The Student Room Group

Bashar Al Assad is Syria's only hope.

Sure, his regime might have been the most transparent or the most democratic, and yes he was authoritarian and repressive and yes he has tortured and killed many. I don't for one moment pretend the Syrian President is a saint or infallible. HOWEVER, this is not an ideal world. Realpolitik dictates that currently our interests in the West (not the interests of a narrow circle of belligerent establishment interventionist hawks) and the interests of the Syrian people are best served by Assad defeating all non-government militants in Syria (excluding perhaps the Kurds if they are willing to cooperate with the government of Syria) and remaining in power for the foreseeable future. Let's get something clear, the "moderate opposition" which the US and UK and French governments boast about arming is a fantasy. The most effective rebel groups and the ones which hold the most territory and the most important strategic areas of Syria are all ideologically fundamentalist Islamist, most follow the Wahhabi/Salafi version of Islam and some of them are the cousins of ISIS (such as Jabhat Al Nusra which until very very recently was affiliated with Al Qaeda). The "moderates" have diffused into a amalgamation of sporadic, chaotic and ineffective militias.

Very little is left of the original Free Syrian Army we saw during the beginning of the uprising, most FSA soldiers have defected to more extreme groups like Ahrar-Al-Sham. Even Tony Blair, one of the most shameless interventionist hawks (who has single handedly done more helped destabilise the Middle East then any other British PM in living memory), had one of his think tanks admit that if ISIS were to be completely defeated, another 65,000 jihadists (many of them foreign fighters from here in Europe) could comfortably fill the vacuum left. And Blair wanted to bomb Assad by the way, so there's no bias against the rebels, quite the opposite. We have to stop our government from helping to finance and arm what are quite frankly terrorists and head choppers.

By giving them Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers, we make the civil war much worse. Not only do civilians suffer, but citizens here in Europe are prone to more attacks by jihadist sympathisers energised by what they see in Syria, sometimes even trained or directed by groups in Syria (mostly ISIS). If the Assad regime were to fall, the competition for power would not be between proponents of liberal democracy or different economic systems, the battle would be between the most efficient way to chop the heads of infidels. The security consequences for all of us living here in the UK and Europe would be infinitely worse than it is now, with no counterweight to oppose them, organisations which are ideologically dedicated to killing Westerners would be able to use Syria as a complete safe haven to plan more and more deadly attacks. This would allow xenophobic political parties to prosper in Europe and could even mean that our own troops have to intervene at a future point to clean up the mess we helped to create.

Recently an 11 year old boy was beheaded by a rebel organisation in Syria, and the group was in a US list of approved groups to receive military aid! Given the close relationship between the UK and US government, I have no doubt that MI6 was also helping to send them guns. Assad is the only person who can defeat those forces, and for all his authoritarianism, he is a secular dictator who does not persecute people based on religious identity. We cannot allow our taxes to help turn Syria into a failed state like Libya or even Iraq. If Assad goes, it must be by true moderates and democrats, but we cannot aid the most anti-democratic militants and claim to be spreading democracy!

Blair think tank report: http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/religion-geopolitics/reports-analysis/report/if-castle-falls

Boy beheading article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/20/syrian-opposition-group-which-killed-child-was-in-us-vetted-alliance

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Original post by Sycatonne23
Sure, his regime might have been the most transparent or the most democratic, and yes he was authoritarian and repressive and yes he has tortured and killed many. I don't for one moment pretend the Syrian President is a saint or infallible. HOWEVER, this is not an ideal world. Realpolitik dictates that currently our interests in the West (not the interests of a narrow circle of belligerent establishment interventionist hawks) and the interests of the Syrian people are best served by Assad defeating all non-government militants in Syria (excluding perhaps the Kurds if they are willing to cooperate with the government of Syria) and remaining in power for the foreseeable future. Let's get something clear, the "moderate opposition" which the US and UK and French governments boast about arming is a fantasy. The most effective rebel groups and the ones which hold the most territory and the most important strategic areas of Syria are all ideologically fundamentalist Islamist, most follow the Wahhabi/Salafi version of Islam and some of them are the cousins of ISIS (such as Jabhat Al Nusra which until very very recently was affiliated with Al Qaeda). The "moderates" have diffused into a amalgamation of sporadic, chaotic and ineffective militias.

