[Suetonius]

Syria is likely to plummit into a considerably worse state than Iraq has been in since 2003, solely because of the regime's conduct. The root cause of the civil war is not that this assortment of rebel groups just sprang up out of the ground. It began when Assad followed the example of Qaddafi, and decided to shoot and bomb peaceful pro-democracy protests rather than listen to them. Undoubtedly, since then, unsavoury elements have joined the anti-regime side, but, as was the case in Libya where we also heard these overhyped protestations that 'al-Qaeda' had infiltrated the rebels, they are a small minority. If they were the driving force behind the opposition then you can be damn sure we would know about it. None of this alleviates the blame from Assad. The Ba'ath regime has spent the best part of thirty years deliberately exploiting sectarian divisions in the country in order to cement hegemony for a minority clique of the minority Alawite population. This has, in turn, alienated the vast majority of the Syrian people, and guaranteed militarization of the opposition.

Of course, I have been advocating military intervention (in the form of a buffer zone) for the best part of a year, so as to help prevent further deterioration of the Syrian crisis. When I started doing so I was shouted down. It will lead to civil war, they said. It will spill over to other countries, they said. Well, I say that after a year of relying on sanctions, the Annan 'peace plan' (Annan having a proven record, from Rwanda to Darfur to Bosnia, of allowing barbarians to spill blood at will) and polite diplomacy - all while Russia has been intervening on the side of the regime - these two things have obviously come to pass regardless. Had the Assad regime been removed with the help of external force a year ago, today's awful conditions would never have arisen.

[Suetonius]

(Original post by VeniViciVidi)
In the next few weeks, I somewhat fear the prospect of the use of WMD weapons since 1945. Syria possesses an abundance of biological and chemical weapons, including extremely potent VX nerve and Sarin nerve gases, which, could be distributed on major population centres before his regime is overrun.

Indeed. Assad actually attained some of these weapons (and/or the knowledge to develop them) from Iraq in 2002, when they were smuggled out, possibly with the help of Russia, before UNMOVIC inspections. This story has been backed by the testimonies of various Iraqi military officials. The Duelfer Report also could not rule out that such a transfer had taken place. I don't doubt that some of the weapons used will bear Iraqi markings, and people will finally see what became of the lost Iraqi WMD. It's very interesting that what many people in the West see as Bush's "lie" - an imagined, fantastical and concocted fraud - will potentially result in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Syrian civilians. It won't seem like a lie to them.

[Teofilo]

(Original post by Suetonius)
Undoubtedly, since then, unsavoury elements have joined the anti-regime side, but, as was the case in Libya where we also heard these overhyped protestations that 'al-Qaeda' had infiltrated the rebels, they are a small minority.

That doesn't make Syria and Libya like-for-like comparisons by any means though. In Libya there was a largely unified, if initially in cohesive and poorly equipped rebel force; in Syria there are 100+ factions with little in common bar a desire to bring down the regime and very little communication, and very real friction, between many of them.

It doesn't need al-Qaeda to turn a post-Assad Syria into an even more vicious civil war. All of the elements are unfortunately there.

[Studentus-anonymous]

A rebel victory is exchanging the prior civil war with the next one.

Not that I like Assad but Syria seems firmly in the camp of countries who's boiling sectarian and ethnic tensions are held in check by a strong regime.

[Clessus]

(Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
A rebel victory is exchanging the prior civil war with the next one.

Not that I like Assad but Syria seems firmly in the camp of countries who's boiling sectarian and ethnic tensions are held in check by a strong regime.

That is a common misconception. In both Iraq and Syria, the Ba'athistists used divide and rule policies to maintain their minority rule. This exacerbated and acted as an incubator forsectarian tensions. The overthrow of the Syrian regime will inevitably be bloody and is likely to assume the appearance, at some level, of an Alawi-Sunni inter-communal violence. This in no way delegitimises the will of the Syrian people to remove Assad's tyranny, (after all shortly after independence, Ireland had an extremely nasty and bloody civil war which killed far more people than the actual war of independece). However Western military intervention, by speeding and smoothing the transition, will likely result in less bloodshed than would otherwise be the case.

[Teofilo]

(Original post by Clessus)
That is a common misconception. In both Iraq and Syria, the Ba'athistists used divide and rule policies to maintain their minority rule. This exacerbated and acted as an incubator forsectarian tensions. The overthrow of the Syrian regime will inevitably be bloody and is likely to assume the appearance, at some level, of an Alawi-Sunni inter-communal violence. This in no way delegitimises the will of the Syrian people to remove Assad's tyranny, (after all shortly after independence, Ireland had an extremely nasty and bloody civil war which killed far more people than the actual war of independece). However Western military intervention, by speeding and smoothing the transition, will likely result in less bloodshed than would otherwise be the case.

