By Intibah Kadi
A curious phenomenon has gradually crept upon the English language social media community that defends Syria; a small but effective group of “orientalists” with their varied agendas, gatekeepers amongst them of all shapes and sizes and evangelizers and assorted nefarious subverters. Syrians, having never experienced working together with people from across the world, had no experience of the pro and cons of such activism. In general, Syrians have politely made excuses for colonialist or exceptionalist behaviour with statements such as “anyone who speaks up about Syria is our friend”. We may even say that the Syrian government has done this in its endeavour to welcome any promotion for the defence of Syria , no matter who it comes from.
How did this happen? Syrians had not experienced what Palestinians had in their decades long struggle which involved volunteer advocates, mainly from the West. Palestinians became quickly aware that they had to keep control and ownership of their struggle as some of their supporters suffered from an overwhelming need and sense of entitlement to speak for and on behalf of the Palestinian people to the point where some actually saw themselves as representing that struggle. Apparently Gandhi insisted to his great and life-long friend Charles Andrews that only Indians must be involved in their struggle, so, that awareness was there a long time ago.
Edward Said’s most famous and rather complex work ,“Orientalism”, published in 1978, explores the relationship between power, knowledge and colonialism. Some of his words echo in my mind when it comes to this subject of a people needing to preserve the integrity of and control over their struggle. It is claimed that Said was influenced by the Italian Marxist Gramsci’s notion of ‘hegemony’ in terms of understanding the influence of orientalist constructs and entrenchment in Western academia and even their reach of power over the Orient itself. In this context, Gramsci’s views on ‘hegemony’ refer to the victory of the dominant class’s promotion of their definition of reality and world view.
We are here talking about people in the West and in the case of this article, specifically of a section of Western activists. Hence, the various frameworks they present are seen in their paradigm as the norm, as logical, the given and the only set of frameworks to view the world through. Those who do not toe the line, and in this subject being discussed here, these are the actual “orientals” themselves; they are utterly marginalized even though is it their struggle, their story, their history and their culture. They can lose their voice because of the exceptionalists’ need to play the role for them and be their voice. These “orientalists” have a tremendous need to retell another culture’s experience. And, how dare in the case of Syria, for example, that there can exist eloquent, highly educated, brilliant and deeply knowledgeable Syrian analysts and activists who contradict the conclusions derived from the frameworks of the significant and only paradigm on this planet?
For as long as such a person toes the line, agrees with his Western allies, all goes well and, to a certain degree, there will be some support for this analyst or writer. But, the moment this “oriental” has the audacity to make conclusions or claims that fall well outside of those reached by the Western academics or analysts who use their Western paradigm frameworks, then it is time to silence, shut out and shut down this audacious “oriental” before their own inadequacies and failings are exposed.
All views, theories and assessments must fit neatly into these Western hemisphere frameworks, if not, then they must be ridiculed and shut down.
In the increasing phenomenon of Western activist involvement in causes far away from their lands, causes that have emerged principally due to the actions of the “masters of the universe”, they are coming into contact with people who they normally would not and, this is the case vice versa . The Western activists see themselves as in a position to to assist and support advocacy on situations involving underprivileged, disenfranchised or oppressed people. For the well-intentioned who are able to keep their ego in check and who have expunged as much of their socio-political biases and subconscious assumptions, they can be of immense assistance and value. However, for those who see a window of opportunity for personal advancement or some other agenda, then this is an ideal opportunity for them and this is where, in the case of Syria, generally experience of Syrians in recognizing this and making an informed assessment and decision about this is lacking or they are just too polite.
The more this problematic section of solidarists became involved in the struggles of others far away from their world, the more many became enmeshed and deluded in a world of fantasy, placing themselves as the centre piece of someone else’s struggle and ultimately disempowering those they were meant to support.
In the case of Palestine this became painfully obvious when many if not most activists from the West, not having the background to understand the history, cultural and intimate nuances of life in the region that only an Indigenous person can have, supported the disappointingly large section of Palestinians who took the sectarian path and supported the murderous Takfiris. Some took these little understood, adopted views on as if it were a new cause for their very own existence when, in fact, they were assisting those who were threatening the very existence of the only secular and truly independent nation in the Levant, Syria and the mother of Palestine.
The world in the Levant is so different in so many ways to life in the West and, no words can adequately reflect this. For a person from another culture far away, to meddle in areas of sensitivity in the region, believing they understand it all, they can, in fact, contribute to further violence, hatred or even genocide. For example, in the Levant, there is a term used to inflict extreme insult upon others; it is in fact the name of a particular ethnic culture. The same goes for those who do not understand that some of their words have contributed to fanning the flames of sectarianism in the region. Both examples have the potential to become giant bloodbaths, particularly the latter.
When we come to the works of Indigenous Levantines, from newspaper reports, analysis or interviews, these seem not to be regarded by any Western analysts as primary materials. And, when Indigenous Levantines endeavour to bring out to the Western world important news or analysis from key, important Arabic speaking analysts, they are not for one moment regarded as primary documents or even read by these described analysts. So in fact, in general, many of these non-Indigenous analysts tend to present their analysis based on secondary sources. I am not specifically referring to news reports here as many competent Syrians have been able to get news out in the English language. I am talking about analysis. So the point I am making here is that, when I really think back to the last five years of the War On Syria, indigenous insights from the Levant brought to the West in order to assist the supporters of Syria and the West in general to appreciate what is really going on from the perspective of the people actually in that area tends to be discounted or totally ignored by serious Western analysts and others. Those “orientalists” often are at total odds in their analysis to what the Levantine analysts state.
Even worse, despite countless instances when none of the Arabic language media in the region makes a single mention of some purported event published in the alternative media of the West, these reports gain enormous credibility amongst the Western supporters and even gain a life of their own. The fact that these “reports” are not even mentioned in the street or in the media of the country or region where it was supposed to have occurred, seems not to have the slightest impact on the this section of Western supporters. It is desired reading and it perhaps fits within their framework.
As for the story about why ISIS and such Takfiri groups were able to be created and prevail, the story from the Levant, from learned and informed understanding of the Quran and the history of Islam from an Indigenous person, is to be totally discounted and in fact ridiculed and insulted. The Western framework around this narrative is the one and only valid explanation.
I will share a very telling story with the reader which demonstrates a world of insight into the issues this article explores. This is an experience I encountered but I am sure many other Indigenous analysts may have even more amusing stories to share.
