Livestream out of Syria

Judging from your previous posts I'm sure your intentions are both nobel and sincere Bob, but I honestly think you're misled on the actual events taking place in Syria.

You talk about massacres that 'you' have witnessed in Syria at the hands of Bashar, but where are you getting this information from? Unfortunately its true that many people from all sides have been slain in this conflict, but Bashar hasn't been going around indiscriminately slaying civilians for the sake of it, which is what the media is shallowly suggesting. Whats in fact happening is that there's a civil war fought between radical Sunni Islamists (who want Syria to become an Islamic theocracy) and the Syrian Army. There have been war crimes committed from both sides most likely, but remember that this only became a sectarian conflict because these lovely FSA folk had decided they didn't fancy having a secular Shia at the helm....and naturally they were going to be egged on by fellow theocrats such as Saudi Arabia.

Also you have to question the people you're committing your support too. I think that scarved woman in those videos you posted (her name escapes me) summed up my frustration - she was demanding democracy for Syria while waving a Saudi flag, and thanking the Saudi regime for its 'support' for Syria's democratic struggle. Does she not see the irony in all this? Furthermore, don't you think something's wrong when you're on the same wavelength as John McCain, Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham:


The developing shift that is going on throughout the Arab Spring will be messy. My intentions are to highlight the well documented heavy fisted brutality of the Syrian military. Now, if you are going to downplay the level of destruction of Bashar's forces by equating the actions of the FSA ~ Well, you will merely make yourself look silly.


I would guess that most people ducking into this thread are fairly aware of the women and children being butchered by al-Assad's henchmen. Do you really think that you are convincing many people that the SAF are as bad as Bashar al-Assad?


I have been reading up on middle-eastern affairs for a while. I'm not some guy that just stumbled upon this story a few weeks ago... and here is my prediction; The religious extremism in the middle east has a grasp on politics that may not be loosened for quite some time. Saudi Arabia is at the center of the of this theocratic system of brainwashing the masses. ~ Alas, the internet comes of age throughout the world of enlightenment. The old ways of controlling mass populations with weak propaganda is less effective.


To your point, the Saudi's did not back democracy for Yemen, yet it is slowly moving in that direction. Messy ~ no doubt about it http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/w...nd-politics-bedevil-yemens-new-president.html


The Saudi government comes into question over not backing democracy in Bahrain http://www.presstv.ir/detail/230917.html ~ Yet, the Saudi string pullers back the downfall of Bashar al-Assad. Some people tell me it's because Bahrain is too close to home, but they see that the Arab Spring is not something that will be put back in the box and squashed.


Libya has had a very messy and complicated transition towards something that would come close to looking like a democracy, as well.


Bottom Line: The middle east is due for a change in power. It appears that the huddled masses are standing up and will show the world the beauty of their culture and society. The western media draws the eye to the radical factions, all too often. Fewer people are convinced that all individuals from that part of the world are dead-set on the destruction of western civilization. These people are just trying to feed their children and live a life with fewer challenges.
 
I'm at work at the moment so I'll do my best to address all these points you've raised Bob.

The developing shift that is going on throughout the Arab Spring will be messy. My intentions are to highlight the well documented heavy fisted brutality of the Syrian military. Now, if you are going to downplay the level of destruction of Bashar's forces by equating the actions of the FSA ~ Well, you will merely make yourself look silly.

The Arab spring had started out as a series of organic protest movements in North Africa, but unfortunately they've been hijacked by external malevolent factions wishing to steer it towards their own regional goals. Egypt was the last of these organic movements - once they reached Libya we had the use of foreign intervention and now we have foreign militias operating in Syria. Even in Bahrain there has been foreign intervention, but this time it involves Saudi troops who wish to consolidate the regime, not overthrow it. What started out as brave and justified movement for reforms has morphed into an adulterated mess.

I've only felt obliged to post in this thread because I believe you're only documenting one face of the events, which paints a unrealistic portrayal of events in Syria.


I would guess that most people ducking into this thread are fairly aware of the women and children being butchered by al-Assad's henchmen. Do you really think that you are convincing many people that the SAF are as bad as Bashar al-Assad?

Again this is a gross simplification. Thanks to the media you'd believe that Assad was indiscriminately slaying women and children for the sake of it, the exaggerated demonisation of his character has been unreal to say the least. In fact all thats happening is that you're shown footage of dead women and children with no context whatsoever and you're simply led to believe that it was the work of Assad's men. There have been plenty of good videos online that have debunked dozens of these videos proving them to be either faked (e.g. footage of dead taken from places like Iraq and Lebanon) or reported out of context (e.g. footage of dead toddler who was actually killed as a result of being used as a human shield by the FSA and who's death was pinned on Assad's men).

The point I'm trying to make is that there's been no work done to validate such horrific videos and photos and yet people simply chose to believe those who have conjured up stories and attached them to such footage, while dismissing the stories from the otherside as propaganda.



I have been reading up on middle-eastern affairs for a while. I'm not some guy that just stumbled upon this story a few weeks ago... and here is my prediction; The religious extremism in the middle east has a grasp on politics that may not be loosened for quite some time. Saudi Arabia is at the center of the of this theocratic system of brainwashing the masses. ~ Alas, the internet comes of age throughout the world of enlightenment. The old ways of controlling mass populations with weak propaganda is less effective.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. I'd agree with your sentiment that Saudi Arabia is the heartland of radical Islam and is responsible for breeding its barbaric and intolerant doctrines, but I fail to see the relation and relevance to your second point about internet enlightenment


To your point, the Saudi's did not back democracy for Yemen, yet it is slowly moving in that direction. Messy ~ no doubt about it http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/w...nd-politics-bedevil-yemens-new-president.html

The Saudis are not slowly steering towards embracing democracy in Yemen. All they've done is replaced Saleh with his vice presidential stooge believing that this will simply appease the masses. Fortunately the people of Yemen are not that gullible.



The Saudi government comes into question over not backing democracy in Bahrain http://www.presstv.ir/detail/230917.html ~ Yet, the Saudi string pullers back the downfall of Bashar al-Assad. Some people tell me it's because Bahrain is too close to home, but they see that the Arab Spring is not something that will be put back in the box and squashed.

There's a plethora of reasons why Saudi Arabia wants to protect the Bahraini regime and help the downfall of Assad. The main one is essentially religious bigotry - the Saudis hate Shias and secularists and they've been trying to antagonise them for as long as they've existed (see Wikileaks cables documenting Saudi's insistence that the West attack Iran). Assad is a secular Alawite in a country where Sunni Islam is the majority - the Saudis of course don't like that and would prefer their barbaric Wahabi doctrines to constitute the nation instead. Its why they've covertly been funding Islamic militias in Syria and its why they've been furiously lobbying for other nations to do the same.

Contrast that to Bahrain where you have a Sunni monarch ruling over a Shia majority. The Saudis do not want that majority emancipated so have resorted to sending tanks over the border to crush their peaceful, unarmed protests. You're also very much right in suggesting that Saudis fear an uprising on their borders which could very much spread to their oppressive state, which you'd imagine would be ripe for such a thing.



Libya has had a very messy and complicated transition towards something that would come close to looking like a democracy, as well.

No it hasnt. The media hasn't reported the atrocities committed by the current regime towards certain tribes and black Libyans, nor does it seem interested in documenting the violent power struggles that are happening now between the rival factions that made up the rebels.


Bottom Line: The middle east is due for a change in power. It appears that the huddled masses are standing up and will show the world the beauty of their culture and society. The western media draws the eye to the radical factions, all too often. Fewer people are convinced that all individuals from that part of the world are dead-set on the destruction of western civilization. These people are just trying to feed their children and live a life with fewer challenges.

Agreed. Look back in the earlier threads and you'll see what I was one of those most vocal in insisting there be major reforms in Syria. Being a Middle Easterner myself I only dream that we the region could evolves into a progressive, secular and tolerant part of the world without compromising its wonderfully unique culture, and I can safely say the majority of Middle Easterners echo these sentiments.

