Syria: The "Rebels" Are Terrorists

[Buddha12]

One outcome that people here seem to be discounting is the break-up of Syria into smaller confessional states.

I really don't think that will happen, look at Iraq. Iraq still is fighting among its different religious groups for control as they have been since American troops left. An all out civil war may erupt in Iraq at any time and I feel it will happen perhaps after the 60,000 American "advisor's" leave within a few years or even before.

Since I don't know the demographics of Syria that well, going about dividing up a country into fragments is a difficult task and has many serious problems to overcome if that is done.

 

[The Esotericist]

It would not be legitimate if you are a patriotic American like me, but if you hate America, attacking our command structure would not strictly speaking fit under the definition of terrorism, which must necessarily be an attack on innocent civilians. It would certainly be an act of war and illegal in the extreme.

You are incorrect. If the command structure is corrupt and it has pledged its loyalties to the global cabal or some other interest rather than the American people, than they are traitorous, no matter what they say or do. They may call those who gun for the command structure of the government traitors all they want, but they would be incorrect. Eventually, if the supreme court continually keeps ruling laws that Congress passes which are clearly unconstitutional as constitutional, and if the President keeps on signing those laws as such, this just may happen.

It is now a well known fact that there is a "one percent" in America. This one percent owns 25% of the wealth. Nearly all of our representatives, senators, all of our supreme court Justices, Presidents, and much of the top staff of the executive branch are in this one percent. If they keep on passing unconstitutional laws that benefit the world's one percent, rather than the lower 90% of the nation which collectively only own 35% of the nations wealth, how long to you think being called "a terrorist, or a traitor" is going to keep them from going after the patriarchs for not following and obeying the laws laid down by our fore fathers?


The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
~Thomas Jefferson

 

[spidergoat]

There is no such thing as "clearly constitutional".

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Do you want me to go back and quote all the numerous times I said let's learn from the history of socialist movements rather than dismiss them altogether?

Oh, well, you're welcome to. But I don't think it will change the fact that you're also making excuses for societal failures under Marxism.

Tiassa, what is it specifically that leads you to think I'm just an "obscure joke"?

Is there some language issue we're running into here?

Fair point, but not this movement. Now now, after it has exposed itself to be supported by Saudi Arabia and Islamic fundamentalists. Not this particular movement, a largely religious and not secular struggle.

Oh, my. Not everyone involved with the current uprising is of a desirable sort. Sorry, Syrians, no liberty and justice for you; indeed, not even the chance.

The Alawites of Syria have long been oppressed, brutalized, and murdered by the majority Sunnis. I don't trust this movement.

And for nearly fifty years, the Alawites have been essential to the Ba'ath power structure. They have enjoyed the privileges of power, and it is their government in Syria which began the bloodletting.

Any armed revolution opens a vicious floodgate. Retribution, vendetta, settling of scores. With Alawites gathering at Tartus, the outcome might describe a fractured Syria, with religious enclaves.

Sheikh Mouaz Alkhatib sees the potential for serious retribution against the Alawites, and advocates a unified Syria. "Alawites are even more oppressed because the state took them and used them, putting them in confrontation with the rest," he told Reuters. Described as an "important" moderate by Western officials, and "an enlightened Islamist" by Syrian dissidents, the irony of Alkhatib's appeal to focus revolutionary rage against the Assad regime specifically and not Alawites in general is that the Sunni imam has fled to Cairo after the Alawite-backed regime repeatedly detained and harassed him.

Meanwhile, this is Syria's chance. If not today, when? If not this revolution, which?

If one waits for a clean risk analysis, in which there are no risks to analyze, the revolution never comes.

Why would you not make the same excuses for Syrians that you make for the Soviets? Perhaps because it is the Ba'ath being overthrown?

I doubt they have moved past the days of imperialism, considering recent history.

And yet you avoid considerations of the future.

My conception of liberty doesn't include the liberty for religious extremists to murder minorities, comrade.

Such an outcome would define the uprising as a failure, which is always a risk of revolutions.

The futility is in supporting the "rebels". Various people on the international stage have already recognized the movement as the foreign-backed sham it is.

What you're asserting is a shallow, even superficial, outlook on geopolitics.

Does the support of the French invalidate the American Revolution?

