Adnan Oktar: “We Don't Want Bloodshed In Syria. It Should Be A Rescue Operation Not A War.”
Adnan Oktar: “We Don't Want Bloodshed In Syria. It Should Be A Rescue Operation Not A War.”
In his live show on A9 TV, Mr. Adnan Oktar reminded viewers that the planned military intervention in Syria - following the massacre caused by the use of chemical weapons - will only bring more pain to the country and bombing Syria will not be a solution.
Adnan Oktar said, “Muslim countries should enter into Syria from 70 separate points with an army that could be built up with a number of divisions from every country. This unit will act as police force and solve the problem in Syria without any bloodshed.”
Adnan Oktar’s comments about the latest situation and proposed alternative solutions were as follows:
“They are discussing whether Assad used chemical weapons or not, but they don't see the actual savagery?”
“What are they thinking about? Of course there is a chemical attack but more importantly there is savagery. They don't see the savagery. Hundreds of thousands of people are martyred and they consider this as normal. They say, “It was a bomb. It is normal.” What about the other one? They say, “I was a machine gun. That’s normal as well.” They say, “Napalm bomb. So it could be by fire as well.” But they say, “It is wrong to use chemical weapons.” My brother, they are all part of the same savagery.
“America intervening to only bomb would cause even more pain”
It’s not a smart move to wait for being saved by America. America bombing the country would only cause even more pain. That’s not a correct method.
What will America do? She will use all the weapons she has because rockets are out of date and guns are out of date; they all need to be used. They will not bother to destroy them because they cannot appropriate funds for that if they destroy them so they need to use them all. And when they send rockets what will the arms factories say? They will say, “God bless you.” What will America say then? She will say, “Now you may begin new production” and the workers will be happy. So the needs of the American people will then be fully met .
“The US bombing Syria would not discomfort Assad; he already bombs the country day and night”
Al-Assad is bombing Syria himself anyway. He is bombing everything day and night. Al-Assad has no problem with bombing anyway. Al-Assad doesn't say, "America should not use bombs", he says, "I am throwing bombs anyway!" If America starts bombing he would thank America. Of course, he would say "You have taken a load off my shoulders." Al-Assad would say, "It is costly for me to throw bombs, if America does it for me, it would be much better for me," and he would like it.
Al-Assad wants to raze Syria to the ground anyway; I mean he wants to destroy Syria. He has arranged a small place for himself around Latakia and took his people over there. It is like a residential suburb by the sea and he says, "I will be living there. But as I leave I will raze what is left of the country to the ground, I will turn it into a cesspool.” If America bombs Syria he would thank them and kiss their hands.
“Military intervention to Syria is not reasonable. It should be a rescue operation not a war."
A rescue operation should be carried out, not a war in Syria. What's the good of war? It would be good for nothing, it would be a vain attempt and would have no meaning. And it would be unlawful, the best they can do is to speed up the evacuation and support the evacuation process.
I do not want war, I do not want an attack. Air bombing doesn't seem reasonable to me at all. How could you strike Syria? There might be people around, and that is very risky. There will be loss of life in any case. There will be a loss of many lives for nothing. That is a very difficult undertaking.
Rockets are not a joke, my brother. No one knows where it will land, where it will strike. All right, you might make some calculations but what would you attain with that? Let us assume that you have make a strike on a dam, a hydroelectric dam. There are inoffensive people working there and you would be striking them as well. There will be a blackout and it would harm the public. It has no use. If there are not jets around what are you striking? It is a vain attempt. In my opinion this method is not a viable method.
Now if they strike a bridge, inoffensive people are crossing that bridge. If you strike an electricity facility, now people there have at least electricity and they are muddling along at least, and it would again put the people living there in a difficult position. It is not going to be Al-Assad who would be put in a difficult position there; he would find a way out for himself no matter what. Nothing would happen to him even if they strike the military bases. They would be getting by with a generator anyway. But the people residing there would be in a very difficult position.
"If the soldiers of Islamic countries enter Syria from seventy different points- to take on the task of police force- the matter would be solved without a single shot being fired.”
Nothing can be attained through bombing. They should give up that idea; the method to be pursued to stop Al-Assad is, all Islamic countries uniting and entering Syria altogether. They should enter by land. They should enter from seventy different points.
The Chiefs of Staff of the Islamic countries can gather and form a command staff. The reason for this is one, this command staff can take concurrent resolutions: After forming a command staff, the soldiers of all Islamic countries can come from every corner of the world and enter Syria from seven different points. The matter would be solved instantly. Especially if Iran and Turkey unites, the whole issue would be undoubtedly solved instantly; otherwise there will be bloodshed for no reason. They would thus be making a grave mistake.
Especially the Iranian army should join. The Iranian army should give 50 thousand soldiers or if there is no need for 50 thousand, Iran could contribute one or two divisions of soldiers. Turkey can contribute a division of soldiers, Pakistan can contribute a division and the other countries can contribute either a division or a brigade. Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria should send soldiers as well. If Turkey and Iran sends soldiers they would all send soldiers anyway. If they lead the way, the rest would be okay.
The same is valid for the Egyptian army as well. In fact the Egyptian army seems to be a persistent violator right now; we are ashamed of the situation Egyptian army is in right now, they have ruined themselves. Of course there are some good ones among them as well; we cannot blame the whole of the Egyptian army but they have built a very bad reputation for themselves. Nevertheless as a matter of courtesy it would be good to have a brigade from the Egyptian army as well. At least maybe their minds might recover and their hearts might yield; let the Egyptian army send soldiers to this union as well.
