Okay, I am quite confused on this situation. The facts are, all I hear of on the news is the Syrian security force killed this, the Syrian Security Force did this, the Syrian Security Force did that. I never ever hear of any ill deeds that the rebels are probably doing on news. This makes the view of Syria quite distorted, because the fact is, the West seems completely one-sided. I would like some answers that can help me on my views in this because all I ever see is Anti-Syrian government reports.

Is the Syrian Rebels backed by majority of Syrians?
Is the Syrian Government purposely killing civilians on a mass scale?
This is really important: Who or what organization make up the Syrian Rebels?
If we do help the rebels take charge what good will it do? Why can they just not wait out Assad's term, which if they are majority, just not vote him again? (I may be mistaking how their voting system works)
Have Assad overstepped his authority to legitimize a stepdown or overthrow?

As we already know, Al Qaeda did/do have plans to launch a ME region revolution to install Muslim backed governments. This is something that I will not be happy backing, as we all know well since the Medieval Ages, that theocratic states are usually not great ideas. Just because a leader is bad doesn't always mean it would be a good idea to topple it. To this extent, I am glad Russia and China is slowing down U.N aims a bit.

Also, why is everyone resistant to calling this conflict what it seems to be turning into: a Civil war. Is it because of U.N laws? Do U.N really have the authority to butt into civil wars when the leader of the country is not purposely killing civilians? Kind of destroys a nation's soverignty, no?

I noticed after the change in regime of Lybia, they fell off the map from reports in news. Makes me wonder what the heck is going on there? Did things get better or worse?

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Okay, I am quite confused on this situation. The facts are, all I hear of on the news is the Syrian security force killed this, the Syrian Security Force did this, the Syrian Security Force did that. I never ever hear of any ill deeds that the rebels are probably doing on news. This makes the view of Syria quite distorted, because the fact is, the West seems completely one-sided. I would like some answers that can help me on my views in this because all I ever see is Anti-Syrian government reports.

Is the Syrian Rebels backed by majority of Syrians?
Is the Syrian Government purposely killing civilians on a mass scale?
This is really important: Who or what organization make up the Syrian Rebels?
If we do help the rebels take charge what good will it do? Why can they just not wait out Assad's term, which if they are majority, just not vote him again? (I may be mistaking how their voting system works)
Have Assad overstepped his authority to legitimize a stepdown or overthrow?

As we already know, Al Qaeda did/do have plans to launch a ME region revolution to install Muslim backed governments. This is something that I will not be happy backing, as we all know well since the Medieval Ages, that theocratic states are usually not great ideas. Just because a leader is bad doesn't always mean it would be a good idea to topple it. To this extent, I am glad Russia and China is slowing down U.N aims a bit.

Also, why is everyone resistant to calling this conflict what it seems to be turning into: a Civil war. Is it because of U.N laws? Do U.N really have the authority to butt into civil wars when the leader of the country is not purposely killing civilians? Kind of destroys a nation's soverignty, no?

I noticed after the change in regime of Lybia, they fell off the map from reports in news. Makes me wonder what the heck is going on there? Did things get better or worse?

It's about power. Assad is a dictator (Syria is ruled by a minority) and crushes the opposition in a horrible way, aided by Hezbollah and Iran.
More and more religion gets involved, Sunni-Shia.
The West backs the opposition. I think because they hope Iran will be the next domino and Hezbollah's power will decrease in Lebanon.
Assad will fall, no doubt about that, but will this benefit the peace in the ME?
Look at Egypt, it is turning ugly there.
Although I think that Syria will do better than Egypt once it has a new government because of a far better educated population.
Russia and China support Assad because they don't want regime change (afraid for copycats in their own country).

The problem with the Arab spring is the hijacking of it by islamic radicals. This is a direct result of the former dictators who neglected the poor people and drove them into the arms of the fundamentalists. If the new fundmentalist rulers stay true to democracy then their legislation will not be long but I am affraid that they will taylor democracy to their own needs, as in Iran.

Syria has had major fights with the Moslem Brotherhood for decades. The Brotherhood will likely come out on top if Assad is tossed. Syria, Egypt & the other Dictatorships were secular & Socialist, gives the fundamentalists a platform for hope & change that ends badly for the people, like what happened in Iran.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
Okay, I am quite confused on this situation. The facts are, all I hear of on the news is the Syrian security force killed this, the Syrian Security Force did this, the Syrian Security Force did that. I never ever hear of any ill deeds that the rebels are probably doing on news. This makes the view of Syria quite distorted, because the fact is, the West seems completely one-sided. I would like some answers that can help me on my views in this because all I ever see is Anti-Syrian government reports.

Well, if you are living in a free country, your media is free and are not Influenced by the power centers and you trust to your politician , you should believe their report about Syria.

Is the Syrian Rebels backed by majority of Syrians?

I don't think, maybe at the first days the majority of Syrians backed them but when the nature of Rebels was more clear, most of them changed their opinion.

Is the Syrian Government purposely killing civilians on a mass scale?

I don't think. because the legitimacy of Syrian Government be increased in the peace.

this is really important: Who or what organization make up the Syrian Rebels?

The answer is clear. the main player is west. some the Arabian countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabian play as a peon. Turkey also help the Rebels to increase her influence in ME in future. all of these three make up the Syrian Rebels.

