dimanche 10 juin 2012

Syrie 3: Temoignage du journaliste anglais Alex Thomson

Le journaliste anglais Alex Thomson a révélé sur son blog de Channel 4 (ici) le 8 Juin dernier comment lui est son équipe furent sciemment dirigé par des "rebelles" vers le no man's land existant entre les positions rebelles et l'armée syrienne afin qu'ils se fassent tuer par l'armée syrienne à seule fin que ce fait serve d'arme de propagande pour discréditer le régime en place.
Prenez le temps de lire ce récit sur son blog ici.

Alex Thomson est interviewé ici-bas par le site Russia Today (ici), un des meilleurs sites d'information d'aujourd'hui soit dit en passant. Dans les premières lignes de l'interview ci-dessous le journaliste anglais explique pourquoi et comment sa mort et celle de son équipe aurait été particulièrement bénéfique pour les "rebelles".
Ensuite il affirme sans ambages que la Syrie est bel et bien en guerre et que les deux côtés portent la responsabilité des pertes en vie humaine, contrairement à ce qu'affirment les médias et les gouvernements occidentaux en condamnant systématiquement et sans preuves le gouvernement syrien pour toute mort en Syrie, et ce malgré la moyenne de 20 à 30 morts par jour dans les rangs de l'armée syrienne due aux "rebelles".

(Les phrases en gras dans le texte le sont par nos soins).

Dead journalists are bad for Damascus'

RT: Can you elaborate on your statement that dead journalists are bad for Damascus?
AT: My point is, dead journalists are bad for Damascus. When Marie Colvin, the British journalist got killed because she was in a building which was shelled by the Syrian army in Homs, that was an appalling propaganda blow for the Damascus regime. You don’t have to be very clever to work out that the deaths of any journalist at the hands of the Syrian army are going to be an appalling blow, again, for President Assad. That’s going to reflect all the way to Moscow and all the way to Beijing. Clearly that is going to be a bad thing in terms of propaganda. So the motivation for the rebels to pull a stunt like that seems to be very obvious. I’m not angry about it, I’m not upset about it, this is a war and these things will be done. Both sides are involved in very dirty tactics in this war. This is a nasty and dirty war on both sides.
RT: How much violence have you actually seen personally?
AT: I’ve seen dead bodies in Houla which the UN didn’t know about. I’ve seen mass graves of men involved in a fairly extensive firefight close up in the south of Houla. I’ve watched the Syrian army at various distances shelling Homs every single day, shelling Houla almost every single day.
RT: So are Assad’s troops mostly responsible for this violence?
AT: No, it’s a war. Both sides are responsible. I think the Western media is rather naïve because they constantly blame the Syrian army for killing civilians. That’s true because the Syrian army are to blame for shelling civilians, but it’s equally true that the Free Syrian Army is very largely fighting its war in built-up, populated, civilian areas. They're not exactly using civilians as human shields but if you fight in those areas, civilians are going to be killed, and that is a question which is not put to the leaders of the Free Syrian Army with the frequency that it should be, in my opinion.
RT: Is it really possible to investigate who commits atrocities such as the latest Hama massacre?
AT: It’s extremely difficult. For the UN, the answer is probably, no, not really. They don’t have the means to conduct a forensics investigation; they have no equipment, they have no training, they have no expertise to cordon off the area, to treat it as a crime scene. They haven’t the personnel or the time or the resources to make extensive inquiries. For example, when we were in Houla, everybody in Houla says that the militia who came and conducted the massacre in which 108 people died, most of them women and children, came from villages to the west of the town, which are Alawite villages. When we went to those villages, we very quickly realized that nobody had come to those people. Neither the Syrian army in the framework of their investigation that they carried out, nor the United Nations, because the Syrian army and the Syrian government isn’t that interested, but equally, I know the UN do not have the capacity to do it. So the answer to that is no.
RT: So what’s the point of the UN observer mission?
AT: I’m not sure what the point is. But the other thing I should add to that is that blame lies also with the Syrian government, which has denied access to human rights groups who would have a capacity to do an investigation into these things. But equally, they would be going into a war zone where their safety would not be guaranteed by any means. As for the purpose of the United Nations mission, it’s very easy to say that these things are pointless, but I’ve personally witnessed, for instance, the UN setting up local ceasefires. They did one at al-Rastan, for instance, which worked, which made a difference on the ground. A lot of people say that their intervention has made a difference. A lot of people say there is never any shelling when the UN are there, that the shelling only begins when they leave town. Their effect is marginal, but it’s not true to say that their mission is entirely pointless. When you look at Houla, even with the resources at their disposal, the UN did produce a very swift, interim report about what happened there.
RT:You said the UN observers didn’t protect you. Why is that?
AT: Why should they? It’s not their job. It’s not part of their mission. When you follow the UN convoy, the UN make it very clear, they’re not there to protect you. They can’t protect you. They have no weapons. If you get into trouble, you’re on your own. That’s a perfectly reasonable arrangement. I have no problems with that. I have no problems with them observing that we were in trouble, and driving off and leaving us. That’s entirely fair enough.
RT: So you have no protection while you are there?
AT: No, I have no protection.

Aucun commentaire: