Finally! The truth is coming out about Syria

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

I would agree, but the FSA has no big issues working with any of the brigades coming across the border and that means Al Nusra.

Many of their men have been switching ranks to groups like Al Nusra who are generally much better armed. In desparate circumstances - guns and ammunition matter most. Of Al Nusra they say, the men are incredibly brave, and will often pour into areas which are under heavy assault, propping up the lines. They don't necessarily agree with their extremist views - unfortunately they are fighting a common enemy.

...and again, I will point out the utter fallacy of the misguided and unthinking belief that these extremist groups will just bend over and accept a "democratic" outcome if Assad's forces are defeated. It's absurd to buy into the idea that these Jihadist forces who are sheding their blood in Syria will just walk away with a shrug and abandon their cause of an Islamic state.

The very idea is open to ridicule.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The FSA have trouble with tanks and helicopters, the US deciding to arm the FSA will mean they can fight back, and will be better armed and trained - meaning more fighters should come from the most extreme brigades over to them.

That doesn't mean that they will abandon their cause of an Islamic state however. Among the rebel factions, there seems to be a lot ship jumping, which suggests that their idologies are not that different, or it's done for the sake of convenience or prudence.

Either way, fighters loyal to Al Qaeda etc, jumping on board the FSA's ranks for weapons, is no indication of any sudden conversion to a democratic prinicple.

It was seen in Iraq, where the US armed groups who were against Hussain, that some of those same groups became hostile to the US after he was done away with and are currently involved with terrorist activity. It was seen in the 80's, too, in Afghanistan, when the Mujahideen promptly declared the US as the enemy, when Russia left its borders.

There's numerous examples of precedent, even from recent conflict.

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

So you have no proof other than hearsay and conjecture, just like you had no proof to accuse the US of supplying arms to a terror group on their terror list.

Where do you think the arms will go, if not the front line, a frontline which is occupied by extremist groups looking to establish an Islamic state in Syria, which contain groups like Jabbat Al Nusra, which the US have declared a terrorist organisation.

You're not really paying attention, are you.

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

Where do you think the arms will go, if not the front line, a frontline which is occupied by extremist groups looking to establish an Islamic state in Syria, which contain groups like Jabbat Al Nusra, which the US have declared a terrorist organisation.

You're not really paying attention, are you.

The frontline is occupied by both the FSA and extremist groups. You're parading the falsehood that extremists dominate in both numbers and in the entire battlefield in every single area when in fact they are not.

Jonny7

There is a recurrent theme in this thread.

The US and EU whom have been most vocal in supporting this uprising since the outset of the violence are being tarred as supporting jihadists in some sort of plot to install Islamists in power (this is clearly not their intention) OR just so desparate to rid Syria of Assad they'll support anyone (not true, they have outlawed these groups and are not directly arming them)

Could the US and EU be doing more to stem the flow of these jihadist fighters through Turkey, Jordan, etc? - possibly - but no one has made any valid criticism of that yet.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

...and again, I will point out the utter fallacy of the misguided and unthinking belief that these extremist groups will just bend over and accept a "democratic" outcome if Assad's forces are defeated. It's absurd to buy into the idea that these Jihadist forces who are sheding their blood in Syria will just walk away with a shrug and abandon their cause of an Islamic state.

The very idea is open to ridicule.

I've only seen you mention this. If Assad falls the country is still deeply screwed with an enormous international effort required to get it to function again. I would expect the Arab league, the UN, etc to go in and set the groundwork for some sort of intermediate government and work from there. There will be a vast amount of reprisal and revenge attacks - different brigades will fight with each other, it will be a mess - but no more of a hideous mess than it is now.

Brown Bomber

gurramok wrote: »

And your proof of this yet another attempted slur on the FSA?

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/13/syria-brigade-fighting-homs-implicated-atrocities

In the video obtained by Human Rights Watch, a man identified by the person
filming the incident as Abu Sakkar is filmed cutting the chest of a dead
uniformed fighter, and removing the heart and liver from the corpse. The person
filming the incident then comments, while “Abu Sakkar” is cutting out the
corpse’s liver: “God Bless you, Abu Sakkar, you look like you are drawing
[carving] a heart of love on him.” After Abu Sakkar completes the cutting out of
the corpse’s heart and liver, he is filmed holding the heart and liver in his
hands and speaks into the camera:

I swear to God, soldiers of Bashar, you dogs – we
will eat your heart and livers! Takbir! God is Great! Oh my heroes of Baba Amr,
you slaughter the Alawites and take their hearts out to eat
them!

At the end of the video, after that statement, the man called Abu Sakkar is
filmed putting the corpse’s heart into his mouth, as if he is taking a bite out
of it. Because of the extremely graphic and disturbing nature of the video,
Human Rights Watch has decided not to publicly release the footage, although an
edited and blurred version is available on the internet.

By comparing
frames of the mutilation video to other videos showing what appears to be the
same man participating in the shelling that indiscriminately hit Lebanese Shi’a villages and
talking about killed Hezbollah fighters, Human Rights Watch believes the person
in the video to be Commander Abu Sakkar. Journalists and other commanders have
said that Abu Sakkar is the nom de guerre of a former commander from the
mainstream al-Farouq Brigade from the Baba Amr district of Homs, in
Syria.

Four international journalists told Human Rights Watch that they
met him during or after the battle of Homs in 2011 and 2012. Several other
videos posted by the Independent Omar al-Farouq Brigade also show the man known
as Abu Sakkar, wearing the same jacket as in the mutilation video, loading
rockets into an improvised rocket launcher before apparently firing them into
Lebanon at Shi’a villages in the Bekaa Valley. In yet another video, Abu Sakkar
appears with what he claims are the bodies of killed Hezbollah fighters in the
town of al-Qusayr. TIME Magazine reported on May 13 that two of its reporters first
saw the mutilation video in April in the presence of several of Abu Sakkar’s
fighters and supporters, including his brother, who all told them that the video
was authentic.

Must be awful coming to terms with the fact that you blindly support cannibal-terrorists who terrorise innocent civilians who they perceive as different to them.

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

The frontline is occupied by both the FSA and extremist groups. You're parading the falsehood that extremists dominate in both numbers and in the entire battlefield in every single area when in fact they are not.

More lies...

Nowhere has anyone said what you are suggesting.

But the fact remains that these extremist groups are at the spearhead of the fighting against Assad's forces and the fact also remains that they are allied to the FSA.

It also remains a fact that even military minds in both the US and Britain has stated that it would be absolutely impossible to contain the proliferation if arms amongst extremist groups operating with the FSA in Syria.

Not maybe, not perhaps...but absolutely.

As said before, there are thousands of air to surface weapons that have gone "missing" in Libya, most likely into the hands of the extremist groups that were operating there during the toppling of Gaddafi.

Brown Bomber

Maybe they'll just ask the nice jihadis to return them like they did with the mujahadeen/warlords in Afghanistan with the Stinger missiles. That worked out well.

gurramok

Brown Bomber wrote: »

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/13/syria-brigade-fighting-homs-implicated-atrocities

Must be awful coming to terms with the fact that you blindly support cannibal-terrorists who terrorise innocent civilians who they perceive as different to them.

Wrong. You accused the FSA of being responsible for that atrocity, another falsehood.

me wrote:

The FSA which consists of all Syrians regardless of their religious background are fighting a brutal murderous dictator.

and your response

you wrote:

... and if anyone stands against their moral crusade to they'll eat their organs and put it on youtube

And from the HRW link

It is not known whether the Independent Omar al-Farouq Brigade operates within the command structure of the Free Syrian Army

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

But the fact remains that these extremist groups are at the spearhead of the fighting against Assad's forces and the fact also remains that they are allied to the FSA.

They make up approx 10% of the rebels

It also remains a fact that even military minds in both the US and Britain has stated that it would be absolutely impossible to contain the proliferation if arms amongst extremist groups operating with the FSA in Syria.

That's not true, if they arm the rebels they have stated they will actually have more control over who receives those weapons and who receives the training.

Foreign brigades crossing the border are well armed already

As said before, there are thousands of air to surface weapons that have gone "missing" in Libya, most likely into the hands of the extremist groups that were operating there during the toppling of Gaddafi.

Sorry but where are you reading this ****e from?

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

More lies...

Nowhere has anyone said what you are suggesting.

On dominance by the extremists, yes they have stated it. Lies are not from my end, only the truth.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85130240&postcount=260

cyberhog wrote:

The truth of the matter is the al Qaeda affiliates and other Islamist jihadist groups dominate the oppositions forces

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85139362&postcount=277

cyberhog wrote:

According to a report by Agence France Presse al-Nusra Front are indeed the dominant fighting force amongst the various factions of the rebel opposition

And yourself which is stating the same thing that the FSA control the extremist groups.

Tony EH wrote:

It's not even a debate that there are terrorist groups fighting under the FSA in Syria

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is a recurrent theme in this thread.

The US and EU whom have been most vocal in supporting this uprising since the outset of the violence are being tarred as supporting jihadists in some sort of plot to install Islamists in power (this is clearly not their intention) OR just so desparate to rid Syria of Assad they'll support anyone (not true, they have outlawed these groups and are not directly arming them)

Could the US and EU be doing more to stem the flow of these jihadist fighters through Turkey, Jordan, etc? - possibly - but no one has made any valid criticism of that yet.

Vocal support is fine. Countries are free to offer their voices to whichever side (or portion of that side) that they see fit.

The objection comes when vested interests start fueling a conflict for their own pursuits.

That is where many people have rightful concern.

Frankly, external countries have no business in Syria. It's a civil war. It's Syria's business.

Without a clear course of action and a clear recognition of the cosequences of pouring arms into a conflict, the countries proposing to ship those arms should do nothing.

Chomsky states that major players in world affairs can can do one of three things, they can aid the situation, make the situation worse or do nothing. With America chosing to arm factions, which they have absolutely no control over, they are actively making the situation worse, as the potential fallout of their actions could be devastating to many different countries, if not to America itself.

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

They make up approx 10% of the rebels

Says who? Seems to me that information about the true makeup of the "rebels" isn't very clear, with numbers being interchangeable between various factions.

And, as I said, they make up a substantial part of the spearhead on teh battlefield.

These people aren't just going to go away, in the event of Assad's fall.

Jonny7 wrote: »

That's not true, if they arm the rebels they have stated they will actually have more control over who receives those weapons and who receives the training.

Nonsense. They'll have no control of where the weapons will eventually end up, as military heads and others have already warned.

Lord Dannatt, former head of the Army in Britain has clearly counciled Cameron that it is foolish in the extreme to send arms to the rebels in Syria and could in fact end up in a much larger intervention, with all the issues that that would bring.

gurramok

So Tony EH, where is your(and the other posters who condemn the US so heavily) criticism of Russia who have constantly supplied arms to Assad since the beginning of the protests, thousands of active Hezbollah fighters in battle, support from Iran including 4000 Revolutionary Guards(http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/87115-report-hizbullah-revolutionary-guards-training-syrian-soldiers ) , the influx of Shiite fighters from Iraq ?

Tony EH wrote:

Vocal support is fine. Countries are free to offer their voices to whichever side (or portion of that side) that they see fit.

The objection comes when vested interests start fueling a conflict for their own pursuits.

That is where many people have rightful concern.

Frankly, external countries have no business in Syria. It's a civil war. It's Syria's business.

The silence is deafening at the both the atrocities carried out by Assad and the foreign interference helping Assad before the US decided to supply arms to the FSA.

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

And yourself which is stating the same thing that the FSA control the extremist groups.

Resorting to bull**** isn't doing anything for your level of posting lad.

Fighting "under" the same umbrella as your ally doesn't necessarilly mean that one portion is "controling" the other. The Finns fought with ther Germans during the Second World War, but they weren't controlled by the Germans.

So, along with an inability to carry out basic objective research, you lack basic reading skills too.

If I wanted to say "control", I would have said control.

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

So Tony EH, where is your(and the other posters who condemn the US so heavily) criticism of Russia who have constantly supplied arms to Assad since the beginning of the protests, thousands of active Hezbollah fighters in battle, support from Iran including 4000 Revolutionary Guards(http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/87115-report-hizbullah-revolutionary-guards-training-syrian-soldiers ) , the influx of Shiite fighters from Iraq ?



The silence is deafening at the both the atrocities carried out by Assad and the foreign interference helping Assad before the US decided to supply arms to the FSA.