A startling report came out back in September 2013, in the Arabic language Al Manar, the official organ of Hezbollah, a stickler for accurate reports. It claimed that Russia had stopped two ballistic missiles heading for Syria. When I partook in promptly and urgently translating this report into English and sent it around the world I came across a problem with one of the alternative media sites in an English speaking country. The editor refused to publish it as he said the report was not verified as it had not been reported in the American site called “Information Clearing House” (ICH). Rather a chicken versus the egg argument! So a report from the mighty Hezbollah’s media site about an event that happened in its own area was not valid until the ICH said it was so. Besides the incredible arrogance, the logic in the Editor’s argument was missing.
Edward Said always warned about ‘orientalism’ and its proponents’ tremendous need to retell another culture’s experience and that it was even utilized by imperialism. Undoubtedly this includes conscious but mostly subconscious attitudes of colonialism and gate-keeping and ultimately results in the silencing of Indigenous voices that are “non-compliant” with the place and status these “orientalists” want to relegate them to!
This hijacking and subverting of Syrian control over the English speaking social media fight for Syria came to a head recently when a large section of the English speaking members of the social media movement, after one of the members had for months promoted one of her kind, Senator Dick Black, shared across the social media enthusiastic posts of the “hero” Senator. Senator Black was welcomed in Syria and indeed had a meeting with President Assad.
This is the background fundamentalist Christian Senator Black comes from; the Ted Cruz platform in the running up for preselection for the American Presidential race which included a proposed policy of only Christian Syrian refugees, not Muslims, being allowed into the USA; an overt and despicable sectarian stand.
Senator Black is a minor State Senator who curiously believes he has a role to play on the international arena. The Senator had been challenged over a year ago by an analyst whose insights on the misinterpretation of Islam and how that lent itself to driving the jihadist recruitment was given to a trusted acquaintance but immediately landed in the hands of the Senator. The Senator promptly used this information to achieve the exact opposite goals to the originator of the information and, clearly, this was used by the Senator to further his sectarian agenda. The result was a cleverly written article by the Senator, where that analyst saw his own words and concepts in print but with a very different message to the one he was trying to get across. Senator Black, in a subtle manner, stated that extremist Islam was a danger for Christianity and the Western civilization, making no mention of the danger it posed to everyone in the entire Middle East and indeed the whole world. Just like ISIS, the fundamentalist drive in the USA potentially poses a great danger. Such beliefs including other bizarre beliefs of Senator Black, goes against everything the State of Syria values and advocates.
“Cruz is avowedly as sectarian as you can get and so is Black”, to quote an American academic when contemplating on the meeting Black had with President Assad, … “nor does it benefit Syria to elevate a local state politician who is ridiculed in the US press for such bizarre extremist views on sexuality, birth control, etc. My god, what is [Black] doing even speaking about marital rape, let alone denying it. The guy is a nutcase and minor figure.”
And why do I focus on this matter of Senator Black? It is to demonstrate the extent that the Syrian fight for Syria on the English speaking forum has been subverted. So who does Black truly represent? For those who understand Cruz and his kind intimately, they will be able to suggest some answers. Cruz is as rabidly pro-Israel as an American can be. Those from his camp who may be involved in defending Syria are only interested in the Christians of Syria. Some may even come from USA based churches that on one hand have members setting off to Israel for solidarity activities and other members who suddenly veer off and focus on Syria.
Had the Syrians been in control of their cause on the English speaking social media forum, then the issues described above would never have occurred. Instead, due to politeness and extreme civility on the part of Syrians, their cause on the English speaking social media, was incrementally eroded and overrun by evangelists, agents of all kinds of agenda, self-promoting individuals, agents who speak for Syrian fifth columnists and even agents of the CIA backed Unification Church.
The clique that gradually formed and overran the solidarity community all fraternise with each other, the whole lot of these nefarious characters, supposedly some being in total contradiction to each other’s values and politics, all the while co-opting vulnerable Syrians and attacking or freezing out the Syrians who expose them just by the virtue of what they write and say. The Arabic speaking Syria defence community on social media has never heard of these “famous” clique members or of Senator Black. This clique, formed their own cocoon, live in a fantasy and, unfortunately affected the English language social media fight for Syria.
The genuine, sincere, Western supporters of Syria are also generally sidelined as their modus operandi of empowerment of Syrians and helping from far behind acts as a mirror to the ego driven and profile seeking activists. The most hard working and effective supporters of Syria are those we never hear about, and we never know of their deeds or how their help empowered key Syrian figures to achieve certain tasks. Some of these quiet unsung heroes from the West may silently enter Syria at times, meet discreetly with key figures, listen carefully, keep their eyes and ears open and mouths closed and, with the expertise they may possess, help from behind the scenes without any recognition or fanfare.
Thank you for this article, and especially highlighting the role of the “gatekeepers”. It reminds me of the recent interview with Andrew Korybko, where he mentioned that in his university in America, he was ridiculed for quoting Russian media as his sources for a thesis. I think the “gatekeeper” issue, the so-called “serious people” in both mainstream media and alternative media in the West is something that deserves greater attention in understanding the information warfare.
From Pepe Escobar’s FB page
Jay Glad
What’s really interesting to me is why the Russians have no sway in Iraq. Have they even tried, aside from some sort of communications center? Iran supposedly has power there, then why is the US calling ALL the shots? What’s really up withe Iraqis? They seem to be the missing link, and maybe the most massively corrupt in the region. Is it that the US encourages oil corruption? The money ends up in theri banks anyway. Of course they wouldn’t want in any “socialism”- with ol revenues going back in the country. Maybe corruption has always been the real cash cow of the western banking system. You can’t really free Syria unless you defeat Daesh in Iraq. The destruction of antiquities in Iraq is probably greater than in Syria, with Nimrud and Ninevah and lots of other sites. Escobar, why don’t you consult your “deep sources” and write about this, instead of this simplistic cheerleading after-the-fact stuff. or sensasionalist gossip that is your stock in trade. Tell us why Russia isn’t working with Iraq more closely and why Iraq keeps the US in country. Those are serious journalistic questions. Maybe William Engdahl. Thierry Meyssan, Tony Cartalucci orRobert Parry can answer them, they’re investigative journos … Certainly you, the Saker or Patrick Cockburn can’t, or won’t.
