Saturday, February 11, 2012


Nearly thirty people died and nearly two hundred were injured when what were apparently car bombs went off in Aleppo yesterday. It appears that at first the Free Syria Army (FSA) claimed responsibility, but an hour or so later accused the Syria government. The Syria government accused armed terrorist gangs, meaning probably the FSA.

So, as with all news reports coming out of Syria, who can we believe?

The BBC has added some more details in a report by Jim Muir.
The rebel Free Syrian Army said it was operating in the area at the time, but was not responsible for the blasts.

Col Malik al-Kurdi, the FSA's deputy leader, told BBC Arabic that it had been monitoring the activity of security forces personnel and members of the pro-government Shabiha militia inside a Military Intelligence compound and a riot police base in Aleppo on Friday morning.

"When they were gathering in a square to go to the mosques and repress demonstrations, two groups from the FSA targeted the two buildings with small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire," he said.

"After violent clashes, there was an explosion inside the Military Intelligence building. At first we didn't know what it was, but we think it was the regime trying to stop the operation of the FSA," he added.

[source : Syria unrest: Aleppo bomb attacks 'kill 28', BBC, 10/2/2012]

So here al-Kurdi is at least admitting that the FSA did start an attack on the Syria Military with small arms and RPGs, then there were violent clashes, but he then alleges that the Syria Military then blew up its own buildings from inside.

Is this credible?

How many FSA were involved?

And is there any evidence, such as eye witness reports, of these "violent clashes" that al-Kurdi alleges took place?

Curiously, in his spoken interview, Muir does not mention that the FSA started an attack with RPGs but does say that activists said there were "suspicious movements by the security people shortly before the blasts leading them to believe something was going to happen". Muir is then asked how is it possible that cars could drive up to those locations, to which Muir replies "that is a question". But one of the locations affected yesterday was a public garden in which children were playing, and subsequently died.

So it is possible that the FSA started the attack with RPGs, then violent clashes took place, then Syria 'security people' placed car bombs (but drawing so much attention to themselves amidst the mayhem that the activists noticed it), then the car bombs went off, but the 'security people' then also blew up their own buildings.


I cannot find evidence that "violent clashes" occured between FSA and the Syrian military just before the bombs went off. I think that if such clashes had occured and if the Syrian military had indeed blown up their own buildings then eye witness accounts of those attacks would have been reported by Syria state TV to make the accusations against the FSA much stronger because the FSA would have been shown as violent.

But what else do we know?

Through the last decade, whenever a car bomb went off, say in Iraq, a so-called terrorism expert would come on the news and tell us that car bombs are the trademark of al Qaeda.

So is there evidence that al Qaeda is in Syria? It is perhaps not insignificant that Aleppo is close to the border with Turkey. The al Qaeda dude, Belhaj, who ran the Libyan rebel army (with assistance from British Special Forces and NATO) was airlifted to Turkey with some of his gang to assist if not command the Free Syria Army, and many reports have confirmed his presence on the Syria/Turkey border.

And the presence of armed terrorist gangs was reported in the most recent report from the Arab League, which has been suppressed and barely reported in the British media. These armed terrorist gangs were reported to have blown up a bus killing women and children. The same report also accused the media of exaggerating if not making up reports of attacks by the Syrian military on civilians.

I am not saying the Syrian military are angels. But faced with armed gangs the British military would implement similar policies and tactics. Take Northern Ireland for example, a situation not too dissimilar to Syria; torture, murder, a biased judicial system. It all sounds depressingly too familiar.

Taking all of the above into account I would say that the FSA has no credibility on this one, and that the terrorism in Aleppo is probably the responsibility of the Syrian rebels.

Curiously our own media is not investigating the possibility of Aleppo being state sponsored terrorism too deeply, merely reporting the accusation of the FSA. Perhaps because such an investigation would inevitably lead all the way back to Langley and Vauxhall and expose the mother of all modern state sponsored terrorism, 9/11.

No comments: