping in the lifeboat! If I decide to leave now, I would be committing treason. If on the other hand, the public decided I should step down, that would be another issue. And this can only be determined through elections or a referendum. As an example, in the previous referendum on the constitution, there was a 58% turnout - which is pretty good in the circumstances, and the constitution was approved by 89.4%. The issue was never about the president, however they tried to project it as such in order to force the president to sell out to those countries backing the opposition, in order to install a puppet president. Interviewer: Mr President, you live with your family in Damascus. How much public support do you and your family enjoy? President Assad: When numerous neighboring and regional countries as well as the West are all opposing you, you couldn't possibly continue without popular public support. The Syrian people are highly aware of what is happening and have understood the dynamics of the crisis early on; hence their support for their government and their army. Interviewer: Next year there will be presidential elections, how do you see these elections playing out? President Assad: They will follow the new constitution, in other words multi-candidate elections. It will be a new experience, which we cannot predict at this point. Interviewer: Mr President, what is your vision for Syria in the next five years? President Assad: I reiterate that our biggest challenge is extremism. If we can fight it, with better education, new ideas and culture, then we can move towards a healthy democratic state. Democracy, as we see it in Syria, is not an objective in itself, but rather a means to an end - to stability and to prosperity. Legislations and constitutions are also only tools, necessary tools to develop and advance societies. However, for democracy to thrive, it needs to become a way of life - a part of our culture, and this cannot happen when so many social taboos are imposed by extremist ideologies. In addition to this, there is of course the reconstruction process, reinvigorating our national industries and restoring and opening up our economy. We will continue to be open in Syria, continue to learn and benefit from the lessons of this crisis. One of these lessons is that ignorance is the worst enemy of societies and forms the basis for extremism; we hope that Europe has also learned from these lessons. Interviewer: Mr President, thank you very much. I have been greatly influenced by your personality and your vision; I hope Europe and the West will benefit from this interview and look at you and your country differently. President Assad: Thank you very much and welcome again to Syria. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8e_1371627822 Curious_George President Assad Interview 18 June 2013, long read Assad, Interview, June 2013, Germany, Terrorists, Regional Conflict Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:27:33 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=168_1371622082 SvenVonErick Would you give up your car keys, the keys to your home, your bank account, passwords to get into your computer and social accounts, and all that is personal and unique to you to a complete stranger? Well, you have. 100% surveillance means children are subject to being taken away from any parents anytime, any women or any child can be a secret target to be sold or exploited, and that anything that is thought to be privately owned or controlled, is not. The US Government, police, and courts have been infiltrated from the outside. Money stolen from taxpayers is used to buy what can be bought. What isn't taken into possession from the outside by fraud will be taken by police and military force. The elite pulling the strings on the outside have played this same game over and over, over the centuries. This is what government looks like when government is not for the people, and when people are for the government ] NSA whistle blower Thomas Drake weighs in on RT's Breaking the Set Link ] Text with the link: On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin talks to Thomas Drake, former NSA senior executive and whistleblower, and Jesselyn Raddack, National Security Director for the Government Accountability Project, about whistleblower Edward Snowden, the dangerous climate surrounding classified information in the US, how the full extent of the NSA spying program has yet to be revealed, and how the mantra 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear,' is false. Abby then goes over the 2013 G8 summit in Northern Ireland, pointing out the groups' lack of progress in the developing world, and talks to RT correspondent Polina Boiko about the protests at the event. Abby also calls out the UK government's decision to prop up fake storefronts to 'fluff up' the town of Enniskillen, a town that was religiously segregated in the past. BTS wraps up the show with a look at law enforcement's use of facial-recognition technology at mere traffic stops and while taking photo IDs, and how the practice represents another step towards a total surveillance state. - Getting Made in the Cop Mafia ] http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=168_1371622082 SvenVonErick 100% Surveillance means you are owned from the outside UN, US, Agenda 21, OWS, gun, ban, confiscation, Martial Law, Patriot Act, NDAA, Police, State, Brutality, New York, City, Connecticut, Sandyhook, Newtown, Schoolyard, shooting, Boston, Bombing, hoax, domestic, spying, wire, tapping Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:49:06 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dbf_1371616392 lowerlevels Highlighted Final Outcomes of the G8 Summit Communique. Out of 24 pages of listed final outcomes based on different topics, these are those outcomes relating to Syria. We strongly support the proposal for a conference to reach a political solution to the appalling conflict in Syria through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communiqu'e. We will contribute generously to the latest United Nations (UN) appeal for humanitarian help. We condemn in the strongest terms any use of chemical weapons and all human rights violations in Syria. We are committed to leading international support for Libya's security and democratic transition and to urgent work for a lasting peace in the Middle East. We call on discussions at the UN on new mechanisms to increase international awareness of the threat of kidnapping for ransom, and propose consideration of further UN Security Council resolutions to address and mitigate the threat. We are determined to work together to stop the bloodshed and loss of life in Syria and to support the Syrian people to establish peace and stability through political means. We are gravely concerned at the appalling human tragedy