Sorry to offend Escobar and all the DESPERATE Putin backslappers and glad-handers and wimpy lefty liberals but I must ask this FUNDAMENTAL and BASIC question, from the perspective of HONESTY and LOGIC, that seems to be missing from the discussion: WHAT PREVENTED THE GREAT VISIONARY CHESSMASTER PUTIN For THREE YEARS, from defending his ONLY ALLY in the Mid east when the atrocities against Syria began? Are the Russians SO DENSE and STUPID that they hadn’t learned the lesson of Serbia, or better yet, LIBYA? What did those genius crafty chess masters think was happening in Syria for THREE YEARS before they intervened? Escobar, bum-licker extroidinaire, ask yourself if they were just waiting for the west to overthrow their GREAT ALLY Assad. Ask yourself, if they, great chess masters that you claim they are, finally woke up out of their corrupt vodka drunk stupor, to realize that Mother Russia was about to get swarmed by fake Jihadi death squads, which would mean the end of the party for the Russian power thieves. So they got their asses in gear and dispatched the troops, three years after the fact! The standard apologist answer is that they needed time to update their military. But they’ve been doing that since the late 90s! Any country that needs three years to mobilize a relatively small force is basically a joke. It’s NOT about mobiilzation, it’s about the political will to mobilize. FACE IT. That’s all conveniently down the LEFTY MEMORY HOLE, with your true believers, that jump to your rescue and attack me, but anyone with half a brain can see the inconsistencies in your writing and perspective. Yeah, I’m talking to you, Escobar.
Putin seems like to intervene only when the situation is desperate. That way, the enemy have showed their hand and there is a clear goal to be achieved that the people can rally behind.
There’s also the risk/reward calculus to consider. Interventions are always very dangerous. Military action is a last resort both for moral and strategic reasons. Until it was irrefutably obvious Assad could not handle things by himself, a Russian deployment would risk more than it stood to gain.
Nonetheless, Russia provided invaluable diplomatic cover to Assad for the entirety of the civil war, including preventing US strikes after the chemical weapons red line hoax.
@ Hector
I share many of the questions Jay Glad posted to Escobar and would welcome a more vigorous Russian action not only in Syria but also in the Ukraine in support of Novorossyia. But my perspective is that of an outside observer, not the ones handling the levers of power in Russia who know much more than I do what is to be done in the interests of their country. After all, the Russian intervention in Syria is not motivated by moral considerations of solidarity or charity but plain self-interest.
It is arguable that the coup d’état in Kiev tipped the scales irrevocably. Until then Putin and associates were still trying to stitch Russia to the Atlanticist camp in spite of the humiliating
rebuffs, reminiscent of Turkey’s grovelling attempts to join the EU club.
On the other hand, even the Kiev coup leaves questions marks such as: Why did Putin allow the overthrow of the legitimate government? The Kremlin knew what was going on – even the Yanks did not conceal what they were up to – yet they did nothing to prevent it. Was Crimea already on their sights?
ME
This has been the third revolution Kiev there will be a fourth.
Wait and see what happens then
Or all of Ukraine in the long run….who else? Poland, Latvia, Hungary?
RR
Hector,
As an observer-activist, and student of economic history, without any bias for particular leader(s), and with a strong bias for a society and civilization where truth-justice-equality are foremost parameters for governance, I would like to note few points as below:
(1) After 1991, in every country which have been still trying to take a road where policies will be independent of instructions from AZ cabal, the leadership-in-power have been facing stiff resistance from oligarchs/aristocrats/politicians/bureaucrats of the 5th column. Russia and (surprisingly) China are the most burning cases…
(2) Russian empire/Soviet Union has been consistent target of AZ cabal for past three centuries. After break-up of USSR, the AZ clique continuously worked for further dismemberment as well total control over Russian land and resources. After Putin’s appearance, AZ clique increasingly created more hurdles – political, geopolitical. The anti-Russian developments in Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, (and even in EEU members like Armenia, Belarus) in the European sector and Uzbekistan. Turkmenistan in Asian sector are all part of ‘Containment of Russia’. The destruction of Gadhafi government in Libya and impending destruction of Assad government in Syria (as we see from the stunning ongoing reversals in north Syria) are also part of the same game…
(3) The two-year long Oil price crash has weakened Russian economy to a great extent. With continuation of current central bank/monetary policies that make Russia dependent on Dollarised global order, Russian government is hard pressed on new expenditures (like foreign military campaign) that require massive funding over long period.
(4) Unless the key stakeholders Russia and Iran jointly plan and execute every step in Syria without further delay, the Takfiri Jihadi groups owned by AZ cabal operating with continuous active support of Turkey and Saudi will destroy most of the population in Iraq-Syria-Lebanon to establish complete control of AZ cabal over the land and resources. Such end result will also ensure (a) drastic reduction of oil-gas business (with west and south Europe) for Russian and Iranian ‘national’ companies, and (b) Russian (and Iranian, Chinese) land will face increasing destabilization (from AZ cabal) activities by Takfiri Salafist groups. Similarly, may I say, Russia and Belarus jointly plan and execute every step in Ukraine to free all three concerned countries from Fascist groups owned by AZ cabal.
However, if Russia-Iran and Russia-Belarus governments plan and execute actions to placate the AZ cabal with understanding that, in lieu of allowing a ‘controlled take-over’ of Syria and Ukraine by the AZ cabal, the AZ cabal will ensure the economy of Russia, Iran, Belarus to flourish again (through whatever means possible- trade, banking, sale of oil etc. etc.) then the respective governments are not only deceiving themselves but they are clearing the way for ultimate destruction of their own countries.
(5) The stupendous achievements of Stalin and Mao (both of whom sacrificed their dearest family members, their sons in the struggle against AZ cabal) to ‘liberate’ almost entire Eurasian landmass (except west Europe, Japan, and Indonesia) with direct involvements and / or indirect influence from the clutches of AZ cabal during 1940 to 1975, was possible because they put integrity and ideology as the guiding principles of their leadership. Can Eurasian peoples expect similar feat from the current leadership of Russia and China (who are at the forefront of current resistance to AZ cabal) ?
@ Straight-Bat
“… then the respective governments are not only deceiving themselves but they are clearing the way for ultimate destruction of their own countries.”
I keep on turning my head around that puzzle: the constant kowtowing of the Russian leadership in response to the vile humiliations they receive from Anglozion Empire and its designs for Globus Imperialis. Russia, by dint of its geographic situation, has no natural defences and is almost open to any invader, and has in fact been invaded many times from West and East, and even from the North (Sweden) and South (Turkey, England, France). Even the Yanks invaded Siberia – for a short time though.
