Syria says it seized nearly 75 percent of eastern Aleppo

[manarak]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

One of the reasons for Assad's unpopularity in the region is that he doesn't necessarily get rid of terrorists.   He harbors them as long as the mayhem they cause is outside of his country.  

 

yeah, he stores them for further use ;-)

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, manarak said:

 

well, secular Syrians describing what everyday life under Assad was like disagree with you. You should read up on the subject.

Start at the UNHCR:

http://unhcr.org.au/news/syria-my-life-before-the-war/

 

Another question:

have you ever been in countries with dictatorial regimes said to be "hard" on their people?

If you knew where I traveled, you'd know the answer to the last question.  YES!  Many.  Cuba being one of the worst.  Terrible how they treated their people.  Turkmenistan wasn't too good.  Life in these countries is great if you are one of the select few.  Terrible if you are not. 

 

I think there are some 10,000 to 40,000 Syrian civilians who might disagree life was good under the Assad's rule.

 

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 countries stated that 1,000 were killed.^[5][6] Subsequent estimates vary, with the lower estimates claiming that at least 10,000 Syrian citizens were killed,^[1] while others put the number at 20,000 (Robert Fisk),^[2] or 40,000 (Syrian Human Rights Committee).^[3][4] About 1,000 Syrian soldiers were killed during the operation and large parts of the old city were destroyed. The attack has been described as one of "the single deadliest acts by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East".^[7] According to Syrian opposition, the vast majority of the victims were civilians.^[8]

 

 

Syria doesn't have a good track record with regards to human rights.

 

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

Quote

 

The situation for human rights in Syria is considered exceptionally poor among international observers.^[1][2] A state of emergency was in effect from 1963 until April 2011, giving security forces sweeping powers of arrest and detention.^[2]

 

From 1973–2012, Syria was a single-party state. The authorities have been accused of harassing and imprisoning human rights activists and other critics of the government.^[3]Freedom of expression, association, and assembly are strictly controlled.^[2][3] Women and ethnic minorities face discrimination.^[2][3] According to Human Rights Watch, President Bashar al-Assad failed to improve Syria’s human rights record in the first 10 years of his rule,^[4] and Syria's human rights situation remained among the worst in the world.^[5] According to Amnesty International, the government may be guilty of crimes against humanity based on "witness accounts of deaths in custody, ^[6][7] torture and arbitrary detention," during the crackdown against the 2011

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, manarak said:

 

yeah, he stores them for further use ;-)

Great leader.  Working with terrorists to wreak havoc on other countries.  The would be better off without "leaders" like this.

[simple1]

Somewhat out of date, but an interesting analysis...

 

The Syrian revolt did not start out as a sectarian conflict. It began as a fight between the regime and the people of Syria—of all backgrounds—who were oppressed by the state. Now it's a proxy battle to control the heart of the Middle East. It is not a religious conflict. There is no single Alawite position on the war. There is no united Sunni Muslim front. Yet the myth of an Alawite regime remains powerful: it makes the violence seem inevitable, it allows the lives and hopes of real Syrians to recede into the distance, and it makes the notion of a peaceful transition appear farfetched and dreamy.

 

http://bostonreview.net/blog/dangerous-illusion-alawite-regime

[manarak]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Great leader.  Working with terrorists to wreak havoc on other countries.  The would be better off without "leaders" like this.

there wouldn't be many left...

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, manarak said:

there wouldn't be many left...

True, but this topic is about Syria....

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, Scott said:

One of the reasons for Assad's unpopularity in the region is that he doesn't necessarily get rid of terrorists.   He harbors them as long as the mayhem they cause is outside of his country.  

Interesting article on how democracies fall.  Worth a read:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-12-05/how-democracies-fall-apart?cid=nlc-twofa-20161208&sp_mid=52950027&sp_rid=Y3JhaWd0MzM2NUB5YWhvby5jb20S1&spMailingID=52950027&spUserID=MjE3MDk0NDUwMzY3S0&spJobID=1061608153&spReportId=MTA2MTYwODE1MwS2

 

Quote

 

How Democracies Fall Apart

Why Populism Is a Pathway to Autocracy

 

 

[Morch]

On 12/9/2016 at 10:16 PM, manarak said:

 

yes, we agree Morch.

 

no, I don't mean Kurd forces, I mean the mythical ghost of the Free Syrian Army that fronts in the media for its islamist allies.

