Nigeria - Northerners Are Not Fans Of The Ultra Violence

More evidence piles up that Boko Haram has been communicating with al Qaeda, particularly the branch in Mali. There were apparently Boko Haram members in Mali before French troops began clearing the Islamic terrorists out of northern Mali five weeks ago. The sources for this (captured documents and interrogations) also revealed a rift within Boko Haram. Many members are angry that the terror tactics have not produced much beyond a lot of mayhem and more Nigerians, particularly Moslems, who hate Boko Haram. That is why calls for peace talks since last November have created public disputes between Boko Haram leaders and factions. While Boko Haram has been able to carry out hundreds of attacks in the last few years, some of them quite spectacular bombings or gun battles, the group in no closer to its goal of ruling the north, much less all of Nigeria. While quite violent and militant, Boko Haram is still a small group, with a few thousand members (of varying skill and dedication) and a few hundred thousand northerners who offer support. Judging from the number of tips the police get and the subsequent raids on Boko Haram hideouts, many northerners are not fans of the ultra violence.

 

February 23, 2013: In central Nigeria (Taraba State) a football (soccer) game between a Moslem and a Christian team resulted in a riot that killed at least one person and left several buildings (including a church and a mosque) burned down

 

The government shut down a northern radio station that had broadcast conspiracy theories about polio vaccination being a plot by Christians to poison Moslems. 

 

In northern Gombe State gunmen on motorcycles fired on a group of men playing cards and killed five of them. Boko Haram is violently opposed to playing cards, listening to music, dancing and many other forms of entertainment. 

 

February 22, 2013: Iran denied that it had trained a Nigerian Shia cleric in espionage techniques and asked the man to recruit locals and gather information on the activities of Israelis and Americans in southwestern Nigeria (where the cleric, and many Shia) live. Nigerian police had revealed, two days easier, the arrest and interrogation of the three Shia Nigerian Moslems. The three had admitted spying for Iran and provided many details.

 

February 21, 2013: The government ordered a search in the north, along the Cameroon border, for seven French citizens kidnapped two days ago in Cameroon. 

 

February 20, 2013: In the northern city of Maiduguri people woke to find posters in several neighborhoods proclaiming that Boko Haram had not agreed to a ceasefire. Maiduguri is in Borno State and the state government had been reporting negotiations with Boko Haram for a ceasefire. Elsewhere in Maiduguri a suicide bomber attempted to attack some soldiers but only managed to kill himself and two civilians. 

 

February 19, 2013:  A French family (parents, an uncle and four children aged 5-12) were kidnapped in the north of Nigeria’s southern neighbor Cameroon. The hostages were apparently taken across the border to Nigeria. There are about 6,000 French citizens in Cameroon and all were subsequently warned to stay away from the Nigerian border. Boko Haram later denied they were responsible and no one has yet demanded any ransom or admitted they have the seven. 

 

February 18, 2013: Ansaru (for Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan, or "Vanguards for the Protection of Muslims in Black Africa") claimed responsibility for the recent kidnapping seven foreign workers in northern Bauchi State. Ansaru is a Boko Haram splinter group that has become more active recently after first declaring its existence a year ago (and then largely disappearing from view). Ansaru objects to the many Moslems who are being killed by Boko Haram attacks and wants to concentrate on attacks that only kill foreigners or non-Moslem Nigerians. It is unclear how large Ansaru is, and how much violence within Boko Haram, if any, will result from the split. It is believed that there is considerable strife between Boko Haram leaders, with many strong-willed men, each with an armed following, trying to control the entire movement. At the moment most of these disagreements are put aside. Ansaru appears to be very small, perhaps only a hundred or so members, and more interested (than Boko Haram) in working closely with Islamic terror groups operating in the new terrorist sanctuary of northern Mali. This may encourage other extremist factions in Boko Haram to split off and create even more radical and violent groups like Ansaru. 

 

February 17, 2013: Pirates kidnapped six crewmen from a commercial ship off the coast and later demanded a ransom of $1.27 million. This is the fifth such incident this month. 

 

February 16, 2013: In northern Bauchi State armed men raided a construction site and kidnapped seven foreign workers (Briton, an Italian, a Greek and four Lebanese). 

 

February 15, 2013: In the northern city of Maiduguri two suicide bombers attempted to attack some soldiers but only managed to kill themselves and wound a civilian.

 

Reports from Mail indicate that the first 162 Nigerian troops sent there are not being adequately supplied and have had to ask for food from local leaders. Eventually 1,200 Nigerian troops will be in Mali to help with the peacekeeping.

