Why is the MAGA movement so susceptible to crazy conspiracy theories?

[webfact]

Syrian opposition aims for Assad's removal in Geneva talks

By Stephanie Nebehay

 

Nasr al-Hariri, Head of the Syrian High Negotiations Committee (HNC), attends a news conference before the opening of Intra Syria talks in Geneva, Switzerland November 27, 2017. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

 

GENEVA (Reuters) - The Syrian opposition delegation at peace talks in Geneva is aiming for the removal of President Bashar al-Assad and plans to engage his negotiators in serious and direct talks, the head of the opposition delegation Nasr Hariri said on Monday.

 

Hariri called for major powers, especially Russia, to pressure the Assad government into real negotiations on a political transition followed by a new constitution and free elections, in line with a U.N. roadmap to end the six-year war.

 

"We stress that political transition which achieves the ousting of Assad at the beginning is our goal," Hariri told a news conference after arriving in Geneva for a round of U.N.-led talks that is scheduled to start on Tuesday.

 

"Our goal in the negotiation will be the departure of Bashar al-Assad from the beginning of the transition," he said.

 

A breakthrough in U.N.-backed Syria peace talks in Geneva this week seems hardly more likely than in seven failed earlier rounds as Assad pushes for total military victory and his opponents stick by their demand he leave power.

 

All previous diplomatic initiatives have swiftly collapsed over the opposition demand that Assad must go and his refusal to do so.

 

The Syrian government delegation, led by its U.N. ambassador and chief negotiator Bashar al-Ja'afari, failed to arrive in Geneva on Monday when it had been due. It was not clear whether the delegation would arrive on Tuesday, when U.N. mediator Staffan de Mistura is due to meet the opposition.

 

"We don't have high hopes, the regime is using delaying tactics to obstruct progress towards a political solution, at a time when the opposition comes with one unified delegation," Hariri said. "Russia .. .is the only entity capable of bringing the regime to the table of negotiations."

 

For many years, Western and Arab countries backed the opposition demand that Assad leave office. However, since Russia joined the war on behalf of Assad's government two years ago it has become increasingly clear that Assad's opponents have no path to victory on the battlefield.

 

The Syrian civil war, now in its seventh year, has killed hundreds of thousands of people and caused the world's worst refugee crisis, driving 11 million from their homes.

 

The Syrian government continued its bombing and sieges of areas including 400,000 people in eastern Ghouta, a rebel-held Damascus suburb, Hariri said on Monday.

 

"We are here for the hundreds of thousands who under siege who are in grave need of humanitarian aid and for hundreds of thousands of detainees who are at the verge of death, suffering but living death every day," he said.

 

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay, Writing by Tom Miles; Editing by Catherine Evans)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-28

[retarius]

The first Geneva round (or was it the second) issued the road map that  lead to free and fair UN supervised elections. The road map has not been changed since. It was specified that the Syrian people would determine their own fate in these elections. It was phrased this way to avoid having a pro-US leader foisted upon them, like happened in Ukraine......but also because Russia knows that Assad will win any elections held.....where do the people who escape the tyranny of ISIS in Aleppo or Raqqa flee? They flee to Assad's territory. Why would they do this is if they hated and feared him?

 

It is also phrased that way since there is no obligation for Assad to leave.....the Syrian people must decide whether he goes or stays which is right and proper. An opinion poll released about 18 months ago showed Assad with 70% support and viewed what our press call a civil war to be a foreign invasion (since most of the 'opposition are not Syrian, but mercenaries). Doubtless the methodology of doing such wartime market research is compromised and could be faulted, but the truth is Assad would not have survived this long without a good measure of popular support....an unpopular leader would have been deposed years back. We have, for once, to look past the geo-political squabbles and the wishes of Saudi, Israel and the US, and ask what is best for the Syrian people. Their country has been torn apart by this invasion.