 

The Kurds are just an additional player, a thorn in prick-Erdogan's side and the only reason Turkey's forces are involved - Turkey wants to prevent the formation of an independent Kurd territory in northern Syria.   Democracy can't work in a country where support for islamists is so deep rooted.  organize free elections and the muslim brotherhood will win - that result would not have been a progress over Assad's dictature.

Although oppressive, often brutal against political activists and corrupt, the regime nevertheless maintained peace and freedom of religion and did some things to improve the well being of its citizens, such as hospitals, universites, schools, etc.

 

the every day reality in such regimes is that persons who don't get involved in politics are unlikely to run into problems.  yes, there was oppression and discontent, but not as much among the secular population as the US-trained activists had hoped for. After the incident with the imprisoned youth, their first online calls for organizing large scale protests remained without effect.  Then, they got more aggressive and called for a bloody sunday or something similar. At that point, the islamist opposition (muslim brotherhood) joined in - whether they were called upon the US-controlled activists for fear of failing to ignite Syria or whether the islamists smelled an opportunity to seize power remains to be seen.  But from that point on, Syria's "democratic forces" were doomed to fail, and that was very early.

 

what would your solution be for a post-Assad Syria ? to install a "dictature of democracy" ?

 

because that is the kind of regime we currently have in Afghanistan and Irak - people there would probably rush to vote in islamists if given the chance, but we feel of course better because the regimes there are remote-controlled by Washington.

 

The problems there are far from being resolved, and if US support is removed, they will quickly fall into civil war, or not even civil war because islamists would take control right away (in Afghanistan).

 

But Syria is very different from Irak or Afghanistan: there are no Western ground troops involved, so I don't really see who could install a democratic regime - do you?

 

I think many people fail to differentiate between the FSA and SDF (not to mention other organizations and splinter groups). This often accounts for statements regarding who the US supports (and how), and who are the "rebels" in any given instance. I think even the US got trouble keeping tabs on who's who and which play nice with others. This relates to the Kurds as well.

 

Turkey is involved not just because of the Kurds, even if it is a major factor. There are also ethnic Turks in northern Syria, and Erdogan is usually up for anything Making Turkey Great Again - be it it bashing Kurdish hopes, getting some extra territory and influence, future oil and gas supplies or simply broadcasting that he's a factor to be reckoned with.

 

Syria was never the paradise some now try to paint it as. Not hell, for most, too. I'm not in the opinion that things went off entirely on their own, or that it's just a people wanting democracy movement. Some level of foreign involvement - probably. Saying all of it was contrived, doubtful. Hard to motivate people on such a scale without something grounded in reality.

 

And I'm also not expecting Syria to emerge as a democratic success story, no matter who wins. For that matter, I don't think there will be much of a conclusive all encompassing victory anyhow. So parts of the country can certainly expect a measure of ongoing anarchy. Instant democracy is probably not going to work out any better than in other places. That said, a facade of democracy can be put in place, even under strongman rule. The problem with Assad is that his leadership will always be in question after the civil war and the horrific cost to Syria. Perhaps a somewhat more moderate replacement, with less baggage and some democratic props would be a better choice.

[manarak]

18 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

If you knew where I traveled, you'd know the answer to the last question.  YES!  Many.  Cuba being one of the worst.  Terrible how they treated their people.  Turkmenistan wasn't too good.  Life in these countries is great if you are one of the select few.  Terrible if you are not. 

 

I think there are some 10,000 to 40,000 Syrian civilians who might disagree life was good under the Assad's rule.

 

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

 

Syria doesn't have a good track record with regards to human rights.

 

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

 

all undisputed facts - I don't try to defend Assad or to say Syria was paradise on earth before the uprising, I'm trying to set the record straight that it was far from being what some people say it was, i.e. the violent hellhole where normal citizens died every day under torture or in arbitrary executions.

Syria was a calm country where many people were poor and oppressed by corrupt government structures, yes, and where the government struggled to maintain power against diverse enemies, among which Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey and most importantly, the USA.

I wonder what it is like to govern a country that is on the USA's shitlist. I expect international relations to be quite tricky.

 

Regarding the "Hama massacre", I think it was really more of a "battle of Hama".

Hama was an armed rebellion of islamists in which 1000 government soldiers and estimated 25000 "civilians" were killed, it could really have been the beginning of a civil war and the beginning of ISIS had it not been squished.

Of course this was a horrific episode of history, yet I don't see it as an all black / all white evil act of the Assads (the father was in power at the time), and I really don't care much about what 25.000 islamist insurgents think.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, manarak said:

 

all undisputed facts - I don't try to defend Assad or to say Syria was paradise on earth before the uprising, I'm trying to set the record straight that it was far from being what some people say it was, i.e. the violent hellhole where normal citizens died every day under torture or in arbitrary executions.

