Assad Interview with Vecernji List

*****TRANSLATED FOR /sg/*****

I: In the past negotiations in Astana and nowadays in Genev, most of the negotiators belong to the opposition which holds jihadist/salafist/wahabi views. Why do you negotiate with these people in the first place? Does the "moderate" oppostion as being described by many even exist?

A: This question is of utter importance, as it's on the tongues of western leaders headed by the ex-POTUS Obama. Obama has said that the "moderate rebels" are fake (do no exist) and merely illusions, they've even admitted this themselves. They've supported these rebels and disguised them as "moderate". Hence this "moderate" rebellion does not exist, what exists is a jihadist opposition, of course jihadist here holds a divergent meaning (he's basically calling them out on what they are, terrorists), that refuses to negotiate for a solution unless it's through terrorism. We can't reach any results with this opposition, that's why during the astana negotiations they started attacking Damascus, Hama, and other territories in syria, going back to the repetitive cycle of bloodshed and terrorism. Therefore this ""moderate"" opposition (he points out that "moderate" is in quotations), these terrorists can be called neither moderate nor an opposition. They can't help us reach a solution. These terrorist organizations are pushing foreign agendas, they are not organizations that are formed or belong to the Syrian people. They do not want a political solution or any solution whether it was before the war or during.
Some of these organizations may seem political on the side with no involvement in the armed conflict, however they support these terrorists and are part of the Saudi, Turkish and western agenda.

I: Mister president I'd like to ask you, if there was any military cooperation between the Syrian government and the European governments would we have been able to avoid the terrorist operations that have struck France and Belgium? I'm asking this question because after these attacks the former head of the French Intelligence said that you (the Syrian government) provided them with documents and identifications of the terrorists that committed the attacks but they (french """"""intelligence""""" lmao) refused it, is it true that they refused the information provided? (he then repeats the first question)

A: He's possibly refering to the cooperation that happened before the war (?), because after the war broke out and after France revealed its stance supporting the terrorists, all cooperations and communications were cut off with those countries (like france). There can be no military/security communication if there is political agressions, there should be political agreement before anything else. As for the other question, then could there be benefit (could also mean protection) for Europe through a cooperation? With different circumstances, yes. But as it stands now, no, as many European countries support the terrorists openly, and sends thousands of terrorists to fight in Syria, they're supporting them directly and indirectly, logistically, through money, through weapons, through airstrikes and political refuge (covering for the terrorists). When it reaches these levels of supporting terrorism and sending possibly hundreds of thousands of terrorists to Syria and the countries around it, then security/military cooperation/communication becomes limited with fruitless results.
The cooperation happens on tens and hundreds of people, however it can't extend itself to hundreds of thousands of terrorists. So if Europe wants to protect itself from terrorism then the first step is to stop supporting terrorism in Syria. Even if we did cooperate, nothing will be achieved. And evenso, we won't cooperate while they support the terrorists. They have to stop supporting them immediately, in any form or shape.

I: Mr. President I'd like to return to the topic of Croatia for a bit, back in 2009 you visited their capitol city and had a conference with the Croatian government. Back then I read a statement by you that Croatia is a friend of Syria and its people are our brethren. Do you still believe that Croatia and the Croatian people are a friend of Syria, especially after Croatia was exposed to have carried weapons from Washington to Saudi Arabia and then Jordan until it reached the hands of the terrorists?

A: I assure you, the Croatian people are friends, our friendship goes back decades which in itself is generations old and is still ongoing. We won't hold the people of Croatia responsible for the mistakes of their leadership. What's more important is that if we surveyed and monitore the public opinion in Croatia around whats happened in Syria then we'd find that in comparison with the other European people they have a deeper understanding of whats going on in Syria. If it weren't for this deep friendship then it would have been difficult for the Croatian people to understand whats happening in Syria today. I would also like to note that the whole deal with the weapons reaching the terrorists is the achievement (literally calls it achievement) of the former leadership, perhaps for financial benefits or even geopolitical benefits due to peer pressure by other larger wester countries. In any case, they sold the benefits and the morals of the Croatian people for the sake of the petrodollar or personal political gain.

I: Lately you've been conversing and meeting with a lot of European politicians between whats announced and whats not, has there been any change in attitude towards the Syrian situation? Have they understood the fact that you are right?

A: The European policy and attitude towards Syria hasn't changed, because some European politicians went too far in their lies. And if they want to make a sudden turnaround today, then the European populations would expose them as liars. Everything you told us (European people) was a lie. That's why they're acting stubborn and insisting on their lies, but they've been adjusting these lies from time to time. Reproducing the product but with a different cover/brand so that they trick the customers which is the European public opinion. Firstly, what's changed is the public opinion of the west, these lies cannot go on for 6 years while the facts head in a different path.
Secondly, because of social media, the giant media organizations that are controlled by and related to the politicians in the west cannot control the flow of information and facts throughout the world. Thirdly, the mass immigrations that have happened to Europe and the terrorists attacks that struck multiple European countries, especially France (REDPILL INCOMING) should have drived the European citizen to question what is happening and the truth behind this mass immigration. What's changed today in Europe is that the people of Europe know that the giant media outlets are lying to their faces. The European people don't know the full truth now, only part of it, and they are in a constant search for this truth for what happened in Syria, for what happened in Libya, for whats happening in Yemen, for the relationship between his leaders and the petrodollar that is available to us in the gulf and etc.