Despite the fact that Saddam may have artificially constructed tensions, Iraq still experienced savage sectarian violence after its civil war. The Sunni majority in Syria simply cannot credibly commit that it will uphold any promises of Alawite representation or protection (whether it actually intends to or not) given the advantage it will inevitably have whenever any such post-Assad handover takes place. There is absolutely no incentive for Assad to stop fighting or for any Alawites to stop supporting him.

I think that when the war finally reaches an end, third-party peacekeeping will be needed to ensure that representative political institutions are formed. Otherwise you could very easily have the tables turned and Alawite factions fighting for autonomy along the Eastern coast.

It would also be a huge mistake to presume that we know a great deal about who is actually fighting in the Syrian opposition. The whole situation is disjointed, and any violence after the war ends will not necessarily be sectarian; there will be a power vacuum that any number of groups look to fill.

[Clessus]

(Original post by Teofilo)
Despite the fact that Saddam may have artificially constructed tensions, Iraq still experienced savage sectarian violence after its civil war. The Sunni majority in Syria simply cannot credibly commit that it will uphold any promises of Alawite representation or protection (whether it actually intends to or not) given the advantage it will inevitably have whenever any such post-Assad handover takes place. There is absolutely no incentive for Assad to stop fighting or for any Alawites to stop supporting him.

I think that when the war finally reaches an end, third-party peacekeeping will be needed to ensure that representative political institutions are formed. Otherwise you could very easily have the tables turned and Alawite factions fighting for autonomy along the Eastern coast.

It would also be a huge mistake to presume that we know a great deal about who is actually fighting in the Syrian opposition. The whole situation is disjointed, and any violence after the war ends will not necessarily be sectarian; there will be a power vacuum that any number of groups look to fill.

I broadly agree with you, but the idea that Assad should stay because he supposedly kept a lid on sectarian violence is not only a false, immoral and counterproductive notion, it is increasingly becoming an untenable one.

[prog2djent]

Interesting, as well as,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/midd...-massacre-live

"
4.40pm: Following the release of two journalists who were kidnapped in northern Syria (see 1.32pm), Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director of Human Rights Watch, has interviewed one of them – Dutch freelance photographer Jeroen Oerlemans.


Q You crossed from Turkey into Syria, where did things go wrong?
A We used a guide who we thought knew what he was doing, but halfway down the route he changed direction. There was a communication problem, he didn't speak any English. But he walked us straight into a jihadi training camp.

Q A jihadi training camp? Were the fighters from outside Syria, you think?
A Absolutely. There wasn't a Syrian present. They were all youngsters from other countries, African countries, Chechnya ...

Q And what did they want with you?
A At first, they said they just wanted to find out if we were indeed who we said we were, they said they thought we were CIA agents [inaudible]. But then it quickly became apparent they wanted to trade us for ransom.

Q And you tried to escape?
A Very unsuccesfully ... [laughs] We went towards ... we thought we had figured out a good escape route and thought we had found a quiet moment when almost nobody in the camp was paying attention to us. But they saw us almost right away running, and immediately the bullets were flying, and the big chase had begun. And 10 minutes later we were lying in our blood.

Q And then back to the camp? How did you finally manage to get out of there?
A There was a moment that we thought we would be disappeared, disappear from the radar screen, that they would take us to a place where no one would ever find us again. Like a place outside Syria, maybe Iraq, or to be handed over to another armed group. Just at that moment, a group of armed men came into the camp. We were blindfolded and bound, trying to wash our clothes at the time.
They stormed into our tent and started dressing down everyone. Why the hell we were being kept there, how long we had been kept there, why we were being treated this way.

Q And who was this?
A From what I know now, they were FSA, FSA soldiers. I don't know which faction. They managed to get intimidate the youth in the camp enough that they could take us out of the camp. Five minutes later they took us out of the camp while shooting [in the air I think]. And we were free.

Q The impression is created that the FSA is now in competition with foreign jihadis in this area, in its fight against Assad?
A Yes. Maybe in the short term they have the same aim, namely of overthrowing Assad and freeing Syria from a dictatorial regime. But where the FSA seems to be fighting for democracy, these foreign fighters don't want anything more than imposing Sharia on Syria. Syrians are pretty moderate Muslims in general, but they want to put them under the heavy boot of Sharia.
And that they [Syrians] wouldn't have much say in their own land, really.

Q You've just escaped, what are your plans for the coming days?
A I'm first going to let all of this settle in a bit, then I'm going home to see my family. And then I'll start thinking about the future."

[prog2djent]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NG24Ak02.html

[Ama2007]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Insha'allah

After Assad is inevitably killed by either the FSA, Al-Tahweed, Al-Quada and affiliated mujahid groups, private military groups from the US, NATO, Saudi-Israeli-Nato money backed Terrorists .... what do you think will happen In syria?