This is the chance that the people of Syria have. There are more facets to this uprising than Islamic fundamentalists who would piss all over "freedom" and a bloodthirsty government that already has; trying to pretend otherwise is not a persuasive argument in support of President Assad's regime.
____________________

Notes:

Perry, Tom. "Imam preaches Syria unity from Egypt exile". Reuters. July 26, 2012. Reuters.com. July 26, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/26/us-syria-cleric-idUSBRE86P0W820120726

 

[quadraphonics]

I really don't think that will happen, look at Iraq. Iraq still is fighting among its different religious groups for control as they have been since American troops left.

Well, the Kurds had pretty much split off into an autonomous region years and years ago. It's part of Iraq, in a federation-style deal, but hardly argues against the outcome I suggested is possible in Syria. There is of course continued fighting between the Shia and Sunni, but one effect of the wars there was a considerable segregation of the two populations. Even if you don't end up with the state breaking apart, it ends up looking more like a multi-confessional federation than a unified nation (much like Lebanon).

An all out civil war may erupt in Iraq at any time and I feel it will happen perhaps after the 60,000 American "advisor's" leave within a few years or even before.

I think you are confused there. There are about 16k American civilian personel in Iraq. There are no military "advisors." We're talking about diplomats, security contractors, support staff for the embassy.

Since I don't know the demographics of Syria that well, going about dividing up a country into fragments is a difficult task and has many serious problems to overcome if that is done.

Well, the point is that it would happen in response to the much more difficult problem of sectarian warfare.

But, to be sure, it doesn't necessarily mean formall breaking the state into smaller ones. It could well work out like in Iraq or Lebanon, where you have the different sects mostly confined to their own regions, which are then tied together in a federation type state.

 

[RedStar]

Oh, well, you're welcome to. But I don't think it will change the fact that you're also making excuses for societal failures under Marxism.

No, I'm not. I'm the first person to point them out, along with the successes.

Oh, my. Not everyone involved with the current uprising is of a desirable sort. Sorry, Syrians, no liberty and justice for you; indeed, not even the chance.

You say "Syrians" as if they are all united against Assad. Nobody wants Assad out of power except Sunni nationalists.

And for nearly fifty years, the Alawites have been essential to the Ba'ath power structure. They have enjoyed the privileges of power, and it is their government in Syria which began the bloodletting.

Good. Or would you rather have Sunni nationalists in power, massacring everybody else, like they have historically done?

Meanwhile, this is Syria's chance. If not today, when? If not this revolution, which?

If one waits for a clean risk analysis, in which there are no risks to analyze, the revolution never comes.

A revolution spearheaded by the non-Sunnis, and by the proletariat.

And yet you avoid considerations of the future.

There is no reason to believe that their present feigned concern for the Syrian people is any different.

This is the chance that the people of Syria have. There are more facets to this uprising than Islamic fundamentalists who would piss all over "freedom" and a bloodthirsty government that already has; trying to pretend otherwise is not a persuasive argument in support of President Assad's regime.

You misunderstand the delicate balance of power in Syria. Syria is not like the United States. Sectarian differences can become problematic. Syria needs a minority leader in power in order to protect the non-Sunnis, which constitute 30% of the population (and Christians about 40% of that)

As I've said, I've visited Syria, and honestly, there were no problems in the country when I visited and it was under Assad's government. It was a safe and largely open country. Now, these "revolutionaries" are murdering people (and yes, they have been shown to murder civilians) for no good reason. Nobody wants a Sunni theocracy, and I guarantee you the Muslim Brotherhood will get into office if there was no Assad.

 

[Norsefire]

I think I'll chime in my two cents as a Syrian who was in Syria earlier this year.

The conflict is largely sectarian and regional. I spend most of my time in Latakia and Damascus. In Latakia, Assad has huge support (because it's predominantly Alawite and Christian). There isn't a strong rebel presence there, if at all.

In Damascus, some of the more radical Sunnis do have a presence, and they are going through the neighborhoods intimidating people. I personally know people who had family members beaten or otherwise intimdated by the "rebels". The "Free Syrian Army" is pretty well-known in the country to be composed of foreign fighters and Islamic extremists

I haven't been to Aleppo, so I can't comment on that, but I have little reason to expect it to be any different.

The media has been painting Assad the wrong way throughout this entire conflict. The BBC even had to remove one of their articles and apologize because their photos were actually from the Iraq war and none of the footage could be independently verified.

Folks, listen to the Syrians who are screaming, THIS IS NOT A REVOLUTION. It is an attempt by Islamic radicals to seize power and backed by the West for their puppet state. Even a German state secretary has acknowledged illegitimate presences on the ground.

 

[youreyes]

the problem Norsefire, is that noone here from U.S.A/U.K/Australia gives a **** about what is best for Syrian people. They are happy with the revolution and would rather listen to lies of their media than know the truth.