The Mali Miracle

The U.S. played a supporting role in the recent French-led effort to drive al Qaeda out of Mali. One critical bit of support was KC-135 aerial tankers, which have so far delivered nearly 500 tons of fuel to French warplanes, allowing for these aircraft to spend hours more in the air, waiting for a request from troops below for a smart bomb or missile. Despite having nearly 400 of these tankers in service, about a quarter of them are sidelined because of maintenance, much of it brought on by advanced age. As these tankers are also used for many training exercises and the movement of air cargo, it is not easy for the air forced to collect some for an emergency like Mali. This will become more of a problem over the next decade because of the delays in finding a replacement. 

 

The four engine KC-135 carries 90 tons of fuel and can transfer up to 68 tons per sortie. Typically, aerial tankers have to service B-52s, which carry over 140 tons of jet fuel, and fighters like the F-15 (over five tons). The KC-135 has also made itself useful carrying cargo and passengers, as well as fuel. But the elderly KC-135s are difficult to keep running, and many of them still have to serve another twenty years, until completely replaced by the new KC-46A. Operating aircraft this old is unexplored territory, because this is the first time in history that so many large, and fast, aircraft have gone on flying for so long. Commercial freighter aircraft fly more frequently than their military counterparts, putting more strain on them, and forcing their operators to develop new maintenance techniques the air force can use. The KC-135s are the oldest transports the air force is still using, and keeping them working is proving to an expensive and challenging effort.

 

The basic problem is that, despite constant maintenance and careful monitoring unexpected failures still occur with elderly aircraft. Nothing that is cause for alarm, but it is more expensive to keep them flying and problems are more difficult to predict. Older aircraft are grounded if any unexpected failure seems imminent. While that just about eliminates these aircraft having fatal failures while in the air, it also makes older aircraft less available for service. For a long time it was considered more cost effective to keep the old birds flying, than to buy new ones. Eventually advanced age made replacement a necessity, not an option.

 

Thus after over a decade of effort the U.S. Air Force managed to finally select a replacement two years ago. The air force procurement process has been cursed with corruption, incompetence, meddling politicians and litigious suppliers, all combining to prevent the acquisition of a new tanker. One was finally selected and the initial order was for 18 aircraft (at about $150 million each), to be delivered within six years. That initial order also comes with about a billion dollars for development work. The air force might order over a hundred KC-46As, but the exact number depends on what kind of future aircraft the air force will be using. If there are a lot of unmanned aircraft (UAVs), fewer tankers will be needed (because UAVs are smaller, and need less fuel). There is, however, a lot of resistance in the air force and Congress to any further squabbling over who should build the replacement for the KC-135.

 

The KC-46A is based on the Boeing 767-200 airliner, which sells for about $120 million. The 767 has been in service since 1982, and over 800 have been manufactured so far. Boeing developed the KC-767, at a cost of nearly a billion dollars, on its own. Boeing also developed the original KC-135 tanker in the 1950s, and has since built over 2,000 of these.

 

The KC-46A was selected partly because it is about the same size as the KC-135 (wingspan is 50.3 meters/156 feet, 6.8 percent larger than the KC-135). Thus the new tanker can use the same basing and repair facilities as the 135. The KC-46A can carry up to 94 tons of fuel. It can also carry up to 114 passengers or 18 cargo pallets or 58 patients (24 on litters).

As Russia See Syria

Assad: Not a civil war, terrorism my enemy, no regrets for now (EXCLUSIVE)

In an exclusive interview with RT, President Bashar Assad said that the conflict in Syria is not a civil war, but proxy terrorism by Syrians and foreign fighters. He also accused the Turkish PM of eyeing Syria with imperial ambitions.

Assad told RT that the West creates scapegoats as enemies – from communism, to Islam, to Saddam Hussein. He accused Western countries of aiming to turn him into their next enemy.

While mainstream media outlets generally report on the crisis as a battle between Assad and Syrian opposition groups, the president claims that his country has been infiltrated by numerous terrorist proxy groups fighting on behalf of other powers.

In the event of a foreign invasion of Syria, Assad warned, the fallout would be too dire for the world to bear.

­

‘My enemy is terrorism and instability in Syria’

­RT: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, thank very much for talking to us today.

Bashar Assad: You are most welcome in Damascus.

RT: There are many people who were convinced a year ago that you would not make it this far. Here again you are sitting in a newly renovated presidential palace and recording this interview. Who exactly is your enemy at this point?

BA: My enemy is terrorism and instability in Syria. This is our enemy in Syria. It is not about the people, it is not about persons. The whole issue is not about me staying or leaving. It is about the country being safe or not. So, this is the enemy we have been fighting as Syria.

RT: I have been here for the last two days and I had the chance to talk to a couple of people in Damascus. Some of them say that whether you stay or go at this point does not really matter anymore. What do you say about this?

