The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Bashar al-assad and the Syrian conflict

Scroll to see replies

Original post by yg95
LOL I made this forum nearly two months ago and it's still going on

Posted from TSR Mobile


Because this a conflict that's still ongoing with numerous implications
Original post by Elcano
Oh, so that's why the rebels attacked Damascus with rockets and mortars yesterday like never before? Because 'one side is being wiped out'? Certainly doesn't look like it. Looks much more like a civil war.


Don't fall for that cheesy bull****, this IS more complicated than you think and it's not just the poor defenceless population against a cruel dictator.

It in fact was a poor, defenceless population against a cruel dictator who has more weapons that the aforementioned poor, defenceless population could ever have dared to dream of. If you don't recall very well, there were demonstrations by the people and the government started the violence. Not to mention the silent killings of dissidents for years before this mess ever started. You don't expect them to sit down quietly and be massacred, do you. No, you don't. Now that they've summoned some guts and have somethings, however feeble, to defend themselves with, the world condemns them. Well, let the world eat cake.
Reply 122
Avatar for Deck3100
Deck3100
Most people base their opinion on which ever propaganda is spewed in the country/media-sphere they are in, while never reading classified/declassified top secret documents that demonstrate how media is worthless and manipulated.

You might as well ask Pravda reading Russians what they thought of the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, or Ask US citizens in the 60s if the Gulf of Tonkin incident "really" occurred, you will mostly have a reflection of what is said in the media, and that's all there is to it.

On top of the blatant lies, and fancy misleading, theres also the telling "Dog that didnt bark" clues that often show just how Bull Sh%te Theater the news media really is.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 123
Avatar for Elcano
Elcano
15
Original post by Bertie Wooster
It in fact was a poor, defenceless population against a cruel dictator who has more weapons that the aforementioned poor, defenceless population could ever have dared to dream of. If you don't recall very well, there were demonstrations by the people and the government started the violence. Not to mention the silent killings of dissidents for years before this mess ever started. You don't expect them to sit down quietly and be massacred, do you. No, you don't. Now that they've summoned some guts and have somethings, however feeble, to defend themselves with, the world condemns them. Well, let the world eat cake.


Spoken like a true Wooster. You may look upon me as Jeeves in this matter.
Original post by Bertie Wooster
It in fact was a poor, defenceless population against a cruel dictator who has more weapons that the aforementioned poor, defenceless population could ever have dared to dream of. If you don't recall very well, there were demonstrations by the people and the government started the violence. Not to mention the silent killings of dissidents for years before this mess ever started. You don't expect them to sit down quietly and be massacred, do you. No, you don't. Now that they've summoned some guts and have somethings, however feeble, to defend themselves with, the world condemns them. Well, let the world eat cake.


It may have started off like that, but it's far from the situation today.

Once Bashar falls, the Syrians are looking at the prospect of extremely savage Islamists imposing themselves. It will end up militias vs militia.

Unless there is serious, concerted effort by a number of countries to end this conflict in a reasonable way (ie, supporting a democratically minded government to replace Assad), Syria will see nothing but bloodshed and savagery for years to come.
Original post by Bertie Wooster
It in fact was a poor, defenceless population against a cruel dictator who has more weapons that the aforementioned poor, defenceless population could ever have dared to dream of. If you don't recall very well, there were demonstrations by the people and the government started the violence. Not to mention the silent killings of dissidents for years before this mess ever started. You don't expect them to sit down quietly and be massacred, do you. No, you don't. Now that they've summoned some guts and have somethings, however feeble, to defend themselves with, the world condemns them. Well, let the world eat cake.


Explain to me how a leader of a country who has already been targeted for regime change as being labelled as an 'outpost of evil' by Rice a few years ago, would decide to suddenly start massacring its population when a few protests appeared in a few towns and cities simply demanding more representation and less corruption, knowing that such unnecessary action would likely lead to the intervention being suggested now?

