9 juin 2012<\/a>) les circonstances pr\u00e9cises d’un incident caract\u00e9ristique que Thompson a v\u00e9cu avec son \u00e9quipe, du fait des rebelles, ou de la soi-disant Arm\u00e9e Syrienne Libre. Ensuite, RT proc\u00e8de \u00e0 une interview longue et d\u00e9taill\u00e9e de Thompson. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tThompson avait ceci de particulier qu’il semble avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 l’un des premiers, ou m\u00eame le premier journaliste \u00e0 atteindre le territoire rebelle venant de Damas, o\u00f9 il avait obtenu une autorisation l\u00e9gale d’entr\u00e9e. Tous les autres journalistes occidentaux ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 en Syrie l’ont \u00e9t\u00e9 du c\u00f4t\u00e9 rebelle, par le canal et sous le contr\u00f4le des rebelles. On comprend l’importance du t\u00e9moignage de Thompson, qui est extr\u00eamement affirmatif sur un fait impliquant, en raison du climat exclusivement pro-rebelles r\u00e9gnant dans nos pays, une vision d\u00e9form\u00e9e d\u00e8s l’origine du s\u00e9jour, et ensuite entretenue \u00e0 mesure. (\u00abThat’s a fact. Most foreign, Western journalists who cover the war from the rebel side are smuggled in from Lebanon and so forth illegally to the country. It is very unusual, almost unheard of, to do the kind of things that we were doing, which is to go from Damascus, cross the lines with the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and talk to both sides.<\/em>\u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLe r\u00e9cit du s\u00e9jour de Thompson occupe la premi\u00e8re partie de l’interview. Il porte essentiellement sur un incident qui est une manuvre d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9e des rebelles pour le diriger vers le feu de l’arm\u00e9e syrienne, le faire tuer par l’arm\u00e9e syrienne, pour faire de l’incident un outil de propagande aupr\u00e8s de l’opinion ext\u00e9rieure. \u00abThomson said he was sure the rebels were eager to get him and his crew killed in order to have the international community blame Damascus for the death of Western reporters. I’m quite clear the rebels deliberately set us up to be shot by the Syrian army. Dead journos are bad for Damascus, he stated.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tThompson \u00e9tait en Syrie, dans la r\u00e9gion rebelle lorsqu’a eu lieu le second massacre de Qubair, dans la province d’Hama, et il t\u00e9moigne \u00e9galement de l’impuissance des observateurs de l’ONU pour leur enqu\u00eate. (Il s’agit bien du second massacre, dont la responsabilit\u00e9 a \u00e9t\u00e9 instantan\u00e9ment attribu\u00e9 au r\u00e9gime Assad, par les pays du bloc BAO. RT note : \u00abThe reported incident comes just days after as many as 78 people were killed in the village of Mazraat al-Qubair in the Hama province. UN monitors that tried to asses the massacre were shot at.<\/em>\u00bb) D’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, Thompson observe que les zones tenues par les rebelles sont nettement d\u00e9limit\u00e9es et fermement contr\u00f4l\u00e9es ; ainsi exclut-il d’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des occurrences o\u00f9 des milices extr\u00e9mistes pro-Assad puissent s’infiltrer (ce qui est une des th\u00e8ses pour l’un ou l’autre massacre) : \u00abNo, I didn’t make a mistake on that.<\/em> [] There is no way that these were some extremist Shabbiha. We were inside the town, in the streets, in areas completely controlled by the Free Syrian Army. They were all FSA people there. The idea that some bizarre could have wandered in to this situation unnoticed is ludicrous.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tEnfin, Thompson t\u00e9moigne de la diversit\u00e9 des forces rebelles. Il juge que l’Arm\u00e9e Syrienne Libre est bien structur\u00e9e, contr\u00f4lee, etc. organis\u00e9e effectivement comme une force combattante. A c\u00f4t\u00e9 de cela, des groupes non identifi\u00e9s tiennent des zones qui leur sont propres, souvent d’une fa\u00e7on exclusive, parfois d’une fa\u00e7on agressive entre eux ou avec l’Arm\u00e9e Syrienne Libre. C’est la confirmation du d\u00e9sordre structurel r\u00e9gnant chez les rebelles en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tLa premi\u00e8re partie de l’interview est consacr\u00e9e au r\u00e9cit de Thompson sur la fa\u00e7on dont il fut d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9ment dirig\u00e9 (lui-m\u00eame dans sa voiture, avec son \u00e9quipe) par les rebelles dans une direction o\u00f9 il y avait une grande probabilit\u00e9, dans les conditions de tension et d’affrontement r\u00e9gnantes, qu’il se heurte aux lignes de l’arm\u00e9e syrienne r\u00e9guli\u00e8re et qu’il soit tu\u00e9. Nous reproduisons la seconde partie de l’interview, o\u00f9 Thompson explique ce qu’il per\u00e7oit des conditions g\u00e9n\u00e9rales de ce qui est d\u00e9sormais un v\u00e9ritable conflit, m\u00e9lange de guerre conventionnelle et de gu\u00e9rilla, \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur de la Syrie.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tRT<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abCan you elaborate on your statement that dead journalists are bad for Damascus?<\/em>\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAlex Thompson<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abMy 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.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tRT<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abHow much violence have you actually seen personally?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAlex Thompson<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abI’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.<\/em>\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tRT<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abSo are Assad’s troops mostly responsible for this violence?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAlex Thompson<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abNo, it’s a war. Both sides are responsible. I think the Western media is rather na\u00efve 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.