BA: I think for the president to stay or leave is a popular issue. It is related to the opinion of some people and the only way can be done through the ballot boxes. So, it is not about what we hear. It is about what we can get through that box and that box will tell any president to stay or leave very simply.

RT: I think what they meant was that at this point you are not the target anymore; Syria is the target.

BA: I was not the target; I was not the problem anyway. The West creates enemies; in the past it was the communism then it became Islam, and then it became Saddam Hussein for a different reason. Now, they want to create a new enemy represented by Bashar. That's why they say that the problem is the president so he has to leave. That is why we have to focus of the real problem, not to waste our time listening to what they say.

­

‘The fight now is not the president’s fight – it is Syrians’ fight to defend their country’

­RT: Do you personally still believe that you are the only man who can hold Syria together and the only man who can put an end to what the world calls a ‘civil war’?

BA: We have to look at it from two aspects. The first aspect is the constitution and I have my authority under the constitution. According to this authority and the constitution, I have to be able to solve the problem. But if we mean it that you do not have any other Syrian who can be a president, no, any Syrian could be a president. We have many Syrians who are eligible to be in that position. You cannot always link the whole country only to one person.

RT: But you are fighting for your country. Do you believe that you are the man who can put an end to the conflict and restore peace?

BA: I have to be the man who can do that and I hope so, but it is not about the power of the President; it is about the whole society. We have to be precise about this. The president cannot do anything without the institutions and without the support of the people. So, the fight now is not a President’s fight; it is Syrians’ fight. Every Syrian is involved in defending his country now.

RT: It is and a lot of civilians are dying as well in the fighting. So, if you were to win this war, how would you reconcile with your people after everything that has happened?

BA: Let’s be precise once again. The problem is not between me and the people; I do not have a problem with the people because the United States is against me and the West is against me and many other Arab countries, including Turkey which is not Arab of course, are against me. If the Syrian people are against me, how can I be here?!

‘Syria faces not a civil war, but terrorism by proxies’

­RT: They are not against you?

BA: If the whole world, or let us say a big part of the world, including your people, are against you, are you a superman?! You are just a human being. So, this is not logical. It is not about reconciling with the people and it is not about reconciliation between the Syrians and the Syrians; we do not have a civil war. It is about terrorism and the support coming from abroad to terrorists to destabilize Syria. This is our war.

RT: Do you still not believe it is a civil war because I know there are a lot who think that there are terrorist acts which everyone believes take place in Syria, and there are also a lot of sectarian-based conflicts. For example we all heard about the mother who has two sons; one son is fighting for the government forces and the other son is fighting for the rebel forces, how this is not a civil war?

BA: You have divisions, but division does not mean civil war. It is completely different. Civil wars should be based on ethnic problems or sectarian problems. Sometimes you may have ethnic or sectarian tensions but this do not make them problem. So, if you have division in the same family or in a bigger tribe or whatever or in the same city, it does not mean a civil war. This is completely different and that is normal. We should expect that.

RT: When I asked about reconciling with your people, this is what I meant: I heard you say on many different occasions that the only thing you care about is what the Syrian people think of you and what Syrian people feel towards you and whether you should be a president or not. Are you not afraid that there has been so much damage done for whatever reason that at the end of the day Syrians won’t care about the truth; they will just blame you for the carnage that they have suffered?

BA: This is a hypothetical question because what the people think is the right thing, and regarding what they think, we have to ask them. But I don’t have this information right now. So, I am not afraid about what some people think; I am afraid about my country. We have to be focused on that.

RT: For years there have been so many stories about almighty Syrian army, important and strong Syrian secret services, but then we see that, you know, the government forces are not able to crush the enemy like people expected it would, and we see terrorist attacks take place in the middle of Damascus almost every day. Were those myths about the Syrian army and about the strong Syrian secret services?

BA: Usually, in normal circumstances when you have the army and the secret services and the intelligence, we focus on the external enemy even if we have an internal enemy, like terrorism because the society is helping us at least not to provide terrorist’s incubator. Now in this case, it is a new kind of war; terrorism through proxies, either Syrians living in Syria or foreign fighters coming from abroad. So, it is a new style of war, this is first and you have to adapt to this style and it takes time, it is not easy. And to say this is as easy as the normal or, let us say, the traditional or regular war, no, it is much more difficult. Second, the support that has been offered to those terrorists in every aspect, including armaments, money and political aspect is unprecedented. So, you have to expect that it is going to be a tough war and a difficult war. You do not expect a small country like Syria to defeat all those countries that have been fighting us through proxies just in days or weeks.

RT: Yes, but when you look at it, I mean on one hand, you have one leader with an army, and he orders this army go straight, go left, go right and the army obeys. On the other hand, you have fractions of terrorists who are not unified and have no one unified strategy to fight you. So, how does that really happen when it comes to fighting each other?