Yes, you do seem to have an issue with reading don't you...let me reiterate:

Frankly, external countries have no business in Syria. It's a civil war. It's Syria's business.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

These people aren't just going to go away, in the event of Assad's fall.

I agree, however the hysteria in this thread over these jihadist groups is getting a bit ridiculous.

If Assad falls I will be very surprised if a fragmented bunch of Brits, Americans, Swedes, Chechyens, Iraqis, etc can setup an Islamic state

Nonsense. They'll have no control of where the weapons will eventually end up, as military heads and others have already warned.

It's wrong to say they have no control. The CIA are on the border investigating the rebel groups - they will use the SMC to make sure the weapons (and training) reach who they want them to reach. They have a lot of experience of their weapons falling into the wrong hands in Iraq.

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

I agree, however the hysteria in this thread over these jihadist groups is getting a bit ridiculous.

If Assad falls I will be very surprised if a fragmented bunch of Brits, Americans, Swedes, Chechyens, Iraqis, etc can setup an Islamic state

It's not as if anything is confined to this thread. These are serious concerns that observers across the political spectrum have raised. Even human rights organisations have said that the dubious nature of the rebel groups is sufficient enough to ward against sending arms to them.

If Assad falls, it's impossible to say for certain how things will go down, but one thing is sure and that is that the extremist groups allied in the struggle will not simply melt away. Islamic Jihadist forces have a stated aim of an Islamic Syrian state and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Syrian Liberation Front, The Syrian Islamic Front and the oft mentioned Jabat Al Nusra and I would dare say a number in the FSA as well are fighting for that goal.

Syria could wind up in a turmoil of terrorist activity for decades, with the consequences spilling out into surrounding areas and beyond, evolving into a new breeding ground for Al Qaeda associated elements.

It's clear that they are deeply entrenched there at present and that the FSA have welcomed them as brothers in arms. Any post war rejection of them is likely to lead to an even worse situation then we see at present.

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's wrong to say they have no control. The CIA are on the border investigating the rebel groups - they will use the SMC to make sure the weapons (and training) reach who they want them to reach. They have a lot of experience of their weapons falling into the wrong hands in Iraq.

They have a lot of experience of it because it's impossible to control. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have all been areas where shipped arms have ended up in the wrong hands and in many cases being used against the forces that shipped them.

There's ABSOLUTELY no reason to believe that Syria will be any different.

It's not me saying that they'll have no control, it's people with military experience giving this warning. It's simply a fanciful notion to suggest that arms supplies can be accounted for once they disappear into the a myriad of various factions. It would be impossible to keep tabs on everything and just one SAM could have devastating effects if used on a civilian aircraft from the boundries of a civilian airport.

TheSB

Tony EH wrote: »

If Assad falls, it's impossible to say for certain how things will go down, but one thing is sure and that is that the extremist groups allied in the struggle will not simply melt away.

If Assad falls, one thing is certain there will be mass slaughter of the Alawites & Christians in Syria. There could be a further war between Sryia controlled by Al-Queda and Hezbollah in Lebonnon. Israel will be surronded on all sides by extemists and the people of Syria will suffer under Sharia Law.

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

Resorting to bull**** isn't doing anything for your level of posting lad.

Fighting "under" the same umbrella as your ally doesn't necessarilly mean that one portion is "controling" the other. The Finns fought with ther Germans during the Second World War, but they weren't controlled by the Germans.

So, along with an inability to carry out basic objective research, you lack basic reading skills too.

Personal abuse now?

What bull? You were caught out on your false statements.

You had said that "It's not even a debate that there are terrorist groups fighting under the FSA in Syria". You failed to back that statement up and you have not even retracted it.

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, you do seem to have an issue with reading don't you...let me reiterate:

And yet you are silent on Russia's, Iran's and Hezbollah's involvement, all external interests.

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

Personal abuse now?

What bull? You were caught out on your false statements.

You had said that "It's not even a debate that there are terrorist groups fighting under the FSA in Syria". You failed to back that statement up and you have not even retracted it.

If you have a bit of trouble with reading, I can't help you, but I'll try to dumb down the writing so you might be able to understand the points being made.



But I'll try one time, "fighting under" is not same as saying that the FSA are controling. But the fact is that these factions are united in arms against the Assad regime.