Syria was a calm country where many people were poor and oppressed by corrupt government structures, yes, and where the government struggled to maintain power against diverse enemies, among which Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey and most importantly, the USA.

I wonder what it is like to govern a country that is on the USA's shitlist. I expect international relations to be quite tricky.

 

Regarding the "Hama massacre", I think it was really more of a "battle of Hama".

Hama was an armed rebellion of islamists in which 1000 government soldiers and estimated 25000 "civilians" were killed, it could really have been the beginning of a civil war and the beginning of ISIS had it not been squished.

Of course this was a horrific episode of history, yet I don't see it as an all black / all white evil act of the Assads (the father was in power at the time), and I really don't care much about what 25.000 islamist insurgents think.

Syria was on the USA's shitlist for good reasons.  Notice how Assad was involved with Al Qaeda many years ago?  Allowing them to stay in Syria?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria–United_States_relations#Terrorism

Quote

Syria is considered to be a secular dictatorship with a poor human rights record.^[7] Syria has been on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism since the list's inception in 1979 and deems it to be a “safe-haven” for terrorists. Syria rejects its classification by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism. However, in a 1986 interview on CNN, former US Secretary of State Alexander Haig, when asked which country he regarded as the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, answered "unquestionably Syria." Also in 1986, the U.S. withdrew its ambassador and imposed additional administrative sanctions on Syria in response to evidence of direct Syrian involvement in an attempt to blow up an Israeli airplane. A U.S. ambassador returned to Damascus in 1987, partially in response to positive Syrian actions against terrorism such as expelling the Abu Nidal Organization from Syria and helping free an American hostage earlier that year.

.......

Iraqi foreign fighters

The U.S. has also blamed Syria for the movement of foreign Al Qaeda affiliates into Iraq.^[8] The movement of these foreign fighters peaked between 2005 and 2007; however, Syria attempted to decrease such movement through increased monitoring of borders, and improved screening practices of those crossing the border. Since 2009 the Syrian government has indicated willingness to increase border security cooperation between Iraqi and U.S. forces.

 

Hard to justify killing 25,000 innocent civilians over some internal terrorists.  Would your country do that?  It didn't become a civil war because of the brutal response by Assad.  Impossible to defend these types of actions.  Which are the same type being used today.  Bomb the entire area into submission.  Heck with the innocents.

 

Impossible to justify an estimate of 470,000 people killed because a few people started a protest against a government.  Insane.

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

Quote

Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 301,781^[1] and 470,000.^[2] On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.^[3]

 

Assad will hopefully stand trial for these crimes against humanity.

[Morch]

On 12/11/2016 at 1:44 AM, manarak said:

 

all undisputed facts - I don't try to defend Assad or to say Syria was paradise on earth before the uprising, I'm trying to set the record straight that it was far from being what some people say it was, i.e. the violent hellhole where normal citizens died every day under torture or in arbitrary executions.

Syria was a calm country where many people were poor and oppressed by corrupt government structures, yes, and where the government struggled to maintain power against diverse enemies, among which Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey and most importantly, the USA.

I wonder what it is like to govern a country that is on the USA's shitlist. I expect international relations to be quite tricky.

 

Regarding the "Hama massacre", I think it was really more of a "battle of Hama".

Hama was an armed rebellion of islamists in which 1000 government soldiers and estimated 25000 "civilians" were killed, it could really have been the beginning of a civil war and the beginning of ISIS had it not been squished.

Of course this was a horrific episode of history, yet I don't see it as an all black / all white evil act of the Assads (the father was in power at the time), and I really don't care much about what 25.000 islamist insurgents think.

 

Part of Syria's isolated position is because of the way it acts or perceived in the ME and the Arab world. I think Scott posted several times on this, pretty much spot on. Saudi Arabia was not always as hostile to Syria, the current situation is more of an instance of an ongoing proxy war with Iran. Turkey? Erdogan and Assad Jr. were BFF just a few years ago - the rift is both due to Erdogan's personality issues and to the ever-changing politics of the ME. Syria wasn't a bad thing for Turkey, as it had a similarly had no interest in Kurdish independence. Israel and Syria are antagonistic to each other, but Israeli influence on Syrian politics and foreign relations is marginal.

 

Regarding the aforementioned massacre. That's a classic post fact account. First lending it legitimacy by calling it a battle. Then asserting all those killed were Islamists, and casting further doubt by using "civilians". Linking it to present day ISIS for an extra touch of threat, and the "inevitable" conclusion - which wasn't at any time supported. Well done. The new normal.

