Thread: Syria: Hundreds Killed in Gas Attack

Ok let's play "Who should we really overthrow?" You know, if we were truly interested in getting rid of the tyrants. I'll start with my top 3 picks.

1. Saudi Arabia
2. Israel
3. Bahrain

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Ok let's play "Who should we really overthrow?" You know, if we were truly interested in getting rid of the tyrants. I'll start with my top 3 picks.

1. Saudi Arabia
2. Israel
3. Bahrain

And just who would you pick to run the respective Country's if they was over thrown?

what you are going to do at the places, when you are done with them?

Thats the question, innit? I'm no friend of the Sauds for example- but if they were toppled and replaced by a loonie salafist theocracy, thats worse. Talk of 'regime change' in Syria is drying up now, for the same reason. I hardly need remind anyone about Iraq, either. And real democratic elections in Egypt gave us the Muslim Brotherhood, pursuing their anti democratic agenda through a democratic framework.

Originally Posted by sabang

Thats the question, innit? I'm no friend of the Sauds for example- but if they were toppled and replaced by a loonie salafist theocracy, thats worse. Talk of 'regime change' in Syria is drying up now, for the same reason. I hardly need remind anyone about Iraq, either. And real democratic elections in Egypt gave us the Muslim Brotherhood, pursuing their anti democratic agenda through a democratic framework.

your talking almost as if you think these people are not ready to take on the responsibilities of voting in an election.

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by sabang

Thats the question, innit? I'm no friend of the Sauds for example- but if they were toppled and replaced by a loonie salafist theocracy, thats worse. Talk of 'regime change' in Syria is drying up now, for the same reason. I hardly need remind anyone about Iraq, either. And real democratic elections in Egypt gave us the Muslim Brotherhood, pursuing their anti democratic agenda through a democratic framework.

your talking almost as if you think these people are not ready to take on the responsibilities of voting in an election.

hazz,

Is your post serious?

These citizens can vote, surely. What will be the result is what many in the West - and in these countries don't want.

Then again, it's their nation-state.

This article is very general and most posters know the info, but it is a refresher. We're aware of the sectarian strife in Syria and other M.E. nations. This concept of minority sectarian rule exists in a couple of countries.

3. That’s horrible. But there are protests lots of places. How did it all go so wrong in Syria? And, please, just give me the short version.

That’s a complicated question, and there’s no single, definitive answer. This is the shortest possible version —...... broadly speaking, that there are two general theories. Both start with the idea that Syria has been a powder keg waiting to explode for decades and that it was set off, maybe inevitably, by the 2011 protests and especially by the government’s overly harsh crackdown.

Before we dive into the theories, you have to understand that the Syrian government really overreacted when peaceful protests started in mid-2011, slaughtering civilians unapologetically, which was a big part of how things escalated as quickly as they did. Assad learned this from his father. In 1982, Assad’s father and then-dictator Hafez al-Assad responded to a Muslim Brotherhood-led uprising in the city of Hama by leveling entire neighborhoods. He killed thousands of civilians, many of whom had nothing to do with the uprising. But it worked, and it looks like the younger Assad tried to reproduce it. His failure made the descent into chaos much worse.

Okay, now the theories for why Syria spiraled so wildly. The first is what you might call “sectarian re-balancing” or “the Fareed Zakaria case” for why Syria is imploding (he didn’t invent this argument but is a major proponent). Syria has artificial borders that were created by European colonial powers, forcing together an amalgam of diverse religious and ethnic groups. Those powers also tended to promote a minority and rule through it, worsening preexisting sectarian tensions.

Zakaria’s argument is that what we’re seeing in Syria is in some ways the inevitable re-balancing of power along ethnic and religious lines. He compares it to the sectarian bloodbath in Iraq after the United States toppled Saddam Hussein, after which a long-oppressed majority retook power from, and violently punished, the former minority rulers. Most Syrians are Sunni Arabs, but the country is run by members of a minority sect known as Alawites (they’re ethnic Arab but follow a smaller branch of Islam).