Is it clear now?

gurramok wrote: »

And yet you are silent on Russia's, Iran's and Hezbollah's involvement, all external interests.

Yawn. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Tony_EH, if you can't post without being rude, don't post. It'll save you a ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Frankly, It's becoming tiresome.Gurramok doesn't seem to be interested in any kind of inteligent debate or argument and the level of posting from him is very low, to be frank, and there's more than hint of sneering from him at every response.

It's hard to refrain and I am not the slightest bit interested in he said/she said rubbish, to be perfectly honest.

Maybe there should be an ignore feature? It would come in handy.

Anyway, I am no longer interested in responding to him, as it's clear he has no interest in any kind of discourse, so I'll hang fire in future.

Tony EH

TheSB wrote: »

If Assad falls, one thing is certain there will be mass slaughter of the Alawites & Christians in Syria. There could be a further war between Sryia controlled by Al-Queda and Hezbollah in Lebonnon. Israel will be surronded on all sides by extemists and the people of Syria will suffer under Sharia Law.

Perhaps.

There's already been accounts of Christains being ethnically clensed in Homs by elements of the FSA.

It's not beyond the realms of reality that the situation could be much worse in the event of a complete victory.

Jonny7

TheSB wrote: »

If Assad falls, one thing is certain there will be mass slaughter of the Alawites & Christians in Syria. There could be a further war between Sryia controlled by Al-Queda and Hezbollah in Lebonnon. Israel will be surronded on all sides by extemists and the people of Syria will suffer under Sharia Law.

There are already massacres of Alawites by rebel groups being reported.

In the event of Assad falling the country will not fall under Al Qaeda, it's not really possible, logistically or otherwise. It's much more likely the Arab league, UN and International community will step in to immediately support and lay the groundwork for an interim government.

The level of reprisals, revenge attacks and inter-factional fighting is unknown but will probably be quite high - bear in mind many will be very war-weary, and there will have to be a huge rebuilding project.

Elections wuold have to take place down the line - and I don't for a second think the Syrians will choose a secular government, 75% Sunni? something like the Muslim brotherhood or spinoff would have the most chance.

I would expect continuing sporadic violence.

_____

If Assad gains control of the majority of the country, then the conflict will most likely still grind on, Turkey and Jordan will keep their borders porous, Qatar and Saudi will keep the arms flowing. Refugees may be unlikely to return.

Considering most countries have broken diplomatic ties, Assad would be even more isolated, including by Iran and Russia next year and will have to find a successor or replacement - it's unlikely the country would be secure enough for free elections, however the regime could conduct a sham election, get someone else in - but the future of that is unknown.


The main thing here is the peace talks in Geneva and see how they go (if they go ahead) Putin is a shrewd politician and seems to be growing weary of all this - Russia seems ready to make concessions.

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

But I'll try one time, "fighting under" is not same as saying that the FSA are controling. But the fact is that these factions are united in arms against the Assad regime.

Is it clear now?

The dictionary disagrees.

Control: the situation of being under the regulation, domination, or command of another.

Tony EH wrote:

There's already been accounts of Christains being ethnically clensed in Homs by elements of the FSA.

Yet another allegation, can you present evidence of this? Regime supported websites don't count.

cyberhog

gurramok wrote: »

You quote a blog by a guy(Landis) who is married to the daughter of an retired Admiral of the Syrian Navy! http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/wedding/announcement.htm

Attacking the source is a weak debating tactic and won't get you very far on this one. The article was a guest commentary and the author has no connection with the blog.

Aron Lund is author of a report on Syrian jihadism for the Swedish Institute of Foreign Affairs, a shorter version of which is at Foreign Policy: “Holy Warriors: A field guide to Syria’s jihadi groups,”

Lund is regarded as one of the most knowledgeable observers of the Syrian opposition, but don't take my word for it. Read his article at Foreign Policy and you'll see for yourself that he has an in depth knowledge of the opposition.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/15/holy_warriors

I also recommend you read the full report "Syrian Jihadism" by Aron Lund. Published by Swedish Institute of International Affairs.

http://www.ui.se/upl/files/77409.pdf

Norwesterner

President Assad now more popular in Syria, than Obama is in the U.S.