If we do help the rebels take charge what good will it do? Why can they just not wait out Assad's term, which if they are majority, just not vote him again? (I may be mistaking how their voting system works)

a free elections is a good suggestion but I think west is looking for his benefits not the Syria people benefits.

Have Assad overstepped his authority to legitimize a stepdown or overthrow?

till now he lost some of his legitimize but in future it is depended on how he deal with this conflict.

As we already know, Al Qaeda did/do have plans to launch a ME region revolution to install Muslim backed governments. This is something that I will not be happy backing, as we all know well since the Medieval Ages, that theocratic states are usually not great ideas. Just because a leader is bad doesn't always mean it would be a good idea to topple it. To this extent, I am glad Russia and China is slowing down U.N aims a bit.

Also, why is everyone resistant to calling this conflict what it seems to be turning into: a Civil war. Is it because of U.N laws? Do U.N really have the authority to butt into civil wars when the leader of the country is not purposely killing civilians? Kind of destroys a nation's soverignty, no?

I noticed after the change in regime of Lybia, they fell off the map from reports in news. Makes me wonder what the heck is going on there? Did things get better or worse?

As I can guess the west especially the US and Israel don't prefer to unseat Assad and give the country to the leaders who maybe be worst than him. They prefer to have this condition and pressure on Assad to do a good trade with him. for example peace with Israel or the same things.

Originally Posted by hamidreza

The answer is clear. the main player is west. some the Arabian countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabian play as a peon. Turkey also help the Rebels to increase her influence in ME in future. all of these three make up the Syrian Rebels.

I disagree on this one. The Syrian people's uprising started peacefully. The FSA was a reaction to the brutal crackdown of the Syrian forces and police.
If the civilian population gets beaten up for no reason they start to arm themselves and fight back. Just as the jews did when Arabs started to attack them. First there was the Haganah to defend and later the Irgun to attack.

Originally Posted by hamidreza

some the Arabian countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabian play as a peon.

why would qatar support the rebels? they are trying to stop protests in there own country. thats how the rebels got started because of the heavy-handedness of the syrian government response.

Originally Posted by hamidreza

Well, if you are living in a free country, your media is free and are not Influenced by the power centers and you trust to your politician , you should believe their report about Syria.

Were you being sarcastic? Just because media is free do not mean you can trust anything it says. The fact is a good deal of media (as far as I know) seem to focus only on the bad the Assad regime is doing, but ignore the Rebels. Free media only means you always have the ability to see a different source.

I don't think, maybe at the first days the majority of Syrians backed them but when the nature of Rebels was more clear, most of them changed their opinion.

I really worry that this is the case... It is not that hard to create a rebellion in such a state like this, and it makes me wonder if majority agree with the Rebels to this extent (starting a civil war).

I don't think. because the legitimacy of Syrian Government increase in the peace.

While I would like to agree with you, this is not always the case. Almost all evil regimes rely on "peace", yet kill and execute vast amounts of it's people.

Example: North Korea, Soviet Russia, and to a certain degree, China.

The answer is clear. the main player is west. some the Arabian countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabian play as a peon. Turkey also help the Rebels to increase her influence in ME in future. all of these three make up the Syrian Rebels.

You seem to be mistaken. The west while a player when it comes to encouraging the Rebels, none of them has done anything directly as far as we know. When I said who makes up the Rebel organization, as in the people we see fighting now. If the west do decide to aide the Rebels, it would most likely be done in similar to Syria. To tell you the truth, the west do not actually want to intervene militarily in Syria.

a free elections is a good suggestion but I think west is looking for his benefits not the Syria people benefits.

West is looking for "his" benefits? Are you referring to Assad? I highly doubt the west telling him to step down is looking out for Assad.

till now he lost some of his legitimize but in future it is depended on how he deal with this conflict.

As I can guess the west especially the US and Israel don't prefer to unseat Assad and give the country to the leaders who maybe be worst than him. They prefer to have this condition and pressure on Assad to do a good trade with him. for example peace with Israel or the same things.

[/quote]

Of course the west do not want to unseat him for someone who will do the same if not worse. I am not sure if this benefits the Israel peace process that has been ongoing.

How can we be sure that these videos activists are showing were never before the U.N peacekeeping mission?

I believe if Libya has taught us anything, that blind support any militant factions for whatever cause has it's hard learned downsides.

Originally Posted by Yossarian

I believe if Libya has taught us anything, that blind support any militant factions for whatever cause has it's hard learned downsides.

Exactly, so why is everyone jumping on the topple Assad bandwagon? Is he truly aiming for civilians and what proof do we have that, that is what he is doing besides the obvious activists. Unlike us, Assad do not have complete accuracy weapons and even we kill plenty of civilians with it our high-tech weapons.

Shouldn't what happened in Libya make us think more about the possible future consequences of Assad losing control over Syria? There are definately terrorists in the midst of the "activists" inside Syria.. I am not sure if we (the west) is ignoring this as a way to take a jab at increasing our influence in the M.E.

While these people like us helping topple those they hate, they still hate us. Why should we aide them? U.S should definately NOT militarily intervene. We should let the other western countries do that if they so desire.