Assad vows to recover all of Syria from ‘terrorist groups’

[webfact]

Assad vows to recover all of Syria from ‘terrorist groups’

Keith Walker

 

 

DAMASCUS: -- Hours before a US-Russian ceasefire deal was due to take effect, the Syrian president said the Syrian state was determined to recover all areas from terrorist groups.

 

Bashar al Assad was speaking during a visit to the Damascus suburb of Daraya, which was evacuated by rebels and returned to state control last month.

 

“By visiting this area [Daraya] we also deliver the message that the Syrian state is determined to recover every single area from those terrorists. We are determined to restore peace and security. We are committed to the reconstruction of infrastructures to rebuild all that has been destroyed at material and human levels,” said Assad.

 

Reuters news agency reported fighting between government troops and rebels on the eve of the truce.

 

The ceasefire will not apply to so-called Islamic State, or Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the group previously known as the Nusra Front.

 

Previous peace agreements have crumbled within weeks.

 

Moscow and Washington back opposite sides in the five-year conflict.

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-09-13

[canopus1969]

The problem being the main terrorist group is Assad and his cohorts  

[craigt3365]

Never happen.  The guys's a maniacal mass murderer.  He better hope Russia doesn't give up, or he's done for.

[coma]

Assad and his ally, Russia, are the only way forward to achieving peace in Syria. The west have tried and failed. The Wests' end state in Syria would be a replica of Iraq, Afghan, Libya etc etc.

Yes, there will be those who have to live under "Assad rules" [or leave for Europe] but life's a bitch for some minorities the world over. Not just Syrians.

[ddavidovsky]

Assad is growing on me. Sure, he suppresses his opponents, but who doesn't in that part of the world? Iron-fist stability is better than anarchy. He's protecting his kind and the system they have had going for some time now, and (key point) has the support of a large part of the Syrian population - the anti-Assad world media never tells us how large, but it surely includes the most affluent and educated part. From their point of view, groups of rag-tag rebels trying to overthrow the state are quite legitimately 'terrorists'.

 

The main consideration, however, is that whoever takes over next will just as brutally suppress their opponents - especially if it happens to be the rebels who take over. You can well imagine what carnage they would reap. Anyone who thinks the rebels will bring peace and stability to the country are seriously naive. Most likely, without Assad, the entire system would break down into bloody chaos like Iraq and Libya. At least now at least part of the country still works. He won't live forever in any case.

[craigt3365]

21 minutes ago, coma said:

Assad and his ally, Russia, are the only way forward to achieving peace in Syria. The west have tried and failed. The Wests' end state in Syria would be a replica of Iraq, Afghan, Libya etc etc.

Yes, there will be those who have to live under "Assad rules" [or leave for Europe] but life's a bitch for some minorities the world over. Not just Syrians.

How many years have they had to achieve peace now?  How many are dead?  How many are displaced?  Perhaps time for a change.  Definitely can't get any worse! LOL

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Assad is growing on me. Sure, he suppresses his opponents, but who doesn't in that part of the world? Iron-fist stability is better than anarchy. He's protecting his kind and the system they have had going for some time now, and (key point) has the support of a large part of the Syrian population - the anti-Assad world media never tells us how large, but it surely includes the most affluent and educated part. From their point of view, groups of rag-tag rebels trying to overthrow the state are quite legitimately 'terrorists'.

 

The main consideration, however, is that whoever takes over next will just as brutally suppress their opponents - especially if it happens to be the rebels who take over. You can well imagine what carnage they would reap. Anyone who thinks the rebels will bring peace and stability to the country are seriously naive. Most likely, without Assad, the entire system would break down into bloody chaos like Iraq and Libya. At least now at least part of the country still works. He won't live forever in any case.

But isn't that the problem?  Saying iron fist stability is better than anarchy?  But iron fist "stability" is what got us here.  How about good government that takes care of it's people.  like we have in the West.  No more iron fist dictators who kill their own people.

[simple1]

23 minutes ago, coma said:

Assad and his ally, Russia, are the only way forward to achieving peace in Syria. The west have tried and failed. The Wests' end state in Syria would be a replica of Iraq, Afghan, Libya etc etc.

Yes, there will be those who have to live under "Assad rules" [or leave for Europe] but life's a bitch for some minorities the world over. Not just Syrians.

 

Assad supporters prior to the outbreak of civil war  represented approx 20% of the Syrian population. Accordingly unless the Assad dictatorship undertakes a complete 'cleansing' of the Syrian Sunni majority & others  his regime will still be a minority dictatorship. Yes part of the country 'still works', but with massive corruption and ruthless suppression, including the torture of children.