However the West is adopting an unfathomable stance when it comes to recent events in the ME. On one hand it claims to be fighting Islamic extremists in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, though on the other hand its openly siding with Islamic extremists in countries like Libya and Syria...not to mention that one of their most staunch allies in the most radical Islamic state on the planet. Such policies will bite them back, just as it had when they backed the various Mujahadeen cells in the 80s which eventually went on to become Al-Qaeda.
 
What a bizarre YouTube clip. Anderson Cooper's reporting has been by far the best since the entire Arab Spring began. He's even had Fouad Ajami on to provide perspective.

Here's one where he mentions opposition fighters from the UN's damning report on Assad.

 
Agreed. Look back in the earlier threads and you'll see what I was one of those most vocal in insisting there be major reforms in Syria. Being a Middle Easterner myself I only dream that we the region could evolves into a progressive, secular and tolerant part of the world without compromising its wonderfully unique culture, and I can safely say the majority of Middle Easterners echo these sentiments.

Ahem, didn't the recent first-ever democratic elections in Egypt suggest otherwise?
 
What a bizarre YouTube clip. Anderson Cooper's reporting has been by far the best since the entire Arab Spring began. He's even had Fouad Ajami on to provide perspective.

Here's one where he mentions opposition fighters from the UN's damning report on Assad.



Whats bizarre about it? Cooper sits there with that stupid smirk on his face defiantly mocking the idea that armed militants are integrated within the Syrian opposition, the video cleverly juxtaposes that to footage of armed Islamists causing all sorts of trouble in Syria with Al-Qaeda music playing the background...so much for no armed militias eh. Not to mention how CNN's 'expert' on the issue "Danny Dayem" has never actually set foot in Syria, yet they interpret his version of events as facts.

Ajami is also a misguided fool, no one in the Middle East has taken him seriously since his staunch support for the Iraq war claiming it to be a 'gift' from he Americans to the Iraqi people. Not to mention his unhealthy infatuation for Bush and Cheney, claiming them to be noble benevolents. They might as well have got Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck to talk about Syria too.
 
Ahem, didn't the recent first-ever democratic elections in Egypt suggest otherwise?

I didn't know that Egypt equated the sentiments of the entire middle east. How about we wait for the presidential elections too before you go wax lyrical on how backwardly intolerant Arabs are.
 
Whats bizarre about it? Cooper sits there with that stupid smirk on his face defiantly mocking the idea that armed militants are integrated within the Syrian opposition, the video cleverly juxtaposes that to footage of armed Islamists causing all sorts of trouble in Syria with Al-Qaeda music playing the background...so much for no armed militias eh. Not to mention how CNN's 'expert' on the issue "Danny Dayem" has never actually set foot in Syria, yet they interpret his version of events as facts.

Ajami is also a misguided fool, no one in the Middle East has taken him seriously since his staunch support for the Iraq war claiming it to be a 'gift' from he Americans to the Iraqi people. Not to mention his unhealthy infatuation for Bush and Cheney, claiming them to be noble benevolents. They might as well have got Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck to talk about Syria too.

Well for starters it looks to be made by some pro-Assad stooge as evidenced by the caption trying to correct Cooper about calling him President rather than a dictator. Fair and balanced my arse.

Ajami has been spot on about the Arab spring from the beginning. Naturally, you're going to try and discredit him because he calls the Iranian, Syria, Hebollah connection for being the fraud that they are.
 
Ajami has been spot on about the Arab spring from the beginning. You may try to discredit him because he calls the Iranian, Syria, Hebollah connection for being the fraud that they are.

Trust me Iran/Hezbollah as nothing to do with it. When I read his garbage on the Iraq war that was enough for me to discredit anything he writes or talks about.
 
Yep, its an insurgency now thanks to Assad. Remember that this all started with kids protesting and because of the Government's barbaric crackdown has spiralled into a situation where the opposition is getting help from anyone it can. The blame lies solely with Assad.
 
Yep, its an insurgency now thanks to Assad. Remember that this all started with kids protesting and because of the Government's barbaric crackdown has spiralled into a situation where the opposition is getting help from anyone it can. The blame lies solely with Assad.

No its not, blaming the insurgency on Assad is a fruitless accusation. These people have no interest in accepting reforms from Assad no matter how major they are, they have admitted themselves that they wont stop until Assad's family are hung in the streets, the Alawites executed, and that a Sharia Islamic constitution is put in place. This of course isnt helped by Saudi Arabia and Qatar arming and encouraging them. To them Assad's biggest crime is that he's a secular Alawite.
 
No its not, blaming the insurgency on Assad is a fruitless accusation. These people have no interest in accepting reforms from Assad no matter how major they are, they have admitted themselves that they wont stop until Assad's family are hung in the streets, the Alawites executed, and that a Sharia Islamic constitution is put in place. This of course isnt helped by Saudi Arabia and Qatar arming and encouraging them. To them Assad's biggest crime is that he's a secular Alawite.

There was no insurgency in the beginning. It was kids demonstrating in Dara'a that quickly turned into Arab spring style protests. Your dictator is the primary reason other actors both foreign and domestic have taken up armed conflict in the matter. Had Assad allowed those demonstrations, they would have probably been just demonstrations. But he couldn't do that because he feared getting the boot like a host of other middle eastern leaders, so he opened fire on his own population. And here you are defending him. Classy stuff.
 
There was no insurgency in the beginning. It was kids demonstrating in Dara'a that quickly turned into Arab spring style protests. Your dictator is the primary reason other actors both foreign and domestic have taken up armed conflict in the matter. Had Assad allowed those demonstrations, they would have probably been just demonstrations. But he couldn't do that because he feared getting the boot like a host of other middle eastern leaders, so he opened fire on his own population. And here you are defending him. Classy stuff.

First of all your interpretation of events in Dara is inaccurate. It wasn't a peaceful protest considering how 7 police officers were killed by rooftop snipers. This article does a fantastic job of debunking the lies from the media regarding the events in Dara: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24591

if you don't want to read all of it (I really recommend it) then here's a key extract:

The "Epicenter" of the Protest Movement. Daraa: A Small Border Town in southern Syria

What is the nature of the protest movement? From what sectors of Syrian society does it emanate? What triggered the violence?

What is the cause of the deaths?

The existence of an organized insurrection composed of armed gangs involved in acts of killing and arson has been dismissed by the Western media, despite evidence to the contrary.

The demonstrations did not start in Damascus, the nation's capital. At the outset, the protests were not integrated by a mass movement of citizens in Syria's capital.

The demonstrations started in Daraa, a small border town of 75,000 inhabitants, on the Syrian Jordanian border, rather than in Damascus or Aleppo, where the mainstay of organized political opposition and social movements are located. (Daraa is a small border town comparable e.g. to Plattsburgh, NY on the US-Canadian border).

The Associated Press report (quoting unnamed "witnesses" and "activists") describes the early protests in Daraa as follows:

The violence in Daraa, a city of about 300,000 near the border with Jordan, was fast becoming a major challenge for President Bashar Assad, .... Syrian police launched a relentless assault Wednesday on a neighborhood sheltering anti-government protesters [Daraa], fatally shooting at least 15 in an operation that began before dawn, witnesses said.

At least six were killed in the early morning attack on the al-Omari mosque in the southern agricultural city of Daraa, where protesters have taken to the streets in calls for reforms and political freedoms, witnesses said. An activist in contact with people in Daraa said police shot another three people protesting in its Roman-era city center after dusk. Six more bodies were found later in the day, the activist said.

As the casualties mounted, people from the nearby villages of Inkhil, Jasim, Khirbet Ghazaleh and al-Harrah tried to march on Daraa Wednesday night but security forces opened fire as they approached, the activist said. It was not immediately clear if there were more deaths or injuries. (AP, March 23, 2011, emphasis added)

The AP report inflates the numbers: Daraa is presented as a city of 300,000 when in fact its population is 75,000; "protesters gathered by the thousands", "casualties mounted".

