This piece on Syria makes no sense to me, whatsoever. It basically represents the conventional wisdom in the Western press where certain things have to be claimed: that there is no conspiracy in Syria; that the uprising is led by radical socialists and feminists; that Syrian opposition is not tied to reactionary countries, etc. Forget about responding to the article (comrade Dirar Hakim does a good job responding to her in the comment below), but at least one point: Yes, Bashshar Al-Asad talks about conspiracy in Syria. The writer polemically but not persuasively wants reader to reject the presence of a conspiracy just because Bashshar alleges it. I mean, what logic is that? Of course, there is a conspiracy in Syria: it is not a conspiracy when the conspirators are gathering today in Tunisia looking for way to help their clients in the Syrian opposition. The conspiracy is even more transparent than the conspiracy that preceded the American invasion of Iraq--although I discount the possibility of an American military intervention in Syria. Bashshar, of course, is disingenuous: because he conveniently relies on a counter-conspiracy led by Russia and includes Iran and a few other countries. But the US/Israeli conspiracy in Syria is now quite open: the statements of Bassma Kodmani only reinforces that. To be sure: the nature of the conspiracy is not to be understood in the framework of the dumb and kooky Syrian regime media which lately have been relying on kooky Western websites. Yesterday, in a report on Dunya regime TV, they presented what they said was a picture of Z. Brzezinski with Bin Laden. Kid you not. They find the most nutty scenarios on the internet and they bring it to viewer. Kookiness of Syrian regime media notwithstanding, there is a conspiracy in Syria that is so massive and big that it reminds me of Suez 56. Of course, Bashshar is no Nasser: he can't dream of being anything but a regular, over the counter petty dictator, like the rest of the Arab dictators.