Peace, democracy and Secularism ..... or, massive sectarian violence and we have the next Iraq on our hands, and given the Economic collapse, maybe, just maybe they (edit: the rebels FFS) can hope to become a Sharia'h state.

Well, ameen.

from what i read i cant tell u totally against FSA...its too late now
Whatever comes after bashar is better than his BATH/VIOLENT regime?any sane person could tell you that. He is gonna go down....just a matter of time. Forget about sectarian and all that coz thats what bashar is sayin so he can stay in power and 'save us all from a firecy secterian war' lol

Its a matter of time for his followers (not too many ) to actually for once stand uo and face the truth....years and for years they have been controlled by lies and lies on thier state TV...no wonder no one watches it. It deludes every syrian from the truth. They syrian people have finally woken up and decided they cant take anymore of the crap from bashar and his pyscho dad....they want it and they deserve all the freedom in the world...I have never seen a more determined freedom fighters not even in history...they continue to come out for protest and shelling is above there heads...they want badly dont you get it...It belongs to them not to the dectator/traitor who kills his own people !

[Ama2007]

(Original post by welshmun)
If that were to happen the same thing will happen that has happened in Libya.. more economic trouble.

economic trouble more important than slaughtered children in their own bed??

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Ama2007)
1. Whatever comes after bashar is better than his BATH/VIOLENT regime?
2. 'save us all from a firecy secterian war' lol
3. shelling is above there heads

1. No. Libya wasn't even as religiously/ethnically divided as Syria and look at that situation, no person can admit it is now better than it was.
2. So you are denying that (aside from Iraq), the biggest sectarian violence in the world, in syria, is not happening?
3. Most of the reports of shelling are either faked and what the clueless western journalists observe as shelling is either fabricated stories from Rebel militants or is actually mortor fire from rebels.

[Ama2007]

(Original post by prog2djent)
1. No. Libya wasn't even as religiously/ethnically divided as Syria and look at that situation, no person can admit it is now better than it was.
2. So you are denying that (aside from Iraq), the biggest sectarian violence in the world, in syria, is not happening?
3. Most of the reports of shelling are either faked and what the clueless western journalists observe as shelling is either fabricated stories from Rebel militants or is actually mortor fire from rebels.

did i mention libya or iraq anywhere in my comments?!
Oh...drop that, we all know NOW what syrian regime is after and what it has been doing to the syrian people for years..media didnt exist when he slaughtered 40,000 people in Hama years ago...but it does now, therefore there is no hiding now...people no longer believe everything they see...will most dont at least

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Ama2007)
did i mention libya or iraq anywhere in my comments?!
Oh...drop that, we all know NOW what syrian regime is after and what it has been doing to the syrian people for years..media didnt exist when he slaughtered 40,000 people in Hama years ago...but it does now, therefore there is no hiding now...people no longer believe everything they see...will most dont at least

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...s-battle-syria

Its finally seeping through to major western media sources, the Mail used to be heavily anti-assad and pro-intervention, but that has completely flipped in the past week, the Guardian and Indy have been fairly balanced for the past few months, but I think they aren't trivialising or brushing the rebel attrocities and role of the Mujahideen in this now, and is becoming the centre of attention for them. It seems only the telegraph and the times, the now non-BBC mouth pieces of the Government, are the only propogandists left (though the Telegraph did start off the article about the rebels leading British journalists to death traps and the whole Turkey Boarder Jihad camp thing).

[Ama2007]

(Original post by prog2djent)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...s-battle-syria

Its finally seeping through to major western media sources, the Mail used to be heavily anti-assad and pro-intervention, but that has completely flipped in the past week, the Guardian and Indy have been fairly balanced for the past few months, but I think they aren't trivialising or brushing the rebel attrocities and role of the Mujahideen in this now, and is becoming the centre of attention for them. It seems only the telegraph and the times, the now non-BBC mouth pieces of the Government, are the only propogandists left (though the Telegraph did start off the article about the rebels leading British journalists to death traps and the whole Turkey Boarder Jihad camp thing).

omg...you did it again...u are not answering my question and your simply talking nonsense..westernised this and that trying to find anything to blame without looking at whats happen...40000 people were killed back then and this monster is prepared to kill the 23 million if he has to...wats ur response...media this and media that. Who cares? he is murdering people everyday? whats ur response? its media! no mate its not...its real, just open your eyes, i dont need to watch the sources you mentioned to get my news. Who killded the 40,000...oh wait a minute, i think that was alqadi too or even the rebels!! who slaughtered 50 men yesterday in their homes. While they were asleep, they entered and slaughtered them with knife? why? coz they wanted freedom thats alll...oh no they had guns while they were asleep....is so they would have brought the regime down in less than a week. common sense?