 

[surangw]

so now they are in charge of the rubble ?

[manarak]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

Regarding the aforementioned massacre. That's a classic post fact account. First lending it legitimacy by calling it a battle. Then asserting all those killed were Islamists, and casting further doubt by using "civilians". Linking it to present day ISIS for an extra touch of threat, and the "inevitable" conclusion - which wasn't at any time supported. Well done. The new normal.

 

pff.

firstly, 1000 dead soldiers and you wouldn't call it a battle?

 

secondly, I don't know how many exactly of those killed were islamists. Certainly not all, as there were certainly people unable to heed the government's call to all civilians to leave the city prior to the assault, and there certainly were collateral casualties.

In general I dislike the word "all" and others of the same vein because they are usually used by dimwits or demagogues using rhetorics instead of arguments to prove their point.

In fact, most arguments containing the words : all,everyone, nobody, none, always, never, etc.  are fallacies except when regarding mathematics or verifyable facts.

 

Thirdly, the uprising was organized by the Muslim Brotherhood, an islamist guerillia and terrorist organization which . I have no doubt that if they had not been obliterated in Hama, they would have started a civil war and also established an islamist form of government. Comparing that perspective to ISIS is just clarifying what very probably would have happened.

 

Again, I don't understand why some people like to concentrate solely on Assad's crimes and completely ignore other important factors in Syria and what his enemies did and are doing.

 

Quote

The town of Hama in particular was a "stronghold of landed conservatism and of the Muslim Brothers," and "had long been a redoubtable opponent of the Ba'athist state."^[10] The first full-scale clash between the two occurred shortly after the 1963 coup, in which the Ba'ath party first gained power in Syria. In April 1964 riots broke out in Hama, where Muslim insurgents put up "roadblocks, stockpiled food and weapons, ransacked wine shops." After an Ismaili Ba'ath militiaman was killed, riots intensified and rebels attacked "every vestige" of the Ba'ath party in Hama. Tanks were brought in to crush the rebellion and 70 members of the Muslim Brotherhood died, with many others wounded or captured, and still more disappearing underground.

After the clashes in Hama, the situation periodically erupted into clashes between the government and various Islamic sections. However a more serious challenge occurred after the Syrian invasion of Lebanon in 1976. From 1976 to 1982, Sunni Islamists fought the Ba'ath Party-controlled government of Syria in what has been called a "long campaign of terror".^[12] In 1979 the Brotherhood undertook guerrilla activities in multiple cities within the country targeting military officers and government officials. The resulting government repression included abusive tactics, torture, mass arrests, and a number of massacres

 

...

 

what I would be interested in, is knowing how you would react in the face of an islamist rebellion of such scale ?

 

don't say deploy police or improve schools - the rebels have war weapons and are using them and the children visit coranic schools.

 

so... what would YOU do ?

[ddavidovsky]

On 10/12/2016 at 7:38 AM, simple1 said:

Somewhat out of date, but an interesting analysis...

 

The Syrian revolt did not start out as a sectarian conflict. It began as a fight between the regime and the people of Syria—of all backgrounds—who were oppressed by the state. Now it's a proxy battle to control the heart of the Middle East. It is not a religious conflict. There is no single Alawite position on the war. There is no united Sunni Muslim front. Yet the myth of an Alawite regime remains powerful: it makes the violence seem inevitable, it allows the lives and hopes of real Syrians to recede into the distance, and it makes the notion of a peaceful transition appear farfetched and dreamy.

 

http://bostonreview.net/blog/dangerous-illusion-alawite-regime

 

The article is transparent anti-Assad propaganda and therefore unconvincing on all points. The author is terrified to acknowledge the truth of the matter because that would imply a situation in which Assad actually has some legitimacy.

No one is saying things are entirely clear-cut, but clearly the conflict is basically sectarian.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

The article is transparent anti-Assad propaganda and therefore unconvincing on all points. The author is terrified to acknowledge the truth of the matter because that would imply a situation in which Assad actually has some legitimacy.

No one is saying things are entirely clear-cut, but clearly the conflict is basically sectarian.

 

Pray tell what in your opinion is unconvincing. Sure the civil war is includes sectarian factors, but some Sunnis and others are fighting with the Assad forces. However, IMO now more accurate to define as a combination of realpolitik and a regional proxie war

Edited December 12, 2016 by simple1

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, manarak said:

 

pff.

firstly, 1000 dead soldiers and you wouldn't call it a battle?