 

I think a good compromise would be to have a primary....where many candidates including Assad could run.....then have a run-off with the top 3 candidates.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

Nothing like negotiating from a position of strength.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, retarius said:

The first Geneva round (or was it the second) issued the road map that  lead to free and fair UN supervised elections. The road map has not been changed since. It was specified that the Syrian people would determine their own fate in these elections. It was phrased this way to avoid having a pro-US leader foisted upon them, like happened in Ukraine......but also because Russia knows that Assad will win any elections held.....where do the people who escape the tyranny of ISIS in Aleppo or Raqqa flee? They flee to Assad's territory. Why would they do this is if they hated and feared him?

 

It is also phrased that way since there is no obligation for Assad to leave.....the Syrian people must decide whether he goes or stays which is right and proper. An opinion poll released about 18 months ago showed Assad with 70% support and viewed what our press call a civil war to be a foreign invasion (since most of the 'opposition are not Syrian, but mercenaries). Doubtless the methodology of doing such wartime market research is compromised and could be faulted, but the truth is Assad would not have survived this long without a good measure of popular support....an unpopular leader would have been deposed years back. We have, for once, to look past the geo-political squabbles and the wishes of Saudi, Israel and the US, and ask what is best for the Syrian people. Their country has been torn apart by this invasion.

 

I think a good compromise would be to have a primary....where many candidates including Assad could run.....then have a run-off with the top 3 candidates.

 

 

 

Another propaganda rant.

 

Civilians fleeing areas held by IS etc. is not necessarily an indication of support for Assad's regime. It could just as well be an acknowledgment that IS is worse, or that staying in an area about to be bombarded to kingdom come is not the best of options. Obviously, the current "choice" is not between Assad and IS, so whatever merit the "argument" had is irrelevant. And that's without taking into account the way larger figures pertaining to Syrian's refugees out of the country.

 

Couldn't find a clear link to that "opinion poll" touting "70%" support for Assad. Almost all of the anecdotal mentions appear on Russian or Pro-Assad media outlets, which are not suspected of being objective or credible. As you point out, the methodology of this "opinion poll" (if indeed real), is probably compromised, and that's putting it mildly.

 

There is no argument that Assad does enjoy some popular support - how wide this support is, and what does it imply are different issues, though. And no, I don't think that the Syrian people generally tie their own predicament with your co-opting version of events in Ukraine. May be useful to remember that the start of the civil war was tied to civil demonstrations and protests against Assad's rule, and to the way these were suppressed. Painting Assad as a loved, benevolent leader is hardly accurate. If it wasn't for Russia's involvement, and USA hesitance, he would have been out of office. Not saying this would have necessarily worked out best for the Syrian people.

 

The country is not torn apart by "invasion", but is undergoing a civil war with foreign parties involves. Spin away. That you claim most opposition forces are not Syrian doesn't make it so.

 

There were past topics which addressed mechanics and issues involved with Syrian elections. It would take a whole lot of work and changes to have an agreed upon system in place, one which does not inherently favor Assad. And that is without addressing either the prevailing political climate and culture not being necessarily conductive to the finer points of democracy.

 

[Nigel Garvie]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Another propaganda rant.

 

Civilians fleeing areas held by IS etc. is not necessarily an indication of support for Assad's regime. It could just as well be an acknowledgment that IS is worse, or that staying in an area about to be bombarded to kingdom come is not the best of options. Obviously, the current "choice" is not between Assad and IS, so whatever merit the "argument" had is irrelevant. And that's without taking into account the way larger figures pertaining to Syrian's refugees out of the country.

 

Couldn't find a clear link to that "opinion poll" touting "70%" support for Assad. Almost all of the anecdotal mentions appear on Russian or Pro-Assad media outlets, which are not suspected of being objective or credible. As you point out, the methodology of this "opinion poll" (if indeed real), is probably compromised, and that's putting it mildly.

 

There is no argument that Assad does enjoy some popular support - how wide this support is, and what does it imply are different issues, though. And no, I don't think that the Syrian people generally tie their own predicament with your co-opting version of events in Ukraine. May be useful to remember that the start of the civil war was tied to civil demonstrations and protests against Assad's rule, and to the way these were suppressed. Painting Assad as a loved, benevolent leader is hardly accurate. If it wasn't for Russia's involvement, and USA hesitance, he would have been out of office. Not saying this would have necessarily worked out best for the Syrian people.