The report is silent on the death of policemen which in the West invariably makes the front page of the tabloids.

The deaths of the policemen are important in assessing what actually happened. When there are police casualties, this means that there is an exchange of gunfire between opposing sides, between policemen and "demonstrators".

Who are these "demonstrators" including roof top snipers who were targeting the police.

Israeli and Lebanese news reports (which acknowledge the police deaths) provide a clearer picture of what happened in Daraa on March 17-18. The Israel National News Report (which cannot be accused of being biased in favor of Damascus) reviews these same events as follows:

Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday.

.... On Friday police opened fire on armed protesters killing four and injuring as many as 100 others. According to one witness, who spoke to the press on condition of anonymity, "They used live ammunition immediately -- no tear gas or anything else."

.... In an uncharacteristic gesture intended to ease tensions the government offered to release the detained students, but seven police officers were killed, and the Baath Party Headquarters and courthouse were torched, in renewed violence on Sunday. (Gavriel Queenann, Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests, Israel National News, Arutz Sheva, March 21, 2011, emphasis added)

The Lebanese news report, quoting various sources, also acknowledges the killings of seven policemen in Daraa: They were killed "during clashes between the security forces and protesters... They got killed trying to drive away protesters during demonstration in Dara’a"

The Lebanese Ya Libnan report quoting Al Jazeera also acknowledged that protesters had "burned the headquarters of the Baath Party and the court house in Dara’a" (emphasis added)

These news reports of the events in Daraa confirm the following:

1. This was not a "peaceful protest" as claimed by the Western media. Several of the "demonstrators" had fire arms and were using them against the police: "The police opened fire on armed protesters killing four".

2. From the initial casualty figures (Israel News), there were more policemen than demonstrators who were killed: 7 policemen killed versus 4 demonstrators. This is significant because it suggests that the police force might have been initially outnumbered by a well organized armed gang. According to Syrian media sources, there were also snipers on rooftops which were shooting at both the police and the protesters.

What is clear from these initial reports is that many of the demonstrators were not demonstrators but terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson. The title of the Israeli news report summarizes what happened: Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests.

The Daraa "protest movement" on March 18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving, in all likelihood, covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence. Government sources point to the role of radical Salafist groups (supported by Israel)

Other reports have pointed to the role of Saudi Arabia in financing the protest movement.

What has unfolded in Daraa in the weeks following the initial violent clashes on 17-18 March, is the confrontation between the police and the armed forces on the one hand and armed units of terrorists and snipers on the other which have infiltrated the protest movement.

Reports suggest that these terrorists are integrated by Islamists. There is no concrete evidence as to which Islamic organizations are behind the terrorists and the government has not released corroborating information as to who these groups are.

Both the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (whose leadership is in exile in the UK) and the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), among others have paid lip service to the protest movement. Hizb ut Tahir (led in the 1980s by Syrian born Omar Bakri Muhammad) tends to "dominate the British Islamist scene” according to Foreign Affairs. Hizb ut Tahir is also considered to be of strategic importance to Britain's Secret Service MI6. in the pursuit of Anglo-American interests in the Middle East and Central Asia.

And you're absolutely right in stating that 'my dictator' is the reason why external actors have taken up armed conflict in Syria, but its more to do with what he is as opposed to what he's done. Its fitting that these Islamic militants haven't rushed to the aid of their brothers in Bahrain who are being killed and violently oppressed for peacefully protesting the streets...I wonder why that could be?
 
No need to deflect things to Bahrain and Saudi. This is solely about what Assad has been doing to his own people; namely shelling his own cities where innocent civilians live. Sending tanks and helicopter gun ships in to strafe civilian neighborhoods is crimes against humanity, which is something he will have to deal with after he's booted out of Syria.
 
I'm not deflecting anything, its all relevant when you put things in perspective and try to explain the actions of certain groups. But it just seems like we're going in circles - you keep going back to this theory that Assad is murdering his people for the sake of it and how he'll inevitably fall.