BA: This is not the problem. The problem is that those terrorists are fighting from within the cities, and in the cities you have civilians. When you fight this kind of terrorists, you have to be aware that you should do the minimum damage to the infrastructure and minimum damage to the civilians because you have civilians and you have to fight, you cannot leave terrorists just killing and destroying. So, this is the difficulty in this kind of war.

­

Without foreign rebel fighters and smuggled weapons, ‘we could finish everything in weeks’

­RT: You know that the infrastructure and economy are suffering; it is almost as if Syria is going to be fall into decay very soon and the time is against you. In your opinion, how much time do you need to crush the enemy?

BA: You cannot answer this question because no one claimed that he had the answer about when to end the war unless when we have the answer to when they are going to stop smuggling foreign fighters from different parts of the world especially the Middle East and the Islamic world, and when they are going to stop sending armaments to those terrorists. If they stop, this is when I can answer you; I can tell that in weeks we can finish everything. This is not a big problem. But as long as you have continuous supply in terrorists, armaments, logistics and everything else, it is going to be a long-term war.

RT: Also, when you think about it, you have 4,000 km of loosely controlled borders, so you have your enemy that can at any time cross over into Jordan or Turkey to be rearmed, get medical care and come back to fight you!

BA: No country in the world can seal the border. Sometime they use this word which is not correct, even the United Stated cannot seal its border with Mexico for example. The same can be applied to Russia which is a big country. So, no country can seal the border. You can only have a better situation on the border when you have good relations with your neighbor and this is something we do not have at least with Turkey now. Turkey supports more than any other country the smuggling of terrorists and armaments.

­

‘The Syrian Army has no orders to shell Turkish land’

­RT: Can I say to you something? I have been in Turkey recently and people there are actually very worried that a war will happen between Syria and Turkey. Do you think a war with Turkey is a realistic scenario?

BA: Rationally, no I do not think so – for two reasons. The war needs public support and the majority of the Turkish people do not need this war. So, I do not think any rational official would think of going against the will of the public in his country and the same for the Syrian people. So, the conflict or difference is not between the Turkish people and the Syrian people; it is about the government and officials, it is between our officials and their officials because of their politics. So, I do not see any war between Syria and Turkey on the horizon.

RT: When was the last time you spoke to Erdogan and how did the talk end?

BA: May 2011, after he won the election.

RT: So, you just congratulated him, and it was the last time

BA: Yes and it was the last time.

RT:  Who is shelling Turkey? Is it the government forces or the rebels?

BA: In order to find the answer, you need a joint committee between the two armies in order to know who shells who because on the borders you have a lot of terrorists who have mortars; so, they can do the same. You have to go and investigate the bomb in that place itself and that did not happen. We asked the Turkish government to have this committee but they refused; so, you cannot have the answer. But when you have these terrorists on your borders, you do not exclude them from doing so because the Syrian army does not have any order to shell the Turkish land because we do not find any interest in this, and we do not have any enmity with the Turkish people. We consider them as brothers, so why do it; unless that happened by mistake, then it needs investigation.

RT:  Do you accept that it may be mistakenly from the government forces?

BA: That could happen. This is a possibility and in every war you have mistakes. You know in Afghanistan, they always talk about friendly fire if you kill your soldier; this means that it could happen in every war, but we cannot say yes.

 ­

‘Erdogan thinks he is a Caliph’

­RT:  Why has Turkey, which you call a friendly nation, become a foothold for the opposition?

BA: Not Turkey, but only Erdogan’s government in order to be precise. Turkish people need good relations with the Syrian people. Erdogan thinks that if Muslim Brotherhood takes over in the region and especially in Syria, he can guarantee his political future, this is one reason. The other reason, he personally thinks that he is the new sultan of the Ottoman and he can control the region as it was during the Ottoman Empire under a new umbrella. In his heart he thinks he is a caliph. These are the main two reasons for him to shift his policy from zero problems to zero friends.

RT:  But it is not just the West that opposes you at this point; there are so many enemies in the Arab world and that is to say like two years ago when someone heard you name in the Arab world they would straighten their ties, and now in the first occasion they betrayed you, why do you have so many enemies in the Arab world?

BA: They are not enemies. The majority of Arab governments support Syria in their heart but they do not dare to say that explicitly.

RT: Why not?

BA: Under pressure by the West, and sometimes under pressure of the petrodollars in the Arab world.

RT:  Who supports you from the Arab world?

BA: Many countries support Syria by their hearts but they do not dare to say that explicitly. First of all, Iraq which played a very active role in supporting Syria during the crisis because it is a neighboring country and they understand and recognize that if you have a war inside Syria you will have war in the neighboring countries including Iraq. I think there are other countries which have good position like Algeria, and Oman mainly and there are other countries I would not count all of them now but I would say they have positive position without taking actions.