Very little is left of the original Free Syrian Army we saw during the beginning of the uprising, most FSA soldiers have defected to more extreme groups like Ahrar-Al-Sham. Even Tony Blair, one of the most shameless interventionist hawks (who has single handedly done more helped destabilise the Middle East then any other British PM in living memory), had one of his think tanks admit that if ISIS were to be completely defeated, another 65,000 jihadists (many of them foreign fighters from here in Europe) could comfortably fill the vacuum left. And Blair wanted to bomb Assad by the way, so there's no bias against the rebels, quite the opposite. We have to stop our government from helping to finance and arm what are quite frankly terrorists and head choppers.

By giving them Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers, we make the civil war much worse. Not only do civilians suffer, but citizens here in Europe are prone to more attacks by jihadist sympathisers energised by what they see in Syria, sometimes even trained or directed by groups in Syria (mostly ISIS). If the Assad regime were to fall, the competition for power would not be between proponents of liberal democracy or different economic systems, the battle would be between the most efficient way to chop the heads of infidels. The security consequences for all of us living here in the UK and Europe would be infinitely worse than it is now, with no counterweight to oppose them, organisations which are ideologically dedicated to killing Westerners would be able to use Syria as a complete safe haven to plan more and more deadly attacks. This would allow xenophobic political parties to prosper in Europe and could even mean that our own troops have to intervene at a future point to clean up the mess we helped to create.

Recently an 11 year old boy was beheaded by a rebel organisation in Syria, and the group was in a US list of approved groups to receive military aid! Given the close relationship between the UK and US government, I have no doubt that MI6 was also helping to send them guns. Assad is the only person who can defeat those forces, and for all his authoritarianism, he is a secular dictator who does not persecute people based on religious identity. We cannot allow our taxes to help turn Syria into a failed state like Libya or even Iraq. If Assad goes, it must be by true moderates and democrats, but we cannot aid the most anti-democratic militants and claim to be spreading democracy!

Blair think tank report: http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/religion-geopolitics/reports-analysis/report/if-castle-falls

Boy beheading article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/20/syrian-opposition-group-which-killed-child-was-in-us-vetted-alliance


Are you from Russia Today?
Reply 2
Original post by Sycatonne23
x


I personally do not like Bashar Al Assad, and the only way i see any reasonable solution is for the Syrian people to decide for themselves who they wish to lead after them. The syrian people must decide, in proper and vetted elections who they wish to rule. If this means the end of Assad, i am behind the will of the syrian people.

However, i sincerely and firmly believe that many - but not all- of the so-called 'moderate rebel' groups are far from moderates. Take into account that the most powerful 'rebel' groups are Jabhat Al Nusra [an official alqaeda affiliate which recently rebranded itself to jabhat fatah al sham, to try to win favour], Ahrar Asham, founded by an alqaeda member, Jaysh al Islam - strong in the Damascus Suburbs as well as the Goutha region - who put alawi women in cages, whose ex leader Zahran Alloush honoured 'Sheikh Osama bin Laden - may Allah have mercy on him' end quote - who considered the official alqaeda affiliate - Al Nusra, to be 'his brothers'.

If Assad were to fall, and i am no support of Assad, the result would be a so-called islamic caliphate of the leaders of these groups, who are highly secterian, radical, coercing or complying with designated terrorists, alqaeda, or have other radical ties. Furthermore, these groups are bank rolled by Qatar, and Saudi arabia, and do not represent the Syrian people. Their triumph would lead far more blood shed, death, and repression over the longer term, and act as a hub for the growth of terrorism.

The only solution is a negotiation at the table, a transition to proper and democratic elections, where the Syrians choose for themselves. There is absolutely no way a shariah-shura caliphate government would work - the majority of syrians would absolutely oppose alqaeda affiliate leaders, those linked to alqaeda, those radical and working as a proxy for Qatar and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to lead their country.


Jabhat Al Nusra facade rebranding in a bid to avoid Air-Strikes:

[video="youtube;lAdY49EgIJA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAdY49EgIJA[/video]

Jabhat Al Nusra have been the official Alqaeda affiliate in Syria for years. Their leadership is deeply embedded with Alqaeda and their ideology. Furthermore, the fighters as well as the entire structure of Al Nusra has been in line with a hateful, sectarian, and millitant ethos. They have continually praised Alqaeda, and continually promoted hatred and terrorism.

At the possible behest of Qatar and other groups involved, they decided to, over night, as a way to deceive and dupe people into thinking they have become moderate's and so avoid air-strikes' rebranded their name and stated they have cut off ties with Alqaeda.

However, it is an insult to intelligence, honesty, and decency to suggest that a group whose fighters have been deeply embedded with Alqaeda ideology, who have fought in Syria with Alqaeda's ethos and principles for years, who have committed atrocities and continue to preach the same radical ideology, are somehow 'moderates' over night.

