Any pretense of professionalism by BBC was carelessly discarded in favor of the institution financing and supervising its work; i.e. the British government which rarely sacrifices the credibility of its institutions.
Such a decades old credibility gained by the British Broadcasting Corporation through competence and impressive subjectivity.
Despite its several previous errors, it has never reached this low and scandalous level of Nick Green’s documentary; “Dangerous Dynasty”.
The documentary targets the Russian diplomatic efforts daily uncovering the truth about the crimes against the Syrian people to the world public opinion.
Authorities in Damascus are not the only war criminals against the Syrians. Responsible for war crimes in Syria are high-level officials in Washington, London, Paris, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, Doha, Abu Dhabi and Croatia who have funded, armed, trained and directed massive war operations of infantry armies working under their supervision and consisting of hundreds of thousands of terrorists who have intentionally murdered civilians and bombarded civil areas, committing horrors against civilians.
Lacking any neutral guests who offer a subjective, unbiased point of view is the first of the documentary’s many atrocities. Rather, all guests involved are beneficiaries of pre-established, prejudiced repeated convictions.
Noting that key parties in the international community, including China and Russia, admit and affirm that al-Assad has fought battles against the most vicious terrorist forces, ISIS and al-Qaeda, through the past seven years.
Notwithstanding, president al-Assad is not a peace dove raising its white wings against its opponents. Consequently, it would be illogical to paint him in a romantic light in opposing media. However, the fall of a vocationally inveterate channel such as BBC is at once shameful and ironic.
It is ironic in that the subject and timing of the documentary prove that the West, and the ruling institution in Britain in particular, are terrified for their interests in the face of al-Assad’s victory after a seven-year long war.
It is noteworthy how much finances were dedicated to the filmmaker, proving this is not a journalistic work but rather a political effort and propaganda in the form of a documentary. (Interviews in the documentary were taped in three continents, twelve cities, and the participant were provided with a more than generous sum in exchange for their efforts.)
Who is the filmmaker?
An international character recognized world-wide. Thus, it seems that one of the documentary’s goals is to exploit his own fame as a drama and documentary director recognized internationally.
His films were broadcasted over American and European channels, and president Obama premiered his film, “America”, for which he participated in the Emmy Awards.
The said credibility vanished with this documentary, presenting Nick Green as the British version of the spokesperson for Abu Mohammed al-Jolani’s (Ahmed al-Sharaa), the commander of al-Nusra terrorist organization.
The episodes opened with facts presenting neither conviction nor evidence, as is expected from a detective journalist producing a documentary. Significantly, though, the opening is a speech targeting the audience, and conspiring with the visuals and audio in a delivery of a pre-established sentence by BBC and Nick Green against both the late and current Syrian presidents.
The documentary presents the audience with absolutely no justifications, legal or otherwise vocational, for the above mentioned sentence, lacking in its convictions unbiased witnesses and a presentation of the crime conditions.
This is an effort entirely inadequate in terms of professionalism; a mere black propaganda also utilized by the script writer and director against the Syrian first lady, Asma al-Assad.
Furthermore, the disgraceful quality of the guests:
The first is an intelligence man who has previously presented himself to the Syrian authorities as a tourist while in fact he was on a mission against Syria, only to be later promoted to head of MI6.
This makes him a man who has lied to enter and freely wander a country. Since once a liar, always a liar, this makes him a man of no credibility. Furthermore, this is the former director of an organization which has probably killed opposition Syrian militia supported by thousands of Syrian civilians. Consequently, duty calls for prosecution of the men of this organization rather than presenting them with the opportunity to throw blame for the consequences of their crimes against humanity on a party which has enough responsibilities to be justified in front of its people and the international society.
The second is a former minister of culture who, for decades, was closely related to the Syrian authorities and a partner in all actions deemed in the documentary, but who dissected at a time when he believed the reign of al-Assad had come to its end.
This guest was dishonest in most of his testimonies since any expert in Syrian affairs can identify the lies presented by this man, especially when he said that he “disagreed with the president, thus was disengaged” from his responsibilities. However, anybody with the slightest acquaintance with Syrian affairs knows the form of transaction between the Syrian president and ministers which offers no chance for a direct dispute because it passes through a hierarchy for which president al-Assad insists on withholding. Said hierarchy is only to be breached by the Director of Protocol at the presidential palace, or the minister of presidential affairs. Furthermore, this hierarchy is closely monitored by Syrian intelligence who direct the ministers and recommend disengagement for any minister whose wife shows any behavior belaying a change of conviction and loyalties towards radical, jihadist parties. Minister Naasan Agha was expelled from his position due to his wife’s communications with leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in London during his time at the government.