RT: Saudi Arabia and Qatar, why are they so adamant about you resigning and how would an unstable Middle East fit their agenda?

BA: Let’s be frank, I cannot answer on their behalf. They have to answer this question but I could say that the problem between Syria and many countries whether in the Arab world or in the region or in the West, is that we kept saying no when we think that we have to say no, that is the problem. And some countries believe that they can control Syria through orders, through money or petrodollars and this is impossible in Syria, this is the problem. May be they want to play a role. We do not have a problem, they can play a role whether they deserve this or not, they can play a role but not to play a role at the expense of our interests.

RT: Is it about controlling Syria or about exporting their vision of Islam to Syria?

BA: You cannot put it as a government policy sometimes. Sometimes you have institutions in certain country, sometime you have persons who try to promote this but they do not announce it as an official policy. So, they did not ask us to promote their, let’s say, extremist attitude of their institutions but that happened in reality whether through indirect support of their government or through the foundation from institutions and personnel. So, this is part of the problem, but when I want to talk as a government, I have to talk about the announced policy. The announced policy is like any other policy; it is about the interest, it is about playing a role, but we cannot ignore what you mentioned.

RT:  Iran which is a very close ally also is exposed to economic sanctions, also facing a threat of military invasion. If you were faced with an option to cut ties with Iran in exchange for peace in your country, would you go for it?

BA: We do not have contradicting options in this regard because we had good relations with Iran since 1979 till today, and it is getting better every day, but at the same time we are moving towards peace. We had peace process and we had peace negotiations. Iran was not a factor against peace. So, this is misinformation they try to promote in the West that if we need peace, we do not have to have good relation with Iran. There is no relation; it is two completely different subjects. Iran supported Syria, supported our cause, the cause of the occupied land and we have to support them in their cause. This is very simple. Iran is a very important country in the region. If we are looking for stability, we need good relations with Iran. You cannot talk about stability while you have bad relations with Iran, Turkey and your neighbors and so on. This is it.

­

‘Al-Qaeda’s final aim is an Islamic emirate in Syria’

­RT:  Do you have any information that the Western intelligence is financing rebel fighters here in Syria?

BA: No, so far what we know is that they are offering the know-how support for the terrorists through Turkey and sometimes through Lebanon mainly. But there is other intelligence, not the Western, but the regional intelligence which is very active and more active than the Western one under the supervision of the Western intelligence.

RT: What is the role of Al-Qaeda in Syria at this point? Are they controlling any of the rebel coalition forces?

BA: No, I do not think they are looking to control; they are looking to create their own kingdoms or emirates in their language, but they mainly try now to scare the people through explosions, assassinations, suicide bombers and things like this to push the people towards desperation and to accept them as reality. So, they go step by step but their final aim is to have this, let’s say, Islamic Emirate in Syria where they can promote their own ideology in the rest of the world.

RT: From those who are fighting you and those who are against you, who would you talk to?

BA: We talk to anyone who has genuine will to help Syria, but we do not waste our time with anyone who wants to use our crisis for his own personal interests.

RT:  There has been many times…not you but the government forces have been accused for many times of war crimes against your own civilians, do you accept that the government forces have committed war crimes against their own civilians?

BA: We are fighting terrorism. We are implementing our constitution by protecting the Syrian people. Let’s go back to what happened in Russia more than a decade ago when you faced terrorism in Chechnya and other places; they attacked people in theaters and schools and so on, and the army in Russia protected the people, would you call it war crimes?! No, you would not. Two days ago, Amnesty International recognized the crimes that were committed few days ago by the armed groups when they captured soldiers and executed them. Also Human Rights Watch recognized this. Human Rights Watch recognized more than once the crimes of those terrorist groups and few days ago it described these crimes as war crimes, this is the first point. The second point, if you have an army that committed a crime against its own people, this is devoid of logic because the Syrian Army is made up of Syrian people. If you want to commit a crime against your people, then the army will divide, will disintegrate. So, you cannot have a strong army while you are killing your people. Third, the army cannot withstand for twenty months in these difficult circumstances without having the embrace of the public in Syria. So, how could you have this embracement while you are killing your people?! This is a contradiction. So, this is the answer.

­

‘I must live in Syria and die in Syria’

­RT: When was the last time you spoke to a Western leader?

BA: It was before the crisis.

RT:  Was there any time at which they try to give you conditions that if you left the post of presidency then there will be peace in Syria or no?

BA: No, they did not propose it directly, no, but whether they propose that directly or indirectly, it is a matter of sovereignty; only the Syrian people will talk about this. Whoever talks about this in the media or in a statement directly or indirectly has no meaning and has no weight in Syria.