<\/em>\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tRT<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abIs it really possible to investigate who commits atrocities such as the latest Hama massacre?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAlex Thompson<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abIt’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.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tRT<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abSo what’s the point of the UN observer mission?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAlex Thompson<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abI’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.<\/em>\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tRT<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abYou said the UN observers didn’t protect you. Why is that?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAlex Thompson<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abWhy 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.<\/em>\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tRT<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abSo you have no protection while you are there?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAlex Thompson<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abNo, I have no protection.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tIl y a peu de choses \u00e0 ajouter \u00e0 ces d\u00e9clarations, sinon qu’elles confirment en tous points le contraire de la version extr\u00e9miste qui emprisonne tous les esprits et conditionnent tous les jugements dans les pays du bloc BAO. Il s’agit d’une guerre interne, d’une guerre civile, avec les violences et les atrocit\u00e9s qui vont avec, qui sont le fait des deux c\u00f4t\u00e9s qui s’opposent, avec en plus l’interf\u00e9rences de groupes incontr\u00f4l\u00e9s dont on peut ais\u00e9ment faire l’hypoth\u00e8se qu’ils \u00e9manent des conditions des aides ext\u00e9rieures anti-Assad (principalement de Libye, du Qatar et de l’Arabie). La description en noir et blanc du conflit que fait notre communaut\u00e9 internationale (dito<\/em>, le bloc BAO), y compris et d’abord<\/strong> nos diplomaties et notre syst\u00e8me m\u00e9diatique et de communication, est une construction totale, une narrative<\/em> compl\u00e8te.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tThompson parle de la na\u00efvet\u00e9 de la presse occidentale dans sa fa\u00e7on d’attribuer tous les torts au r\u00e9gime Assad, et nous ne serions pas loin d’accepter le terme en l’assortissant de celui d’inintelligence (le refus de toute intelligence de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9, plus par refus d’intelligence que par absence d’intelligence). S’il y a \u00e9videmment du parti pris \u00e0 l’origine, s’il y a un entretien de ce parti pris que certains peuvent attribuer \u00e0 une action politique subversive av\u00e9r\u00e9e, il ne s’agit que de l’op\u00e9rationnalit\u00e9 d’un sentiment g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de d\u00e9part, d’une intelligence r\u00e9duite \u00e0 l’affectivit\u00e9 et invertie par elle. C’est de ce sentiment que nous parlons en acceptant le terme de na\u00efvet\u00e9 assorti de celui d’inintelligence : ce parti pris, cette construction d’une narrative<\/em>, sont d’abord le produit d’une inintelligence compl\u00e8te, d’o\u00f9 il s’ensuit cette na\u00efvet\u00e9 constante dans l’interpr\u00e9tation d’une r\u00e9alit\u00e9 constamment soumise au prisme d’une d\u00e9formation qui s’effectue d’une fa\u00e7on inconsciente. Il y a donc une sorte de sinc\u00e9rit\u00e9 dans ce qui peut \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme une sottise du jugement, par refus de l’intelligence (inintelligence). L\u00e0-dessus s’est bien entendu greff\u00e9 et d\u00e9velopp\u00e9, presque naturellement<\/strong>, tout un appareil d’influence et de propagande qui \u00e9volue comme un poisson dans l’eau tant le terreau est f\u00e9cond ; mais il y a bien, au d\u00e9part, cette attitude d\u00e9crite ici.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLe bloc BAO vit dans sa narrative<\/em> et refuse la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 du monde, qui le placerait devant l’\u00e9chec complet de la civilisation (contre-civilisation) dont il d\u00e9pend. La pression du Syst\u00e8me est constante \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard ; la libert\u00e9 du jugement existe donc, compl\u00e8te, \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur d’une construction absolument faussaire qui est une prison inexpugnable, et tout cela s’exprime par la na\u00efvet\u00e9 du constat. Toutes les ressources de notre intelligence sont mise avec enthousiasme au service d’une imposture objective et s’exprime, avec un non moins grand enthousiasme, par la plus compl\u00e8te des sottises.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 9 juin 2012 \u00e0 06H48<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Un t\u00e9moignage essentiel d’un journaliste en Syrie Il s’agit d’un journaliste britannique (Alex Thompson, de la chaine britannique Channel 4), qui rapporte son aventure en Syrie. Russia Today expose (le 9 juin 2012) les circonstances pr\u00e9cises d’un incident caract\u00e9ristique que Thompson a v\u00e9cu avec son \u00e9quipe, du fait des rebelles, ou de la soi-disant Arm\u00e9e… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[9671,2894,4202,10900,6039,14890,5638,4434,6705,4321,11448,3867,14843,11486,3474,6925],"class_list":["post-73189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-alex","tag-armee","tag-assad","tag-bao","tag-bloc","tag-inintelligence","tag-journaliste","tag-libre","tag-naivete","tag-narrative","tag-russia","tag-syrie","tag-syrienne","tag-temoignage","tag-thompson","tag-today"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=73189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}