Even if we are to believe this idea that it is simply a persecuted people defending themselves, recent history has shown that the sort of unrelenting repression directed upon dissidents usually wipes out such opposition. The fact that this conflict is ongoing suggests that, a) He isn't simply killing everyone who says anything against him, b) that the opposition who 2 years later still have weapons are still recieving considerable amounts of weapons from outside countries. Now the source of these weapons themselves from Arab dictatorships much worse then Assad (interesting to note that there was no mention made of the immediate and unrelenting crackdown on Saudi Arabian protesters back in 2011) also suggests that this has less and less to do with democracy and more and more to do with geopolitical games.
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
Unless there is serious, concerted effort by a number of countries to end this conflict in a reasonable way (ie, supporting a democratically minded government to replace Assad), Syria will see nothing but bloodshed and savagery for years to come.
But quite frankly the best way to achieve this is to ensure Syria stays together as a nation rather than have to build it from the ground up. If Assad fall, the country will fall apart as a society, as with most dictatorships, centralised power and the fall of that power leads to disarray. If you were looking to move Syria to a more favourable state the ideal way to achieve that would be to ensure the Government wins the civil war and then replace them.
Original post by doggyfizzel
But quite frankly the best way to achieve this is to ensure Syria stays together as a nation rather than have to build it from the ground up. If Assad fall, the country will fall apart as a society, as with most dictatorships, centralised power and the fall of that power leads to disarray. If you were looking to move Syria to a more favourable state the ideal way to achieve that would be to ensure the Government wins the civil war and then replace them.


Yes I agree. Ideally, Assad would win then be put on trial for a plethora of crimes.

It's important that security apparatus isn't dismantled, because that would lead to chaos and fiefdoms of militias. Unfortunately, this is also highly unrealistic because of the degree of brutality meted out by the Syrian Army.


Either way, the future is really bleak for Syria.
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
It's important that security apparatus isn't dismantled, because that would lead to chaos and fiefdoms of militias. Unfortunately, this is also highly unrealistic because of the degree of brutality meted out by the Syrian Army.


Either way, the future is really bleak for Syria.
Its not entirely unrealistic, I mean the military and security forces in Egypt for example have managed to escape with some authority despite being the tool of the previous regime and being responsible for murders and torture.

However I do agree the future looks bleak and all avenues involve a long period of violence and instability for the country. Quite frankly I'm just hoping the UK isn't involved in that.
Love how when the rebels were taking towns, it was "oh but the army is still strong, lets not get carried away" now the army are taking towns the media suddenly says "army revitalised, rebels doomed" strange...

Honestly even if Assad somehow wins, the country is wrecked, socially and physically. It's going to take billions to rebuild, or some Russian aid. If he gets toppled it will be chaos, if he doesn't massacres and repression. No middle ground left really.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by doggyfizzel
But quite frankly the best way to achieve this is to ensure Syria stays together as a nation rather than have to build it from the ground up. If Assad fall, the country will fall apart as a society, as with most dictatorships, centralised power and the fall of that power leads to disarray. If you were looking to move Syria to a more favourable state the ideal way to achieve that would be to ensure the Government wins the civil war and then replace them.


Not at all.

The Iranian regime is vociferously supporting Assad. Hezbollah has briefly interrupted it rocket firing into Israel, and dispatching fighters to Bashar. Salafist Islamists are gaining strength and financial support via Arab Gulf states ... and the moderate liberal factions are getting f***-all from the West.

The Americans have a neat expression - "you pay for what you get". If you're not willing to invest in the moderate factions; then the opposition will get what they're earnt.

Non-intervention by the West has simply weakened those moderate factions. People were arguing last year about the disparate nature of the opposition. "We don't know who they are" - we know they're more likely to be Islamists now.
Original post by Lord Hysteria
Not at all.

The Iranian regime is vociferously supporting Assad. Hezbollah has briefly interrupted it rocket firing into Israel, and dispatching fighters to Bashar. Salafist Islamists are gaining strength and financial support via Arab Gulf states ... and the moderate liberal factions are getting f***-all from the West.

The Americans have a neat expression - "you pay for what you get". If you're not willing to invest in the moderate factions; then the opposition will get what they're earnt.

Non-intervention by the West has simply weakened those moderate factions. People were arguing last year about the disparate nature of the opposition. "We don't know who they are" - we know they're more likely to be Islamists now.
I still stand by that point. You can now see a clear break as 'true FSA' and the Islamist factions but there have a always been divides. Even within the Islamist groups such as Al-Nusra Front there a host of different groups many of which have very recently established and hence weak leaderships. There are all bound by a common cause which is to fight Assad government in Syria, the second that is accomplished all those groups will fight to assert their influence and gain power. Those Islamist groups have the goal of creating an Islamist state, even if the moderate powers had a majority as they did initially they were never going to simply roll over come the end and everyone is well aware how Islamist groups operate.