It is arguable one of the most powerful and well armed groups in syria, and if Assad were to fall, the leaders of Al Nusra would undoubtedly have key leadership positions in the shura-caliphate.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 3
Original post by Sycatonne23
x


I'll give you an example - take the ex leader of the powerful group, jaysh al Islam, who currently shell civilians and carry out chemical weapons attacks, as well as lock women in cages. The ex leaders name is Zahran Alloush:





Here is a video of him praising Osama Bin Laden:

""We saw sheikh Usama Bin Laden - may Allah have mercy on him " [ from 2.15 onwards on the video]


[video="youtube;Lcvz-sgyuu0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcvz-sgyuu0[/video]
Reply 4
Original post by Sycatonne23
x



Here is Zahran Alloush, stating that 'Jabhat Al Nusra ' - the official alqaeda affiliate in Syria, are the brothers of Jaysh al Islam, and that he doesn't care about what far states i.e other countries say about designating them as a terrorist group. Zahran's alloush 'moderate' jaysh al Islam rebel group worked hand in hand with Jabhat Al Nusra.

[video="youtube;Zajo2GeKyV4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zajo2GeKyV4[/video]



Jabhat Al Nusra:




On 10 December 2012, the U.S. designated Nusra a foreign terrorist organization and an alias of Al Qaeda in Iraq. That decision made it illegal for Americans to deal financially with Nusra. Days earlier, the American ambassador to Syria, R. Ford, had said: "Extremist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are a problem, an obstacle to finding the political solution that Syria’s going to need
Reply 5
Original post by Sycatonne23
x



Here is what i believe is perhaps one of the most disgusting speeches, full of religious hatred, where he condones the hatred and murder of shia muslims. Ofcourse, there are people who will seek to white-wash what he has to say, but anyone who understands the terms knows that 'Rafidah' is an offensive word used for shia muslims. The ummayads are hated by shia's - with a few exceptions- and calling shia's 'najis' and 'majoosi' [i.e iranians], again plays into absolutely loathsome, foul and secterian hatred. Do we want these kind of people to lead over a diverse nation like Syria?

[video="youtube;nPLUhSy4vZ4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPLUhSy4vZ4[/video]


It is possible, if not highly likely that, for salafi millitants like Alloush, one of his inspirations was Ibn Taymiyyah:

Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said about the Raafidah, “They are more evil than most of the people of desires, and they are more deserving of being killed than the Khawaarij. [Refer to Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (28/482) of Ibn Taymiyyah]
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 6
Original post by Sycatonne23
x



Here you see Alawi women put into cages by Jaysh Al Islam - and i have seen people on TSR actually trying to justify this. I kid you not, there are mosques in the UK which preach this kind of vitriol seeking to white-wash and justify it.

[video="youtube;k_R3Wmjl8e8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_R3Wmjl8e8[/video]
Original post by Tawheed


However, i sincerely and firmly believe that many - but not all- of the so-called 'moderate rebel' groups are far from moderates. Take into account that the most powerful 'rebel' groups are Jabhat Al Nusra [an official alqaeda affiliate which recently rebranded itself to jabhat fatah al sham, to try to win favour], Ahrar Asham, founded by an alqaeda member, Jaysh al Islam - strong in the Damascus Suburbs as well as the Goutha region - who put alawi women in cages, whose ex leader Zahran Alloush honoured 'Sheikh Osama bin Laden - may Allah have mercy on him' end quote - who considered the official alqaeda affiliate - Al Nusra, to be 'his brothers'.



That's not true.
Reply 8
Original post by Sycatonne23
x



JAYSH AL FATAH

Jaysh Al Fatah is one of the most powerful alliances in Syria. We all know that theres ISIS/Daesh, however, very little focus is given to some of these other takfiri groups. Jaysh Al Fatah formed on the 24th March 2015, is a combination of some of these vicious Takfiri groups. Takfirism is given to radical militants who like to call large bodies of other muslims as kaffirs, apostates, both outside their 'sect' and in their 'sect'. They are viciously militant, radicals in ideology, using sectarianism to brainwash even some moderate's into committing acts and crimes against humanity.




Let us examine Jaysh Al Fatah, an alliance of several of the most powerful non-daesh takfiri groups:

The alliance in question is mainly in the Idlib provence. The important thing to note is, many of these terrorist groups operate outside of the Idlib provence, but the fighters from this group in Idlib have decided to unite and fight together.