 

secondly, I don't know how many exactly of those killed were islamists. Certainly not all, as there were certainly people unable to heed the government's call to all civilians to leave the city prior to the assault, and there certainly were collateral casualties.

In general I dislike the word "all" and others of the same vein because they are usually used by dimwits or demagogues using rhetorics instead of arguments to prove their point.

In fact, most arguments containing the words : all,everyone, nobody, none, always, never, etc.  are fallacies except when regarding mathematics or verifyable facts.

 

Thirdly, the uprising was organized by the Muslim Brotherhood, an islamist guerillia and terrorist organization which . I have no doubt that if they had not been obliterated in Hama, they would have started a civil war and also established an islamist form of government. Comparing that perspective to ISIS is just clarifying what very probably would have happened.

 

Again, I don't understand why some people like to concentrate solely on Assad's crimes and completely ignore other important factors in Syria and what his enemies did and are doing.

 

 

...

 

what I would be interested in, is knowing how you would react in the face of an islamist rebellion of such scale ?

 

don't say deploy police or improve schools - the rebels have war weapons and are using them and the children visit coranic schools.

 

so... what would YOU do ?

The Islamist rebellion has occurred due to the actions of those in charge.  Restricting freedoms, draconian police, few opportunities for employment, etc.  It started a long time ago and there are no easy answers to fix it.  A lot of the basic problems are due to the West, and started a long time ago when lines were drawn in the sand.

 

I like this one liner.  Kinda sums it up from a local's perspective:

https://twitter.com/KarlreMarks/status/671689425739456512/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

[ddavidovsky]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Pray tell what in your opinion is unconvincing. Sure the civil war is includes sectarian factors, but some Sunnis and others are fighting with the Assad forces. However, IMO now more accurate to define as a combination of realpolitik and a regional proxie war

 

What was unconvincing was that the author's motive was transparent. And the fact no verifiable evidence or statistics were provided, for example, in the assertion that some Alawites don't support Assad - easy to say without providing any evidence.

 

And in any case, if there are some, that doesn't disprove that the conflict is basically sectarian. Nor if there are some Sunnis who support Assad - obviously those Sunnis who had done well under the regime would support it when their own livelihoods are at stake.

 

What I see is most people haves dug themselves into a visceral hatred of Assad (because he is 'brutal') and in throwing every meaningless argument to the cause have lost sight of what this is really about. It has become more complex with the involvement of other parties, but the root cause is prosaic.

 

My final observation (because I am always content to state my position then provide just one rejoinder/clarification, rather than bang on and on) is that some people are basing their opinions on the idea that the disparate and artificial amalgam known as Syria is somehow a utopia waiting to happen, that without nasty old Assad it would be prosperous, progressive, stable and harmonious, a beacon of civilisation and role model for humanity. How naive.

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

What was unconvincing was that the author's motive was transparent. And the fact no verifiable evidence or statistics were provided, for example, in the assertion that some Alawites don't support Assad - easy to say without providing any evidence.

 

And in any case, if there are some, that doesn't disprove that the conflict is basically sectarian. Nor if there are some Sunnis who support Assad - obviously those Sunnis who had done well under the regime would support it when their own livelihoods are at stake.

 

What I see is most people haves dug themselves into a visceral hatred of Assad (because he is 'brutal') and in throwing every meaningless argument to the cause have lost sight of what this is really about. It has become more complex with the involvement of other parties, but the root cause is prosaic.

 

My final observation (because I am always content to state my position then provide just one rejoinder/clarification, rather than bang on and on) is that some people are basing their opinions on the idea that the disparate and artificial amalgam known as Syria is somehow a utopia waiting to happen, that without nasty old Assad it would be prosperous, progressive, stable and harmonious, a beacon of civilisation and role model for humanity. How naive.

The conflict has become sectarian with the involvement of Saudi Arabia and Iran/Hezbollah.  It started out as a civil war by a population fed up with their leader.  And yes, it's extremely complex.

 

I don't think any here think Syria is a utopia waiting to happen.  Quite the opposite.  But it will never clam down until Assad is gone.  Just too much internal hatred towards him.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

What was unconvincing was that the author's motive was transparent. And the fact no verifiable evidence or statistics were provided, for example, in the assertion that some Alawites don't support Assad - easy to say without providing any evidence.

 

And in any case, if there are some, that doesn't disprove that the conflict is basically sectarian. Nor if there are some Sunnis who support Assad - obviously those Sunnis who had done well under the regime would support it when their own livelihoods are at stake.