 

[Stryder]

the problem Norsefire, is that noone here from U.S.A/U.K/Australia gives a **** about what is best for Syrian people. They are happy with the revolution and would rather listen to lies of their media than know the truth.

I doubt that's correct, I think it's more along the lines of the "West" caring in only as far as worrying about how whoever has control might attempt to destabilize the West in the future. This is where it raises "Foreign policy" concerns.

The posed idealism of Democracy is pretty much allowing one or other country to do what it wants to do, so as long as it doesn't interfere with the country that poses those ideals. Extremism is one threat to that ideal, but so to is Crimes Against Human Rights.

In essence it implies that neither side of the Syrian "Civil war" is actually the "Right side", but this is of course where the problems originated to cause Kofi Annan to resign as the UN Envoy. Since while neither side is right, it's also caused contested viewpoints within the UN which itself undermines what the UN was initially requisitioned to do.

The problem of course here is while it would make sense to stick the whole country under UN Martial law, removing both pro-Assad and pro-Islamist's from having control, it would in turn again alienate countries from the "West" and the UN because of how they can force their will on a country.

So there is either the backlash of doing something to fix the problem or the continued humanitarian crisis which is only going to get worse.

 

[Norsefire]

Humanitarian crisis? I think RedStar hit the nail on the head, here. What about the "humanitarian crisis" of all the millions of dead Iraqis being murdered because of the Americans? WikiLeaks has revealed a whole host of war crimes and atrocities committed by the United States.

The idealism needs to get out of politics; this isn't about "freedom" or "democracy", which are meaningless terms anyway, but political advantage. I'd rather Assad have the advantage here (for several reasons).

 

[Stryder]

Humanitarian crisis? I think RedStar hit the nail on the head, here. What about the "humanitarian crisis" of all the millions of dead Iraqis being murdered because of the Americans?

Iraqi deaths and America's involvement is not what this thread is about. I've put forwards what Idealism exists in regards to what the UN was founded on, not what occurred with Iraq (In fact historically the UN did not want to intervene with Iraq since they saw it as unsanctioned, however the US Vito'd it and went ahead anyway.)

You might think that the term "Humanitarian Crisis" is just about political mandates by other countries to support their foreign policies, however it's really about the rights that every person, no matter which boundary they are subjugated by, should be entitled to. Those rights should be above and beyond any dictator, coalition or representative system, since the basis is that "It could be you in that crisis position".

Let's say for instance a charity manages to get some medical supplies together, food, water and other basic requirements. They can't give them to Assad purely because of how he's gone about dealing with the problem, they of course can't give it to the extremists too because they aren't completely genuine in their campaign, so neither side gets that support, however there is still those people caught in the middle effect by the fall out from both sides, they are the true victims the ones that require the support.

That's where aid needs to get, or where at least some area's need to be classed as "Neutral" with no fighting. "Neutrality" however requires someone to police it so that it doesn't get misused by skirmishers hiding in it and running attacks out of it. Perhaps that's the alternative, have the UN (or UAL) control certain provinces to maintain "Neutrality".

Actually it doesn't even have to be the UN/UAL that does that, it could actually be done by Syrians that live in that province, they would obviously require some sort of uniform to identify their "Neutrality" and a leadership to boot, as well as have the aid support and backing of the UN/UAL, so should they be attack by eitherside it doesn't go unpunished and doesn't make them a target for trying to maintain a stable province.

 

[Workaholic]

Folks, listen to the Syrians who are screaming, THIS IS NOT A REVOLUTION. It is an attempt by Islamic radicals to seize power and backed by the West for their puppet state. Even a German state secretary has acknowledged illegitimate presences on the ground.

So pretty much Libya II? :shrug:

Pretty sad how the Arab Spring has been distorted into a new method to topple uncooperating states in the region (i.e. non-puppet states)

 

[Norsefire]

So pretty much Libya II? :shrug:

Pretty sad how the Arab Spring has been distorted into a new method to topple uncooperating states in the region (i.e. non-puppet states)

Thank God, Assad is winning.

Stryder, I understand what you're saying, but what about the Human Rights abuses of the United States? You aren't on a moral high horse to criticize us.

 

[S.A.M.]

Does anyone seriously believe the "rebellion" in Syria is an actual grassroots effort at political reform?

I think that was how it started out

The "rebels" are openly Islamic fundamentalists supported by NATO and the United States, for Pete's sake. This isn't a revolutionary effort. It's an effort at establishing a theocracy under the control of foreign powers. How anybody could still think Assad is the bad guy here is beyond me.