The vulnerability of Russia and the historical proofs should elicit a defensive posture similar to a justified siege mentality. Compounded with the historical proofs of US unrelenting push for world domination since its birth as its Divine “manifest destiny”, one is at sixes and sevens to understand the conciliatory, demeaning and self-defeating stance of appeasement coming from the Kremlin.
I could on and on in the same vein to express doubts about the resolve and backbone of the Russian leadership, particularly since the intervention of Mr. Putin on two occasions in the Novorossyia fight for independence/autonomy: “the cauldron” and Debaltsevo. In both instances, the Kiev Army was surrounded and ready for the coup de grace; instead salvation came cloaked under Minsk 1 and Minks 2.
And then one wonders on whose side are we on?
ME
ME,
Understand your point which conforms to the perspective with which I posted my note.
However, we need to look into Putin’s 15 year rule and quite substantial achievements to turn around the overall condition of Russia (from the hell into which Russia found itself due to Gorbachev and Yeltsin rule)… I feel, Putin and his team will have to embark upon the most difficult part of their journey simultaneously cleaning the internal mess of 5th column as well as taking a simple but bold stand vis-a-vis the AZ cabal that no more hegemonic action will be tolerated anywhere in Europe and Asia.
Could you take note of the South China Sea situation – China has not changed their stand even a bit, and it adheres to its 9-dash claim with 100% determination. Is it not interesting that Chinese stand against USA and Japan’s might could be possible because Russia is standing behind China as a rock ? Why then Russia will dither (if that understanding is true) in Syria when Iran is providing active support ? If such hesitation is part of Russian strategy, it’s ok, but if the hesitation is true, then what are the causes ? If anybody can throw any light, I will welcome that.
Can Russia actually wage the war you are asking them to without having first tried to turn over every stone that could lead to peace? Is this not the nation that has the” Grace to act according to it’s conscience”? This is a large part of the equation. You say it was ideological guide that helped USSR build the alternative to capitalism. Do they realize this in the Kremlin? I to wonder when I hear,’We have no ideological differences” Well, then the damage is done. If this is so then Russian leadership does not understand Capitalism and have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. They need to go back and read Marx, Engels, Lenin and above all else Trotsky. Contrary to popular slander, the struggle between Trotsky and Stalin were about policy. Should they force collectivization or let the Kulaks keep all the surplus and market it as they saw fit. Should we look to collaborate in a policy of Socialism in One Country or is socialism only possible like Capitalism on an international basis-they cannot live together peacefully-it is a contradiciton in terms. As far as I am concerned Marx was correct in his appraisal of capitalism and it’s overall trajecotry and development. Just as Trotsky was correct in arguing that following the policies proposed by Stalin would lead to a capitalist counter revolution and the end of the USSR. These men as Marxists were not short sighted: a Marxist is by definition a historian. Marx and Trotsky have been vindicated by history. I know history is much appreciated in the Kremlin as well.
Time will tell if besides this appreciation lies a theoretically informed emancipatory program based on reality or fanciful thinking. i.e. BRICS and a multi-polar world. So far it is a game of thrones, an elitist project. This must be turned into a political project-National political parties must sign up to be Multi-polar aligned with those nations who have the same vision. This is how colour revolutions is such places can be fraught out. It is clear in Brazil, Venezuela. etc, forces aligned with unipolar world are looking to counter Bolivarian gains. ( which goes to show that nationalization of commanding heights of economy is a necessary component of Multi polar project). Giving the people in these countries a clear understanding and articulating a political movement from the bottom up will go far in protecting against overthrow by counter revolutionary colour revolutions and the danger they pose to the Multi polar project. Consciousness of self interest will be harder to obfuscate. Of course my Bolshevik comrades would posit the entire project for a Multi-polar world is an obscuration: reformist, Two Stage(ism) and cut to the chase.
Socialism or Barbarism: The Order of the Day!
RR
Probably because they haven’t asked in an official way one government to the other.
RR
I don’t see a problem with only admitting Christian refugees. The US is a Christian country. Mixing people up only results in more conflict. Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia have adopted similar stances. And it’s only natural a US senator would be concerned primarily with the effect of Islamic fundamentalism on his country. Also, millions of Muslims, including Syrians, hold views on sexuality similar to that of Ted Cruz. But this author is more concerned about Syrians being the perfect left-wing antithesis of whatever he likes about ‘the right’ than what they actually want.
There’s a case to be made Western ‘analysts’ don’t have the experiential knowledge of the region to draw accurate conclusions. On the other hand, we cannot allow a paradigm to emerge in which only those native to a culture or region are permitted to draw a conclusion about it, and outsiders may never draw a conclusion contrary to the opinion of the natives. Because we can flip the argument and declare those involved in the conflicts and culture biased due to participation. An ideal of objective rationality must be upheld. These sanctimonious post-colonial discourses are based upon questionable philosophical assumptions; viz the post-structural ideas all communication amounts to nothing more than power and narrative. Such an approach ultimately results in a disintegration of the bridge between people and peoples. Truth becomes solely equated with a collective existential understanding that ‘the other’ is barred from assessing. Dismantling this connective infrastructure primes the intervening space for conflict.
Dear Lemur, anyone can like or dislike any sector of the Syrian community and that is their business. However, to claim that one is “pro-Syria” in general when, in fact, one is selectively favouring one particular community, then one is being deceptive and that is what Senator Black is being.
Furthermore, why does the Senator not talk about the Christians in “Israel”? Really and truly, the interest of Black is not about any of the diverse communities and the majority Muslim communities in the region. It is just about Christians and that is the very sectarianism that Syria and the region does not need.
These are very intriguing concepts, lemur. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You lost me on the very last one, dismantling this connective infrastructure primes the intervening space for conflict. Not for mutual agreement or understanding?
@ Lemur
It is indeed one of the principles of sovereignty that a country has the right to admit into its borders whoever it deems acceptable and select the immigrants according to its interests, including whether the newcomer meets the economic, educational and social requirements for integration within the prevailing culture.
Most “western” countries have adopted in the last few decades the multiculturalism dogma in their immigration policies, that dogma being justified by anti-racism norms and human rights principles. That open-door policy – ostensibly grounded on good humanitarian intentions – sometimes hides a different agenda. A glaring example is the Blair Labour government immigration policy in the UK which, literally, opened the floodgates to large number of “welfare immigrants” from British Commonwealth countries. Typically, they moved into areas of subsidized housing (council estates) in the suburbs of major cities, some of which have become veritable ghettos because the original white residents move out from the areas that had become alien to them. This happens all over Western Europe.
Any sociologist worth his honest salt would advise that any immigration policy should be based on the capacity and adequacy of social integration of the immigrant, including acceptance by the host community, but no WE country that I know of has followed that basic precept. In the UK example, the reason why the Blair Labour government opened the doors to welfare immigrants was the findings of a study by the Labour Party according to which those newcomers would become Labour voters, hence enhancing their political prospects.
Of course there are other policy issues for admitting migrants (reserve labour force, aging native population, bringing investment capital, etc) but no government has ever conducted a referendum to ask its citizens about the social composition and what their country should look like.
ME
Thank you lemur,
You have formulated the same objections that I was prepared to make.
There is no doubt that the West shows a dim knowledge of the “Orient”, but it wasn’t ever so, with all due respect for Edward Said and less for his rather dubious scholarship and relations with the ideology of the Frankfurt School.
You are absolutely right that “we cannot allow a paradigm to emerge in which only those native to a culture or region are permitted to draw a conclusion about it, and outsiders may never draw a conclusion contrary to the opinion of the natives”.
It permits the distortion of centuries of ME history on the pretext that non-Muslims cannot understand the “real” Islam because they lack knowledge of Arabic, if not the subtleties of “esoteric” schools (“As for the story about why ISIS and such Takfiri groups were able to be created and prevail, the story from the Levant, from learned and informed understanding of the Quran and the history of Islam from an Indigenous person”).
It permits also “turning the tables”. The discussion slides, maybe unconsciously, towards anger that the Christians massacred by the jihadis are given priority instead of Muslims. In actual fact, there is a tendency to dismiss altogether the existence of Christians. This are, it has been noticed, echoes of a reinterpretation of history which tend to obfuscate the history of Christians in the ME by the omission of Christian and, in particular, Muslim sources describing the methods of conquest: pillage, enslavement, deportation, massacres and so on, presenting one thousand years of jihad as a peaceful conquest, generally welcomed by the vanquished populations, which led to “‘centuries’ of ‘peaceful coexistence,’ “Golden Ages”, troubled only by the intrusion of “Crusaders, Zionists, Imperialists with their Sykes-Picot, Ba’athists.
If there are any “orientalists” who do more harm than good, there are precisely the ones who try to isolate the Takfiris from their culture medium, Islam. This is what allows the Saudis claim that: “We cannot defeat Daesh in Syria unless we bring about change in Bashar al-Assad. He is the man who helped create it by releasing radicals from his jails, by allowing Daesh to operate without attacking them, by even trading with them. He is the man that allowed them to become what they are… “unless and until there is a change in Syria, Daesh [ISIS] will not be defeated in Syria. Period…. When Assad goes, the fertile environment in which Daesh operates in Syria will be removed and we can deal with them.” (Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s foreign affairs minister). He typically answered a question whether ISIS didn’t in fact adhere to certain Islamic tenets, by “turning the tables”: “Every religion has perverts and psychopaths who try to hijack it. ISIS is as much Islamic as the KKK is Christian. Don’t they have a cross? Don’t they do everything in the name of religion and Christ? Don’t they believe that Christ compels them to lynch and kill people of African descent? … For anyone to argue that DAESH is Islamic is preposterous.”
WizOz,
I think Edward Said’s Orientalism, in essence, conveyed similar message which we are discussing. Indulging in study of oriental history-society-culture etc., most of the times the western scholars actually wanted to contribute to the permeation and continuation of ‘western’ dominance / hegemony over the land and people of Asia (and Africa). However, that did not mean there would be no western (or, for that matter eastern) scholar who would study and draw inference in the domain of oriental studies.
Even without referring to Said’s work, just by keeping ourselves restricted within this article by Intibah Kadi, I will concur with your conclusion that peoples from other region and society can join discussions along with the ‘local’ peoples.
I will take a step further and say that ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’ is indivisible, and for a ‘student’ seeking knowledge there can be no barrier of geographical region-time period-community etc.
“The US is a Christian country. Mixing people up only results in more conflict.”–
1. No it ain’t.
2. They’ve always managed to fight just fine not just over White/Black, but Protestantism/Catholicism, English/Irish/Italian, or whatever other minor ethnic or doctrinal differences could be dug up.
3. Canada is culturally similar, more mixed, and has less conflict.
Conflict that appears to come from ethnic or religious mixing is generally a symptom of some real underlying problem and/or deflection of attention from said problem.
Canadians teach the kids “We are not a melting pot, we are a mosaic.’
“The US is a Christian country…”
Where ? Hollywood ? Washington ? Wall Street ? Or do you mean the christian zionists who dupe americans into supporting Israeli wars, which end up destroying ME christianity ?
Speak for yourself, Lemur. The US is not a Christian country. Perhaps Ted Cruz represents you, but for many of us he is reprehensible.
The uS is a christianist country fighting islamists.
Boris, my diagnosis is either too much Vodka or too much TV.
“Fighting Islamists”? We run them dude, and have since Brezinski teamed up with Osama in Afghanistan in 1979.
As for Christianity, that’s overwhelmingly of the “fake-ass” variety: https://youtu.be/dWXGo7Qkr2w
A bunch of know nothing clowns.
Great quote. I likely will repeat it!!
Lemur, one of the pillars of US law is the separation of church and state. So, no, the US is not a Christian nation.
Well this settles it for me, something big is about to go down. With Russia’s constant ceasefire proposals, and Kerry’s un-explainable, sudden praising of both Russia and Iran I have no more doubts.
Turkey’s incursion into Syria is even being spoken about publicly now, no more pretending that Russia is going to stop it.
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/05/12/465234/Turkey-Erdogan-Syria-Daesh-Coalition-Kilis-Rocket-Attacks
Also, please read this article. Kerry is now encouraging European banks to start doing business with Iran !?!? Either a deal has been made, or the west is buttering up Iran and Russia for the final kill.
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/05/12/465234/Turkey-Erdogan-Syria-Daesh-Coalition-Kilis-Rocket-Attacks
Absolutely superb article. Incredibly precise and to the point. Congratulations, author!! Your comments absolutely mirror the (subconscious?) paternalistic, colonialist attitudes of many “do-gooders” as they are called here in Australia, with respect to their attitudes and actions whenever they work “for the benefit” of the indigenous Australians. I have seen it on countless occasions in the fields of education, health and welfare.