 

What I see is most people haves dug themselves into a visceral hatred of Assad (because he is 'brutal') and in throwing every meaningless argument to the cause have lost sight of what this is really about. It has become more complex with the involvement of other parties, but the root cause is prosaic.

 

My final observation (because I am always content to state my position then provide just one rejoinder/clarification, rather than bang on and on) is that some people are basing their opinions on the idea that the disparate and artificial amalgam known as Syria is somehow a utopia waiting to happen, that without nasty old Assad it would be prosperous, progressive, stable and harmonious, a beacon of civilisation and role model for humanity. How naive.

 

You only have to research reports on the level of discontent with Assad with his forcible conscription, death rates, very poor conditions and desertions of Alawites within his armed forces, though with some recent successes you could assume a degree of turnaround in attitude. At the same time his supposed supporters are returning to devastated villages, towns etc with presumably many years to rebuild jobs, infrastructure such as water & power and so on. Given Assad's deep levels of brutality prior to, during the initial protests and ongoing, with the tribal structure of Arab society severely doubt Assad will ever be 'secure' All this info is easily accessible so how you reach the conclusion there is insufficient info is beyond me.

Regards your last sentence don't recall anyone making such a claim, quite the contrary, perhaps you can point to the relevant source?

 

As Assad's regime only represents approx 20%+ of the Syrian population he is going to have an enormous challenge to stabilise Syria should his forces and allies bring an end to the conflict. If I were Syrian & the bastards in his security forces tortured, sexually abused or murdered members of my family I would never reach peace with his dictatorship, but that's just me...(apologies to Morch)

Edited December 13, 2016 by simple1

[manarak]

14 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The Islamist rebellion has occurred due to the actions of those in charge.  Restricting freedoms, draconian police, few opportunities for employment, etc.

 

I think that is a simplistic way to put it. It can be safely assumed that a fair share of the restrictions and repression occured because of the violent and *undemocratic* opposition's attempts to grab power by fomenting rebellion and crime.
 

You talk about lines in the sand, I say let's not forget the time Syria spent under French administration saw the development on one hand of a secular society in Syria which rejects religious rule and on the other hand of the affirmation of the right to religious diversity, with ALL religions except Sunni Islam rejecting an islamic state.

 

Again, what do you think the government could have done differently to contain the islamists?

The government inherits a situation and has to manage it.

In all countries that have to fight on a large scale against islamist extremism, the police is draconian and the citizens are oppressed.

 

It is easy to criticize and denounce the Syrian regime's crimes (which are real and undeniable), but without a better way to handle things I don't see why we should demonize Assad more than he deserves.

 

All your posts are one-sided against Assad and you don't mention the crimes of the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies, of Al-nusra, etc. and what project they have for Syria (and its secular community, and its other religions) if Assad was to give up power.

 

It is also ludicrous to expect the violence will stop if Assad leaves. Once Assad is gone, the government will probably collapse, but Syria's factions will remain, and nearly all of them will fight the islamists.

 

 

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, manarak said:

 

I think that is a simplistic way to put it. It can be safely assumed that a fair share of the restrictions and repression occured because of the violent and *undemocratic* opposition's attempts to grab power by fomenting rebellion and crime.
 

You talk about lines in the sand, I say let's not forget the time Syria spent under French administration saw the development on one hand of a secular society in Syria which rejects religious rule and on the other hand of the affirmation of the right to religious diversity, with ALL religions except Sunni Islam rejecting an islamic state.

 

Again, what do you think the government could have done differently to contain the islamists?

The government inherits a situation and has to manage it.

In all countries that have to fight on a large scale against islamist extremism, the police is draconian and the citizens are oppressed.

 

It is easy to criticize and denounce the Syrian regime's crimes (which are real and undeniable), but without a better way to handle things I don't see why we should demonize Assad more than he deserves.

 

All your posts are one-sided against Assad and you don't mention the crimes of the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies, of Al-nusra, etc. and what project they have for Syria (and its secular community, and its other religions) if Assad was to give up power.

 

It is also ludicrous to expect the violence will stop if Assad leaves. Once Assad is gone, the government will probably collapse, but Syria's factions will remain, and nearly all of them will fight the islamists.

 

 

You mean a fair share of restrictions and repression occurred because of the violent and "undemocratic" way the current government came to power?  No way is Assad there because the people love him. LOL 

 

There are no easy answers here.  But what Karlre writes makes sense.  He is Arab after all and lives there under these conditions. 