 

G_d only knows what the future of Syria will look like as to date I've yet to read or hear of a coherent plan.

[ddavidovsky]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

But isn't that the problem?  Saying iron fist stability is better than anarchy?  But iron fist "stability" is what got us here.  How about good government that takes care of it's people.  like we have in the West.  No more iron fist dictators who kill their own people.

 

Nice sentiment, but the reality is that there are different factions competing with each other in Syria for limited resources. I don't see a solution except for iron-fist-order to be kept until the whole society eventually homogenises. However, as religion is involved, that may never happen and war may be the only means to sort it out, in which case why not hope for complete victory for Assad, which means he could then continue to rule without oppression.

 

Easy to forget, but the west went through centuries of war and upheaval to sort themselves out. That wasn't pretty at all.

 

 

[Rancid]

43 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

But isn't that the problem?  Saying iron fist stability is better than anarchy?  But iron fist "stability" is what got us here.  How about good government that takes care of it's people.  like we have in the West.  No more iron fist dictators who kill their own people.

Morally you are right, however can you think of any country in that region that had an iron fisted ruler removed and ended up better off then they were? Said leaders are the only ones that can keep the radicals in line, not pretty how they do it, but the alternate anarchy or radical Islam is much worse.

 

It is very expensive, except for the profiteers, costs western soldiers lives, and there is always a very high civilian toll that the media prefers not to mention. Actually arming so-called moderate Islamists is just a disaster waiting to happen, can't for the life of me see any good coming from it all.

 

As to Assad, never going to happen, his military can no longer control all Syrian territory, the genie is now out of the bottle. Russia will keep the area of its bases stable but doubtful they would ever commit ground troops to secure the rest.

[ddavidovsky]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

Assad supporters prior to the outbreak of civil war  represented approx 20% of the Syrian population. Accordingly unless the Assad dictatorship undertakes a complete 'cleansing' of the Syrian Sunni majority & others  his regime will still be a minority dictatorship. Yes part of the country 'still works', but with massive corruption and ruthless suppression, including the torture of children.

 

G_d only knows what the future of Syria will look like as to date I've yet to read or hear of a coherent plan.

 

I've seen other figures of 35% and 55%. Probably no one knows for sure and I certainly don't trust western media figures which are biased against Assad.

[williamgeorgeallen]

7 hours ago, canopus1969 said:

The problem being the main terrorist group is Assad and his cohorts  

people said the same about saddam and his sons, before they were killed off. some countries need a strong dictator to maintain peace. 

[bark]

7 hours ago, canopus1969 said:

The problem being the main terrorist group is Assad and his cohorts  

Someone needs to put a bullet into his head.

[Mosha]

Removing Saddam and Gadaffi worked so well. Fortunately the Egyptian military were smarter.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[coma]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Assad supporters prior to the outbreak of civil war  represented approx 20% of the Syrian population. Accordingly unless the Assad dictatorship undertakes a complete 'cleansing' of the Syrian Sunni majority & others  his regime will still be a minority dictatorship. Yes part of the country 'still works', but with massive corruption and ruthless suppression, including the torture of children.

 

G_d only knows what the future of Syria will look like as to date I've yet to read or hear of a coherent plan.

How doesn't "80%" of the population defeat the "20%" with their uprising ? Just doesn't add up.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, coma said:

Assad and his ally, Russia, are the only way forward to achieving peace in Syria. The west have tried and failed. The Wests' end state in Syria would be a replica of Iraq, Afghan, Libya etc etc.

Yes, there will be those who have to live under "Assad rules" [or leave for Europe] but life's a bitch for some minorities the world over. Not just Syrians.

 

Assad and the Alawites are the minority group.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Nice sentiment, but the reality is that there are different factions competing with each other in Syria for limited resources. I don't see a solution except for iron-fist-order to be kept until the whole society eventually homogenises. However, as religion is involved, that may never happen and war may be the only means to sort it out, in which case why not hope for complete victory for Assad, which means he could then continue to rule without oppression.

 

Easy to forget, but the west went through centuries of war and upheaval to sort themselves out. That wasn't pretty at all.

 

 

 

Does "complete victory" stand for eradicating anyone not siding with him? And as for "continue" to "rule without oppression", the Assad regime was always oppressive.

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, coma said:

How doesn't "80%" of the population defeat the "20%" with their uprising ? Just doesn't add up.

 

Not all of the populace is involved. Most armed forces, to begin with, were under Assad's control.

The lines of division, with regard to loyalty, do not always strictly follow religious or ethnic denominations.

