I would say I need two things: the first one is to be objective in every statement he could make regarding any conflict around the world, including Syria. The second one is not to turn Secretary-General office into a part or branch of the State Department of the United States.

Let's talk... we have indications, let me just finish this point, because how can use WMD while your troops are only 100 meters away from it ? Is it logical ? It doesn't happen. It cannot be used like this.

When you're in the middle of a storm, leaving your country just because you have to leave without any reasonable reason, it means you're quitting your country and this is treason.

Why should you use a term [rebels] in the United States and England and maybe other countries and use another term in Syria ? This is a double standard that we don't accept.

Those fighters, the Syrian part that you're talking about, lost its natural incubators in the Syrian society - they don't have incubators anymore ; that's why they have incubators abroad. They need money from abroad, they need moral support and political support from abroad. They don't have any grassroots, any incubator. So, when you stop the smuggling, we don't have problems.

If you ask Americans whether they've been successful at sealing the border with Mexico, they'll tell you that it's a very difficult proposition.

As I said, this [repercussions] may take different forms : direct and indirect. Direct when people want to retaliate, or governments. Indirect when you're going to have instability and the spread of terrorism all over the region that will influence the west directly.