I say we leave it to time, assuming that there's no more foreign intervention I predict that the Syrian military will successfully purge the country from foreign Islamic terrorists. From what I've heard they've been relatively successful too.
 
I'm not deflecting anything, its all relevant when you put things in perspective and try to explain the actions of certain groups. But it just seems like we're going in circles - you keep going back to this theory that Assad is murdering his people for the sake of it and how he'll inevitably fall.

I say we leave it to time, assuming that there's no more foreign intervention I predict that the Syrian military will successfully purge the country from foreign Islamic terrorists. From what I've heard they've been relatively successful too.

If you mean bombing cities into oblivion then yes they've been marginally successful. But now that the so called ceasefire is effect, its just going to give the opposition time to reorganize and start demonstrating again. The only way out of this for Assad is to leave the country and allow the UN to create a humanitarian corridor for a peaceful transition. The longer he stays, the longer the violence will continue. He has lost all credibility in the region and Russian and Chinese support for him is not going to continue indefinitely.
 
I didn't know that Egypt equated the sentiments of the entire middle east. How about we wait for the presidential elections too before you go wax lyrical on how backwardly intolerant Arabs are.

Well, when others have democratic elections we might have a better idea of what they see their future like. So far the Egyptian and Palestinian election outcome do not agree with your vision.
 
Well, when others have democratic elections we might have a better idea of what they see their future like. So far the Egyptian and Palestinian election outcome do not agree with your vision.

Sad that most elections do not have the desired outcome of the masses. Israel and America certainly understand this by now.
 
I'm not deflecting anything, its all relevant when you put things in perspective and try to explain the actions of certain groups. But it just seems like we're going in circles - you keep going back to this theory that Assad is murdering his people for the sake of it and how he'll inevitably fall.

I say we leave it to time, assuming that there's no more foreign intervention I predict that the Syrian military will successfully purge the country from foreign Islamic terrorists. From what I've heard they've been relatively successful too.

What makes you think that foreign intervention will cease? The US has been more and more vocal about their concerns for Syria, not that they are going to do anything, other than the CIA covert ops? (If there are any in fact)

So, let's just say the SAF continue to get the backing from the various entities, then what? The possibilities to this question is on the mind of most people following this story so closely. How far will Bashar take things in an escalated civil war? The question that I keep asking Syrian Americans ~ What will Syria look like if Bashar is ousted.
 

If I were to post it, I am wondering if I might get banned, again. The last time I outlined the election irregularities of the USA, England, and Israel ~ I was banned from the redcafe for a month.
_________________________________________________

I'll give it a try once more...

The Top Nations That Brag About Being the Beacons of Democracy Have A Lot to Fix Themselves

Bush vs. Gore ~ The supreme court inaccurately rule in favor of the losing party.

Bush vs. Kerry ~ Sen. John Kerry obviously threw the race by barely putting up a fight for office. God knows how such a lame duck that is Kerry made it to the general election to begin with.



Just when we thought we had seen it all through the decade, comes along Israel to outdo them all.


The supposed more left candidate in Israel (relatively speaking as she is wanted for war crimes against humanity) Livni beats Netanyahu
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490624,00.html

But hold your horses...

The Israeli Knesset attempts to build a coalition government, while in the process circumvents the election process by appointing Netanyahu as PM and inviting Livni to join the coalition position, she declined.


England 11 May, 2010, two weeks prior to elections the Queen decides to toss out the constitution and draft anew. In an attempt to appease the left a coalition government is created. (So, how's that working for the UK, I wonder)


In all cases above the population felt cheated. It seems to be a trend that the right-wing conservatives are more often circumventing democracy with greater open audacity and success than ever.


ok... running to my bunker for a few days, so no to get banned. :cool:
 
What makes you think that foreign intervention will cease? The US has been more and more vocal about their concerns for Syria, not that they are going to do anything, other than the CIA covert ops? (If there are any in fact)

So, let's just say the SAF continue to get the backing from the various entities, then what? The possibilities to this question is on the mind of most people following this story so closely. How far will Bashar take things in an escalated civil war? The question that I keep asking Syrian Americans ~ What will Syria look like if Bashar is ousted.