 

The country is not torn apart by "invasion", but is undergoing a civil war with foreign parties involves. Spin away. That you claim most opposition forces are not Syrian doesn't make it so.

 

There were past topics which addressed mechanics and issues involved with Syrian elections. It would take a whole lot of work and changes to have an agreed upon system in place, one which does not inherently favor Assad. And that is without addressing either the prevailing political climate and culture not being necessarily conductive to the finer points of democracy.

 

Both this reply above and the post it related to are attempting serious analysis which is a relief from the common mindless slagging that appears too often. Some facts may be wrong but it doesn't appear like a propaganda rant to me. Getting a democracy in Syria would be wonderful (See bold above) but I imagine electricity and uncontaminated water is more important to the ordinary Syrian. The record of the war criminals Bush and Blair trying to force democracy in the Middle East doesn't inspire most Arabs. There was not an actual Syrian invasion per se, fair point, and the majority of the "Rebels" were Syrian, but the western powers were assisting a proxy Sunni war, and to suggest that this was to help their allies (Masters?) Saudi Arabia and Israel seems not unlikely given the history.  There is a fair amount of, non Russian originating, information suggesting that Assad has very considerable support if not 70%. It has to be remembered that the Christians, Druze, and other minorities were not persecuted by Assad, but were attacked not only by ISIS, but by other western sponsored  Islamist  "Rebels" also. Their nearest Sunni neighbour Turkey committed genocide on the Armenian Christians. No prizes for guessing who the Syrian Christians would support.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Both this reply above and the post it related to are attempting serious analysis which is a relief from the common mindless slagging that appears too often. Some facts may be wrong but it doesn't appear like a propaganda rant to me. Getting a democracy in Syria would be wonderful (See bold above) but I imagine electricity and uncontaminated water is more important to the ordinary Syrian. The record of the war criminals Bush and Blair trying to force democracy in the Middle East doesn't inspire most Arabs. There was not an actual Syrian invasion per se, fair point, and the majority of the "Rebels" were Syrian, but the western powers were assisting a proxy Sunni war, and to suggest that this was to help their allies (Masters?) Saudi Arabia and Israel seems not unlikely given the history.  There is a fair amount of, non Russian originating, information suggesting that Assad has very considerable support if not 70%. It has to be remembered that the Christians, Druze, and other minorities were not persecuted by Assad, but were attacked not only by ISIS, but by other western sponsored  Islamist  "Rebels" also. Their nearest Sunni neighbour Turkey committed genocide on the Armenian Christians. No prizes for guessing who the Syrian Christians would support.

 

One of the common arguments pro-Assad posters tout is that he was democratically elected. Of course, democracy and related concepts may mean different things and be applied in varying measures. So it's not quite to the point blaming it all on "the West" (even without Bush and Blair not being around or directly related to the topic at hand). If one wishes to take it a step further, the whole concept of a nation state may not resonate all that well with regard to all of the Middle East.

 

Posters may go on and on about the West supporting this or that. Somehow, not that many issues with other players (Russia, Iran) supporting sides aligned with their interests. And that "masters" comment kinda gives the angle away.

 

As said, no doubt that Assad enjoys popular support. Whether this is as wide as the previous poster alleged, or even comes close to it, would be hard to demonstrate. Whether or not this implies non-conditional support, or is related to whichever alternatives are available or presented, is another question.

 

It should be remembered that making wholesale assertions regarding sectarian groups in Syrian and their relations with Assad's regime or the rebel/extreme Islamic groups, is probably going to be off-mark. Implying that all rebels were either ISIS or "western sponsored  Islamist", and using parentheses when discussing them gives the game away once more.

 

The Turkish genocide of the Armenians was a long time ago. Doubt it is relevant to the topic or a major consideration for Syrian Christians with regard to political support in Syria. Also, guess that there are at least some Christians among them 3 millions Syrian refugees in Turkey. As for "nearest Sunni neighbor" - guess Lebanese, Jordanian and Iraqi Sunnis would be somewhat surprised by your comment. So would even more millions of Syrian refugees.