that the UN estimates has cost the lives of over 93,000 people and led to 4.2 million internally displaced persons and 1.6 million refugees. We acknowledge the vital humanitarian role played by neighbouring countries hosting Syrian refugees, above all Lebanon a nd Jordan, in dealing with the significant economic and security pressures they are facing as a result of the conflict and refugee influx. Given the extraordinary humanitarian need as reflected in the latest UN appeal for $5.2 billion in 2013, we are resolved to make exceptional contributions commensurate with the scale of the problem. At this meeting G8 Leaders confirmed additional contributions of almost $1.5 billion to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and its neighbours. We recognise that further contributions will be needed given the scale of the challenge. Weurge other countries and organisations to make similar commitments. We call for aid agencies to be given immediate access to provide humanitarian assistance to all civilians in need, in accordance with humanitarian principles and international law, particularly in the worst affected areas such as Qusayr. We remain committed to achieving a political solution to the crisis based on a vision for a united, inclusive and democratic Syria . We strongly endorse the decision to hold as soon as possible the Geneva Conference on Syria to implement fully the Geneva Communiqu'e of 30 June 2012, which sets out a number of key steps beginning with agreement on a transitional governing body with full executive powers, formed by mutual consent. As the Geneva Communiqu'e says, the public services must be preserved or restored. This includes the military forces and security services. However all governmental institutions and state offices must perform according to professional and human rights standards, operating under a top leadership that inspires public confidence, under the control of the transitional governing body. Both sides at the Conference must engage seriously and constructively. They should be fully representative of the Syrian people and committed to the implementation of the Geneva Communiqu'e and to the achievement of stability and reconciliation. We will engage actively with the parties in order to achieve successful outcomes. We are deeply concerned by the growing threat from terrorism and extremism in Syria, and also by the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict. Syria must belong to all Syrians, including its minorities and all religious groups. We call on the Syrian authorities and opposition at the Geneva Conference jointly to commit to destroying and expelling from Syria all organisations and individuals affiliated to Al Qaeda, and any other non-state actors linked to terrorism. We will support UN planning for Syria's transition, recovery, and reconstruction needs, in particular by maintaining continuity of state institutions during transition and helping to ensure that the security forces are effective, accountable and able to deal with the threat of terrorism and extremism. We condemn any use of chemical weapons in Syria and call on all parties to the conflict to allow access to the UN investigating team mandated by the UN Secretary-General, and drawing on the expertise of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and World Health Organisation (WHO), in order to conduct an objective investigation into reports of use of chemical weapons. The UN team should make their report and deliver it to the UN Security Council for their assessment. We are determined that those who may be found responsible for the use of chemical weapons will be held accountable. We emphasise the need for the secure and safe storage of all chemical weapons in Syria, pending their destruction under international verification. We also condemn in the strongest possible terms all human rights violations and abuses in Syria, committed by anyone, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians. We call on all sides to respect international humanitarian and human rights laws, noting the particular responsibility of the Syrian authorities in this regard. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dbf_1371616392 lowerlevels Highlighted Final Outcomes of the G8 Summit Communique. G-8 Summit, Syria Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:37:38 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5b9_1371616171 thaer35 Published: June 18, 2013 KABUL, Afghanistan - Four coalition soldiers were killed in an attack Tuesday night, the American military said in a statement. While United States officials did not give any details or the nationality of the victims, a spokesman for the Taliban, Zabiullah Mujahid, e-mailed a statement claiming they had launched a rocket attack on the Bagram Airfield, the largest base in the country, located north of Kabul, killing four Americans. The base is mostly staffed by Americans. The attack came on the same day that Taliban insurgents announced they were ready to begin peace talks with American and Afghan officials on the conflict. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/world/asia/4-coalition-soldiers-killed-in-afghanistan.html?_r=0 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5b9_1371616171 thaer35 4 U.S Troops Ripped Apart by Rocket Attack in Afghanistan 4, U.S, soldiers, killed, Afghanistan, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:12:25 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=217_1371611277 figatomek Tanks are awesome. This is a clip from the 10 day war over Slovenia. On June 25th 1991 - Slovenia and Croatia declared Independence. The Slovenian government fully expected the Yugoslav military to respond with force on the day of the declaration of independence or shortly afterwards. Here is clip of the Serbian tanks pushing into Slovenia. Their goal was to intimidate the Slovenian Government, essentially a show of force that would convince the Slovenian government to back down on its declaration of independence. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=217_1371611277 figatomek Serbian Tanks breaking through Slovenian Barricades. Serbian Tanks, Forces, Armed Conflict, Slovenia, Barricades, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:11:16 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb1_1371610797 Emir-Khattab The Taliban opened an office in Doha, the Qatari capital, on Tuesday to help restart talks and said it wanted a political solution that would bring about a just government and end foreign occupation of Afghanistan. A senior U.S. official said the talks would start in Doha on Thursday, but President Barack Obama cautioned against expectations of quick progress, saying the peace process would not be easy or quick. U.S. officials said the process could take many years and be subject to reversals. "This is an important first step towards reconciliation; although it's a very early step," Obama said after a G8 meeting in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland . "We anticipate there will be a lot of bumps in the road." U.S. officials say they hope the meeting will open the way for the first-ever official peace talks between the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban, which has waged a 12-year campaign to oust him and foreign troops. The Taliban have until now said they would not countenance talks with the government, which they consider a stooge of the United States and other Western states in the NATO coalition fighting in Afghanistan. News of the planned talks comes as the United States and its allies in NATO seek to meet a deadline of December 2014 for an end to foreign combat operations in Afghanistan. This would allow them to withdraw the majority of their troops and wind down an engagement launched after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001 that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. A senior Afghan official said the Taliban was now willing to consider peace talks with the government, having held secret discussions with government representatives. In opening the Qatar office, the Taliban said it sought a political solution, but said no dates had been agreed for talks. Taliban representative Mohammed Naeem told a news briefing the group wanted good relations with "all of the world countries." "But the Islamic emirate (Taliban) sees the independence of the nation from the current occupation as a national and religious obligation," he said. U.S. officials said that in the talks in Doha, the United States would stick to its insistence that the Taliban break ties with al Qaeda, end violence, and accept the Afghan constitution, including protection for women and minorities. For its part, the Taliban is expected to demand the return of prisoners now at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - a move many in the U.S. Congress oppose - as well as the departure of all foreign troops. The United States says it hopes to keep a force, of as yet undetermined size, in the country after the end of the NATO combat mission. The talks will be the first U.S. meeting with the Taliban in several years. U.S. officials said the initial meeting was expected to involve an exchange of agendas, followed by another meeting a week or two later to discuss next steps. A U.S. official said he expected the initial meeting would be followed within days by another between the Taliban and the High Peace Council, a structure set up by Karzai to represent Afghanistan in such talks. 'PEACE IS NOT AT HAND' The U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the level of trust between the Afghan government and the Taliban remained low, and played down expectations that the talks would quickly lead to peace. "We need to be realistic," said one official. "This is a new development, a potentially significant development. But peace is not at hand." Obama said peace would only come through an Afghanistan-led process, and commended Karzai for taking a courageous step toward peace. He stressed that the U.S. military effort would continue in spite of the peace efforts. "We don't anticipate this process will be easy or quick but we must pursue it in parallel with our military approach. And we in the meantime remain fully committed to our military efforts to defeat al Qaeda and to support the Afghan national security forces," Obama said. Despite the accompanying words of caution, the announcement of the planned talks represents a significant step forward in the peace process, which has struggled to achieve results despite years of attempts. A team of envoys from the Taliban flew to Qatar in early 2012 to open talks with the U.S. government. But the Taliban suspended the talks in March 2012, saying Washington was giving mixed signals on the nascent Afghan reconciliation process. Tiny, gas-rich Qatar has been an enthusiastic supporter of reconciliation efforts in a number of crises affecting the Muslim world including those in Afghanistan, Yemen , Somalia, Lebanon and Darfur, often hosting peace talks on its own soil to try to prove it can punch above its weight in diplomacy. Karzai, speaking on Tuesday as the U.S.-led NATO coalition launched a final phase of transferring responsibility for security to Afghan forces, said his government would send a team to Qatar. But he said the talks should quickly be moved to Afghanistan. "We hope that our brothers the Taliban also understand that the process will move to our country soon," he said. U.S. officials said the goal was to ensure that Afghanistan did not remain a haven for terrorist groups and to defeat al Qaeda, which was given sanctuary by the Taliban in Afghanistan. "One of the things we will want to talk about from the very beginning is how they're going to cut ties with al Qaeda," a U.S. official said. "How quickly, exactly how they're going to do it, how quickly." A senior U.S. official said Pakistan , which has provided sanctuary to the Taliban despite its professed support for the battle against Islamist militancy, had recently been supportive of the peace process. "There has in the past been skepticism about their support, but in recent months I think we've seen evidence that there is genuine support and that they've employed their influence such as it is to encourage the Taliban to engage," he said. A U.S. official said the talks would be conducted on the Taliban side by its political commission, with the authorization of Mullah Omar, and also represent the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani network. James Dobbins, the new special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, will lead the U.S. side. The Haqqanis are considered the United States' deadliest foe in Afghanistan and the top U.S. and NATO commander in the country cast doubt on Tuesday over whether it could make peace. "All I've seen of the Haqqani would make it hard for me to believe they were reconcilable," U.S. General Joseph Dunford told Pentagon reporters by phone from Kabul. U.S. officials said they expected detainee exchanges to be discussed in the talks. The United States will ask for the safe return of U.S. Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who has been a prisoner since June 2009, the officials said. He is thought to be being held by Taliban militants in northwestern Pakistan. Give up America, you have no experience in guerrilla warfare. You failed twice in this mission, you can't even fight in the jungles against the Vietnamese and the mountains with the Taliban. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb1_1371610797 Emir-Khattab US desperately wants to seek peace with Taliban America, Talibans, Afghanistan