And without Iran's and Russia's aid, Assad would have been toast by now.

[coma]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

And without Iran's and Russia's aid, Assad would have been toast by now.

 

Without the US and her cronies getting involved in yet ANOTHER Middle Eastern conflict, Assad would have put down the terrorist uprising well before the Russian intervention. And have saved the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousand of Syrians.

[ddavidovsky]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Does "complete victory" stand for eradicating anyone not siding with him? And as for "continue" to "rule without oppression", the Assad regime was always oppressive.

 

The rebels could surrender and promise to live in harmony in future. They have that choice and I certainly recommend it because there's no sign they can win the military campaign. Their reckless civil war has inflicted years of suffering on their own people far worse than Assad caused. However, pride will no doubt force them to fight to the death.

 

Seems that people don't understand: Assad has been oppressive because there's a faction in the country that wants to destroy him and his kind. His oppression, from that perspective, is simply self-preservation. You can be sure that if the other side were in power, then it would be the Alawites that were oppressed.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, coma said:

 

Without the US and her cronies getting involved in yet ANOTHER Middle Eastern conflict, Assad would have put down the terrorist uprising well before the Russian intervention. And have saved the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousand of Syrians.

 

He would have saved it by killing off quite a few Syrians, though.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

The rebels could surrender and promise to live in harmony in future. They have that choice and I certainly recommend it because there's no sign they can win the military campaign. Their reckless civil war has inflicted years of suffering on their own people far worse than Assad caused. However, pride will no doubt force them to fight to the death.

 

Seems that people don't understand: Assad has been oppressive because there's a faction in the country that wants to destroy him and his kind. His oppression, from that perspective, is simply self-preservation. You can be sure that if the other side were in power, then it would be the Alawites that were oppressed.

 

Somehow doubt there's much trust in Assad's goodwill a minute after the World turns its attention elsewhere.

 

Assad (and his dad), were oppressing their population for decades. A bit of a chicken and egg thing with regard to that. And yes, it is the Middle East, so anyone in power is pretty much going to take advantage, often brutally so. Might be a correct observation, but doesn't exactly set Assad on any higher moral ground.

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Rancid said:

Morally you are right, however can you think of any country in that region that had an iron fisted ruler removed and ended up better off then they were? Said leaders are the only ones that can keep the radicals in line, not pretty how they do it, but the alternate anarchy or radical Islam is much worse.

 

It is very expensive, except for the profiteers, costs western soldiers lives, and there is always a very high civilian toll that the media prefers not to mention. Actually arming so-called moderate Islamists is just a disaster waiting to happen, can't for the life of me see any good coming from it all.

 

As to Assad, never going to happen, his military can no longer control all Syrian territory, the genie is now out of the bottle. Russia will keep the area of its bases stable but doubtful they would ever commit ground troops to secure the rest.

Jordan has done quite well.  Let's not go down the route of letting maniacal dictators rule.  It's just not the right way to go.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Mosha said:

Removing Saddam and Gadaffi worked so well. Fortunately the Egyptian military were smarter.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk
 

And that hasn't worked out either.

[craigt3365]

35 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

The rebels could surrender and promise to live in harmony in future. They have that choice and I certainly recommend it because there's no sign they can win the military campaign. Their reckless civil war has inflicted years of suffering on their own people far worse than Assad caused. However, pride will no doubt force them to fight to the death.

 

Seems that people don't understand: Assad has been oppressive because there's a faction in the country that wants to destroy him and his kind. His oppression, from that perspective, is simply self-preservation. You can be sure that if the other side were in power, then it would be the Alawites that were oppressed.

Remember what started this.  A brutal crackdown by Assad.  It started with him.  Not the rebels.

[ddavidovsky]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Remember what started this.  A brutal crackdown by Assad.  It started with him.  Not the rebels.

 

I'm no expert on Syrian history (I'm mainly interested in the sociology), but a simple enquiry reveals that what started the hostilities was an opportunistic uprising by the rebels on the back of the Arab Spring movement. They basically threatened to bring down the state. Assad's crackdown was in response to that and was probably deemed necessary for the survival of the nation. I trust those rebels even less than I trust Assad, so maybe it was.

 

Wasn't there also the issue of climate change and water security that had caused mass migration of people from desert areas into the cities where they formed displaced and disaffected pockets of rebellion?

 

Anyway, after that it was the rebels who escalated it, quite recklessly. And I'm equally sure that Assad is a hero to his supporters (an untold number of them) for resisting the attempt to overthrow their system.

[coma]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

He would have saved it by killing off quite a few Syrians, though.

