Bashar al-assad and the Syrian conflict

A person who supports a mass killer is not normal no matter how loyal they are or might want to believe. You are either deluded or another future Hitler. Because if you support an act of violence you must have an interest in carrying out such acts in the future.
What bashar is doing is just as bad and even worse than what Hitler did....so if you want to support hitler go ahead. Its a FREE world Bashar has committed crimes that have never been committed before in the entire history. He has targeted specific sections of syrians, humiliates them for 40 years, tortured their fathers and dragged their sons naked across the streets.

You don't seem to understand, preferring one option does not mean you agree with it. In the second world war see allied ourselves with Stalin against Hitler, two of histories most bloody dictators. We didn't do so because we thought he was a great guy only he was preferable to the alternative. Most people who support Assad do so because they believe he is the closest or closer to the secular democracy. Assad is a nasty piece of work but he's hardly worse or even comparable with the top tier of brutal rulers.

I understand very well whats going on in syria, Thank You!

I understand very well whats going on in syria, Thank You!


Really? preferring someone who has killed so far 100,000 over a group which has been invented to scare the western countries of helping syria and we dont even know how many they have killed so far, maybe you can enlighten us with the number? It seems very stupid to prefer someone who has already committed and continues to commit horrendous crimes over someone who may or may not commit crimes in the future. Its absurd, VERY!

Anyway you can support who ever you like and so can anyone but bear inn mind it makes no difference to the daily massacres happening right now this second in syria while we are talking on TSR.


Its very sad how all those lives lost are totally ignored while we sit and focus on some non-existing issue that we want to invent so we have in excuse in years to come (in history books) where we stood and what we did..to the children who have lost their fathers and mothers and have no where to go. It will all be there how we deceived the needy, how we let Bashar kill them one by one because we dont agree with some of their culture and ideologies . So pathetic!


The facts speak for themselves, I dont need to go any further.

You heard what happened when we invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein?

The country has descended into Sectarian violence, with suicide bombings and death every single day.

You say Assad massacred 100,000. No he didnt, there is a civil war in Syria and guns are fighting guns.

Civil War, people die, happens all the time.

People are beheaded daily in places such as Mexico, you gonna blame the UK for not intervening there?

When people say they prefer Al-Assad, they say this because they look at places such as Iraq, places that have effectively been turned into no-go zones because of the western invasion.

What are you asking for, that we send tropps to Syria to contribute to the death rate? What happens after? do we setup a western democracy only for the radical islamist party to be elected?

You must look at the bigger picture.

Thanks for your advice but I have been looking at the bigger picture long enough

The so called "terrorist" are presumably in syria because we did not take the right stand from the beginning, we have let it escalate to this level because we didnt help when it was possible. I totally understand that its very messy now but that's because we as well as the UN were very slow to act. Have you heard Hague talk? You should listen to his speeches early one. He said, he wanted to help early in because if he had helped the "normal syrians" the "terrorist" wouldn't have formed? OKay? so by leaving the innocent civilians to be killed and slaughtered daily by bashar, they are not left with much choice, are they? They are facing death day in day out, what do you suggest they do? what do you think they should have done when they lost their mums, dads, no home, no school.? Help me out here...They are on there own.

Number 2. This is not a civil war. You might want to believe that, thats what the media is trying to convey but thats not whats happening if you speak to any journalist who has gone to syria or reporter.

A civil war, is where you have two sides fighting and killing, yeah? According to stats confirmed by the US human rights, not me or my neighbor ...
that bashar has killed 100,000 in a space of 2 years, now if it was a civil war then you would see similar numbers from the other side. I mean how can you believe such drivial? Look at this way, bashar has MIGs, all sorts of equipment and a bloody army against some armed untrained personnel, what would you expect?


He has planes which can destroy a city in seconds, they have pistols, you call that civil war? I dont think so. It is a Genocide, unless you are an assad loyalist then whatever assad does is "okay".

Anyways better get some work done


P.S I dont suggest UK intervene now, its too late! The best thing we can do is call ourselves democratic country while watching a whole nation get wiped out by a maniac!

I dont buy the suggestion that the rebels all turned extremist because of lack of western intervention, doesnt make sense at all, how can one person be normal one day and then all of a sudden a radical the next, with the fault being with those who arent even part of the conflict?

We probably have arms dealers selling arms to the rebels, some rebels do indeed have very high tech equipment, they have shot down SAA airplanes and have been caught on video. The rebels are supplied by Arab countries surrounding Syria, they dont have pistols, they just have no idea how to engage in the art of war, numerous videos showing rebels blindfiring around corners screaming their heads off saying 'god is great', failing to move and then getting blown apart by Assad's forces.

