Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is going on in Syria is so horrible. Similar to the farce that went on in Libya, only much worse with the bombings and starving the people out. That lasted a long 9 months, including a genocide against the blacks. I haven't kept up with Libya now, but I don't imagine things have improved for the people.
Apparently many times as many people have been slaughtered since Gaddafi was killed than during the clashes between his supporters and the rebels. Scary thought.
I think comparing President Assad to Gaddafi is a little risky. Gaddafi was, by all means, as much of a dictator as you can get. He was also a little insane. While his fate was clearly decided by NATO, to compare him to Assad discredits the Syrian Government. Bashar al-Assad is a well-educated and popular President. He's more of a politician whereas Gaddafi was more of a military leader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
This. We need to stay out of it.
Too bad we've failed to do that and are one of the reasons it's still going on.
Exactly, so what gives with President Obama, Senator McCain, and most western leaders coming out and attacking Assad, while remaining silent on the crimes of the opposition.
In addition, most indications point to the majority of Syrians supporting Assad. So isn't it a disrespectful move on the part of our leaders to call for his removal? It's like saying we don't respect what the Syrians want.
World leaders are just taking advantage of an opening to slag on Assad, a strong ally of Iran. It's as simple as that. And of course coverage of the violence in Syria will be slanted to have the maximum effect.
I was talking to a Syrian friend and I heard an interesting perspective on the ongoing conflict in Syria. She told me some of her relatives were among the first to protest last year against Bashar al-Assad. They were never for his removal, as, she says, Assad has done a good job keeping Syria internationally relevant and their economy relevant. But they had several demands that they hoped would be achieved. About a month or so after the protests started, Assad agreed to dialogue, and it looked like the protests were going to subside. However, with full Turkish, Saudi, Qatari, and American backing, the more radical elements of those who weren't fans of Assad began to receive arms. They disliked Assad for being pro-Iranian, anti-Saudi, and leading a secular regime. Her family moved back into supporting Assad wholeheartedly. She comes from a non-practicing Sunni family in Aleppo, a known majority pro-Assad town.
She told me Syria is divided, as Alawites, Christians, Shia, and secular Sunnis support Bashar al-Assad and more conservative, pro-Saudi, pro-Salafist Sunnis favor his removal. She claimed the majority supports the president. Upon hearing this, I did some research.
The Syrian rebels are cleansing Syrian Christians out of their homes:
This shocked me the most. The media is playing a dirty game with most viewers. The opposition crimes are never reported. Arab stations like Al-Jazeera are promoting political agendas. Meanwhile, Western media gets its news from the Syrian National Council, an opposition group, and thus, inevitably, reports a lot of exaggerated news and some flat-out lies.
Finally, she told me that the crimes of the rebels greatly outdo the crimes of Assad's troops. She insisted Syria's troops were not responsible for the vast majority of the crimes the international community claims they are. Recently, the massacre in Houla, which the international community has blamed "at least partially" on "pro-Assad militias" were actually committed by Syrian rebels to frame him. What's the indication? Apparently most of Houla's victims were from known families that support the government. Assad has nothing to gain from killing civilians. He needs all the support he can get.
I concluded I'd stop supporting this "uprising" in Syria. These rebels are using suicide bombings in civilian districts, killing innocents, forcing Christians out of their towns, and threatening a secular society in which no was ever discriminated on based on their beliefs. The alternative to Assad is scary.
Plus, you know something is fishy when Saudi Arabia of all nations is supporting a revolution. Democracy is definitely not the end goal.
So in choosing between the two evils, wouldn't it make more sense to back Assad?
Apparently many times as many people have been slaughtered since Gaddafi was killed than during the clashes between his supporters and the rebels. Scary thought.
I think comparing President Assad to Gaddafi is a little risky. Gaddafi was, by all means, as much of a dictator as you can get. He was also a little insane. While his fate was clearly decided by NATO, to compare him to Assad discredits the Syrian Government. Bashar al-Assad is a well-educated and popular President. He's more of a politician whereas Gaddafi was more of a military leader.
