The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Bashar Al Assad is Syria's only hope.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by john2054
Are you from Russia Today?


No. However I don't blindly consume what establishment media spins out, given the track record of removing dictators without plans for their replacements in the Middle East, the idea of removing Assad seems pretty stupid.
Original post by AlifunArnab
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?




If the people wanted Jabhat Fath al Sham, would you be opposed to it?


The well documented beheadings, deliberately targeted sectarian killings and ethnic cleansing of Alawite villages to name a few. And sure, they aren't AQ anymore, but that doesn't mean (as you've accepted) they've become any more moderate. If the Syrian people genuinely wanted Jabhat Fath Al Sham, and it was proved in a legitimate election, then fine, they can have their brutal version of Wahhabi governance. But I doubt that Syrian people would want to replace one form of repressive tyranny for a form of tyranny which is even more repressive and curtails not only political expression, but basic social freedoms.
Original post by AlifunArnab
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.


Read my post again. I fully acknowledge that Bashar-Al Assad is a tyrant. However the difference between Assad's tyranny and the tyranny which the rebel groups would exert is that Assad's tyranny doesn't permeate beyond political opponents and populations which actively work to remove him. The tyranny of most rebel groups will be against anybody who wants to go and have a drink of wine, or any women who doesn't want to wear a headscarf, or any teenager who wants to have a girlfriend, or anybody who by the virtue of their sect doesn't fit in with the limited and narrow view of their dogma. This is a tyranny which will be far more barbaric than the tyranny of Assad.
Original post by Sycatonne23
No. However I don't blindly consume what establishment media spins out, given the track record of removing dictators without plans for their replacements in the Middle East, the idea of removing Assad seems pretty stupid.


I am on your side you know? I actually like Vladimir, and his enemy Kasparov? I think they should have a fight, with Assad as well. A three way rumble. Putin would win though lol!
Original post by Sycatonne23
The well documented beheadings, deliberately targeted sectarian killings and ethnic cleansing of Alawite villages to name a few. And sure, they aren't AQ anymore, but that doesn't mean (as you've accepted) they've become any more moderate. If the Syrian people genuinely wanted Jabhat Fath Al Sham, and it was proved in a legitimate election, then fine, they can have their brutal version of Wahhabi governance. But I doubt that Syrian people would want to replace one form of repressive tyranny for a form of tyranny which is even more repressive and curtails not only political expression, but basic social freedoms.
I think that, by now, average Syrians are so desperate that they would accept most anyone capable of bringing some stability and a semblance of normal life to the country

in retrospect, many may think that the bloody Baath regime was paradise as compared to the present

it is tragically ridiculous to focus now on sectarian divisions and to be talking about "takfir" "taghut" "rafidhi" "kuffar"or "imposing shariah" under present circumstances

even "democratic elections" are a daydream for the moment : just stop the bloodshed , and go on from there
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by mariachi
xe



The users i have debated on syria here, who support the 'rebels' [not all but 90% of them] want a caliphate of the leaders of the rebel groups, to rule under shariah law in their own shariah-shurah government.

What does this mean? Leaders from Al Nusra, Ahrar Asham, Jaysh al Islam, jaysh al Fatah [umberella group] who are radical, sectarian, funded by foreign governments, have either had or currently still have close ties with Alqaeda, openly or otherwise, forming their own dictatorship over the entire syrian people.

If you tell them hang on, that prospect is not good for the syrian people, not good for the region, and not good for the rest of humanity, some of them will call you an assadist barrel bomber, and sometimes, rafidhi or completely derail the issue by talking about hezbollah [who would in any case NOT partake in any leadership position in Syria either way].

It's gotten very bad in the UK. Secterian mosque's are now preaching support for these groups.

It all boils down to religious and political ideology. Many of them believe in a prophecy about shaam [syria], which is a very holy place. Furthermore, many of them would endorse anything, so long as the alawi, rafidhi, 'traitor sunni', yahudi [jews], christians, nusayri's were not in charge, and only the salafist millitant leaders were in charge.
Original post by mariachi


even "democratic elections" are a daydream for the moment : just stop the bloodshed , and go on from there


We have to stop supporting gulf state's and governments funding these so-called moderates, who have absolutely no vision of any kind of democracy in syria, and so will not recognise any election whatsoever, and only their own self-styled caliphate.
Original post by Sycatonne23
Read my post again. I fully acknowledge that Bashar-Al Assad is a tyrant. However the difference between Assad's tyranny and the tyranny which the rebel groups would exert is that Assad's tyranny doesn't permeate beyond political opponents and populations which actively work to remove him. The tyranny of most rebel groups will be against anybody who wants to go and have a drink of wine, or any women who doesn't want to wear a headscarf, or any teenager who wants to have a girlfriend, or anybody who by the virtue of their sect doesn't fit in with the limited and narrow view of their dogma. This is a tyranny which will be far more barbaric than the tyranny of Assad.