Part of the reason is that FSA soldiers, demoralized by their shortage of arms, have been responding by defecting to the relatively well-equipped, (by KSA and Qatar) but fairly small Islamist militia Jabhat al-Nusra. Meanwhile, Iran and Russia systematically violate the arms embargo by sending arms to Assad, keeping the military balance in its favour.

The part i dont buy is that these fighters become part of radical islamist groups purely because they wanted a better AK.

How so? It seems fairly simple to me. The FSA is short of equipment and amunition with which to do was, and thus you join a group which does have equipment. That is the reason that most members gave for joining al-Nusra.

Because it only makes sense in terms of equipment and logistics. Switching from one group to another to get a better AK makes sense but its not a simple as that. You are saying that because one group offered a better weapons package, I changed my whole world view and joined them. It's more likely that those individuals already held similar views making such a switch as simple as stated. In which case the extremist rise was not caused and could not have been prevented by western interventionism because it already existed. If that is true, it's not a case of missing the boat, it's dodging a bullet.

It's certainly possible (although I'm not suggesting that they changed their wolrd view overnight, and there is much more to it that just 'getting a better AK'), though it doesn't change that the rise of Islamist groups like the Al-Queda affiliated Al Nusra is a direct result of the shartage of arms in the FSA. The fact that it has taken so long for sizable defections to occur would attest to that. Again, I'm just going by what the actual defectees say themselves.

I think it shows that if the west intervened and setup a democracy, groups such as Al nusra would be democratically elected anyway. It seems as if intervention would be a double edged sword regardless of how early it was. This is why more people are starting to believe Assad is the more stable alternative.

Perhaps if we'd acted earlier, when it was a genuine struggle agaisnt Assad's tyranny, this would have been less complicated, and the transition to a post-Assad regime would have been smoother and less bloody, but we did not.

I think that its easy to say that but you have to look at the situation and ask what reasonably could have been done. You couldn't have reasonably done much but comment and informally condemn the actions around mid 2011. You didn't have coherent opposition until around then. Then as always you need at least an attempt at a political solution which was initially handled locally by the Arab league. You then had the UN with China and Russia not playing along. I don't think you could realistically have been talking about anything militarily until mid May 2012 without being accused over being overly hasty and interfering with another countries affairs.

Tbh, even if things had moved quickly something a no fly zone or arming the rebels could really only have been put into action around later 2012 to early 2013 with the recognition of the National council. With things like the US elections of there, you aren't going to get movement realistically until 2013. Around those kind of times you are already getting concerns about extremist groups, Iranian and Iraqi assistance, not to mention in the second half of 2012 many didn't think that the rebels needed international assistance of the form we are talking now. With the loss of Aleppo and attacks in Damascus it looked very much like Assad would lose.

I'm not quite sure where on the timeline of events you could say we should have acted based on the goings on at the time. Also considering how many countries would be involved in if we intervened at similar points.

I agree with you that there were no easy options, that given the nature of the Assad regime, some form of sectarianism was probably inevitable, and that there were other political considerations at work (particularly the attitude of Russia and China). I would, with the benefit of hindsight, say that the best time to have acted would have been around the fall-winter of 2011, when it became clear that it was going to be a bloody, protracted conflict, and where there was a coherent opposition. Winter 2012 at the latest (when the Islamist groups had emerged but were still very weak and very much part of the lunatic fringe). I don't agree that it would have been hasty, we intervened in Libya in March 2011, less than 2 months after the uprising began. This was before Islamist groups really started emerging, and while the opposition was still united.

At the time, Britain and other Western states that have should have recognised the Syrian National Council as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people, withdrawen recognition from Assad’s regime and drawn up plans to provide arms, training and intelligence to the Free Syrian Army. The coalition should have prepared the ground for the eventual imposition of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, and for air strikes to defend cities liberated by the Free Syrian Army and other rebel forces, if and when this becomes strategically and diplomatically feasible. A no-fly zone could have been followed by the establishment of a liberated area in northern Syria under Turkish-led Western military protection, where Syrian civilians would be safe and where rebel forces could operate freely and begin to build a new administration for the country. None of this happened though, I can understand the reasons why, but it is a shame in hindsight.

I think it comes down to plausibility, Syria had some big allies whom were stern against intervention from western powers, Syria itself could've taken the intervention (Assad) as an act of war, and because its probably a NATO operation, Israel would be at major risk, from Iran Syria or whoever.

People make it sound so easy saying how we shouldve gone in there, given the FSA all training etc, give them all weapons then see how it goes. Wrong, if we done all that and they were still losing it would provoke further intervention and possibly an all-out world war.