Problems in Syria

[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?

 

[VDKMS]

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.

 

[George]

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.

 

[hamidreza]

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.

 

[VDKMS]

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.

 

[r.fox]

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.

 

[RayManKiller3]

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.

 

[RayManKiller3]

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

 

[Yossarian]

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

 

[RayManKiller3]

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.

 

[Yossarian]

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.

Exactly, why should we the U.S. taxpayer have to pay 500k per bomb , risk our aviators and airmen's lives to bomb Assad out of power, only to have the country then fracture into many potentially dangerous militant groups that may eventually end up attacking Americans abroad or even attempt to here at home as well.

I am not stabbing at our military there, I am stabbing at our foriegn policy mindset.

There is a little tale about something similar to this in a far away land called Afghanistan.

And it starts with a little forgotten war called the Soviet Afghan war, and how America's groups of restistance and interest eventually turned their guns to what we have today.

It may take decades but it can, and has, and still is happening.

That is why I am extremely cautious about the U.S. lending help to new foreign "allies' whether it be with bags of rice or bombs.

If you are thinking that I don't have solid trust in the Sryain resistance movement,

It's because I don't.

 

[MontyB]

So we should support brutal dictators because they are better than giving people the freedom to not like us?

 

[RayManKiller3]

So we should support brutal dictators because they are better than giving people the freedom to not like us?

Not support them, but not knock them down based on our and their claims of "freedom". There are other brutal dictators out there other than Assad you know. What I am saying is we should not intervene military, especially if we can not certain who is who when it comes to these rebels. The fact is after giving these people "freedom" to rule themselves through monetary and/or life sacrifices only for them to spit in your face, is not healthy nor smart policy.

I would like for some other western country to lead a Syria military intervention if they so desire.

U.S do too much (except regarding Iran and Israeli-Palestinian issues) in the M.E and it backfires, even NATO countries complain when they don't even do as much of the work. They complain when we step into stuff all the time, so I think we should take our time on this one.

The main thing I am talking about in this thread though is the legitimacy of our western media and governments on their accusations of the Syrian government. Is it not possible the a certain faction of rebels is not killing civilians themselves to make it seem like the regime is?

Where is our (the public of the western countries) hard evidence of Syrian military/militia doing it?

 

[hamidreza]

First are you sure the Syrians really don’t want Assad as a leader at least at this condition that their country is faced with a lot of different conspiracies from the west and some Arab countries?

Second if you in the west are really want to expand freedom!! In the world, why don’t you start from the countries that have high priority? The conditions of freedom in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar … are worse than Syria. If you used your media and spent your dollar about 10% of you are doing in the Syria, their governments would fall several month ago. For some of them, for example Bahrain and Yemen, without your hidden helps they couldn’t stand more than three month.

Third as I told before west tries in the Syria are just for Israel. It is very important for west that Syria, as a country who is the Israel enemy and is one of the main supporters of Hezbollah, remains in these upset conditions. It is why after a short period of peace, a terrible criminal event happen there.

 

[Yossarian]

So we should support brutal dictators because they are better than giving people the freedom to not like us?

No, but we can't always jump into into the fray shooting off our ideals and thinking we can right a very complex world of all wrongs via these means, and if your solution is this simple we need to attack half a dozen other countries, occupy failed states ruled by dictators and warlords and focus the entire exsistance of western civilization on improving the lives of oppressed peoples.

Such as those oppressed by the Taliban... We are waiting for the final conclusion there.

You can shatter a pane of glass but then you have to clean up the mess.

 

[benaakatz]

First are you sure the Syrians really don’t want Assad as a leader at least at this condition that their country is faced with a lot of different conspiracies from the west and some Arab countries?

Second if you in the west are really want to expand freedom!! In the world, why don’t you start from the countries that have high priority? The conditions of freedom in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar … are worse than Syria. If you used your media and spent your dollar about 10% of you are doing in the Syria, their governments would fall several month ago. For some of them, for example Bahrain and Yemen, without your hidden helps they couldn’t stand more than three month.

Third as I told before west tries in the Syria are just for Israel. It is very important for west that Syria, as a country who is the Israel enemy and is one of the main supporters of Hezbollah, remains in these upset conditions. It is why after a short period of peace, a terrible criminal event happen there.

do you really think that the syrians still want assad in power? after he has killed 14,000 plus and has shown no signs of stopping?

and hezbollah has ruined lebanon

the west wants to help, unlike your regime which is all too happy to support the slaughter in syria, so that they can continue to prop up assad and hezbollah

 

[VDKMS]

The Syria problem is very complex. The past was dark and the future isn't rosy either.

Take the problem for Israel. With Assad they knew nothing was going to happen but the support for Hezbollah was dangerous. With Assad gone the support for Hezbollah will decrease but the new government of Syria might be more hostile than Assad. Look at Egypt, they are blowing hot and cold.

The west and the US have an interest in helping the rebels to dispose Assad because the Russians will lose their only mediterranean port and one of their last military clients in the ME, Lebanon will be more west-oriented and the chance that regime change will spill over to Iran.

The Sunni Arab states want Syria back after losing Iraq and stop or decrease Iranian influance in the ME.

The Turks are dreaming to regain the role they lost in the ME since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

Iran and Russia cannot afford to let Assad fall but they are not strong enough to prevent it without a major escalation of the conflict.

There are alot of elephants walking around in the porcelain shop.

I have no crystal ball but I don't think there is a good solution. It will be bad or worse. The rebels are not united as it should be and that problem will sever once government power is within reach.

What I an sure of is that there is a lot of talk behind the scenes to contain the problem.

I'm not optimistic.

About freedom, democracy and using power to attain it: is a vote by someone who is brainwashed, by whatever side or means, legitimate?

 

[MontyB]

No, but we can't always jump into into the fray shooting off our ideals and thinking we can right a very complex world of all wrongs via these means, and if your solution is this simple we need to attack half a dozen other countries, occupy failed states ruled by dictators and warlords and focus the entire exsistance of western civilization on improving the lives of oppressed peoples.

Such as those oppressed by the Taliban... We are waiting for the final conclusion there.

You can shatter a pane of glass but then you have to clean up the mess.

The problem is that we are already in the "fray", for years the west has sat back and said that the key to middle eastern peace is to allow its people to make their own decisions on how they are led, we ***** and whine at Chinese human rights yet keep hundreds of murdering thugs in power because they are "our" murdering thugs by selling us cheap oil or buying our expensive weapons.

So you are right we can shatter a pane of glass but we can also help the window repairman put the replacement in and just maybe you will get the shatter proof kind at a discount.

The reality is we either practice what we preach and run the risk that in doing the right thing we get a bad result or we carry on as we are with the knowledge that a bad outcome is guaranteed.

 

[Yossarian]

The problem is that we are already in the "fray", for years the west has sat back and said that the key to middle eastern peace is to allow its people to make their own decisions on how they are led, we ***** and whine at Chinese human rights yet keep hundreds of murdering thugs in power because they are "our" murdering thugs by selling us cheap oil or buying our expensive weapons.

So you are right we can shatter a pane of glass but we can also help the window repairman put the replacement in and just maybe you will get the shatter proof kind at a discount.

The reality is we either practice what we preach and run the risk that in doing the right thing we get a bad result or we carry on as we are with the knowledge that a bad outcome is guaranteed.

Problem is that traditional American's ideas, as well as the average westerner it appears, seem to like tooth paste, pharmacuticals and hair gel made from crude extract,

We like driving sometimes up to a 100 miles a day to commute, we like driving for hours to reach a vacation destination.

Fact of the matter is, average Joe and Jan at home may feel bad for the Syrian populace (which at this junction for now, does not appear anti American, for now..)

But as soon as their local Cheveron throws up a dozen extra cents on the gallon, then suddenly people are along the lines of "Crisis? What Syrian Crisis? Where is Syria?"

The talk of the hour becomes the intteruption of our extremely overindulging lifestyle that a vast majority of my countrymen for better or for worse are dependent upon.

Think about this then think about the fine tightrope any American policy maker who ever hopes to see relection or support from big business to pay for a campgain has to ponder when dealing with the Middle East.

Is it better to prop up a murdering tyrant? And secure oil flow at cheap prices out of the region?

Or risk security and save a oppressed populace that may splinter and interupt the oil flow, causing prices at home to rise, corporate lobby groups to not donate money for campagin funding.

Pissed off mobs dumping litter for a weekend all the National Mall, and the media having your reputation put through a televised shooting gallery.

This is what in the end weighs on the minds of any U.S. policy maker when dealing with situations just like this one.

And a whole bunch of this behavior is attributed to our lifestlyes and us getting what we consider necessities, the same exact lesson was learned with the Diamond trade from conflict zones.

Americans and Westerner's wanted shiney rocks to wow that special lady, disregarding the dirty little seceret that the profits from that same rock paid for forcing drug addicted orphans into brutal civil wars.

It's also a factor of business, you disconnect the connection from dead Middle Eastern Childeren in the streets from the gas pump, and the toleration of tyranny for the sake of security of oil exports will, and has prevailed.

The best part is with the emerging middle classes in India and China, it's only a matter of time before they to must indulge in this behavior to get what is in demand in their countries as well.

It's down right dirty, but it's the way of things.

 

[hamidreza]

The Syria problem is very complex. The past was dark and the future isn't rosy either.

Take the problem for Israel. With Assad they knew nothing was going to happen but the support for Hezbollah was dangerous. With Assad gone the support for Hezbollah will decrease but the new government of Syria might be more hostile than Assad. Look at Egypt, they are blowing hot and cold.

The west and the US have an interest in helping the rebels to dispose Assad because the Russians will lose their only mediterranean port and one of their last military clients in the ME, Lebanon will be more west-oriented and the chance that regime change will spill over to Iran.

The Sunni Arab states want Syria back after losing Iraq and stop or decrease Iranian influance in the ME.

The Turks are dreaming to regain the role they lost in the ME since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

Iran and Russia cannot afford to let Assad fall but they are not strong enough to prevent it without a major escalation of the conflict.

There are alot of elephants walking around in the porcelain shop.

I have no crystal ball but I don't think there is a good solution. It will be bad or worse. The rebels are not united as it should be and that problem will sever once government power is within reach.

What I an sure of is that there is a lot of talk behind the scenes to contain the problem.

I'm not optimistic.

About freedom, democracy and using power to attain it: is a vote by someone who is brainwashed, by whatever side or means, legitimate?

I agree. Syria is a country that a lot of countries have interests there or are looking for them and freedom or people’s security are just excuse.
In fact the Syria’s crisis has an external origin not internal. West is not sure about a military attack because they can’t forecast its results and some countries like Russia or Iran will support Assad. Maybe the war expands in other countries. In the other hand they don’t know who will get the power in Syria after Assad, as they hadn’t forecasted true about Iraq.

But they don’t want lose this opportunity so they always try to keep the fire light. It is very important for them that Syria, as a country who is on the frontline of war against Israel, be under pressure. And also as a Russian’s ally.
What is the different between Assad’s regime and Mobarak’s regime?
What is the different between Assad’s regime and Malek Abdullah’s regime?
What is the different between Assad’s regime and other Arab’s regime?
Just one thing. Because Assad is really against Israel in the region but the other Arab regimes aren’t.