Of course, nowhere is it more obvious and over-bearing than in the official stance of the government in this country when it comes to treatment of the first Australians. It is an absolute disgrace, laced with enough paternalism and condescension to make one sick to the stomach.
It is probably the only government to have officially “apologised” to the Aboriginal people followed up by absolutely no affirmative action. A true Anglo approach.
Thank you for your very kind and positive feedback Yuri.
You have really, in a nutshell, expressed how I feel about this all!
Because the (mis)behavior of extremist Islamists closely follows literal Salafist Quranic doctrine (which can be read by anyone), the Christians ARE at a vastly greater risk from terrorists than their Muslim compatriots. In fact, any khafir or unbeliever must convert to Islam or live as a second class citizen and pay the extortionate jizya tax (or die). It’s true that Muslims ARE subjected to strict Sharia Law, which will undoubtedly impose hardship upon moderates, but they are not in immediate hazard purely because of their beliefs. Given this difference, to advocate helping those in the greatest hazard isn’t necessarily short-sighted. From the beginning, Christians on the ground have reported the Taliban-like behavior of the militants. Like your missile story, this wasn’t widely reported either. But an objective argument can be made to help the Christians first.
Like the Ukraine/Novorussia struggle, what you hear from people on the ground can depend upon which ground they stand. So while I don’t support Black’s domestic policies, I don’t think Black’s Syrian policies are naive or uninformed, nor do I understand on what bases your academic objects. It would help to identify the specific points where you feel Black makes his orientalist errors.
9-11-1683 Thank you for your comments.
Ghassan Kadi’s article which expands on some of the points in my article will address the concerns more specifically regarding Sen. Black’s approach.
I would say that Alawite and non-compliant Sunnis have actually borne equally, if not more of the brunt of the deranged brutality of the Takfiris in Syria. The worst in the mind of a Takfiri is the betraying Sunni. Do you remember the first thing the terrorists Takfiris did in Mosul? They beheaded the Sunni clerics.
I once did an English explanation of a documentary of the Lattakia country side massacres which was mind blowing in its depravity. It is on my blog site. Just yesterday another Alawite village of mainly women and children was massacred. In many cases Christians have been saved if they pay Jizya tax. But I don’t want to get into a competition about who suffers more in Syria.
Hello Intibah. Nice to see you writing here. In many ways in this article you approach closely to a question I’ve been forming for some time, that I hoped to be able to ask you or Ghassan.
I’m trying to decide who has the most accurate view on US policy – those who live in the west, or those who live in the Middle East. I would value your opinion.
In my impression, the view from the Levant seems to credit the US with a very high degree of deliberate calculation and execution, while the view from the west tends to think that a lot of US policy is incompetent – evil in design and desire certainly, but also ineptly executed.
I study gratefully the analysis of the Middle East that comes out of the Middle East itself. Thank you and Ghassan both for the work you do, and please keep observing, reflecting and writing!
Dear Intibah Kadi
Thank you so much for your article. This is an extremely important subject that we should discuses as a part of the “color revolution” regime change mechanism.
What you describe here as a patronizing Western attitude is actually a part of the information war that the West (Five Eyes, and the Western European countries) are fighting against the rest of the World.
You wrote: “A curious phenomenon has gradually crept upon the English language social media community that defends Syria; a small but effective group of “orientalists” with their varied agendas, gatekeepers amongst them of all shapes and sizes and evangelizers and assorted nefarious subverters.”
I will write more about your article in upcoming posts. I only want to bring to your attention a concept that was introduced by a wildly popular in Russia geopolitical analyst, who hides his/her/their identity under an avatar of a Cat Motya. He uses a term of “instead of we” “вместо мы” and “instead of reality,” or “вместореал.”
He says as follows: InsteadofFree Media reported that WE attacked and WE had started the war in Donbass. In reality, it’s insteadofWE that play a bloody spectacle killing innocent people on both sides. After that NATO comes and bombs us to save us from insteadofUS, who are them.
https://catmotya.blogspot.com/2015/09/blog-post_47.html
“Instead of we” are large groups of specially trained and paid information war servicemen and servicewomen using the identical technologies and often operating from the same IP addresses.
They are hijacking narrations of Syrians, Ukrainians, and Russians. They are talking to the Western Media and public for us and insted-of-us. They are acting over our nations, delivering an invented and inverted narrations to the Western nations, and their governments. Many of them are on active military duty, but the majority work for so called “defense contractors,” a large companies with huge budgets and technical capability.
Regards
Scott
Slightly off topic, apologies – but important: To Scott – many thanks for your posting “catmotya”. There is a truly evil woman there on a short segment proclaiming the safety of GMO “food” in the most amateurish and ridiculous way possible with some obvious pseudo doctors.
What is probably worse, she lectures 4 and 5 year olds on explicit sexual reproduction.
Now here is a perfect example of a depraved sociopath – a tool of the “new” Ukraine and, by extension, of Anglozionism. God help her soul. She is truly a freak.
This is a very interesting post. I think a lot of the people here should be able to get a handle on what is being conveyed, since many articles by Russians and Russophiles here at The Saker’s place express something similar–a really huge difference between the Russian culture and, not just the “Western” culture but also the image “The West” constructs of Russia, an image so pervasive that for a while many Russians were themselves hypnotized by it (and sought to escape the projected image into Westernism). To this day I would argue that many expressions of Russian culture and outlook represent precisely a reaction against Western constructions of Russianness.
And while to some extent this is a matter of “infowar” or similar deliberate, very modern, activities, to a fair extent it is something quite old and ingrained–and of course not purely a “Western” phenomenon. Whether it’s at a national or cultural or just personal level, there is always a tendency to think of the other person as much in a way that creates someone convenient for you, like as a foil for your own self-conception, as to look at what they are really like and listen to what they really want. It’s just a bigger deal when very powerful imperialists do it to, like, the rest of the world that they dominate.
Russians are themselves not immune to the tendency to do the same thing to the Middle East, to some extent buying, or even assisting in, the Western construction of the Orient. It’s always easier to tell when it’s being done to you than when it’s being done to some other guy. But as victims of a similar process it would be wise to keep a vigilant eye out for that stuff, especially since it’s also in a way a tactic of division: If all the different people held down by the Empire can’t see each other’s reality, if all they see is the Empire’s representation of each other, it will be harder to ally against it.
These are excellent points. I say that as an English speaking Syrian American who works daily to try breaking down the state-driven propaganda on Syria from the U.S. mainstream media.