Assad;
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

Obama;
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/barack_obama_s_approval_rating_is_down_do_poll_numbers_matter_for_a_second.html

cyberhog

A special report published by Reuters today highlights the increasing influence of hardline Islamists.

During a 10-day journey through rebel-held territory in Syria, Reuters journalists found that radical Islamist units are sidelining more moderate groups that do not share the Islamists' goal of establishing a supreme religious leadership in the country.

The moderates, often underfunded, fragmented and chaotic, appear no match for Islamist units, which include fighters from organizations designated "terrorist" by the United States.

The Islamist ascendancy has amplified the sectarian nature of the war between Sunni Muslim rebels and the Shi'ite supporters of Assad. It also presents a barrier to the original democratic aims of the revolt and calls into question whether the United States, which announced practical support for the rebels last week, can ensure supplies of weapons go only to groups friendly to the West.

Reuters also picks up on the fact that the FSA does not exist.

Many pledge allegiance to the notion of a unified Free Syrian Army (FSA). But on the ground there is little evidence to suggest the FSA actually exists as a body at all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/us-syria-rebels-islamists-specialreport-idUSBRE95I0BC20130619

Jonny7

Norwesterner wrote: »

President Assad now more popular in Syria, than Obama is in the U.S.

Assad;
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

Again this story.

What is the source on this? the only one I can find pretty dodgy "news" site where I have to pay to see the original story..

Where is the original "NATO" poll?

Norwesterner

Here's an YouGov poll that shows 55% of Syrians want him to remain in power.
http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/doha/polling/YouGovSirajDoha%20Debates-%20President%20Assad%20report.pdf
Considering there are hundreds of thousands of military unable to take part in polls, the end result is probably higher.

55% is still higher than Obama's popularity.
The Opposition leader has zero popularity, is unknown in syria and doesn't even hold a Syrian passport.

Jonny7

Norwesterner wrote: »

Here's an YouGov poll that shows 55% of Syrians want him to remain in power.
http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/doha/polling/YouGovSirajDoha%20Debates-%20President%20Assad%20report.pdf
Considering there are hundreds of thousands of military unable to take part in polls, the end result is probably higher.

55% is still higher than Obama's popularity.
The Opposition leader has zero popularity, is unknown in syria and doesn't even hold a Syrian passport.

Have you read this poll??

The Levant in the poll is 46% Syrian - 75% think Assad should resign.

He approval rating before he started butchering his own people is still at 30% in the Levant.

The vast majority of respondents want Syria‟s President Bashar Al Assad to resign.
 The sentiment is highest in North Africa – a region that witnessed the biggest number of
revolutions and ousting of rulers in the MENA region over the past year.
 However, those in the Levant were not as insistent with less than two-thirds of them stating
that President Assad should resign.
 A larger proportion of respondents in Syria are supportive of their president.
 3 in 4 of those who believe President Assad should resign also believe the entire political regime
needs to change to ensure similar practices do not take place again.
 The largest proportion of respondents believe the best scenario for Syria would be to oust President
Assad from power immediately and hold free democratic elections under the supervision of a
transitional government.
 Interestingly, those who do not think President Assad should resign do not really want him to
stay in power either as over half of them (51%) believe it is best for Syria if he remains in power
but with the guarantee of free democratic elections in the near future.
 Reasons for calling for the resignation of President Assad are: to end the regime‟s brutal treatment of
protesters over the past 8 months, the belief that Al Assad has lost the support of his people in
addition to the regime‟s reputation of abuse and torture for many years.

Norwesterner

I suggest YOU read the poll.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda
And this was January 2012.
It's rose since then due to the Islamification of the Opposition.

Jonny7

A step up from the imaginary "NATO poll", this one was an extraordinary 97 Syrians.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349

If only Bashar would have held free and fair elections.

Luckily I remember the same nonsense in the Gadaffi threads, the millions of supporters who never materialised. Even as far back as Saddam. There'll always be sympathisers who support these brutal autocratic leaders.

