3 min read

Abu Jaffar: ‘How could Obama talk about a diplomatic solution after saying that Assad has lost his legitimacy?’

September 12, 2013 One of the most well-known anti-regime activists […]

12 September 2013

September 12, 2013

One of the most well-known anti-regime activists in Syria is Abu Ja’ffar al-Mugarbil, 33. Based in Homs, al-Mugarbil has acted as a citizen journalist and activist in his home city since the beginning of the revolution. Here, he speaks with Abdulrahman al-Masri and explains why opposition Syrians are losing patience with President Obama.

Q: Obama asked in his speech yesterday to delay Syria strike until the Congress votes. The American president said that he thinks that if the Congress voted now, it wouldn’t support the strike against Syria. What is your reaction to this?

A: Unfortunately, the Syrian population did not believe Mr. Obama [with Mr., he is being ironic], and they are starting to say that he has the smallest brain that ruled the U.S. His talk of humanity and democracy, which the United States claims it supports, has been revealed as nothing but a game, besides, it does not exist in reality.

Therefore, we have to depend on God and the FSA, and we do not care about America, whether it strikes or not, until a man comes to rule the U.S., not children. The strike does not need the congressional approval as long as chemical weapons threaten national security, but the hesitant president (Obama) might ask his neighbors, or even his neighbors’ children for the next step.

Q: Obama clarified that the main objective of any strike against Syria is to stop Assad from using chemical weapons. What do you think?

A: With all positivity, after Obama’s hesitations, everyone started saying that Obama cares about Israel’s interest above Syria’s, as if he was saying welcome to Scud missiles and other weapons but no to chemical usage. Is there a difference between killing with chemical weapons, warplanes, or Scud missiles!? And of course I mean killing the Syrian people, because a Scud cannot reach Israel from Syria.

Q: But Obama said in his speech that Israel is capable of defending itself by using its great power?

A: It is true, it is capable of defending itself, but not from chemical weapons, and the biggest proof of what I am saying is true is that the Israeli government has distributed chemical protection masks to its people. That means they are scared of chemical weapons usage again. And perhaps Israel might be affected, even through the air. But Israel is not afraid of missiles, because it owns hundreds of anti-missiles.

Q: Obama confirmed that he has always preferred the diplomatic solution, and he said that it is still early to confirm the success of Russian suggestions about subjecting the Syrian chemical weapons to international control. Thoughts?

A: Dose Mr. Obama think that the liar Assad, who denied possession of chemical weapon, will now give it all to the U.S., and how will Assad and the international community guarantee/ensure that Assad will hand over all his chemical supplies? What if he handed over a part of it, and the other part attacked the people with it, then he will accuse the extremists. And of course that is what will happen. And how could Obama speak about the solution [diplomatic] after saying that Assad has lost his legitimacy since the revolution started?

Share this article