[callum9999]

(Original post by prog2djent)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...s-battle-syria

Its finally seeping through to major western media sources, the Mail used to be heavily anti-assad and pro-intervention, but that has completely flipped in the past week, the Guardian and Indy have been fairly balanced for the past few months, but I think they aren't trivialising or brushing the rebel attrocities and role of the Mujahideen in this now, and is becoming the centre of attention for them. It seems only the telegraph and the times, the now non-BBC mouth pieces of the Government, are the only propogandists left (though the Telegraph did start off the article about the rebels leading British journalists to death traps and the whole Turkey Boarder Jihad camp thing).

If you think the BBC are a "government mouthpiece" - then your opinions are pretty much worthless to me... (Any so called "mouthpiece" that acts like the BBC does should be shut down immediately...)

Though I personally don't think coverage has ever been purely "pro-rebel". Almost every article I've seen, right from the beginning, has described possible war crimes etc. by the rebels. It looks to me like you're just manipulating which reports you use so you can attempt to display some kind of shift that never actually happened? Or you just didn't read the newspapers at all until recently?

[Clessus]

(Original post by callum9999)
If you think the BBC are a "government mouthpiece" - then your opinions are pretty much worthless to me... (Any so called "mouthpiece" that acts like the BBC does should be shut down immediately...)

Though I personally don't think coverage has ever been purely "pro-rebel". Almost every article I've seen, right from the beginning, has described possible war crimes etc. by the rebels. It looks to me like you're just manipulating which reports you use so you can attempt to display some kind of shift that never actually happened? Or you just didn't read the newspapers at all until recently?

To be honest, someone who complains about the western media being "biased" (while at the same time quoting western media sources which support his position), and then goes on to quote Russia Today and Dampress (a Syrian government channel) uncritically is not worth taking seriously.

[Manitude]

I would imagine that immediately after a care-taking government will enter into power, run an election after 3-6 months which the Islamic Brotherhood will win. Just my speculation.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by callum9999)
If you think the BBC are a "government mouthpiece"

Though I personally don't think coverage has ever been purely "pro-rebel". Almost every article I've seen, right from the beginning, has described possible war crimes etc. by the rebels.?

The BBC are the closest to a mouthpiece that we will ever get, in comparison to other media sources.

No the coverage hasn't been exlusively pro-rebel, but right from the get-go, from what I have been researching and following, in comparison to the Guardian or Indy, the BBC have been completely ignorant of anything that paints the rebels in a bad light, and will report what they can on how bad Assad is. The BBC may make a passing reference that most BBC zombies won't even notice, in relation to rebel war crimes and massacres (the Independent now acknowledges that Houla massacre, was a rebel opperation ... and the Guardian credits this), yet this is found in maybe 1 in 10 reports, on the TV or on the web.

Not related, but something that really, really annoys me about BBC, times and Daily Mail reporting (what the majority of people use as media sources) is when trying to balance and article, i.e, "the syrian government blamed 'terrorists' for the attack", always keen to put terrorist between markings, mocking almost. Or here is another common on, a BBC TV favourite, "Assad blamed so-called 'armed gangs' for the bombing".

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Ama2007)
1. he is murdering people everyday?
2. i dont need to watch the sources you mentioned to get my news.
3. Who killded the 40,000...oh wait a minute, i think that was alqadi too or even the rebels!!
4. who slaughtered 50 men yesterday in their homes. While they were asleep they entered and slaughtered them with knife?
5. freedom thats all common sense?

Now If I was a typical TSR southern snob like those on this thread, I would have called you out on grammar and spelling, and come back with some sort of pretentious response like "well I'm not replying to someone who can't even blah blah" something to do with grammar, but I will make of what you said as best I can.

1. So are the opposition. I've never actually said I don't think he is not killing people (though he doesn't really run the country, no president does).
2. And you are getting your news from where? Since you constantly mention one figure I would assume the BBC or it has been drilled into you by more socially related sources, since I am guessing you are a Sunni Muslim.
3. The deaths at the hands of the rebles in relation to deaths at war is actually higher. I think you should stop trying to divert attention from the fact the rebels are killing civilians and are the cause of sectarianism, by quoting figure from Assad's crimes. Do you have trouble admitting that your side can commit such acts? Is it denial or are you disingenuous?
4. If any were decapitated then that screams of rebel involvement as a flase flag, just like the "houla massacre". An opperation in which Sunni Islamists stormed an Alawi and Shia stronghold, killed them, and presented the death as being the government killing non-descript civilians.
5. Common sense? Most of the British population probably don't know the definition of Sectarianism, or understand the ethnic-religious composition of Syria, who opposes who etc etc, let alone different islamic sects. Its just watered down as "HURR DURR ASSAD EVIIIIILLLLL DICTATOR KILLING CIVILIANS DUURRR".