Norwesterner

Just keep grasping those straws.
The Spanish Govt collapsed after one day of Salafist terror in Madrid.
Look at the onslaught the Syrian Govt is absorbing.
You can't do that without a unified Govt, unified Army and police force and a sizeable support base.
Gaddafi fell because Al Qaeda had NATO air support.
Nothing to do with popularity or majorities.

gurramok

cyberhog wrote: »

Attacking the source is a weak debating tactic and won't get you very far on this one. The article was a guest commentary and the author has no connection with the blog.

Lund is regarded as one of the most knowledgeable observers of the Syrian opposition, but don't take my word for it. Read his article at Foreign Policy and you'll see for yourself that he has an in depth knowledge of the opposition

So Mr Lund decides out of all the major news publishers on the web to choose an ally of the Assad's regime to publish a highly sensitive article detailing his analysis. He could have picked a better publisher in order to protect his credibility!

cyberhog

gurramok wrote: »

So Mr Lund decides out of all the major news publishers on the web to choose an ally of the Assad's regime to publish a highly sensitive article detailing his analysis. He could have picked a better publisher in order to protect his credibility!

Landis may be married to an Alawite but he clearly doesn't support Assad.

Posted on July 16, 2012 by Laura Rozen

Influential Syria expert Joshua Landis presented a bleak view of Syria’s prospects Monday, saying that the country is headed for “a hard landing and it’s going to get harder.”

Landis, who directs the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and writes a daily newsletter on Syrian politics, “Syria Comment,” has opposed US military intervention in the past. He said Monday that he is now “torn” about whether the US should get more deeply involved in what the Red Cross has declared to be a civil war between the minority Alawite regime and majority Sunni population.

“I’m very pessimistic about the future of Syria and that’s what makes me so hesitant about jumping in,” he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. At the same time, he said “decapitation [of the regime] might work,” eliminating a president who is increasingly detached from reality.

Bashar al-Assad “is living in this little world [where] everyone else is an extremist,” Landis said. Assad is a “loser” and “will never be able to put Syria back together again.”


Landis, who is married to the daughter of a retired Syrian naval officer, said his connection to an Alawite family had increased his sympathy for and understanding of the minority sect. But he said that his views about Syria were formed long ago, when was a youngster in Beirut during the Lebanese civil war. He said he was also influenced by Iraq’s descent into sectarian warfare after the US invasion.


Landis faulted the Assad family for creating a state based on family ties and sectarianism. Efforts at economic liberalization after Bashar’s father, Hafez al-Assad, died in 2000 only made the rich richer and increased corruption, Landis said.

http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2012/07/1206/syria-expert-joshua-landis-torn-about-whether-us-should-get-more-involved/

gurramok

cyberhog wrote: »

Landis may be married to an Alawite but he clearly doesn't support Assad.

Has Landis called for Assad to step down yet? Has he condemned Assad for the massacres his regime has carried out? Has he called for Assad to be hauled before an international court for war crimes?

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

The dictionary disagrees.

Control: the situation of being under the regulation, domination, or command of another.



Yet another allegation, can you present evidence of this? Regime supported websites don't count.

Ignored, for reasons obvious to everybody at this stage, as this level of posting is bringing the thread down. The position has been clarified for you. If you want to play dumb, go ahead. But the low quality of your contributions have already been called out by several posters.

You're adding nothing, whatsoever, to the discussion.

And you can do your own research. You can try Vatican sources first.

gurramok

Assad is running out of money just like when Gadaffi did. If you cannot pay your army, its curtains.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/world/middleeast/syria-is-facing-currency-crisis.html?_r=0

Syria experts who once estimated the Central Bank had at least $17 billion in foreign exchange reserves before the conflict now believe that because of Mr. Assad’s international isolation and the cost of the war that amount has dwindled to as little as $2 billion.

“Syria’s government doesn’t have cash,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a Syria scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “They might be good at shooting people, but they’re not so good at the economic stuff.”

AlekSmart

gurramok wrote: »

Assad is running out of money just like when Gadaffi did. If you cannot pay your army, its curtains.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/world/middleeast/syria-is-facing-currency-crisis.html?_r=0

This is what prompted my earlier post...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85116215&postcount=243

In situations such as this,popular support for an incumbent can perhaps be a little too "popular" for outside interests to tolerate.

Equally,where "sending in the marines" for a boots on the ground regime changing offensive might present problems,new and less visible means need to be deployed to achieve the same result.

