One sided questions; unable or unwilling to see things from
the other side; accepting government statements as fact; ignoring well-reasoned
responses; inability to think logically or critically. It isn’t just the American mainstream media….
President Assad: … actually, when you want to talk about the dire
situation in eastern Aleppo, it’s not because of the government; it’s because
of the terrorists. They’ve been in that area for years now, but we only heard
about that “dire situation” in the media recently, in the Western media,
because the situation of the terrorists is very bad.
The interviewer follows-up with a question that completely
ignores this reality – the situation in eastern Aleppo has been hell for
civilians for many years – it has become news
only recently because the best publicity that the terrorists’ sponsors’ money
can buy has been brought into play.
Question 5: So, if the Syrian Army didn’t attack hospitals, or
maybe they did by mistake, you say, are you sure it’s not the Russian air force
who are targeting hospitals?
President Assad: The question that you should ask when you have a
crime: who is the beneficiary of that crime?
Does this response from Assad prompt any curiosity in the
interviewer? Does the interviewer pull
on the string: who gains from such attacks?
No. He continues to lay blame on
Russia and the Syrian government.
President Assad: …the terrorists according to what you are saying,
terrorists are not responsible, they are very peaceful people. The money of
Qatar and Saudi Arabia and Turkey are something legal and natural, let’s say,
and the agenda of the United States fulfilled the needs of the Syrian people,
which is not realistic.
The response from the interviewer? Crickets.
Forgive the lengthy cite, but this next portion is rather
Question 17: The United States, they stopped all bilateral talks
with Russia about any kind of peace agreement, and the Russians they said that
they actually regret this. Do you regret it as well?
President Assad: We regret it, but we knew in advance that it
wouldn’t work…we had already known that the Americans didn’t have the will to
reach any agreement, because the main part of that agreement is to attack
al-Nusra which is, according to the American list and to the United Nations list,
is a terrorist group, but in the Syrian conflict, it’s an American card.
Question 18: But isn’t it very difficult for the United States to
separate the so-called “moderate rebels” and some of the more radical ones?
This is very difficult, when you are attacking the moderate rebels all the
President Assad: You are right, do you know why you are right? Do
you know the unicorn, the animal that’s like a horse, has a long horn? It’s a
myth. And the moderate opposition is a myth. That’s why you cannot separate
something that doesn’t exist from something that exists.
Does Assad fear further escalation between Russia and the
United States as a result of these failed efforts?
President Assad: …actually that escalation has been happening for a
while now. I mean, before that agreement, let’s say, failed, the Americans attacked
our forces in Deir Ezzor…
… for the Americans, a hundred
percent, they did it intentionally, because ISIS gathered their militants in
the same place before the attack, and when the attack started, it took about
one hour, and in the next hour ISIS attacked and took control of those hills.
How could ISIS knew about this raid before it happened?
Regarding the puppet states of Europe:
President Assad: I’m sure not the Danish, not the British, decided
which target they should attack. I’m sure the Americans said “this is our
target, and this is where ISIS is.” …is it acceptable for the Danish people
that your army is fulfilling military missions of other countries without
verifying the target and knowing where is it heading? Do you take a bus without
knowing where the bus is going to? You don’t.
…the Europeans implement and
fulfill what the Americans want in every field without asking and without
…whole Europe now being absent from
the political map at least since 2003 after the invasion of Iraq, just because
they had to follow the Americans, and they don’t dare to take their
independent, let’s say, path in politics.
Regarding the violation of international law:
President Assad: …the intervention in Syria, as part of the
international coalition which is actually an American coalition, this is
against the international law, this is against the sovereignty of Syria because
this is not in coordination with the Syrian government, while the Russian came
to Syria…after having an invitation from the Syrian government to support us in
our fight against the terror.
An example of the futility of expecting someone from the
western media or political establishment to consider how he might feel if the
shoe was on the other foot:
Question 25: But what else should [the coalition] do? I mean, they
are very much against what’s going on in Syria right now.
President Assad: The question is would you as a Danish citizen
accept me as a foreigner to support opposition in your country with money and
to tell them “go and kill, and that’s how you achieve your political goals?”
Regarding the diplomacy of the United States:
President Assad: [as opposed to the time of the Cuban Missile
Crisis] …in the United States you don’t have superior statecraft. When you
don’t have superior statecraft, you should expect anything, and you should
always expect the worse.
This is the danger. It
is a danger either because someone in the US is in charge or because no one in
the US is in charge. Either way, the situation
regarding two nuclear-armed powers is dangerous.
There is much more to the interview. It is worth reading.