The Alawite government rules through a repressive dictatorship and gives Alawites special privileges, which makes some Sunnis and other groups hate Alawites in general, which in turn makes Alawites fear that they’ll be slaughtered en masse if Assad loses the war. (There are other minorities as well, such as ethnic Kurds and Christian Arabs; too much to cover in one explainer.) Also, lots of Syrian communities are already organized into ethnic or religious enclaves, which means that community militias are also sectarian militias. That would explain why so much of the killing in Syria has developed along sectarian lines. It would also suggest that there’s not much anyone can do to end the killing because, in Zakaria’s view, this is a painful but unstoppable process of re-balancing power.

The second big theory is a bit simpler: that the Assad regime was not a sustainable enterprise and it’s clawing desperately on its way down. Most countries have some kind of self-sustaining political order, and it looked for a long time like Syria was held together by a cruel and repressive but basically stable dictatorship. But maybe it wasn’t stable; maybe it was built on quicksand. Bashar al-Assad’s father Hafez seized power in a coup in 1970 after two decades of extreme political instability. His government was a product of Cold War meddling and a kind of Arab political identity crisis that was sweeping the region. But he picked the losing sides of both: the Soviet Union was his patron, and he followed a hard-line anti-Western nationalist ideology that’s now mostly defunct. The Cold War is long over, and most of the region long ago made peace with Israel and the United States; the Assad regime’s once-solid ideological and geopolitical identity is hopelessly outdated. But Bashar al-Assad, who took power in 2000 when his father died, never bothered to update it. So when things started going belly-up two years ago, he didn’t have much to fall back on except for his ability to kill people.




4. I hear a lot about how Russia still loves Syria, though. And Iran, too. What’s their deal?

Yeah, Russia is Syria’s most important ally. Moscow blocks the United Nations Security Council from passing anything that might hurt the Assad regime, which is why the United States has to go around the United Nations if it wants to do anything. Russia sends lots of weapons to Syria that make it easier for Assad to keep killing civilians and will make it much harder if the outside world ever wants to intervene.


The four big reasons that Russia wants to protect Assad, the importance of which vary depending on whom you ask, are: (1) Russia has a naval installation in Syria, which is strategically important and Russia’s last foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union; (2) Russia still has a bit of a Cold War mentality, as well as a touch of national insecurity, which makes it care very much about maintaining one of its last military alliances; (3) Russia also hates the idea of “international intervention” against countries like Syria because it sees this as Cold War-style Western imperialism and ultimately a threat to Russia; (4) Syria buys a lot of Russian military exports, and Russia needs the money.


Iran’s thinking in supporting Assad is more straightforward. It perceives Israel and the United States as existential threats and uses Syria to protect itself, shipping arms through Syria to the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah and the Gaza-based militant group Hamas. Iran is already feeling isolated and insecure; it worries that if Assad falls it will lose a major ally and be cut off from its militant proxies, leaving it very vulnerable. So far, it looks like Iran is actually coming out ahead: Assad is even more reliant on Tehran than he was before the war started.

9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Ok let's play "Who should we really overthrow?" You know, if we were truly interested in getting rid of the tyrants. I'll start with my top 3 picks.

1. Saudi Arabia
2. Israel
3. Bahrain

Yeah I'm sure its a great idea, a bit like when Mao took over the running of China ,Lenin took over Russia, Pol Pot in Cambodia and Mugabe in Zimbabwe , one never knows if History is anything to go by, Assad could get overthrown in the not too distant future ,and the Syrian people could well finish up with a leader or leaders which are far worse

Barboro , the link in your post 283 ,one of the best yet, it explains quite a lot which at first does not meet the eye

1000 plus gassed! We ain't seen nothing yet. Assad and the Aliwites know exactly what their fate will be if they are on the losing end of this civil war. This will be a fight to the death. In spite of Assad gassing folks, the "west" as seems to be their history is on the wrong side again. Any action by the west to aid the so called "opposition" will end in a slaughter surpassing anything Assad has done to date.

When Assad falls, the not moderate at all opposition will slaughter Aliwites, Shias and Coptic Christians. Wonder what reaction from the west we can expect then?

The west and in particular the US has absolutely no strategy regarding the ME. For decades the west has been reacting tactically in a quest to maintain "stability" in the ME. Stability equals access to relatively cheap oil!

Eliminating dependency on ME oil is the way. Once accomplished, it will not be "in the interest" of the US to continue intervening indefinitely in ME stability. Take oil out of the equation and let the Shias and Sunnis slaughter one another.