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, retarius said:

The first Geneva round (or was it the second) issued the road map that  lead to free and fair UN supervised elections. The road map has not been changed since. It was specified that the Syrian people would determine their own fate in these elections. It was phrased this way to avoid having a pro-US leader foisted upon them, like happened in Ukraine......but also because Russia knows that Assad will win any elections held.....where do the people who escape the tyranny of ISIS in Aleppo or Raqqa flee? They flee to Assad's territory. Why would they do this is if they hated and feared him?

 

It is also phrased that way since there is no obligation for Assad to leave.....the Syrian people must decide whether he goes or stays which is right and proper. An opinion poll released about 18 months ago showed Assad with 70% support and viewed what our press call a civil war to be a foreign invasion (since most of the 'opposition are not Syrian, but mercenaries). Doubtless the methodology of doing such wartime market research is compromised and could be faulted, but the truth is Assad would not have survived this long without a good measure of popular support....an unpopular leader would have been deposed years back. We have, for once, to look past the geo-political squabbles and the wishes of Saudi, Israel and the US, and ask what is best for the Syrian people. Their country has been torn apart by this invasion.

 

I think a good compromise would be to have a primary....where many candidates including Assad could run.....then have a run-off with the top 3 candidates.

 

 

Pro US leader in Ukraine? More like pro EU and anti Russia. You always post this type of BS.

 

Jeez, where do you come up with this twisted logic? Assad is there due to support from Russia. Otherwise, the people would have done away with him just like the citizens of Libya did to that other brutal dictator.

 

You are so anti US and never criticize the other side. Gers boring and gives you zero credibility. Zip.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Both this reply above and the post it related to are attempting serious analysis which is a relief from the common mindless slagging that appears too often. Some facts may be wrong but it doesn't appear like a propaganda rant to me. Getting a democracy in Syria would be wonderful (See bold above) but I imagine electricity and uncontaminated water is more important to the ordinary Syrian. The record of the war criminals Bush and Blair trying to force democracy in the Middle East doesn't inspire most Arabs. There was not an actual Syrian invasion per se, fair point, and the majority of the "Rebels" were Syrian, but the western powers were assisting a proxy Sunni war, and to suggest that this was to help their allies (Masters?) Saudi Arabia and Israel seems not unlikely given the history.  There is a fair amount of, non Russian originating, information suggesting that Assad has very considerable support if not 70%. It has to be remembered that the Christians, Druze, and other minorities were not persecuted by Assad, but were attacked not only by ISIS, but by other western sponsored  Islamist  "Rebels" also. Their nearest Sunni neighbour Turkey committed genocide on the Armenian Christians. No prizes for guessing who the Syrian Christians would support.

Don't blame the West for Syria's problems. It's all Assads fault. Treat your citizens poorly and they'll eventually revolt. It was called the Arab Spring. And happened in those countries whose citizens were being oppressed.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Pro US leader in Ukraine? More like pro EU and anti Russia. You always post this type of BS.

 

Jeez, where do you come up with this twisted logic? Assad is there due to support from Russia. Otherwise, the people would have done away with him just like the citizens of Libya did to that other brutal dictator.

 

You are so anti US and never criticize the other side. Gers boring and gives you zero credibility. Zip.

The people who would have done away with him being Isis and the like.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The people who would have done away with him being Isis and the like.

The people who started the initial protests weren't ISIS. You know that. These were the citizens who wanted change. His civil war created a vacuum that allowed ISIS in. And he initially supported them.

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And Israel helped create Hamas. It's called blowback and it's one class of results under the rubric of "The Law of Unintended Consequences."

What's Israel and Hamas got to do with this?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts reported and removed.  

[Stargeezr]

Assad is a war criminal.  Period.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Assad is a war criminal.  Period.

He's got lots of company in the mideast.

[Nigel Garvie]

On 11/28/2017 at 8:46 AM, Morch said:

 

One of the common arguments pro-Assad posters tout is that he was democratically elected. Of course, democracy and related concepts may mean different things and be applied in varying measures. So it's not quite to the point blaming it all on "the West" (even without Bush and Blair not being around or directly related to the topic at hand). If one wishes to take it a step further, the whole concept of a nation state may not resonate all that well with regard to all of the Middle East.

