Bashar al-assad and the Syrian conflict

I don't support either side, i think they are both as bad as each other.
And you believe Islam is the "truth", basing a way a country is run based on the Quran which has its flaws and many would argue its fictional is also arguably a pretty silly idea. Especially considering most countries which have a Muslim dominated government usually are much more violent and have higher poverty rates than those which are ruled based on common sense.

Because a smart person would see that proper 'democracy' in Syria is highly unlikely, whereas an Islamic caliphate is probably a likely occurance if Assad was to fall.

One side is the government.

If I started biting peoples' faces off ... and the British government started doing the same ... would you shrug-your-shoulders crying "everyone is as bad as each other" .

If i thought the rebels were genuine citizens trying to fight against government abuse i would support them, but it has clearly been taken over by a terrorist element who wish to control the government.

Is the British government allowed to start randomly shooting in London, for instance, if the gangsters decided to blast a café when their adversary was having a cup-of-tea and killed everyone? Do we not hold governments to certain standards? The genocide and Geneva conventions? Doesn't sovereignty entail certain liberal and democratic obligations? Legitimate governments don't massacre unarmed demonstrators. And if the proceeding government wishes to undertake this road, we should unreservedly oppose them too. If the rebels kill unarmed citizens, then this is a very serious infraction. But infinitely worse, if a government undertakes this policy.

You think a renascent Caliphate is around the corner

And i am saying what is the point aiding rebels overthrowing and creating a new government, when it is likely to be just as violent and oppressive as the current.
These are not random gangsters blowing up a cafe for no apparent reason, these are militants attempting to take over the country and it is obvious the Syrian government would have to respond with force.

Well there's quite a lot of Jihadis in Syria right now; so tell them they can't have their Caliphate and watch what happens

Well there's quite a lot of Jihadis in Syria right now; so tell them they can't have their Caliphate and watch what happens

Do you remember what people were saying about Egypt (Libya too)? This was this same hyperbole going around, it's never going to happen.

I wouldn't discuss anything with them.

Only want to find ways to eliminate them - preferably with a drone.

Our "free" media shows a few of Assad's men bury 'unlawfully' smashing a Salafi goat, but they're not keen to show us this. After all his henchmen rape daughters before their mothers.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca0_1371475194

I had a translated version. And I've got many videos of wrong-doings from both sides.

1. What might be common sense to you isn't common sense to someone else. That's why not everyone agrees with the Governments legislations.

2. A bit silly blaming Islam for poverty or violence, I'm guessing you haven't really read history much.

3. A lot of the governments tend to be western puppets. One that was based on the Qur'an would end up being powerless (and poor for that matter), something as you can imagine, when one is in power, they don't wish to have that undermined, especially dictators.

As the Jewish/Israeli historian (Bernard Lewis) recalled a famous moment in history;

There is a fascinating letter written by the french ambassador in Istanbul a few years within the french revolution. He had been instructed to carry on with a few negotiations with the Ottoman government and they were proceeding very slowly and he received a rather sharp reprimand from Paris saying, why the hell don't you get on with it why are you taking so long.

And the ambassador wrote a memorable reply, which I have often quoted, he said "Here", meaning here in the Ottoman empire, he said "here it is not like france, the king is the sole master and does as he pleases", he said "Here the Sultan has to consult, he has to consult with all sorts of people".

And this was true, the sultan has to consult with all sorts of institutions where power or authority arose from within the group, and that was certainly the case before the modernization, the tragedy is all that was destroyed by modernization, it was the process of modernization that made the middle east in that respect a much worse place, because what modernization did was to vastly increase the power of the state, the power of supervision and control and vastly reduced the authority of the various local institutions.

I personally blame imperialism though.

Hello everyone I want to know what what's your opinion on the the Syrian president. I personally think he's the best person for Syria currently

Posted from TSR Mobile

All I've gathered is that Assad is hated by his people and they rebelled against him and thus caused a civil war. But what is this about different political groups acting on each other? Some say it is not a civil war, so then what is it? I'm really confused!

You're prevaricating on the moral distinction between a government and militia (or gangsters, it doesn't matter) ... Are you willing to concede a difference?

They're battling against the government. It was the Syrian government that responded with force, and propelled the country into a turmoil. But I am not sure I understand your fatalism. Following the Libyan intervention of 2011, the liberals defeated the Islamists in elections. At any rate, I suspect the Nirvana fallacy at work but this conflict isn't static. If the proceeding government infringes on civil liberties, then I will condemn them. I will argue for intervention for humanitarian and geopolitical reasons if they ally with Iran and execute dissenters over 90k+.

Assad is not hated by his people except by islamist who are making up around 30% of the country. With the help of the West; the islamists launched a civil war to overthrow a secular government (Baath party).

Also, dont listen to everything what BBC says, they are biased.

You're either with Assad, or supporting western imperialism and Zionist rule.

What's your pick?

You can be as anti-NSC as you'd like, without transmogrifying into a grotesque apologist for the al-Assad dictatorial dynasty. Have you no scruples?

Moreover, Syrians are not "his" people. You wouldn't dare rhapsodize mindlessly about "David Cameron's people" ... but when it comes to Middle Eastern Arabs, it's spontaneously expected off them to be blithely genuflecting before their dictators. And how could you presume to enlighten us on his approval rating when dictatorships obviate quadrennial elections.

And, as I have demonstrated above, Assad's government may not be categorised as 'secular'.

What next? The Muslim Brotherhood is secular too?