The good news is Assad probably won't fall anyway, highly doubtful. There would be very little rebellion left were it not for foreign funding- mainly from the Gulf States. But indeed, if the regime gets to feel truly cornered, y'all ain't seen nothing yet- and not just in Syria, but Lebanon, parts of Iraq, quite possibly Israel too.

Originally Posted by Norton

1000 plus gassed! We ain't seen nothing yet. Assad and the Aliwites know exactly what their fate will be if they are on the losing end of this civil war. This will be a fight to the death. In spite of Assad gassing folks, the "west" as seems to be their history is on the wrong side again. Any action by the west to aid the so called "opposition" will end in a slaughter surpassing anything Assad has done to date.

When Assad falls, the not moderate at all opposition will slaughter Aliwites, Shias and Coptic Christians. Wonder what reaction from the west we can expect then?

The west and in particular the US has absolutely no strategy regarding the ME. For decades the west has been reacting tactically in a quest to maintain "stability" in the ME. Stability equals access to relatively cheap oil!

Eliminating dependency on ME oil is the way. Once accomplished, it will not be "in the interest" of the US to continue intervening indefinitely in ME stability. Take oil out of the equation and let the Shias and Sunnis slaughter one another.

Yeah Good post , not much else to say is there really !

There still seems to be no mention in the US news media about the napalm attack on a school yard in Syria. Would it not add strength to Obama's case for an attack or is the US to ashamed to mention napalm?

Originally Posted by Morden

There still seems to be no mention in the US news media about the napalm attack on a school yard in Syria. Would it not add strength to Obama's case for an attack or is the US to ashamed to mention napalm?

Anythings possible ain't it!.

Originally Posted by Norton

Eliminating dependency on ME oil is the way. Once accomplished,

I think it's already accomplished, the ME is no longer the main source of oil for the US, the US is now self-sufficient if I am not mistaken on 90% of its needs

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Talking about the mess in Syria, the pundits are now calling Obama's next 'plan' "Operation Enduring Hesitation"

yeah yeah

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Talking about the mess in Syria, the pundits are now calling Obama's next 'plan' "Operation Enduring Hesitation"

yeah yeah

So In your opinion Obama's handling of the Syrian situation has been exemplary then?

Originally Posted by Norton

Eliminating dependency on ME oil is the way. Once accomplished, it will not be "in the interest" of the US to continue intervening indefinitely in ME stability. Take oil out of the equation and let the Shias and Sunnis slaughter one another.

But, the major oil corporations seem to have a large say in 'western democratic government' policy making in the region... So much crony-capitalism going on by the western governments that the likes of Obama might as well wear a sponsored by (Shell, Texaco, BP, etc) T-shirt on during his press conferences.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by piwanoi

he now looking for a way out of the monumental shit he has created for himself

what do you say to including some facts into this discussion?

this is what the president actually said on 20/8/2012, "“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”


and you might ask, who started this idea that a military attack would be the only response?

the office of House Speaker John Boehner asserted that Syria had crossed the “red line” staked out by Obama last year – the use of chemical weapons on its own people. “The Syrian regime has blatantly crossed President Obama’s red line, the White House has acknowledged, by using chemical weapons on its people,” wrote Boehner communications aide Brendan Buck, calling on Obama to consult with Congress and address the American people if he pursues a response.

“[i]f he chooses to act, the president must explain his decision publicly, clearly and resolutely,” Buck wrote.

President Obama’s ‘Red Line’: What He Actually Said About Syria and Chemical Weapons - ABC News

That Statement was made over a year ago, things change in days never mind a year, the reason why I said what I did ,about the mountain of shit he,s created for himself ,is that I did a search on Google "Has Obama painted himself into a corner on Syria?" , there was 10 articles that appeared to believe that indeed he had , This is just one of themBarack Obama’s red line: The president’s foreign policy rhetoric on Syria has closed his options. - Slate Magazine ,as well as the opinion in the Bangkok post article post 292 that makes 11 in all , of course if you are of the opinion his handling of the crisis is quite satisfactory by all means say so.

Ray, Your post 296 , this article says it all about Obama , is he saying right now at this moment in time that Assad should go ?, as the late British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once said "A week is a long time in Politics" Syria?s Assad must go, Obama says - Washington Post