As to Senator Black, the value of his promotion in the U.S. is to show dissenting voices on Syria from within the U.S. political establishment. The truth is this: Most Americans already suspect they have been lied to all along about what is at stake in Syria, just like the lies about Iraq and Libya. Americans see no reason why we should be trying to overthrow a secular Syrian government that is battling Takfiri extremism. The average American is not the driving force for the policy. It is driven by the political class and their puppet-masters, the defense industries and the foreign lobbies of the Gulf countries, Turkey and Israel.
Aside from Senator Black and Tulsi Gabbard, the dissenting voices on Syria within the political class are painfully absent. Therefore, while Senator Black may not share all values shared by Syrians, his supportive views on Syria need to go very public in the U.S. When an American hears a politician with a dissenting view on Syria it draws their attention precisely because it is so rare. The effect is to further that individual’s pre-existing suspicion about the conventional propaganda they have been fed and to cause them to look deeper and at alternative sources.
It is even more impactful coming from a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. It is no secret that the Christian Evangelical movement in the U.S. is extremely pro-Zionist and just as anti-Islamic. Like it or not, Americans are more likely to pay closer attention to the statements of Senator Black precisely because he is seen as a member of a movement which espouses just the opposite with regard to Syria. In other words, “Wow! If Senator Black feels that way, there must be something to it.”
All of that all having been said, those of us working to educate Americans about Syria should take our lead from our Syrian family and not vice versa.
Peace and strength!
@ John
Your short and lucid post is worth more than a pompous text. It puts in the right context a construction that makes sense and contributes to our understanding of events from multiple viewpoints, not only one’s, often prejudiced, world view. Thank you
ME
Yes, he at least disrupts the Western narrative on Syria. I am sure Assad recognized this and the value of having an American Senator challenging the prevailing falsely constructed view regardless of some of the ugly currents that it is a part of it.
RR
No, part of the problem is that Black is not part of the political establishment and his extreme views make him easily dismissible. You forgot Robert Kennedy Jr and and Stephen Kinzer of the Boston Globe have both spoken out on Syria. These people along with Tulsi Gabbard do have stature at the national level. Black is a local politician.
Naive Syrian’s taken in by dangerous do-gooders?
Rather Orientalist premiss to begin with no?
Naive Westerner’s actually believe their work in NGO is actually about making the world a better place. That is true also-colonized by their own narrative.
I have always thought that the inter-faith community which have been credited with holding the Syrian society together is the best defence against the Western Narrative(s) whether they be genuine or not. I believe this organization should be given many more resources and space to speak to whatever that off shore Syrian governmen tin waitng rats iving in 5 star hotels in Western Europe have to offer and can best interupt their narrative. And given the make up of the group would have the best chance of being at least given a cursory glance by western media even if alternative. Democracy Now- ( I know I know)
RR
Excellent post, very informative. Thank you.
Oh, I have to admit that I have never read so far such a malicious rant on some reputable alternative media analytical site as the The Saker is.
The author really stepped overboard with this article actually denying herself and her own credibility to write even this article…
But first things first:
What is the real purpose of this article? To raise the voice and warn the community that out there- there are trolls, paid Western agents, malicious people who are dissolving discussion, imposing wrong or malicious ideas, derogating „indegious anaylsts from Levant“ etc, etc…?
Quote: „A curious phenomenon has gradually crept upon the English language social media community that defends Syria; a small but effective group of “orientalists” with their varied agendas, gatekeepers amongst them of all shapes and sizes and evangelizers and assorted nefarious subverts. Syrians, having never experienced working together with people from across the world, had no experience of the pro and cons of such activism. “
Well, we all know that. It is not even a secret. US establishment even publicly mentioned how they are going to fight alternative media, „Russian propaganda“ and all other „threats“ to US interests. They granted the large budget to establish a full control and engage such persons interfering to alternative media. There are so many articles out there analyzing this in details. So I guess it was not the point of the author to „enlighten us“ with this well known facts.
So author is addressing the next segment of people talking about Syria and Levant in general. Various activists, writers, analysts, bloggers, commenters, etc? From author’s viewpoint these are the worst nightmare for the English speaking community supporting and defending Syria? Why is that?
Here is the answer:
Quote: ”We are here talking about people in the West and in the case of this article, specifically of a section of Western activists. Hence, the various frameworks they present are seen in their paradigm as the norm, as logical, the given and the only set of frameworks to view the world through.”
I see. These “bastards” are strangling indigenous “Oriental” people who cannot catch the breath and speak freely because of those outsiders. Never mind their objective or subjective views, experience, knowledge and ability to look on the issues with open eyes, since they are not emotionally or personally involved. They are outsiders and they should shut their mouths, simply because – they are not indigenous Orientals. Right?
Quote: “And, how dare in the case of Syria, for example, that there can exist eloquent, highly educated, brilliant and deeply knowledgeable Syrian analysts and activists who contradict the conclusions derived from the frameworks of the significant and only paradigm on this planet?”
Oh really? How dare they? Who allowed them to speak, to write, to think? Syrian issues should be analyzed and deal by Syrian brilliant and knowledgeable analysts ONLY? Shut your mouth “dirty Western bastards” while reputable indigenous Syrians are speaking. I have to say that I didn’t see such a crap even in the worst Zionist or MSM media; they are wrapping this better in the shiny paper, not directly and brutally like the author
I have to say that I find this quote particularly interesting and I shall later write why:
“The more this problematic section of solidarists became involved in the struggles of others far away from their world, the more many became enmeshed and deluded in a world of fantasy, placing themselves as the centre piece of someone else’s struggle and ultimately disempowering those they were meant to support.
Had the Syrians been in control of their cause on the English speaking social media forum, then the issues described above would never have occurred. Instead, due to politeness and extreme civility on the part of Syrians, their cause on the English speaking social media, was incrementally eroded and overrun by evangelists, agents of all kinds of agenda, self-promoting individuals, agents who speak for Syrian fifth columnists and even agents of the CIA backed Unification Church.”
Interesting first quoted paragraph is actually closely related to the author itself, since the issues of Levant and Syria are thousands miles away from her world, and some recent writings also show in what world of delusional fantasies authors live while trying to be the center piece of someone else’s struggle. I found so far as the rule that the most extreme nationalists, patriots or supporters of “greater stuff” are expatriates living so far away from the homeland. Here is the case confirming the rule.