Founding groups of Jaysh Al Fatah:

"At its founding, Jaish al-Fatah contained seven members, three of them al-Nusra, Ahrar ash-Sham, and Jund al-Aqsa are directly connected to Al-Qaeda or have a similar ideology.

With Ahrar ash-Sham being the largest group,[11] al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham together were reported to represent 90 percent of the troops.[12] Another prominent Islamist faction in the operations room was the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria-linkedSham Legion (Faylaq Al-Sham).

Jaish al-Fatah collaborated with more moderate Free Syrian Armyfactions such as Knights of Justice Brigade.[13]The coalition's initial success has been attributed to its strong coherence, with the name of individual factions being forbidden when the group conducts joint operations"

Let's have a breakdown of some of these groups, working closely together in Idlib:

Jabhat Al Nusra is the OFFICIAL Alqaeda affiliate in Syria.

Ahrar Ashamonce worked closely with ISIS, was founded by members of
Alqaeda, and routinely cooperates with Al Nusra, and is viciously sectarian.

Jund Al Aqsa:[Former member, left Originally founded as a subunit within alqaeda affiliate, jabhat al nusra. On the 23 October 2015, Jund al-Aqsa left the Army of Conquest because of its opposition to the other groups considering the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant an enemy.[17] On 17 February 2016, over 400 fighters and senior leaders of Jund al-Aqsa defected to al-Nusra Front.

Liwa Al Haq- Founding members largely islamist. Even if it has moderate elements, the fact it is working with the likes of Jabhat Al Nusra, and Ahrar Asham speaks volumes.

Jaysh Al Sunnah- Homs based group, links to FSA, works closely with alqaeda -member founded group, Ahrar Asham

Anjad Al Sham - Independent Idlib and Hama based rebel group, works closely with alqaeda affiliates al nusra and ahrar as part of the army of conquest - 'Jaysh Al Fatah'. Killed an unarmed syrian soldier, beheaded him, and posted it on facebook as well, using terms like 'nusayri'.

Imam Bukhari Jama't: Islamist Salafi groups, comprised mostly of Uzbeks, expressing loyalty to the Taliban. Group closely allied to official alqaeda affiliate al nusra, and alqaeda member-founded group ahrar asham.

Turkistan Islamic Party: formerly known as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement(ETIM), and other names,[a] is an Islamic terrorist and separatist organization founded by Uyghur militants in western China.
Reply 9
Original post by AlifunArnab
That's not true.


Are you denying Jabhat Al Nusra were the official alqaeda affiliate in Syria ?
Original post by Tawheed
Are you denying Jabhat Al Nusra were the official alqaeda affiliate in Syria ?


You said they are and not they were which is a huge difference.

You might want to also update your other post as Jabhat Fath al Sham aren't AQ nor are they AQ linked.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by john2054
Are you from Russia Today?


I think he's an Al Jazeera journalist, the news channel funded by Qatar, the country which supplies arms and support to alqaeda member founded groups in Syria.

These groups are assisted, funded and supported by gulf states, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, as well as countries like Turkey, with Erdogan at the helm.









Original post by AlifunArnab
You said they are and not they were which is a huge difference.

You might want to also update your other post as Jabhat Fath al Sham aren't AQ nor are they AQ linked.


I absolutely and wholly reject the facade and rebranding of Jabhat Al Nusra to Jabhat Fatah al Sham. They are still deemed and considered to be a terrorist group, and their so-called split from Alqaeda after five years with Alqaeda, having their top leaders embedded with Alqaeda, slaughtering, promoting secterian hatred, bigotry, and intolerance can not be undone by merely changing the name.

Which is why even the UN as well as Washington has stated that their so-called rebranding is a facade and will have no effect at all in continuing to designate them as a terrorist group.

I absolutely and wholly reject falling for their rebranding.

Five years of working for Alqaeda as the official affiliate, promoting their ideology, committing atrocities, having leaders who promote this hatred, and then over night, you expect me to believe they have changed and reformed and become 'moderate' ? Do you think an ideology embedded in a terrorist group goes away after rebranding and changing name? I again, absolutely reject this as deceitful.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Tawheed
I absolutely and wholly reject the facade and rebranding of Jabhat Al Nusra to Jabhat Fatah al Sham. They are still deemed and considered to be a terrorist group, and their so-called split from Alqaeda after five years with Alqaeda, having their top leaders embedded with Alqaeda, slaughtering, promoting secterian hatred, bigotry, and intolerance can not be undone by merely changing the name.

Which is why even the UN as well as Washington has stated that their so-called rebranding is a facade and will have no effect at all in continuing to designate them as a terrorist group.