 

I demonize Assad because under his rule, thousands and thousands of innocent people have died.  This was under his watch.  While he was in command.  And under orders from him.  How can you not demonize him?  It's the worst humanitarian disaster since WW2!   He could have stepped down and see how things went.  Not sure they would have gone any better, but we'll never know.

 

The violence won't stop.  Assad is too weak to follow through on his promise of taking back all of Syria.  Never happen.  And by many people's accounts, Syria has already collapsed.  Terrible state of affairs.  And no easy answers.

[manarak]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You mean a fair share of restrictions and repression occurred because of the violent and "undemocratic" way the current government came to power?  No way is Assad there because the people love him. LOL 

 

There are no easy answers here.  But what Karlre writes makes sense.  He is Arab after all and lives there under these conditions. 

 

I demonize Assad because under his rule, thousands and thousands of innocent people have died.  This was under his watch.  While he was in command.  And under orders from him.  How can you not demonize him?  It's the worst humanitarian disaster since WW2!   He could have stepped down and see how things went.  Not sure they would have gone any better, but we'll never know.

 

The violence won't stop.  Assad is too weak to follow through on his promise of taking back all of Syria.  Never happen.  And by many people's accounts, Syria has already collapsed.  Terrible state of affairs.  And no easy answers.

 

another unbalanced post without any vision of the future nor accounting for other evil forces in Syria besides Assad, nor understanding of which constraints within which the government had to act.

 

and who is "Karlre" ???

 

What are you babbling about innocents dying under Assad's watch?

I suppose you can't imagine what the Muslim Brotherhood rebels were doing?

 

Quote

He could have stepped down and see how things went.  Not sure they would have gone any better, but we'll never know.

 

Huh ????

 

The secular factions there would just have appointed another leader ready to do everything necessary to obliterate islamists.

 

No easy answers... except yours, obviously! much too easy!

 

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, manarak said:

 

another unbalanced post without any vision of the future nor accounting for other evil forces in Syria besides Assad, nor understanding of which constraints within which the government had to act.

 

and who is "Karlre" ???

 

What are you babbling about innocents dying under Assad's watch?

I suppose you can't imagine what the Muslim Brotherhood rebels were doing?

 

 

Huh ????

 

The secular factions there would just have appointed another leader ready to do everything necessary to obliterate islamists.

 

No easy answers... except yours, obviously! much too easy!

 

Read my previous post and you'll find out who Karlre is.  So you are saying no innocent civilians have been killed during this civil war?  And you are saying the Muslim Brotherhood killed more than the government forces did? LOL  This isn't 100% about ISIS.  It's about a population tired of Assad's rule.  This allowed IS to flourish.  Again, blame lies at the top.

 

Please read this.  I hope it resonates with you.  Assad is to blame for this mess.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n07/peter-neumann/suspects-into-collaborators

Quote

In the years that preceded the uprising, Assad and his intelligence services took the view that jihad could be nurtured and manipulated to serve the Syrian government’s aims. It was then that foreign jihadists first entered the country and helped to build the structures and supply lines that are now being used to fight the government. To that extent Assad is fighting an enemy he helped to create.

 

I'm amazed anybody supports Assad.

[manarak]

9 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

... So you are saying no innocent civilians have been killed during this civil war?  And you are saying the Muslim Brotherhood killed more than the government forces did? ...

 

It becomes increasingly clear you imagine things which aren't there.

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, manarak said:

 

It becomes increasingly clear you imagine things which aren't there.

And you don't answer questions.

[Morch]

On 12/13/2016 at 0:06 AM, manarak said:

 

pff.

firstly, 1000 dead soldiers and you wouldn't call it a battle?

 

secondly, I don't know how many exactly of those killed were islamists. Certainly not all, as there were certainly people unable to heed the government's call to all civilians to leave the city prior to the assault, and there certainly were collateral casualties.

In general I dislike the word "all" and others of the same vein because they are usually used by dimwits or demagogues using rhetorics instead of arguments to prove their point.

In fact, most arguments containing the words : all,everyone, nobody, none, always, never, etc.  are fallacies except when regarding mathematics or verifyable facts.

 

Thirdly, the uprising was organized by the Muslim Brotherhood, an islamist guerillia and terrorist organization which . I have no doubt that if they had not been obliterated in Hama, they would have started a civil war and also established an islamist form of government. Comparing that perspective to ISIS is just clarifying what very probably would have happened.

 

Again, I don't understand why some people like to concentrate solely on Assad's crimes and completely ignore other important factors in Syria and what his enemies did and are doing.