The second quoted paragraph imply some kind of “politeness and extreme civility” of the Syrians which I do not deny to Syrians, but this is not the case with this article which is very rude to all “outsiders” trying to support Syria particularly having in mind that it is written by non – Syrian, actually native western person.
The most worrying quote I see in this: “Senator Black was welcomed in Syria and indeed had a meeting with President Assad.
This is the background fundamentalist Christian Senator Black comes from; the Ted Cruz platform in the running up for preselection for the American Presidential race which included a proposed policy of only Christian Syrian refugees, not Muslims, being allowed into the USA; an overt and despicable sectarian stand”.
Do we read here a nicely packed and dissolved but yet serious critics of the president Assad for his acceptance of the senator Black? Does author knows better than Syrian government and President Assad whom they should talk to or accept as interlocutor? Do we see the critics of Syrian Government for not knowing what they are doing in author’s words: “We may even say that the Syrian government has done this in its endeavor to welcome any promotion for the defence of Syria, no matter who it comes from”. How DARE this author to question here Syrian Government’s and president Assad’s decisions?
And finally: the last quote making the ultimate point in the article:
“The genuine, sincere, Western supporters of Syria are also generally sidelined as their modus operandi of empowerment of Syrians and helping from far behind acts as a mirror to the ego driven and profile seeking activists. The most hard working and effective supporters of Syria are those we never hear about, and we never know of their deeds or how their help empowered key Syrian figures to achieve certain tasks. Some of these quiet unsung heroes from the West may silently enter Syria at times, meet discreetly with key figures, listen carefully, keep their eyes and ears open and mouths closed and, with the expertise they may possess, help from behind the scenes without any recognition or fanfare.”
Oh…
So, let us recap all this into conclusion: Western activists, analysts, writers, bloggers, commentators and all other who are supporting Syria and Levant in general are welcomed ONLY if they remain silent, invisible, modest, stealth, if real indigenous Oriental people never hear of them, if they eventually come and leave in silence keeping their mouth shut and being generous doing all behind the curtain and not contradicting any of “reputable” “brilliant”, “knowledgeable” Syrian analysts, but actually blindly acknowledging them and following the like sheep flock.
If they DARE to speak or comment in order to full heartedly help, “God save us from the evil”– if they eventually dare to write some analysis from their own viewpoint even if they have sincerer wish to help, they are real danger for Syrian and Levantine issues, they are “usurping” English speaking forums, media, communities and they are not welcomed since indigenous people are too polite to confront them, or too naïve falling in traps, and they are thus forced to shut up.
So, all outsiders: SHUT UP your mouth! You have no right to speak.
Well… what a censorship coming from the pen of Intibah Kadi. Although having some good points author denied with this piece – even herself. It is not easy to understand such an article coming from the fake account of the person pretending to be Levantine, while she is actually not native born Syrian, nor even Levantine person.
Western born, western origin person not even living in the Levant but thousands miles away, teaching western persons and “do gooders” not to involve into Levant and Syrian issues? What a charade and top hypocrisy …
“The genuine, sincere, Western supporters of Syria are also generally sidelined as their modus operandi of empowerment of Syrians and helping from far behind acts as a mirror to the ego driven and profile seeking activists. The most hard working and effective supporters of Syria are those we never hear about, and we never know of their deeds or how their help empowered key Syrian figures to achieve certain tasks. Some of these quiet unsung heroes from the West may silently enter Syria at times, meet discreetly with key figures, listen carefully, keep their eyes and ears open and mouths closed and, with the expertise they may possess, help from behind the scenes without any recognition or fanfare.”
Sounds like the description of a foreign agent……I wonder who are these “heroes from the West” and for whom they work……
I also wonder how it could be of so great help enter in Syria, see what happens and remain silent and with the “mouth closed” when we have not stopped receiving a continuous shelling of lies from Western and Emirates funded and based media.
I also wonder who those “Syrian key figures they help to empower and to achieve certain tasks” are. What this “empowerment” consists on and what kind of tasks are those they help to achieve.
Finally, I wonder what is Intibah Khadi opinion about the so called “Syrian Civil “Protection” “NGO” “White Helmets”.
Whereas I acknowledge that all authors and speakers write and talk with their personal background, experience, education and bias, I refuse to trash or derate outside opinions just because they are voiced by non-natives. Of course there are at least as many views on an issue as there are people looking at it from different perspectives. As long as descriptions of facts reflect reality as closely as possible, I am thankful for anybody’s perspective.
The right of free speech explicitly includes voicing dissent. As with true democracy, the consequences are not comfortable but are to be tolerated / endured. Thanks for the long rant, but I find it more useful to avoid turf wars and the not-invented-here-syndrome.
Kind regards,
Marcel
An unfortunate personal attack against people genuinely concerned for Syria. As a proud “orientalist”, as a devoted Christian, as a patriotic American, and above all as a lover and friend of Syria, I am saddened to read such vitriol. Syrians have every right to question the motives of anyone involving themselves in this terrible conflict so on that score I can understand maybe some of the feelings represented here. However, as personal friend of Dick Black I cannot let this stand without response. He is a man of the highest integrity and his devotion to Syria’s cause is total in spite of it being a form of political suicide. He also has put his life in danger now that he is a publically targeted enemy of ISIS, not to mention the scrutiny he is certainly under by the US government. Just as any internet search on say, President Assad or President Putin or any lessor public official who is unafraid of public opinion and who make up their own mind, will most likely result in a flawed, often negative opinion, this author’s shallow research and failure to ascertain Dick Black’s true character is deliberately trying to produce the same kind of a similar negative opinion. Thankfully President and Mrs. Assad, Dr. Shaaban, the Grand Mufti, the soldiers in Palmyra, and many of the people in Syria made up their own minds about my state senator…and love him and appreciate his efforts on Syria’s behalf. Just as this author has routinely spoken of Russia as with authority and has traveled there to learn more and loved it, so I and others do about Syria. This author makes it sound like we should be disregarded in every way. No problem. That is her right. I am personally thankful for the most gracious welcome I recieved in Syria and whether this author likes it or not I will contine to try to help Syria as best I can always until this murderous destructive war is over.
‘Some of these quiet unsung heroes from the West may silently enter Syria at times, meet discreetly with key figures, listen carefully, keep their eyes and ears open and mouths closed and, with the expertise they may possess, help from behind the scenes without any recognition or fanfare.’
thats what the jiihadis have done: enter quietly and take over before anyone is aware. Any entry should be public and have permission from the govt