Precisely.

Furthermore, though atrocities have been committed on Assads side, many things attributed are part of false war propaganda. And it's only logical in a war, to smear opponents, to be able to do this. So no doubt, while Assad has blood on his hands, i hardly think suicide bombing, alqaeda affiliates and cooperating groups are not going to absolutely exaggerate, fabricate, and create as much propaganda as possible. All sides do this in war.

One example being the 2013 east goutha chemical weapons attack. Assad had during the same few days and weeks, invited UN Chemical weapons inspectors to investigate an attack carried out by rebels. Now, we may all agree Assad is bad enough to carry out an attack , but is he so mad to carry out such a large scale attack on the very same day he himself has invited UN chemical weapons inspectors, and to add insult to injury, carry it out very close to the other site he himself has asked them to investigate, knowing full well that washington , gulf states, and western governments have threatened intervention in the event that he does ?
Original post by Tawheed
We have to stop supporting gulf state's and governments funding these so-called moderates, who have absolutely no vision of any kind of democracy in syria, and so will not recognise any election whatsoever, and only their own self-styled caliphate.


Some 'moderate' Muslims on TSR have stated outright they do not want democracy in any shape or form. What would happen if there were many Syria with similar views?
Original post by The Epicurean
Some 'moderate' Muslims on TSR have stated outright they do not want democracy in any shape or form. What would happen if there were many Syria with similar views?


I would rather live in under the chinese dictator ship than a syria shurah caliphate. I would rather live on the slopes of mount everest, than in syria under a shurah government.

I would rather live under Stalin, and i may have possibly also fared better under Hitler.

I think the majority on TSR support some form of democracy, like in Turkey for example.

It's difficult to say anything more at this point, it's just an enormous mess.
Original post by Tawheed
I would rather live in under the chinese dictator ship than a syria shurah caliphate. I would rather live on the slopes of mount everest, than in syria under a shurah government.

I would rather live under Stalin, and i may have possibly also fared better under Hitler.

I think the majority on TSR support some form of democracy, like in Turkey for example.

It's difficult to say anything more at this point, it's just an enormous mess.


Obviously what we would want is different. But Saudi money has spread quite well this 'moderate' interpretation of Islam and this desire for a 'moderate' Islamic state has become well ingrained within certain groups and societies. I think it has become ingrained to the extent that even if we stop the funding, we wont being an end to the ideology. So whilst some might say free democratic election would be the goal, it is always possible that a majority of people in Syria might vote in a state that wishes to implement this 'moderate' interpretation of Islam.

So assuming the above represents the will of the people of Syria (it is difficult to guess what the majority really want), what does one do in such a situation? Do we allow them to establish such a state, or do we force upon them a state they don't want?
Original post by The Epicurean
Some 'moderate' Muslims on TSR have stated outright they do not want democracy in any shape or form. What would happen if there were many Syria with similar views?


If?
Original post by The Epicurean
Obviously what we would want is different. But Saudi money has spread quite well this 'moderate' interpretation of Islam and this desire for a 'moderate' Islamic state has become well ingrained within certain groups and societies. I think it has become ingrained to the extent that even if we stop the funding, we wont being an end to the ideology. So whilst some might say free democratic election would be the goal, it is always possible that a majority of people in Syria might vote in a state that wishes to implement this 'moderate' interpretation of Islam.


The syrian people as a whole, from my assessment would absolutely not support a shurah government, unelected, with leaders of Al Nusra, ahrar asham, and such groups. You have the Kurds, who hold about 20-25% of the land, those under Assad with about 50-60% of the land, and the remainder going to 'rebel' groups, whose populations are not always supportive of them either, as well as Daesh. This goes by one source, so the estimates may vary.