"The rebels" - which ones?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

That being said, I do not think Assad is an especially good leader, but if the choice is between foreign-backed Islamists and a largely secular government under Assad, I vote for the latter. Obviously the ideal would be a socialist or communist government, but the material reality is that it comes down to foreign-backed Islamists vs secular Assad.

That would be correct if the choice was so simple. But right now we have Saudi funded FSA targeting government officials and civilians - mostly neighborhoods heavily populated by Syrian minorities [note the 200,000 Syrians who have left their homes in Alleppo recently] and other popular revolutionaries protesting Assad. Its quite confusing especially because added into that mix, we have hackers planting stories and Awaaz and al Jazeera taping fake interviews and fake demonstrations. Meanwhile, neither Assad nor the FSA are interested in democracy so most certainly the people themselves have no one to speak for them. Qatar seems to have pulled out so Saudi Arabia has been left holding the bag, so between the Saudis and Assad, its the Syrian people who get caught in the crossfire.

As a person who has actually visited Syria before (in 2005), it's a pretty safe country and I did not sense any tension between Christians and Muslims. Syria is one of the more secular countries in the Middle East and does not have nearly as much sectarian tension as Lebanon or Israel. So my vote goes for Assad in this crisis.

Thoughts?

Its not a Christians vs Muslims issue. Assad favours ALL the minorities over the Sunni majority. So a lot of the violence is Sunni Syrians venting their frustration.

I'm following Moon of Alabama since "b" consolidates stories

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/08/syria-just-a-few-reads.html

 

[Norsefire]

To hell with the Sunnis.

I'm an Alawite (well, I'm an atheist, but Alawite family and background) and we were brutalized at the hands of the Sunnis for ages. All the Christians and minorities support Assad.

 

[S.A.M.]

I followed up one of the stories some time ago when I tried to trace how it all began. The very first instance I could find of Syrian violence related to the protests was this:

"Syrian sources close to RPS confirmed that four suicide car bombs exploded in Aleppo two days ago killing seven and injuring many more. The car bombs were detonated in the Ashrafieh area mostly populated by the Kurds. The Assad regime has successfully suppressed the information from reaching the outside world."
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.in/2011/01/hmmm_20.html

On the face of it, it looks good. RPS [Reform Party of Syria] is committed to "democracy in Syria", according to wikipedia so it should be a good reliable source.

But here is the problem. No one outside RPS and Israel matzav have heard of these bombings. Not a single Arabic newspaper carried the story. And the RPS is so liberal you have to log in to see their website
http://reformsyria.org/

And the party is based in Washington. Thats just one instance of what news from Syria looks like

 

[RedStar]

SAM what's your point?

 

[youreyes]

she quotes stuff to sound smart but does not really hold any sort of opinion on this issue. I guess she is saying how Washington is controlling the media of the entire Syrian conflict. One thing for certain, the reason for this war continuing on in Syria are the Sunnis trying to get the power.

 

[S.A.M.]

My point is that we don't know what is the "real news" coming out of Syria. So our thoughts about what is happening there are severely restricted since we have no clue what is actually happening on the ground

By carefully looking at the news we can only come to two firm conclusions:

1. Most of the action, real or fake is not happening in the Sunni neighborhoods but in places like Aleppo and Homs which have large minority sect neighborhoods. So we are to believe that Assad is generally pounding the neighborhoods which support him and the FSA are defending these neighborhoods to the extent that, in some cases, 200,000 residents have fled their homes. Do we believe the FSA loves minorities so much and Assad who has favoured all minorities above Sunnis has decided to pound them for unfathomable reasons?

2. The general pattern of the news is geared to creating an impression that pro-Assad parts of the country are falling and turning against Assad.

How far one can believe this - in the face of disclosures of fake news and demonstrations - remains to be seen.

I don't know that the news released by the RPS was disseminated from Washington. I only know that a prodemocracy site [it is cited in the Israel Matzav blogger article and the link over there is what takes you to the RPS site] with a password protected news website accessible to Israel Matzav bloggers seems a bit...weird. Even more so since they are based in Washington. You'd think living in the United States would give them the confidence to have a publicly accessible pro-democracy website. Wouldn't you?

And you'd think someone other than a pro-democracy website in Washington would have noticed car bombs going off in Aleppo during a visit by the US ambassador to Syria, right?

 

[Emil]

Obviously the ideal would be a socialist or communist governmen....

Can you give an example of a communist state?