Still, Naasan Agha remained a faithful supporter of president al-Assad until he believed his reign was over, thus his loyalties redirected towards an organization founded by Saudi Arabia.
The third witness is, by BBC admission, a liar. Ayman Abdul Noor, introduced by Green as a “former consultant of Bashar al-Assad”, was a lowly intelligence man delegated to western embassies. He reported to the head of the internal branch known as al-Khatib branch. Abdul Noor fled the country after his relationship to foreign intelligence was uncovered, and his status as a double agent was divulged. He was sentenced in absentia in Damascus years before the revolution broke out. His highest position in the Syrian authorities was a delegate, as a consultant, of the Ministry of Economy, in front of European authorities. President al-Assad has met and greeted him in a cultural festival in al-Assad Library in 2000.
The fourth witness, however, is the head of a research center funded for a period of time by the state security. He fled the country to the U.S.A. after Russian intelligence sent their Syrian counterparts videotapes documenting Samir’s meeting with US intelligence in a hotel in Dubai.
The fifth, most questionable witness, introduced in the documentary as a veteran reform revolutionary; journalist Ibrahim Hamidi. Between 2000-2011, Hamidi was one of the main employees in a press office attached to the Presidency of the Republic. He fled Syria after receiving an advice from the French ambassador in Damascus claiming that “the days of the regime are few, and he will meet the same fate as Mubarak and Bin Ali”.
Looking at abroad visits of president al-Assad, Hamidi was a constant companion as a journalist attached to the presidential office. Not to mention being the director of the office of a Lebanese channel, or a reporter for a Saudi newspaper. Hamidi was one of the most prominent speakers on behalf of the Syrian regime responsible for spreading its point of view in western media.
His arrest, however, was in 2003 when he made the mistake of personal diligence, a mistake not forgiven in Syria, which is one of the regime’s cruelties and shows the brutality of its intelligence which does not show mercy to either supporters or opposition. This intelligence, however, does not behead its opponents, as is done by organizations supported by Britain in Syria.
This is to attend to the documentary, not to defend the Syrian authorities which crimes shall be presented in front of an independent national war crime court under no other authority but that on the conscience of the judges. This is, first and foremost, to defend the truth.
Al-Assad did not murder civilians, as is claimed by the documentary. Neither did he destroy Syria in a battle of tanks against demonstrators. On the contrary, he has led a war waged by the NATO against his country. Ergo, a third of the Syrian population opposed him, a third fought with him, while the final third was neutral at the beginning by stood by him after witnessing the alternative; ISIS and al-Qaeda.
In addition to the former Qatari Minister of Foreign Affairs (in a televised interview with the Qatari national TV on October 27th, 2017), John Biden irrevocably admitted in a conference in Harvard University in 2014 that Arabic countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, along with US, Turkey, France, Britain, and Israel, have all funded, armed, and provided intelligence and trainers to the Syrian and foreign jihadists who have, at one point, taken over two-thirds of Syria, and established jihadi emirates which have murdered thousands of civilians and prisoners, raided entire cities and attempted to invade Damascus and most of the major Syrian cities, aided by financial funding by Britain’s allies, which was more than a hundred billion US dollars, and armaments exposed in detail in major newspapers and by international personas, not the least credible of which are the above mentioned.
Nevertheless, two full hours of the BBC documentary showed none of those facts, rendering the channel to the level of naïve political propaganda lately broadcasted by the Saudi devices to justify the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashukji in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.
Al-Assad is certainly no angel, neither is his regime the long awaited by a people who, though had suffered the cruelty of the regime, had lived safely until US and Britain, along with their allies, decided that jihadist organizations are better-suited rulers for the Syrian people. Consequently, broke out a war destroying whole Syrian cities, murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians 70% of whom were supporters of Bashar al-Assad.
The ophthalmologist is no Mahatma Gandhi; however, he is certainly not the man introduced by Nick Green in his film.