The whole idea of the syrian revolution before it was hijacked was of genuine choice, freedom and an end to Assad rule. Even the Turkish people who voted erdogan wouldn't tolerate a shariah shurah, unelected government.

So assuming the above represents the will of the people of Syria (it is difficult to guess what the majority really want), what does one do in such a situation? Do we allow them to establish such a state, or do we force upon them a state they don't want?


It can't in my view. I know you have said assuming, but ultimately it can't. The way a shariah shurah government works is that the leaders of al nusra, ahrar asham and such groups meet together , and the people as a whole don't have a say. Furthermore, given that the majority of the land is under Assad, and that he does have a lot of support - not because they like him necessarily, but out of fear of the opposition- as well as land being under Kurds, and very little under Daesh/Rebel groups, it would never come to pass in the real world. By this i mean that kind of government.
Original post by The Epicurean
x



Take what is going on in Allepo at the moment, with al nusra, ahrar as sham, and such groups working together as brothers. The majority of allepo is under Assads rule, and many living in regions under rule of groups like al nusra et al really and truly do not want to be under them.

Here is an interesting article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/21/syrian-rebels-aleppo-local-hostility

More than a month into the battle for Aleppo, the rebels who seized control of much of the city sense that its residents do not yet fully support them. Opposition fighters – around 3,000 of them – are almost the only people moving around the eastern half that the Free Syrian Army now controls. The small numbers of non-fighters who remain seem to pay them little heed. Few seem openly welcoming."Yes it's true," said Sheikh Tawfik Abu Sleiman, a rebel commander sitting on the ground floor of his fourth new headquarters – the other three were bombed. "Around 70% of Aleppo city is with the regime. It has always been that way. The countryside is with us and the city is with them. We are saying that we will only be here as long as it takes to get the job done, to get rid of the Assads. After that, we will leave and they can build the city that they want
Original post by AlifunArnab
If?


Also, very good news right now coming from Syria.

The rebels are close to breaking the siege in East Aleppo. I wonder who the civilians there (up to 300,000) will thank if the siege is broken.

:smile:
Original post by AlifunArnab
If?


Anything talked about in this situation is a matter of assumptions. Unless you have in your possession a recent poll taken to assess how the Syrian people would vote?
Original post by The Epicurean
Anything talked about in this situation is a matter of assumptions. Unless you have in your possession a recent poll taken to assess how the Syrian people would vote?


Sorry, I misread what you wrote.
Original post by john2054
x


Agreed.Wasnt it only last year that one of these rebels was filmed eating a heart?Yep Cannabalism is very moderate.What we need is definitely not more Islam in that particular region and Assad's goverment was secular.
Original post by Tawheed
The syrian people as a whole, from my assessment would absolutely not support a shurah government, unelected, with leaders of Al Nusra, ahrar asham, and such groups. You have the Kurds, who hold about 20-25% of the land, those under Assad with about 50-60% of the land, and the remainder going to 'rebel' groups, whose populations are not always supportive of them either, as well as Daesh. This goes by one source, so the estimates may vary.


With the Kurds pushing for independence, we may be looking at a different set of demographics. In this situation, there would be a very clear Sunni majority who would decide the outcome of the election. Plus, in any democratic election, it is a game of numbers rather than how much land one possesses.

It can't in my view. I know you have said assuming, but ultimately it can't. The way a shariah shurah government works is that the leaders of al nusra, ahrar asham and such groups meet together , and the people as a whole don't have a say.


The problem is that there are people who seem to support this type of rule, and we have no real idea how large or small this group is in Syria. This is an ideology that has received a lot of funding over the years and has become well disseminated among such populations.

Furthermore, given that the majority of the land is under Assad, and that he does have a lot of support - not because they like him necessarily, but out of fear of the opposition- as well as land being under Kurds, and very little under Daesh/Rebel groups, it would never come to pass in the real world. By this i mean that kind of government.


I'm sceptical that Assad has a large support base among the Sunni population. There has historically been much discontent among the Sunni population under the rule of the Assad family. The last time a Sunni group was involved in trying to displace the Assad family in the late 70's/early 80's, the Assad family sought revenge (the 1982 Hama massacre). The fear is that the Assad family will seek revenge against innocent Sunni Muslims again, and that might be enough to push many average Sunnis in Syria to opt for at the very least a Sunni leadership.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you