 

Yes. Quite a few.

[coma]

45 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Remember what started this.  A brutal crackdown by Assad.  It started with him.  Not the rebels.

 

 

I believe the "crackdown" was in fact triggered by criminal and terrorist groups attempting to take advantage of misinformed, uneducated and naive everyday Syrians on the back of the Arab Spring. Any leader, any government of any country in the world, would act in the same manner to maintain internal security and overall sovereignty. Failure to do so in this instance, by Assad, would have surely seen an end to Syria as a sovereign country. Instead being splintered up into different pockets and regions, each governed by their own terrorists / criminals groups and warlords. The perfect environment for international terrorists to breed,train and prepare to further their Jihad against the "infidels". Something that the West is always on about trying to exterminate.

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, coma said:

I believe the "crackdown" was in fact triggered by criminal and terrorist groups attempting to take advantage of misinformed, uneducated and naive everyday Syrians on the back of the Arab Spring. Any leader, any government of any country in the world, would act in the same manner to maintain internal security and overall sovereignty. Failure to do so in this instance, by Assad, would have surely seen an end to Syria as a sovereign country. Instead being splintered up into different pockets and regions, each governed by their own terrorists / criminals groups and warlords. The perfect environment for international terrorists to breed,train and prepare to further their Jihad against the "infidels". Something that the West is always on about trying to exterminate.

It's been brewing for a long time.  Even Assad's father was responsible for brutal crackdowns.  This shows there's been problems with Islamist uprisings for a long time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_uprising_in_Syria

 

And how Syria dealt with them.  Similar to how they are dealing with things now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre

 

Quote

 

The Hama massacre (Arabic: مجزرة حماة‎‎) occurred in February 1982, when the Syrian Arab Army and the Defense Companies, under the orders of the country's president Hafez al-Assad, besieged the town of Hama for 27 days in order to quell an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood against al-Assad's government.^[2][3] The massacre, carried out by the Syrian Army under commanding General Rifaat al-Assad, effectively ended the campaign begun in 1976 by Sunni Muslim groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, against the government.

..............

Initial diplomatic reports from western governments in 1982 had stated that 1000 were killed in the fighting.^[5][6] Subsequent estimates of casualties varied from 7,000 to 40,000 people killed, including about 1,000 soldiers. Robert Fisk, who was in Hama shortly after the massacre, originally estimated fatalities at 10,000, but has since doubled the estimate to 20,000.^[2][19][20] The president's brother Rifaat reportedly boasted of killing 38,000 people.^[21] Amnesty International initially estimated the death toll was between 10,000 and 25,000.^[7]

Reports by Syrian Human Rights Committee claimed "over 25,000"^[22] or between 30,000 and 40,000 people were killed.^[4] The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood also suggested a figure of approximately 40,000 victims.^{[citation needed]}

 

 

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

I'm no expert on Syrian history (I'm mainly interested in the sociology), but a simple enquiry reveals that what started the hostilities was an opportunistic uprising by the rebels on the back of the Arab Spring movement. They basically threatened to bring down the state. Assad's crackdown was in response to that and was probably deemed necessary for the survival of the nation. I trust those rebels even less than I trust Assad, so maybe it was.

 

Wasn't there also the issue of climate change and water security that had caused mass migration of people from desert areas into the cities where they formed displaced and disaffected pockets of rebellion?

 

Anyway, after that it was the rebels who escalated it, quite recklessly. And I'm equally sure that Assad is a hero to his supporters (an untold number of them) for resisting the attempt to overthrow their system.

From what I've read, it did start out as protests against a brutal dictator.  The protesters wanted freedom of speech, democracy, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War
 

Quote

 

The civil uprising prior to the Syrian Civil War was an early stage of protests – with subsequent violent reaction by the Syrian state – lasting from March to 28 July 2011. The uprising, initially demanding democratic reforms, evolved from initially minor protests, beginning as early as January 2011.

 

The uprising was marked by massive anti-government opposition demonstrations against the Ba'athist government of Bashar al-Assad, meeting with police and military violence, massive arrests and brutal crackdown, resulting in hundreds of casualties and thousands of wounded.

 

 

But here was the spark:

Quote

Major unrest began on 15 March in Damascus and Aleppo, yet in the southern city of Daraa, sometimes called the "Cradle of the Revolution",^[22] protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city,^[23][24][25] reading: "الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام" – ("The people want the fall of the regime") – a trademark slogan of the Arab Spring.^[26]

Writing graffiti is hardly considered violent.  Assad's crackdown was brutal, and the statistics of deaths to date prove it.