 

Posters may go on and on about the West supporting this or that. Somehow, not that many issues with other players (Russia, Iran) supporting sides aligned with their interests. And that "masters" comment kinda gives the angle away.

 

As said, no doubt that Assad enjoys popular support. Whether this is as wide as the previous poster alleged, or even comes close to it, would be hard to demonstrate. Whether or not this implies non-conditional support, or is related to whichever alternatives are available or presented, is another question.

 

It should be remembered that making wholesale assertions regarding sectarian groups in Syrian and their relations with Assad's regime or the rebel/extreme Islamic groups, is probably going to be off-mark. Implying that all rebels were either ISIS or "western sponsored  Islamist", and using parentheses when discussing them gives the game away once more.

 

The Turkish genocide of the Armenians was a long time ago. Doubt it is relevant to the topic or a major consideration for Syrian Christians with regard to political support in Syria. Also, guess that there are at least some Christians among them 3 millions Syrian refugees in Turkey. As for "nearest Sunni neighbor" - guess Lebanese, Jordanian and Iraqi Sunnis would be somewhat surprised by your comment. So would even more millions of Syrian refugees.

OK I have re-read what I posted, and I can see that I took too broad a view and included references to injustices that were not directly related. 

 

I am not an Assad supporter, nor pro Assad. I do not blame the West for all the problems in the Middle East, I'm sure they could create enough problems for themselves without anybody's help. The articles that I read on this topic are not [email protected] and not [email protected] but rather, serious uk journalists with years of Middle East experience. 

 

However I think it is important to recognise the huge impact that the Sunni/Shia divide has in this conflict and also of course in Iraq. Almost all of the forces opposed to Assad are Sunnis, varying from the ISIS extreme to those the West liked to call moderates. There may have been a proportion of the original protesters who thought this was an innocent Arab Spring uprising, but apparently the Saudis had heavy weaponry in the hands of the opposition within 10 days. Certainly some of the rebel groups the West supported initially were not Islamist, but these group were progressively squeezed out by those who were.

Russia did not intervene directly for a long time, but naturally - along with the Iranians came to the aid of their ally, when they were beginning to falter. What else would anyone expect. 

 

There are no good guys here, it's all just a bloody mess. However imprisoning  Al Qada suspects with Sadam's top Bathhist military in Iraq jails is - from what I read - widely credited with contributing significantly to the creation of ISIS. Not a masterstroke to be sure.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

OK I have re-read what I posted, and I can see that I took too broad a view and included references to injustices that were not directly related. 

 

I am not an Assad supporter, nor pro Assad. I do not blame the West for all the problems in the Middle East, I'm sure they could create enough problems for themselves without anybody's help. The articles that I read on this topic are not [email protected] and not [email protected] but rather, serious uk journalists with years of Middle East experience. 

 

However I think it is important to recognise the huge impact that the Sunni/Shia divide has in this conflict and also of course in Iraq. Almost all of the forces opposed to Assad are Sunnis, varying from the ISIS extreme to those the West liked to call moderates. There may have been a proportion of the original protesters who thought this was an innocent Arab Spring uprising, but apparently the Saudis had heavy weaponry in the hands of the opposition within 10 days. Certainly some of the rebel groups the West supported initially were not Islamist, but these group were progressively squeezed out by those who were.

Russia did not intervene directly for a long time, but naturally - along with the Iranians came to the aid of their ally, when they were beginning to falter. What else would anyone expect. 

 

There are no good guys here, it's all just a bloody mess. However imprisoning  Al Qada suspects with Sadam's top Bathhist military in Iraq jails is - from what I read - widely credited with contributing significantly to the creation of ISIS. Not a masterstroke to be sure.

 

Try as you may, your position is coming through - there are no "moderates", the uprising was all contrived, all the groups supported by the West are now Islamist, Russia and Iran supporting Assad's regime is alright while others supporting opposing forces is not. As for your last comment, may want to read up about Assad's early dealings with Islamist terrorists in connection with the uprising.