By foreign intervention I mean Iraq-style boots on the ground or Libya-style death-from-above. And really I doubt any of the two are going to happen considering Russia and China' stubborn defiance of UN initiatives by the US and Gulf Arab states.

Even if the there is continued covert support for the FSA and Islamic militants via the US and Gulf countries then I don't think it'll amount to much in the end. People don't realise that the Syrian military is only using a mere fraction of its resources and capabilities to fight these Islamic militants, so sooner or later I think they'll force them out of the main cities where most of them will probably jump over the border back to Iraq where they'll go back to executing Shias and bombing churches.

Asking the question of what will Syria look like without Bashar is a very good question to ponder indeed, and the answer of which serves as one of the main reasons why Bashar enjoys so much support. As I've mentioned in this thread and elsehwere, Syria is a secular Arab republic where there is freedom of religion (or no religion) and where all sects and minorities are protected by the current constitution. If this 'revolution' gets its way, then all that secular fabric would be undermined and you could be looking at a country dominated by factions such as the nice chaps from Hizb ut-Tahrir. Essentially you'll be looking at a Saudi Arabia MK II in the region.
 
By foreign intervention I mean Iraq-style boots on the ground or Libya-style death-from-above. And really I doubt any of the two are going to happen considering Russia and China' stubborn defiance of UN initiatives by the US and Gulf Arab states.

Even if the there is continued covert support for the FSA and Islamic militants via the US and Gulf countries then I don't think it'll amount to much in the end. People don't realise that the Syrian military is only using a mere fraction of its resources and capabilities to fight these Islamic militants, so sooner or later I think they'll force them out of the main cities where most of them will probably jump over the border back to Iraq where they'll go back to executing Shias and bombing churches.

Asking the question of what will Syria look like without Bashar is a very good question to ponder indeed, and the answer of which serves as one of the main reasons why Bashar enjoys so much support. As I've mentioned in this thread and elsehwere, Syria is a secular Arab republic where there is freedom of religion (or no religion) and where all sects and minorities are protected by the current constitution. If this 'revolution' gets its way, then all that secular fabric would be undermined and you could be looking at a country dominated by factions such as the nice chaps from Hizb ut-Tahrir. Essentially you'll be looking at a Saudi Arabia MK II in the region.

I appreciate your response, but the predicted outcome from the Syrian Americans that I speak with would not agree with you. ... I don't have time to reply entirely... as I am off to work at the moment.
 
When you have the chance I'd be grateful if you could summarise how these Syrian Americans envisage a Syria without Bashar, it woul be interesting to compare them to the contrasting opinions of Syrians I'm close with.
 
Probably the same as how Iranian Americans in my neighborhood in LA envisage Iran free of Khomeinite rule. Sovereign, secular, and with democratic governance that allows it to reintegrate into the global economy.
 
England 11 May, 2010, two weeks prior to elections the Queen decides to toss out the constitution and draft anew. In an attempt to appease the left a coalition government is created. (So, how's that working for the UK, I wonder)

What's this? The first page of google didn't give me the answer. You have a new constitution?
 
Probably the same as how Iranian Americans in my neighborhood in LA envisage Iran free of Khomeinite rule. Sovereign, secular, and with democratic governance that allows it to reintegrate into the global economy.

Except Syria already is a sovereign and secular country, and Assad in his tenure has opened up the country to equitable foreign investment which has expanded the Syrian economy to unprecedented levels, all while maintaining the socialist benefits of free health care, education (including at University level)and housing. Democracy is something they need to seriously work on (hence the need for serious reforms) but it already exists at a somewhat limited level with the Syrian elected council made up of 250 elected congressmen and women...which is a lot more than you can say about the autocratic monarchies of the Gulf countries who've suddenly become such staunch supporters of democracy in Syria. There's also the fact that most Syrias living in Syria support Assad and are not so gullible as to buy this joint Neocon-Islamist propaganda which cares not for their wellbeing, but for rather their own selfish agendas.