That is before you get into the problem Syria as a country has with grudges and wrong doings going back generations, sectarian divides. Regardless of winning side, the population have divided and grudges. Much like Iraq, those tensions have been held in place by the brutal regime, and played off against each other, in the absence of that overbearing control they will be unleashed. Unless there is an established power there will be sectarian struggles and reprisals.

As I stated in the rest of the point, it was a whole sentence for a reason, power is centralised. Everything of importance is controlled by the regime. Its not divided into largely self sufficient municipalities. Its not a simple change as would be case in a democratic nation, everything is linked to and controlled by the regime. If the regime falls, the system that ensure peace falls apart. In the absence of, as Dirac Delta Function put it, security apparatus, those tensions and the fragmented opposition will lead to violence as there is a driving force and nothing to stop it. The only way you can stop that from happening was a more gradual and 'willing' transition of power from Assad which is unlikely at best.

I think the idea the country is going to peacefully transition to either a democratic state or even a more hardline Islamist state is fantasy.
Reply 132
Avatar for jack-1
jack-1
What is happening in Syria is both saddening and upsetting. I believe in this day and age everyone should have freedom of speech and rights.

However, look at Libya. Similar thing happened there (rebellion against leader), now the country is filled with different militias and there are still a lot of attacks and bombings there. This may sound harsh but maybe some of these countries need a strict leader to keep the people in line because most of them are f**king loonies.
Reply 133
Avatar for Clessus
Clessus
1
Original post by jack-1
What is happening in Syria is both saddening and upsetting. I believe in this day and age everyone should have freedom of speech and rights.

However, look at Libya. Similar thing happened there (rebellion against leader), now the country is filled with different militias and there are still a lot of attacks and bombings there. This may sound harsh but maybe some of these countries need a strict leader to keep the people in line because most of them are f**king loonies.


This actually reveals a racist and colonialist mentality. Gaddafi's Libya was a well known promoter of international terrorism who caused the bombing of an American aircraft over British airspace, supported the Irish Republican Army, promoted a civil war in Chad, supported Islamic extremists in the Middle East and Africa (even more so than Saudi Arabia), and established the ‘Islamic Legion‘ (which eventually became the Janjaweed) as an international paramilitary force with an ideology blending Islamism and Arab-supremacist, anti-black racism, and which helped to lay the groundwork for the genocide in Darfur. Apologists for Gadaffi who loudly accuse the West, the KSA or Qatar of supporting terrorism in Syria should bear all this in mind. Gaddafi's murderous dictatorship was prevented from drowning the Libyan revolution in blood; the people of Benghazi were spared mass slaughter; Libya was spared the vast, interminable bloodbath that Syria is undergoing; the dictatorship - responsible for decades of warfare, terror and genocide in Africa - was overthrown; and Libyans were finally able to enjoy free, multiparty elections that were won by the liberals.

I'd call that a success. All the horror stories about how Libya would turn into an Al-Queda caliphate when Gadaffi was gone were proved unfounded. Yes, Libya is far from perfect (as you mention, there are militias and tribal areas), but do you really think the situation would be better had Gadaffi simply been allowed a free hand against the rebels? Many of the problems in the Middle East today, and part of the reason why the West is so hated in the Middle East, actually stem from the west propping up dictators and despots to 'keep order amongst the tribes' (the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, the House of Saud etc).
(edited 10 years ago)
Simply too late for any intervention, the FSA representatives that the West would do business with simply dont have the support of the rest of the rebels anymore.
Reply 135
Avatar for Masseyea
Masseyea
I think we have to recognise that both sides are alleged to have committed atrocities.

You may not have heard but days ago rebels were arrested in Turkey with cannisters of Sarin, a chemical weapon. There is no evidence, according to the UN, that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, UN documents say that only the only irrefutable evidence suggests that the rebels are using chemical weapons. Indeed it was Assad who encouraged the UN to test for the use of chemical weapons.

You have to remember that other war crimes have been committed by the rebels, atrocities, worse than the Assad regime, have you heard about that rebel leader eating a soldier's heart? That was a war crime, dismembering an enemy combatant. Execution of prisoners, another war crime.

Frankly the understandable reason for Hezbollah's action in Syria is because of the sheer sectarian nature of the fight now. Given the attempts by rebels to destroy Shia (the alliance of Assad) sites, by the rebel Sunnis, it is pretty obvious why Hezbollah are involved.

What seems to be uniting the rebels is their Sunni faith, the fact that they have been united, and some attracted from foreign countries. This illustrates the strongly religious and extreme government they want to impose. Bearing in mind that the Assad government was actually secular, I'm not convinced that these terrorists will make a better government than Assad.
I'm not convinced that the rebels would be any better than Assad. At least he can provide some stability without radical Islamisation, and somebody in the country has to deal with Hezbollah, and I hope it's not the rebels, most of them are Al Qaeda anyway.
Reply 137
Avatar for Ama2007
Ama2007
10
Original post by forfrosne
I'm not convinced that the rebels would be any better than Assad. At least he can provide some stability without radical Islamisation, and somebody in the country has to deal with Hezbollah, and I hope it's not the rebels, most of them are Al Qaeda anyway.


You mean...at least he has managed to kill more than 100,000 civilians in the space of 2 years without anyone noticing? That's some achievement he made Bashar, his dad must be very proud of him.

No president in history has ever managed to do what he did...c'mon give him some credit!

He is killing his own people is that not considered a crime? or do the terms vary depending on who is doing the killing and how powerful they are.

I strongly advise you to read about the history of syrian before you say the stuff about stability. LOL. 40 years of oppression what do you expect?
Original post by Ama2007
You mean...at least he has managed to kill more than 100,000 civilians in the space of 2 years without anyone noticing? That's some achievement he made Bashar, his dad must be very proud of him.

No president in history has ever managed to do what he did...c'mon give him some credit!

He is killing his own people is that not considered a crime? or do the terms vary depending on who is doing the killing and how powerful they are.

I strongly advise you to read about the history of syrian before you say the stuff about stability. LOL. 40 years of oppression what do you expect?


And who do you think the rebels are killing? Just soldiers? :rolleyes: I'd take his rule over Al Qaeda (ie. the rebels) any day. If the rebels were just normal rebels then it'd be okay, but they're not. Not to mention half the statistics are either provided by rebel groups and are therefore unreliable, plus all of them consider civilians who have taken up arms and die fighting the government to still be civilians, which artificially inflates the civilian death rate when really they're armed combatants. I'm not saying that what Assad is doing is okay, he shouldn't be killing any civilians (neither should the rebels) and his human rights record for getting rid of political opposition and a lack of free press is pretty awful, but look at the statistics here:

Syrian Islamic Front: 20,000
Al-Nusra Front (Al Qaeda): 6,000 - 10,000
Foreign Mujahideen: 2,000–5,500


If we take the median of those numbers, you get around 31,500 fighters who are basically Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood, and if they get rid of Assad, what do you think the country will end up with, hmm? A secular democracy? Ha! No, they'll end up with an even more oppressive Islamist government with no semblance of justice or democracy.

And do you know which countries in particular that Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood have somewhat of a reputation for hating, hmm? Yes, the United States and us. Assad has chemical weapons and perhaps nuclear as well. Do you really want that ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood? They would use Syria as an outpost from which to not only attack us and America but to destabilise other regions in the middle east.

And look at the Free Syrian Army's track record! It's been accused of war crimes!

In May 2013, a video was posted on the internet showing a rebel cutting organs from the dead body of a Syrian soldier and putting one in his mouth, "as if he is taking a bite out of it". He called rebels to follow his example and terrorize the Alawite sect, which mostly backs Assad. Humans Rights Watch (HRW) confirmed the authenticity of the footage, and stated that "The mutilation of the bodies of enemies is a war crime".


Assad isn't ****ing Tinkerbell, but I'll take a dictator over this alternative. I just don't see that either side is clearly in the right here. The initial protests were justified, the response was over the top, but it's not as clear cut anymore, because you have a huge influx of foreign jihadists. I'd ****ing love it if Assad were deposed and Syria turned into a democratic, secular haven, but that isn't going to happen. If he is deposed, the Muslim Brotherhood will take over. I guess it depends which you consider the lesser of two evils.
(edited 10 years ago)
Syrian Army look like theyre turning this whole thing back around, have taken Qusair, and recently recaptured the Golan Heights. The Israeli's are more in fear of the increasingly extreme sects of rebels now:

'Israeli officials have increasingly voiced fears the civil war in Syria could spill over their borders. They are worried the Golan Heights could be used to launch attacks against Israel, due to the number of Islamist extremists among the rebel forces.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22795655

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you