RT: Do you even have a choice because from what it seems from the outside that would not have anywhere to go. Where would you go if you want to leave?

BA: To Syria. I would go from Syria to Syria. This is the only place where we can live. I am not a puppet. I was not made by the West to go to the West or to any other country. I am Syrian, I was made in Syria, I have to live in Syria and die in Syria.

­

‘I believe in democracy and dialogue – but we must be realistic’

­RT: Do you think that at this point there is any chance for diplomacy or talks or only the army can get it done?

BA: I always believe in diplomacy and I always believe in dialogue even with those who do not understand or believe in it. We have to keep trying. I think that we will always achieve a partial success. We have to look for this partial success before we achieve the complete success. But we have to be realistic. You do not think that only dialogue can make you achieve something because those people who committed these acts they are of two kinds: one of them does not believe in dialogue, especially the extremists, and you have the outlaws who have been convicted by the court years ago before the crisis and their natural enemy is the government because they are going to be detained if we have a normal situation in Syria. The other part of them is the people who have been supplied by the outside, and they can only be committed to the governments which paid them the money and supplied them with the armament; they do not have a choice because they do not own their own decision. So, you have to be realistic. And you have the third part of the people whether militants or politicians who can accept the dialogue. That’s why we have been in this dialogue for months now even with militants and many of them gave up their armaments and they went back to their normal life.

‘The price of a foreign invasion will be more than the world can afford’

­RT:  Do you think a foreign invasion is imminent?

BA: I think the price of this invasion if it happened is going to be more than the whole world can afford because if you have a problem in Syria, and we are the last stronghold of secularism and stability in the region and coexistence, let’s say, it will have a domino effect that will affect the world from the Atlantic to the Pacific and you know the implication on the rest of the world. I do not think the West is going in that direction, but if they do so, nobody can tell what is next.

RT:  Mr. President, do you blame yourself for anything?

BA: Normally you have to find mistakes you do with every decision, otherwise you are not human.

RT: What is your biggest mistake?

BA: I do not remember now to be frank. But I always, even before taking the decision, consider that part of it will be wrong but you cannot tell about your mistakes now. Sometimes, especially during crisis, you do not see what is right and what is wrong until you overcome the situation that you are in. I would not be objective to talk about mistakes now because we still in the middle of the crisis.

RT:  So, you do not have regrets yet?

BA: Not now. When everything is clear, you can talk about your mistakes, and definitely you have mistakes and that is normal.

RT:  If today was March 15, 2011, that is when the protest started to escalate and grow, what would you do differently?

BA: I would do what I did on March 15.

RT: Exactly the same?

BA: Exactly the same: ask different parties to have dialogue and stand against terrorists because that is how it started. It did not start as marches; the umbrella or cover was the marches, but within those marches you had militants who started shooting civilians and the army at the same time. May be on the tactical level, you could have done something different but as a president you are not tactical, you always take the decision on a strategic level which is something different.

RT: President al-Assad, how do you see yourself in ten-years’ time?

BA: I see myself through my country; I cannot see myself but my country in ten-years’ time. This is where I can see myself.

RT: Do you see yourself in Syria?

BA: Definitely, I have to be in Syria. It is not about the position. I do not see myself whether a president or not. This is not my interest. I can see myself in this country as safe country, stable country and more prosperous country.

RT:  President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, thank you for talking to RT.

BA: Thank you for coming to Syria, again.

Siege of Bani Walid: Foreign fighters, phosphorus bombs and nerve gas

The besieged Libyan city of Bani Walid has been plunged into chaos. SW the former Gaddafi regime stronghold is under attack by militias bolstered by foreign mercenaries, and they used banned weapons like white phosphorous.

­The sources denied reports of the last few days that Bani Walid was retaken by the Libyan government. Residents said that militia forces have continued their assault, while preventing the refugees who fled from reentering the city. 

A man who claimed his relatives are trapped inside the besieged city spoke with RT, saying, “There is no food; there is nothing to support the life of people. And the militia does not allow anyone to come back to their homes.”

“They are demolishing homes with machinery and tanks. There is no communication or internet so people are not able to connect with each other,” the source said. He is currently in Egypt, and refuses to reveal his identity over fears of personal safety.

He believes the real reason for the inoperable communications is that many people have been killed inside Bani Walid by the forces besieging the city and now they are trying to prevent information about the killings to be leaked outside. 

The militia attackers have claimed they are battling ‘pro-Gaddafi’ forces, but the source slammed that motive as a “lie and a dirty game.”

“They use foreign snipers, I think from Qatar or Turkey, with Qatar covering all the costs,” he said. He claimed that a ship with weapons and other equipment recently docked in the port city of Misrata, where the assault on Bani Walid is allegedly being directed.