The economic throttling of a country,by removing a Government's ability to pay bills and service its peoples day-to-day needs,tends to leave the ordinary non-polarized citizens with little choice but to follow-the-money.

It took a while to work in Libya,but eventually the Gadaffi administration succumbed and,I would suggest,that Al-Assad will suffer the same fate.

It is,for entities such as The U.N.,a peculiarly uncomfortable tool of war,as it effectively uses non-aligned,civilians as a weapon of war,to further the aims of those seeking whatever it is they want today.

The entire fiscal warfare element,now far more possible with widespread e-banking and fast-acting financial devices,is presently in the gift of "The West" and may well serve to re-establish the old-style roles of countries such as Switzerland,Luxembourg and Lichtenstein,but in a slightly different way.

Norwesterner

gurramok wrote: »

Assad is running out of money just like when Gadaffi did. If you cannot pay your army, its curtains.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/world/middleeast/syria-is-facing-currency-crisis.html?_r=0

You tell us not to post link from Russian, Iranian, Syrian media, or Wikipedia but you post links of the New York Times and quotes from a Washington "observor" yourself.
Syria is nowhere near as indebted as 'lil ol Ireland believe me.

gurramok

Norwesterner wrote: »

You tell us not to post link from Russian, Iranian, Syrian media, or Wikipedia but you post links of the New York Times and quotes from a Washington "observor" yourself.
Syria is nowhere near as indebted as 'lil ol Ireland believe me.

NY Times is hell of alot reputable than the Russian, Iranian and Syrian media.

Can you provide up to date figures on Syria's debt burden to counter what they say in the NY Times?

esteve

gurramok wrote: »

NY Times is hell of alot reputable than the Russian, Iranian and Syrian media.

Could you provide me with a source to prove this please, that is not the NY Times, or any US or Western Media either?

My source is good, yours is bad, lets not talk about the issue, this type of debating is tiresome, and your own article says itself that those figures are estimates.

esteve

gurramok wrote: »

So Mr Lund decides out of all the major news publishers on the web to choose an ally of the Assad's regime to publish a highly sensitive article detailing his analysis. He could have picked a better publisher in order to protect his credibility!

Mr. Lund would not have been in the position to choose who publishes his work. I very much doubt the NY Times were waiting to interview him.

feargale

cyberhog wrote: »

Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.

How do you know when it's not lying?

gurramok

esteve wrote: »

Could you provide me with a source to prove this please, that is not the NY Times, or any US or Western Media either?

My source is good, yours is bad, lets not talk about the issue, this type of debating is tiresome, and your own article says itself that those figures are estimates.

Sounds like you do not trust any of the Western media and rather trust media from countries hostile to the West, that is countries which have questionable democracies and in Syria's case a media which is the mouthpiece of the Ba'ath Party with a dictator at the helm.

esteve

gurramok wrote: »

Sounds like you do not trust any of the Western media and rather trust media from countries hostile to the West, that is countries which have questionable democracies and in Syria's case a media which is the mouthpiece of the Ba'ath Party with a dictator at the helm.

No, I like these things called facts, the source that publishes them is another issue. Back to my original request, can you provide a source, and dont worry, it can be one of the ones you like?

cyberhog

feargale wrote: »

How do you know when it's not lying?

The Western media have always described the FSA as a Syria-wide unified rebel organisation. What we are hearing now is that the FSA is not actually a cohesive force with a command structure. Now if that is a lie, it would mean the Western media are now trying to hide the fact that the FSA is a unified organisation, and that is a totally implausible scenario. So logic would dictate that the truth is the FSA is not a real organisation.

It's all explained in more detail here: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-free-syrian-army-doesnt-exist/

feargale

Best to have no illusions about any of the parties involved. Don't lose sight of the fact that in the middle of all of this are millions of ordinary innocent people, who just want to get on with their lives. The choice seems to be between maintaining an Assad regime with strange friends which has savagely crushed dissent but given religious minorities a level of security which is not common in that part of the world, and a victory by the opposition which will almost inevitably end in a takeover by fundamentalist lunatics with equally strange friends, and see the virtual end of, among others, the two millenia old Christian minority with its culture , customs and language, not to talk of the appalling human suffering that will ensue. I despair.