Too bad we've failed to do that and are one of the reasons it's still going on.
You are wrong about Gaddafi. There was no humanitarian cause in Libya, it was just an excuse that we instigated, just as we are doing in Syria.
Follow the money, Gaddafi was uniting Africa, to be strong and independent. He rejected IMF and had created the Central Bank of Africa, which we have looted. He was and still is beloved by the Libyan people, but they cannot speak or they will be killed. AN ONGOING DISASTER: Libya, Africa and Africom
The question isn't whether he's a good guy or not. The questions are who's the alternative and what do the Syrian people want? The alternative are Al-Qaeda inspired extremists and the Muslim Brotherhood and the majority of Syria wants Assad to remain in power.
The question here is why does the media fail to report both sides? Back in October, why would an anti-Assad rally of 2,000 people receive news coverage while a pro-Assad rally of 300,000+ would go ignored by most stations?
Assad isn't a good guy. He's far from one. But if you genuinely believe the Syrian Government is behind more crimes than the rebels you are mistaken. Assad has nothing to gain from these crimes. He invited the UN into Syria, for what? So they could see him commit crimes? In addition, Assad needs to maintain legitimacy so he can't simply kill innocents. He needs all the support he can get from his people and killing civilians does not help his case.
Here's an interesting media scheme: rebels are listed as civilians. When the New York Times reports that the Syrian Army has killed 20 civilians, they usually mean 20 rebels. Ever notice that opposition militants never get listed in casualty reports? That's because they're not all organized, just a bunch of Islamic extremists with guns. They are, at the end of the day, only Syrian civilians. But it really leads you to understand that the whole "Assad is slaughtering women and children" thing is nothing more than a myth.
You are wrong about Gaddafi. There was no humanitarian cause in Libya, it was just an excuse that we instigated, just as we are doing in Syria.
Follow the money, Gaddafi was uniting Africa, to be strong and independent. He rejected IMF and had created the Central Bank of Africa, which we have looted. He was and still is beloved by the Libyan people, but they cannot speak or they will be killed. AN ONGOING DISASTER: Libya, Africa and Africom
Very interesting. I knew he had a strong base in Libya, but never knew he was wanted by the majority.
I don't think Syria could ever meet the same fate as Libya, however. Russia is too focused on Syria and won't sell them out. They saw what happened in Libya and realized it was a big mistake. Plus, Syria is a crucial nation for them. Their last direct Arab ally. In addition, Syria would be a much harder battle. In a country where the overwhelming majority remains loyal to Assad and where the Syrian Army has had few defectors and some 500,000 loyal troops, it would be no walk in the park.
Obama's problem is that he does not have the UN support. Kofi Annan has promoted a plan for peace, which is a ceasefire, but the rebels refuse to abide by it, and now are demanding a no-fly zone.
NC: Let’s face it, the US, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar do not want Kofi Annan’s plan to succeed. It’s the Syrian government that wants it to succeed – and Russia and China.
I think it was on Friday that the Qatari prime minister said that Kofi Annan should put an absolute deadline for his plan to work. It’s not helpful. I mean, why is the plan not working so far in bringing peace? Because the rebels are still fighting, they are still using arms, terrorist attacks are taking place in Syria. And what is the Syrian government supposed to do in response?
It now seems evidence is coming out of Houla that, you know, last week it was the Syrian government, now the evidence is not so clear. President Assad today in Damascus denied any involvement in that he said it was a “horrific, ugly crime.” So, you know, it’s up really to the people who are backing the violent rebels to rein them in. ‘West won’t back down in Syria, Russia and China must be firmer’ — RT
Houla is such an injustice. The killers aren't even being blamed! The international community and Syrian rebels used the blood of children to justify their forced politics on the Syrian Regime, a regime which clearly played no role in the massacre.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