“There is no government in Libya. Groups of militia control everything. They don’t care about Libya, they don’t care about the nation,” he said, adding allegations that the majority of militia fighters have dual citizenship or passports from other countries.

“We ask the envoy [Special Representative] of the Secretary-General of the United Nations [for Libya] Mr. Tarik Mitri – where is he now?” he said. “Where is the United Nations? Where is the EU? Where is the Human Rights Watch? We ask for an intervention now as soon as possible – please!”

In an October 23 UN session, the US blocked a statement on the violence in Bani Walid drafted by Russia, which condemned the ongoing conflict in the city and calling for a peaceful resolution.

Witnesses claim militia used chemical weapons in Bani Walid

“I can confirm that pro-government militias used internationally prohibited weapons. They used phosphorus bombs and nerve gas. We have documented all this in videos, we recorded the missiles they used and the white phosphorus raining down from these missiles,” Bani Walid-based activist and lawyer Afaf Yusef told RT.

“Many people died without being wounded or shot, they died as a result of gases. The whole world needs to see who they are targeting. Are they really Gaddafi's men? Are the children, women and old men killed – Gaddafi's men?” Yusef said.

The forces attacking Bani Walid have been ordered to use “all means necessary” in their assault on the city. “To all parasites and leaches, a message to all of them across Libya, wherever they are: Whoever you are, however strong you are, and whoever your back is – the revolution should win,” a militant said in the TV report.

Looming humanitarian catastrophe in Bani Walid

The humanitarian situation outside Bani Walid is reportedly nearly as dire as that within the besieged city. Those who managed to flee the violence now find themselves stranded on the desert roads outside the city.

Thousands of Bani Walid residents have reportedly tried to reenter the city, but were stopped at makeshift militia checkpoints composed of pickup trucks armed with mounted machine-guns.

“Look at the people over there, they got a gun and they’re shooting at people with it,” a Bani Walid resident said, pointing in the direction of a checkpoint. He claimed that those who fled the city had been forced to stay in the desert for more than a week.

“Where is the government?” he said.

‘Day of Rage’: Lebanon prepares to bury slain security chief

Lebanon’s anti-Syrian opposition has called for a “Day of Rage” to coincide with the funeral of slain security chief Wissam al-Hasan. Friday’s deadly bombing and assassination risks putting Beirut on a collision course with Damascus.

Hundreds of protesters in downtown Beirut rallied outside the office of Prime Minister Najib Mikati on Saturday as calls for his resignation continue unabated over his alleged role in the high-profile assassination. Thousands more had gathered on Martyrs Square in the heart of the capital.

PM Najib Mikati, who enjoys support from Hezbollah, Damascus and Iran, offered to step down to placate those who accused him of playing a role in Friday’s deadly car bombing. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman refused his resignation.

The  March 14 coalition has also called for a “Day of Rage” in the Lebanese capital on Sunday as with opposition leaders accusing Syria of being behind the attack.

“Let tomorrow be … a day of anger in the face of the butcher Bashar Assad and the black regime that rules Syria with the power of fire and destruction and wants to export blood and devastation to our country Lebanon,” the Lebanese Daily Star cites MP Nuhad Mashnouq, an outspoken critic of Assad, as saying.

March 14 said that the protesters would call on the Arab League and the UN Security Council to take the appropriate measures to preserve Lebanon’s stability.

“Such measures should include deploying the international troops United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon alongside the Lebanese-Syrian borders,” Mashnouq said.

Hassan will be interned near the tomb of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri on Martyrs Square, Internal Security Forces chief Ashraf Rifi told al-Mustaqbal television.

Hariri’s 2005 assassination sparked the 2005 Cedar Revolution which resulted in the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. The March 14 coalition takes its name from the date the revolution kicked off.

The funeral will be held at the al-Amine mosque in downtown Beirut, near the mausoleum, and will follow afternoon prayers.

Rafiq’s son and former Prime Minister Saad Hariri insisted “everyone of you is personally invited to attend the funeral on Sunday,” but said that the roads should remain clear so that access to Marty’s Square will not be blocked.

MP Sami Gemayel, from the Christian Phalange Party, also called on supporters to come out in masse to Sunday’s funeral. Gemayel accused the Syrian government of dragging Lebanon into a direct confrontation.

“We tried to disassociate our nation from the conflict in Syria, but the regime is challenging the Lebanese people once again by assassinating Hassan,” the MP said.

Gemayel drew a line in the sand, saying Lebanese officials must decide if they are loyal to their own country or Syria.

“It's a battle between Lebanon and a foreign country that is violating its sovereignty and unity,” he added.

Gemayel also said the March 14 coalition should once again become a resistance movement that can safeguard both the Lebanese people and their state.