Once all the Islamic countries send a division of their soldiers and enter the country, the matter would be solved instantly. What would Al-Assad say anyway? He would instantly surrender. What could he say under these circumstance? His biggest advocate is Iran. If Iran sends soldiers herself, that means the matter is closed once and for all, it is as clear as that. Who could ever say something?
If Russia gives support, that will be that. If Russia were to say, "Let them enter and calm the tensions," the whole matter would be solved. Russia wouldn't object to something like that. Russia wouldn't want to take all those Islamic countries on. What could Russia say?
Look, if Iran wants to solve this, I am showing you the solution. The Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs should immediately come to Turkey and talk to our authorities at once. The whole matter would be solved very easily. Iran should approach the matter honestly and should act in haste and should not procrastinate. Iran should say, "We are giving a division of soldiers to the command of Turkey." But if they procrastinate further, they would be caught unawares.
"These soldiers will enter Syria to rescue them, not to have a war with them. Because the incoming soldiers would be a Muslim army, they wouldn't see them as hostile forces. "
I am saying this again, let Iran send a division, Turkey a division, Pakistan a division, Egypt a division and let other Islamic countries send a division or a brigade according to their liking. These armies should be placed in close to each other at breakneck speed. For instance, after the morning prayers they might enter the country from every corner with God's Name. And that would be it.
THEY SHOULD TREAT THE PUBLIC VERY WELL, THEY SHOULD TREAT EVERYONE THEY COME ACROSS VERY KINDLY. THEY SHOULD TREAT THE OPPONENTS VERY WELL, THEY SHOULD TREAT OUR ALEWITE BROTHERS AND SISTERS, NUSAYRIS VERY WELL. THEY SHOULD SAY, "YOUR LIVES AND YOUR GOODS ARE ALL ENTRUSTED TO US, KEEP YOUR HEARTS AT EASE." AND THAT WOULD BE IT, JUST LIKE POLICE OFFICERS. AND THE MATTER WOULD THUS BE CLOSED. IT WOULD BE SOLVED WITHIN 24 HOURS. When we have such an easy way out, it would not be acceptable to follow complicated and troublesome paths that would cause constant bloodshed.
If the soldiers of Islamic countries were to enter Syria from seventy different points, the whole matter would be solved without a single shot being fired. My brother, how could anything to the contrary be possible? Think about it; Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Jordan, Malaysia and other Islamic countries would all be sending soldiers. Under these conditions which soldier, which person in Syria could resist that: Tell me about it. It is not possible, no such thing would ever happen. They would all welcome them. Nothing bad would happen.
“There are three options; either the world will remain as mere spectators to this persecution, or the US will hurl bombs and cause innocent civilians to be hurt, or Islamic countries will unite, enter Syria and perform the duty of the police officers.
Otherwise we will all remain as mere spectators. They are killing people there night and day. 50 thousand, 30 thousand, 20 thousand, 10 thousand [people are being killed], every single day regularly. Both sides are putting the others in line and shooting them in their heads.
A second option is; they keep saying, "Let the US go and intervene". The US might do that and they would do so in a very rough attitude. The regime would really be changed. But Syria would be razed to the ground and the innocent civilians in Syria would be the ones suffering. May God forbid, there would surely be loss of lots of lives. They cannot prevent this.
If we have a decent, kind, bloodless, loving method compliant with the Qur'an, what is the logic behind preferring such a bloody method? Well then my brother, either you are going to accept these killings- yet it would be horrible to accept them- or Islamic countries will unite: If the Islamic Countries unite and enter Syria, the whole matter would be solved within less than 24 hours.
Otherwise, they would be leaving it all to the US and the UK and they will then use all their weapons. All their rockets will then be used, I mean they will use all their military materials and raze Syria to the ground without leaving any living beings behind.
If the internal elements do not surrender, let us say that the US bombed them and the regime is overthrown, the internal opposition elements would embark upon a massive massacre. They would kill whomever they come across, let me say as much. I mean it would be like a cesspool; but if they do as I say, this risk would be eliminated.
I mean with US bombing there would definitely be deaths; lots of people would be martyred. After that the opponents inside the country would be filled with a massive vengeance and commit massacres. They will fall into this scourge and an enormous massacre would take place.
For that reason, the easiest and the sharpest solution is for the Muslim countries to unite and enter Syria; the matter would then be solved instantly. Not even a drop of blood would be shed if they do as I suggest.
"I kindly ask our Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take the necessary actions about this matter”
I kindly ask our Ministry of Foreign Affairs to push for this. These people are willing as well. Iranians have given statements; if they are sincere, they should do as we suggest.
Otherwise this will turn into a disaster. They should not go for a painful path, when we have a very easy way out. This would cause even more pain. What I said is a fundamental solution. This is a radiant solution. What they've been offering is a very troublesome method. This is not something that could solved with bombing. It is not possible to go only with bombing without any loss of lives, it is very difficult.
Syria cannot resist militarily. I mean Sunnis would not be able to resist either. Alawites could not resist this either. They cannot find any reason in that. What could they say? That is because Islamic countries are entering with good intentions. They are going there not to have a fight but to rescue them. Soldiers know this; they know that they are coming in for a rescue mission. They wouldn't see them as hostile forces. That is because the incoming soldiers are Muslims. What would they say? They would surrender at once and nothing bad would happen. Let them bring those forces and place them there. Actually Al-Assad would give up the minute the soldiers are deployed. Later on, they can form a coalition government and do whatever they like. No one would ever say anything. (August 30th, 2013, Adnan Oktar: A9 TV)2013-09-05 14:21:40