Sirija, početak regionalnog rata

“Američka misija se nije promenila. Predsednik je jasno rekao da želi povlačenje američkih snaga čim to bude bilo moguće", rekla je portparolka Bele kuće Sara Sanders.

Bela kuća je to saopštila nekoliko sati nakon izjave francuskog predsednika Emanuela Makrona koji je rekao da je "ubedio" Trampa da zadrži američke snage u Siriji.

"Važno pitanje je obnova infrastrukture. To će koštati ne manje od 400 milijardi dolara i biće potrebno od 10 do 15 godina", rekao je Sablin citirajući Asada. 

Sirijski predsednik je rekao i da ne očekuje da naftne i gasne kompanije sa Zapada posluju u njegovoj zemlji. 

"Ovde ne čekamo na zapadne kompanije, naročito u oblasti nafte i gasa. Razgovarao sam sa predsednikom Rusije Vladimirom Putinom u Sočiju. Želimo da ovde rade ruske kompanije, i očekujemo njihov brzi ulazak na naše tržište", rekao je sirijski predsednik. 

Premijer Sirije Imad Hamis obećao je povoljne uslove za ruske kompanije koje posluju u njegovoj zemlji, a dve strane su, prema rečima ruske delegacije, razgovarale i o socijalnom i ekonomskom razvoju ruskih i sirijskih regiona. 

"Fokusirali smo se na probleme povezane sa logistikom i bankarskim sektorom, kao i o obnovi Sirije", izjavio je Sablin.

Three Flemish companies stand trial for exporting ingredient for sarin gas to #Syria > an absolute scandal if true (Dutch) https://t.co/TFrpJR9iAu

— Marietje Schaake (@MarietjeSchaake) 18. април 2018.

MNE wrote:čudi me da je Independent ovo objavio


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

Buried away in two lines in an article by Patrick Wintour and Julian Borger, we get this in today’s Guardian:

A group of reporters, many favoured by Moscow, were taken to the site on Monday. They either reported that no weapon attack had occurred or that the victims had been misled by the White Helmets civilian defence force into mistaking a choking effect caused by dust clouds for a chemical attack.

So Fisk, Britain’s most famous and respected Middle East correspondent (can you name another one?), is not only not identified but dismissed generically as one of a group of reporters “favoured by Moscow”.

A second report, headlined “Syrian medics ‘subjected to extreme intimidation’ after Douma attack”, by Martin Chulov and Kareem Shahin, far away in Beirut and Istanbul respectively, confidently denigrates Fisk’s account, again without identifying him or mentioning that he was there. Again, it merely alludes to the content of Fisk’s account and only in so far as it is necessary to undermine it.

Instead, it gives top billing to unchallenged claims by Dr Ghanem Tayara, a Birmingham-based doctor now in Turkey who is the director of the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations, which favours the overthrow of the Syrian goverment.


After many paragraphs of Dr Tayara’s allegations against Bashar Assad’s government, Fisk’s account is given this cursory and hostile treatment near the end of the article:

Medics and survivors who have remained in Douma, and others who have fled for northern Syria, ridiculed competing claims that the attack either did not take place, or did not use gas. …
Some doctors have appeared on Syrian television to deny that anything took place in Douma. A doctor who spoke to the Guardian said: “Our colleagues who appeared on television were coerced, because some hadn’t served in the military or completed their degree, and for other reasons, some had family in Damascus. They decided to stay in exchange for being reconciled with the regime. But the regime used them.”
Another medic who treated victims said: “Anyone who has knowledge of what happened cannot testify. What was being said is that the medical centres would be destroyed on top of those working in it.”

These countervailing voices are important. They are another piece of the jigsaw, as we try to work out what is really going in places like Douma. But publications like the Guardian are consistently presenting them as the only pieces their readers need to know about. That isn’t journalism.

There are good reasons to be suspicious of everything that comes out of the Syria war arena, where all sides are treating the outcome as a zero-sum battle. But western corporate media are clearly not fulfilling their self-declared role either as an impartial messenger of news, or as a watchdog on power. They have taken a side – that of the governments of the US, UK and France, their regional partners Saudi Arabia and Israel, and what are by now mostly proxy jihadi fighters in Syria.


The Guardian failed the most elementary test of honest journalism in its treatment of Fisk’s report. It may be an egregious example but after many years of the Syria war it is very far from being unique.

паће wrote:Па истог тог Фиска. Био је овде скоро све време 1999. и послао свежањ чланака а објавили му можда један.