“We will continue our struggle until we form a cabinet that is capable of protecting the Lebanese, the independence of the country and a one that can order the army to deploy along the Lebanese-Syrian border,” continued.

The assassination is as a major blow the March 14 coalition, to which Hassan, a Sunni Muslim, was closely allied.

Hassan was also a close ally of former PM Saad Hariri, who fled Lebanon in April 2011 after his government collapsed in January of that year amid fears he would be assassinated.

Hezbollah recently accused Hariri and his Future Movement of supporting the Syrian opposition.

“I say to the Future Movement and to Saad Hariri: have mercy on Lebanon and its people, have mercy on Syria and its people and stop funding and arming the [Syrian] opposition,” the National News Agency quoted Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem as saying last Saturday.

“[Stop] managing armed groups in Turkey and involving Lebanon in the details of the Syrian crisis. [Stop] sheltering gunmen in Lebanon and smuggling weapons from Lebanon to Syria,” Qassem continued.

Hezbollah and the Future Movement have routinely accused each other of meddling in the Syrian conflict.

Hassan died when an explosive-laden car detonated in Ashrafiyeh district of Beirut, a majority Christian neighborhood of the Lebanese capital. Seven others were killed in the blast, at least were injured, and surrounding buildings were seriously damaged.

It was the first car bombing in Lebanon in four years, when the country’s top anti-terrorism investigator was killed along with three others.

The attack sparked riots and protests which continued into Saturday, as thousands of people across Lebanon demonstrated against the bombing in Beirut.

The UN has condemned the attack calling for a thorough investigation to find the perpetrators, while the US called the blast a“terrorist attack.”

Syria also condemned the deadly blast.

Lebanon on a knife-edge: Anti-Syrian tensions rising

Tensions run high in Lebanon as the government declared an emergency meeting following a bomb attack that killed a top security official. Clashes and protests have been reported throughout the country amid opposition calls for the PM to resign.

Riots and protests continued into Saturday as thousands of people across Lebanon voiced their ire at the car bomb blast in Beirut on Friday that eight and wounded over 100.

Enraged citizens blocked roads with burning tires as a sign of their protest, while clashes in the city of Tripoli close to the southern Syrian border fueled fears the Syrian conflict is spilling over across the border.

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati offered to step down amidst the fallout of Friday’s deadly attack, but President Michel Suleiman refused his resignation.

“He asked that I stay in place because it is not a personal issue but one of the national interest,” Mikati said.

Lebanon’s political opposition bloc, the March 14 Alliance, continue to hold the pro-Syrian government and its prime minister responsible for the Friday’s attack, which killed intelligence chief Wissam al-Hassan.

The secretary-general of Lebanese opposition group Future Movement, Ahmad Hariri, said that the attack had been masterminded by embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Hariri also condemned Lebanon’s current PM Najib Mikati to resign immediately, saying that “he is personally responsible for the blood of General Wissam al-Hassan and the innocent.”

“We accuse Bashar al-Assad of the assassination of Wissam al-Hassan, the guarantor of the security of the Lebanese,” Hariri told a Lebanese TV station.

Mitkin joined the chorus of those linking Friday’s bombing to the civil war in neighboring Syria despite the accusations lobbed at him. The PM said on Saturday the assassination of police Hassan was connected to his role in the August arrest of former minister Michel Samaha. Samaha had allegedly conspired to set off explosives all throughout Lebanon in a bid to destabilize the country. He was often accused of being “Syria’s man in Lebanon,” and was viewed as untouchable due to his connections in Damascus.

Former Lebanese Interior Minister Ziad Baroud told al-Jazeera that it was too early to ascertain who was behind the bombing.

"We have no indication whatsoever [of who is behind this]. We know this is a strong and sad message, and we know this could destabilize the whole country," said Baroud.

The attack has come at a time of strong antagonism between pro-Syrian regime groups and anti-Assad factions in Lebanon. Many fear that the conflict in Syria will exacerbate sectarian divisions in neighboring Lebanon.

Rifts are growing steadily wider in Lebanese society as the countries Sunni Muslims get behind the rebels and the Shiites offer their support to President Assad.

The security official who was assassinated was a Sunni Muslim who opposed Assad and the regime’s strongest ally in Lebanon, the Shiite group Hezbollah.

The blast struck the Ashrafiyeh district of Beirut, a majority Christian neighborhood of the Lebanese capital. An explosives-laden car was detonated in a grounded street at rush hour, injuring over 100 people and decimating surrounding buildings.

It was the first car bombing in Lebanon since four years ago, when Lebanon’s top anti-terrorism investigator was killed along with three others.

The UN has condemned the attack calling for a thorough investigation to find the perpetrators, while the US called the blast a “terrorist attack.”