Because the West plan to picture it as a mere "revolution against a dictator" has been busted? And because what we have been saying all along will happen did actually happen? (Luckily for the area probably before Assad's fall)
Probably because the Al-Qaeda stuff happened after native Syrians began rising up for greater rights, which Assad brutally crushed. Thus, everything subsequent to that is his responsibility.
No, the one responsible is the one who is funding Al-Qaeda, supplying them with weapons, and sending them in tens of thousands to Syria to topple a regime that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US and Israel don't like.
All Assad's fault for being a minority dictator in a majority Sunni nation. Had he reformed earlier and given people their rights, none of the subsequent social or political upheaval would've taken place.
No, you were viewing news stories from both sides and making up your mind on the matter whilst the rest were being fed propaganda and didn't know better and still dont.
He should have made reforms years ago, as did his father decades before him, but to blame him for Saudi-funded terrorists escalating this into a sectarian bloodbath is a little obtuse and lazy don't you think.
The rebels and Al Qaeda terrorists would have been defeated a lot earlier had the Yanks, Saudis and Qataris not been funding them.
Not blaming him for Saudi actions at all. But he missed the boat years ago on improving conditions for Syrians. Rather than make proper Democratic reforms, he elected to sweep the people's aspirations under the carpet and remain an old school dictator, and is now paying a heavy price for it.
The rebels, nor Al-Qaeda wouldn't even exist in Syria had Assad made appropriate reforms years ago. They are merely a reaction to the poverty of his dictatorial governance.
as far as the middle east is concerned, Syrians had it good. You have to realise that democracy is not for everyone. Most Syrians i speak to, Sunnis included, like Assad and reckon they're better off under his leadership than the alternative. But America knows best. If it wasn't for Western backing this "rebellion" would have been over by now.
I'm sure Syrians had it better than how they might have it under Al-Qaeda rule, but the situation would never have escalated to where foreign forces became involved had Assad simply made the appropriate changes in governance years ago, or at a minimum heeded the calls of the original group of Syrians who started protesting following the Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. All of this happened before ISIS, Nusrah, et al were relevant in the discussion, and could've been mitigated early on.
The Syrian protests were nothing near of the scale seen in Tunisia and Egypt. Assad enjoyed majority support and the minority who protested had their movement hijacked by jihadists backed by the United States and Gulf Arab states which had exacerbated it into a sectarian civil war. Yet despite the support of the latter, the jihadist insurgency has more or less been dealt with, hence we're seeing many of them flock over the border into Iraq where its easier prey.
Syria and Iraq (and Lebanon for that matter) are major targets for Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda has always been involved in those countries regardless of how the government deals with the political situation there. Maliki didn't crush any protests and Iraq is one of the most democratic countries in the region. Same picture, same result.
"Majority support" in a totalitarian dictatorship is basically meaningless. We all know what happened when a few people started demanding their rights in Dar'a, and subsequently with chemical weapons and barrel bombs.
Spot on.
Now we don't, you're absorbing interpretations you want to hear as gospel. You're accusing me of being inconsistent in the Israel thread, though if you showed the slightest bit of contempt as to what's happening in Bahrain for example, or towards the more despotic theocracies the Gulf then your stance would come across as more sincere. If Assad was a US scrooge like Al-Sisi or almost all the Gulf Arab states, then you'd hail him as a secularist champion and a bulwark against terrorism.
If what is happening in Bahrain was even remotely near the scale of what's happening in Syria, I'm sure it would get more attention. Unlike you, I don't discriminate on these things based on sectarian flavors.
The percentage of people who protested in Bahrain was far more than it was in Syria, it's not even close (it might help if you checked the facts before talking). The military escalation in Syria was only because of Al-Qaeda's involvement. Are you suggesting that the Bahrainis should seek the help of a terrorist organization so they can "get more attention"? Are their rights less important because they rejected the idea of using terrorist tactics to ask for their rights?
I don't though. If there's a legitimate grievance by a particular people it should be heard - that's my view on these things.
Thats because the Bahraini forces (rueld by a minority dictator btw, who unlike Assad does NOT enjoy popular support) with the help of the Saudi military violently put down the Bahraini protests, the protesters had no chance. On the other hand, almost every Arab state along with the US and Turkey had poured weapons and funding into these jihadist rebels, thereby violently exacerbating the situation. I'm a secularist, I don't discriminate on 'sectarian flavours', otherwise I'd ignore the Palestinian plight considering they're Sunni Arabs who've sided with the FSA in the past.
As I said, if the Bahraini Royals are oppressing their people then they need to either implement reforms or face being overthrown. All of the regimes in the area are going to face a similar fate sooner or later if they don't modernize their dictatorial ways .
This. Not to mention the protests (that are still going on) in Bahrain that we hear nothing about. I also love how Saudi fecking Arabia want democracy for the people in Syria when they don't even let their women vote...Syria and Iraq (and Lebanon for that matter) are major targets for Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda has always been involved in those countries regardless of how the government deals with the political situation there. Maliki didn't crush any protests and Iraq is one of the most democratic countries in the region. Same picture, same result.
By the way, how did Al-Sisi deal with the protests against the government? What's the difference there?
in the very long term, yes. but the way things are at the moment, no they aren't. These are countries divided on sectarian, tribal and even ethnic lines and only a strong leader can keep that kind of stuff under control. i'm Lebanese so I know what i'm talking about, at times I wish we had a strong dictator.
Yes I agree, the Palestinian cause has been marketed much better by journalist, idealistic University students, etc. If only a fraction of the outrage that being applied to 1,000 Palestinian deaths were extended to the 150,000 Syrian deaths, that war may have some hope of being resolved.
I'm in complete agreement. Maybe then we'd learn why arming and funding murderous, sectarian extremists was a bad idea (again). Maybe we shouldn't also forget the 100,000+ Iraqis and 25,000+ forgotten Afghans who've had to die for neo-Imperialism too.
Except that Syria can be viewed independently from Iraq and Afghanistan, as the deaths are all down to Assad's failure to reform before outside forces became involved.
You always revive this debate to make the same tenuous point - no, Assad is not responsible for all the 150,000 deaths. The United States was very much responsible for the the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan though, and many more in Latin America, Philliphines and...you get the idea.
Its completely spot on. Assad is a dictator who in 2013 used Chemical weapons on his own population, which you apparently support by ignoring his complacency (obviously for sectarian reasons), and continues using barrel bombs to this day. You have zero credibility to criticize Iraq, Afghanistan, or Israel when you support the use of chemical weapons as long as they're used in favor of someone you support.
No, you can't blame America for anything.. It's all "war on terror" they are doing the world a great favour.
Fallujah's nice this time of year.
We left it in good shape. Feel free to take this to another thread.
We've been involved right alongside them...
Is that how you define the thousands of deformed children that have been born and will continue to be born deformed?
Thank you.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
Well that is something we can both agree on Danny.
Can we also agree that the US has been complicit in the provision of chemical weapons for Saddam, and the use of them in Fallujah?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html