The irony of course is you're siding with factions who if they had it their way would mould Syria into an Islamic theocratic caliphate and in doing so completely reverse Syria's progressive strides in recent decades - it would be supporting the anti-thesis of sovereign secularism.
 
Except Syria already is a sovereign and secular country, and Assad in his tenure has opened up the country to equitable foreign investment which has expanded the Syrian economy to unprecedented levels, all while maintaining the socialist benefits of free health care, education (including at University level)and housing. Democracy is something they need to seriously work on (hence the need for serious reforms) but it already exists at a somewhat limited level with the Syrian elected council made up of 250 elected congressmen and women...which is a lot more than you can say about the autocratic monarchies of the Gulf countries who've suddenly become such staunch supporters of democracy in Syria. There's also the fact that most Syrias living in Syria support Assad and are not so gullible as to buy this joint Neocon-Islamist propaganda which cares not for their wellbeing, but for rather their own selfish agendas.

The irony of course is you're siding with factions who if they had it their way would mould Syria into an Islamic theocratic caliphate and in doing so completely reverse Syria's progressive strides in recent decades - it would be supporting the anti-thesis of sovereign secularism.

Its not Democratic though. Expats are usually the most vocal ones to criticize the tyranny of dictators in their old countries because they can contrast not having any freedoms to what life is like in the U.S. Knowing that their families are still having to live in repressive places like Iran and Syria creates a sense of injustice that makes expats go to extraordinary lengths to protest these regimes. My experiences talking to Iranians in Westwood/LA, which is the biggest Iranian expat community in the world, has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that those regimes need to go.
 
If I were to post it, I am wondering if I might get banned, again. The last time I outlined the election irregularities of the USA, England, and Israel ~ I was banned from the redcafe for a month.
_________________________________________________

I'll give it a try once more...

The Top Nations That Brag About Being the Beacons of Democracy Have A Lot to Fix Themselves

Bush vs. Gore ~ The supreme court inaccurately rule in favor of the losing party.

Bush vs. Kerry ~ Sen. John Kerry obviously threw the race by barely putting up a fight for office. God knows how such a lame duck that is Kerry made it to the general election to begin with.



Just when we thought we had seen it all through the decade, comes along Israel to outdo them all.


The supposed more left candidate in Israel (relatively speaking as she is wanted for war crimes against humanity) Livni beats Netanyahu
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490624,00.html

But hold your horses...

The Israeli Knesset attempts to build a coalition government, while in the process circumvents the election process by appointing Netanyahu as PM and inviting Livni to join the coalition position, she declined.


England 11 May, 2010, two weeks prior to elections the Queen decides to toss out the constitution and draft anew. In an attempt to appease the left a coalition government is created. (So, how's that working for the UK, I wonder)


In all cases above the population felt cheated. It seems to be a trend that the right-wing conservatives are more often circumventing democracy with greater open audacity and success than ever.


ok... running to my bunker for a few days, so no to get banned. :cool:

Getting banned from an internet forum should be the least of your worries.
 
Getting banned from an internet forum should be the least of your worries.

Why should I worry about explaining the plain simple facts?

I have close friendships with people in the DOJ, NSA, and the State Dept., not to mention all the media contacts ~ If anything were to ever happen to me, there would be a high price to pay.
 
Why should I worry about explaining the plain simple facts?

I have close friendships with people in the DOJ, NSA, and the State Dept., not to mention all the media contacts ~ If anything were to ever happen to me, there would be a high price to pay.

:lol:
 
Why should I worry about explaining the plain simple facts?

I have close friendships with people in the DOJ, NSA, and the State Dept., not to mention all the media contacts ~ If anything were to ever happen to me, there would be a high price to pay.

:lol:
 
Why should I worry about explaining the plain simple facts?

I have close friendships with people in the DOJ, NSA, and the State Dept., not to mention all the media contacts ~ If anything were to ever happen to me, there would be a high price to pay.

Don't know the context of this post but it's forum gold right there.

Just need someone to finish this with a Hitler reference now and we can all go to bed.