 

 

...

 

what I would be interested in, is knowing how you would react in the face of an islamist rebellion of such scale ?

 

don't say deploy police or improve schools - the rebels have war weapons and are using them and the children visit coranic schools.

 

so... what would YOU do ?

 

You can call it what you like. It still wouldn't change the fact that the Syrian Army carried out a massacre of Syrian citizens, the vast majority civilian. Somehow doubt it was seen as a glorious battle by most Syrians - and indication would be Assad Sr.'s regime finding it necessary to suppress most related public discussion and references.

 

Quote

In general I dislike the word "all" and others of the same vein because they are usually used by dimwits or demagogues using rhetorics instead of arguments to prove their point.

 

You mean such things as using "25.000 islamist insurgents" to describe the casualties (all of them, mind), and then going on about dimwits, demagogues and rhetoric? To apply the first "word" of your post - pff.

 

The Muslim Brotherhood, at the time, was supported even by Sunnis who were not that much into religious rule, but opposed to the Baath Party nonetheless. Who started is a chicken and egg thing, obviously you will not mentions the Baath Party suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood as a factor, but it still remains a fact. Comparing the Muslim Brotherhood with ISIS is appealing for some, mostly those out for sensationalism. The Muslim Brotherhood is not ISIS, and it is also a more faceted than "an islamist guerillia and terrorist organization". But hey - do go on about fact based arguments,

 

Nobody is "solely" concentrating on Assad's crimes, that's a dishonest spin you often try to attach to others. Nobody is denying crimes committed by ISIS or other organizations. In the context of Aleppo (check the headline), though, most of the relevant crimes are bring carried out by Assad's forces and by the Russian military.

 

The last part of your post is the same old. I am not a ruthless dictator trying to squash opposing forces in a rebellion/civil war brought about partially as a result of my own actions. The question lack any merit - it assumes the inevitability of events, while disregarding the relevant history and past actions of those currently involved. The current mess in Syria was not and is not fait accompli - sorry, not into playing this game.

[Morch]

21 hours ago, manarak said:

 

I think that is a simplistic way to put it. It can be safely assumed that a fair share of the restrictions and repression occured because of the violent and *undemocratic* opposition's attempts to grab power by fomenting rebellion and crime.
 

You talk about lines in the sand, I say let's not forget the time Syria spent under French administration saw the development on one hand of a secular society in Syria which rejects religious rule and on the other hand of the affirmation of the right to religious diversity, with ALL religions except Sunni Islam rejecting an islamic state.

 

Again, what do you think the government could have done differently to contain the islamists?

The government inherits a situation and has to manage it.

In all countries that have to fight on a large scale against islamist extremism, the police is draconian and the citizens are oppressed.

 

It is easy to criticize and denounce the Syrian regime's crimes (which are real and undeniable), but without a better way to handle things I don't see why we should demonize Assad more than he deserves.

 

All your posts are one-sided against Assad and you don't mention the crimes of the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies, of Al-nusra, etc. and what project they have for Syria (and its secular community, and its other religions) if Assad was to give up power.

 

It is also ludicrous to expect the violence will stop if Assad leaves. Once Assad is gone, the government will probably collapse, but Syria's factions will remain, and nearly all of them will fight the islamists.

 

 

 

...The government inherits a situation and has to manage it.

In all countries that have to fight on a large scale against islamist extremism, the police is draconian and the citizens are oppressed.

 

Regimes in question are not necessarily passive, but played a role in the creation of the issues. Nor are they dissociated from previous governments, all the more so in Assad Jr.'s case. But then he actually inherited more than just "the situation".

 

One reason that "Islamic extremism" finds  such fertile ground in the many of the relevant countries can be said to stem from regimes exercising draconian and oppressive rule. It doesn't make "Islamic extremism" more palatable, of course.

 

It is easy to criticize and denounce the Syrian regime's crimes (which are real and undeniable), but without a better way to handle things I don't see why we should demonize Assad more than he deserves.

 

Once more, "without a better way" is just an excuse. If killing the opposition is the the only way a ruler knows, it's bound to fail at one point or another, as it doesn't address the issue, but the symptom. Nobody is forced to be a ruthless dictator, it's just the easy choice.

 

It is also ludicrous to expect the violence will stop if Assad leaves. Once Assad is gone, the government will probably collapse, but Syria's factions will remain, and nearly all of them will fight the islamists.

 

Doubt anyone actually suggested this. Quite the opposite. The only assertions made were that Assad's presence in a position of power will not be conductive to achieving peace.