I absolutely and wholly reject falling for their rebranding.


You're entitled to your opinion, but obviously you can't go around saying they are an official affiliate of AQ as that's incorrect.

Hezbollah are also considered as terrorists by the USA (not sure about the UN) so I guess every side works with terrorists.
Original post by AlifunArnab
x


Jabhat Al Nusra have been the official Alqaeda affiliate in Syria for years. Their leadership is deeply embedded with Alqaeda and their ideology. Furthermore, the fighters as well as the entire structure of Al Nusra has been in line with a hateful, sectarian, and millitant ethos. They have continually praised Alqaeda, and continually promoted hatred and terrorism.

At the possible behest of Qatar and other groups involved, they decided to, over night, as a way to deceive and dupe people into thinking they have become moderate's and so avoid air-strikes' rebranded their name and stated they have cut off ties with Alqaeda.

However, it is an insult to intelligence, honesty, and decency to suggest that a group whose fighters have been deeply embedded with Alqaeda ideology, who have fought in Syria with Alqaeda's ethos and principles for years, who have committed atrocities and continue to preach the same radical ideology, are somehow 'moderates' over night.

It is arguable one of the most powerful and well armed groups in syria, and if Assad were to fall, the leaders of Al Nusra would undoubtedly have key leadership positions in the shura-caliphate.

I will post the above after time i say the word ' Jabhat Al Nusra'.
Original post by AlifunArnab
x



It's interesting you are one of the ones who has rushed to promote this rebranding effort. You have always been ambiguous about your views of these radical groups[not because you are ambiguous about them, but perhaps not to reveal it to me ] but i think, with due respect, we both pretty much know your ultimate views given your words and positions as of late.
Original post by Tawheed


However, it is an insult to intelligence, honesty, and decency to suggest that a group whose fighters have been deeply embedded with Alqaeda ideology, who have fought in Syria with Alqaeda's ethos and principles for years, who have committed atrocities and continue to preach the same radical ideology, are somehow 'moderates' over night.


No one is saying they've changed their ideology. All I'm saying is that we cannot say they're still AQ, as they're not. Which atrocities are you referring to by the way?

Original post by Tawheed


It is arguable one of the most powerful and well armed groups in syria, and if Assad were to fall, the leaders of Al Nusra would undoubtedly have key leadership positions in the shura-caliphate.

I will post the above after time i say the word ' Jabhat Al Nusra'.



If the people wanted Jabhat Fath al Sham, would you be opposed to it?
Original post by Tawheed
It's interesting you are one of the ones who has rushed to promote this rebranding effort. You have always been ambiguous about your views of these radical groups[not because you are ambiguous about them, but perhaps not to reveal it to me ] but i think, with due respect, we both pretty much know your ultimate views given your words and positions as of late.


I haven't promoted anything.

Even the OP understands that Jabhat Fath Al Sham are no longer AQ. Whether you think they still hold extreme opinions is up to you but you can't go around saying they're still AQ.

My views are pretty clear. I'm with the Muslims and I'm with those who want Islam.
In any case, where do we begin with the atrocities of Bashar al Assad?

The Caesar report in 2014 details "the systematic killing of more than 11,000 detainees by the Syrian government in one region during the Syrian Civil War over a two and half year period from March 2011 to August 2013"

Here's what Human rights watch has said about it :

'According to Human Rights Watch, following a 6-month investigation, the photo evidence of the report is genuine; in a report published on 16 December 2015, it said that Syrian officials should be tried for crimes against humanity.'

This was only in the space of 2 years. How many more tens of thousands have died by now?

'According to a report by Amnesty International, published in November 2015, the Syrian regime has forcibly disappeared more than 65,000 people (who are yet to be heard from) since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War.[6] According to a report in May 2016 by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 60,000 people have been killed through torture or died from dire humanitarian conditions in Syrian government jails since March 2011.'

Then we have the numerous massacres his regime are guilty of and these are so many that I don't even know where to begin.

Somehow however Bashar is the lesser of two evils. Strange world we live in.
Original post by Tawheed
Here is Zahran Alloush, stating that 'Jabhat Al Nusra ' - the official alqaeda affiliate in Syria, are the brothers of Jaysh al Islam, and that he doesn't care about what far states i.e other countries say about designating them as a terrorist group. Zahran's alloush 'moderate' jaysh al Islam rebel group worked hand in hand with Jabhat Al Nusra.



Do you make takfeer on Jaysh al Islam and Jabhat Al Nusra (as they were once called) ?

Quick Reply

Latest