Syrians search for the truth

cyberhog · 24-02-2012 4:49am #1

Syrians don't trust the West and they don't trust the way the crisis is being reported.

Damascenes greet foreign visitors on the streets with “welcome to our country” and “how are you” but no longer trust the world outside their ancient oasis. They believe the West, courted by the government these past five years, has turned its back on them. Both regime opponents and supporters feel let down. They accuse the West of double standards and the Arabs of betrayal.

...

People sit in homes, restaurants, cafes and shops, watching news bulletins on television. They constantly switch channels in the vain hope of discovering what is going on, say, in the central cities of Homs and Hama, the southern city of Deraa – the cradle of the rebellion – or the restive satellite towns ringing Damascus.

Syrians flip from channel to channel, from external satellite broadcasters to local stations. By taking in the full range of reports, claims and counterclaims, they hope to form a view of the situation.

But they are constantly confounded. An independent commentator remarks, “Both sides exaggerate, but the opposition exaggerates the most.” Syrians, foreign observers and journalists are victims of the media war raging in tandem with the power struggle being waged in the streets and squares of the country’s cities, towns and villages. The government tries to control news content, the opposition puts out stories, interviews and photographs of alleged atrocities with the aim of flooding the media with material, aware that accusations – even false accusations – tend to stick, creating a picture of the conflict that may or may not reflect reality.

The anti-regime Arab satellite television channels Al Arabiya (Saudi), Al Jazeera (Qatari) and the US-funded Barada (exiled opposition) are prominent in the media war. For nearly 10 months visas were not granted to most foreign media seeking to cover events in Syria. This gave local anti-regime activists with satellite phones and internet connections the opportunity to fill the world’s newspapers and television channels with the opposition version of what is happening here.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0211/1224311610535.html

The media continually report about the "brutal" shelling of Homs and warning of a humanitarian catastrophe but we very rarely hear the other side of the story.

Micheal Jansen puts the shelling in context.

As protests gave way to conflict, the situation in contested areas has become increasingly ugly, particularly in Homs, the current centre of the struggle. There the regular army is seeking to wrest control of several neighbourhoods in the west seized by Sunni militiamen, reinforced by defecting soldiers, who are are advancing towards the city centre.

The struggle for territory is accompanied by looting by militiamen and criminals, and by kidnappings of Sunnis by Alawites and vice-versa. Some victims are exchanged, some ransomed, others tortured and killed, their bodies dumped on waste ground. According to my diplomatic source, more than 100 Alawite women have been abducted, held for long periods and raped, tortured and slain. Alawites have retaliated by kidnapping and abusing Sunni women.

The source remarks that, in rebel-held Sunni neighbourhoods of Homs, mainly fundamentalist militants have the full support of the populace and even the “old families” who harbour long-standing animosities towards the secular regime. “It is an Islamist uprising to reassert the supremacy of Muslims over infidels,” he said. “Sunnis [elsewhere] do not admit what is happening in Homs. The opposition has used religion to incite people in the streets. While the opposition accuses the regime of exploiting the threat of sectarian warfare to turn people against the rebels, the government’s only hope is to keep playing the secular card.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0211/1224311610535.html

The media have clearly not given both sides of the story equal voice instead the majority of reports focus on the "brutal shelling" of Homs by Government forces and pay little attention to the actions of the fundamentalist militants inside Homs. However when Israel was shelling fundamentalist militants in Gaza during Cast Lead the media reporting was very focused on the militants and not on the Israeli shelling. Back then it was also reported that civilian casualties had to be seen in light of Hamas' tactical use of Gazan civilians as "human shields" and that the fundamentalist militants in Gaza bore ultimate responsibility for civilian deaths.

Here's how CNN reported it.

"The Hamas terror organization placed the primary fighting scene at the heart of civilian neighborhoods as it booby-trapped homes, fired from schools and used civilians as human shields,"

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-26/world/israel.gaza.death.toll_1_israeli-military-palestinians-civilian-deaths?_s=PM:WORLD

Well the fundamentalist militants in Homs are doing the same thing. They have placed the primary fighting scene at the heart of civilian neighborhoods and have used religion to incite the people in those neighborhoods. But while the fundamentalists in Gaza were vilified in the media that is not happening with the fundamentalists in Homs. Instead the media focuses on what the US calls "unconscionable violence" by the Assad government yet the US had no problem with Israel's bombardment of Gaza. With double standards like that is it any wonder that Syrians don't trust the West.

for the past four months, there has been a stream of Iraqi fighters and weapons flowing into Syria from Iraq to support the anti-Assad movement.

The fighters and weapons “are being smuggled from Mosul through the Rabia crossing to Syria, as members of the same families live on both sides of the border,” said Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Adnan al-Assadi.

“We have known about the jihadists’ role for months,” said Alastair Crooke, the Beirut-based director of Conflicts Forum. “People have just chosen to turn a blind eye to it.”

Mr. Crooke, a former analyst in Central Asia with British MI6, said that “almost since the outset, Syrians who fought with Zarqawi in Iraq, have been involved” in the campaign to oust President al-Assad,

There are those fighters who returned to Syria, Mr. Crooke said, as well as an influx of jihadists from other countries. “These people,” including al-Qaeda, he said, “are much more anti-Shia than pro-democracy. After Syria, they want to take the fight to Iraq and on to Iran.”

...

Syrian President al-Assad has been insisting for some time that the opposition he faces includes what he calls “foreigners,” among them al-Qaeda and other armed jihadist elements.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/al-qaeda-leader-publicly-sides-with-syrian-opposition/article2335864/

Those in favour of regime change have turned a blind eye to what is really going on in Homs but the truth is Assad is trying to stop terrorists from bringing down the whole country and that is no easy task when you also have Western countries fomenting civil war.

gurramok · 24-02-2012 3:41pm

cyberhog wrote: »

Syrians don't trust the West and they don't trust the way the crisis is being reported..

The source remarks that, in rebel-held Sunni neighbourhoods of Homs, mainly fundamentalist militants have the full support of the populace and even the “old families” who harbour long-standing animosities towards the secular regime. “It is an Islamist uprising to reassert the supremacy of Muslims over infidels,” he said. “Sunnis [elsewhere] do not admit what is happening in Homs. The opposition has used religion to incite people in the streets.

Who is this mysterious source?

This is a re-run of Libya. The same people proclaiming an Al-Qaeda lead uprising against the populations viewpoint with the West supporting the Jihadists are playing the same card in Syria. Crazy mentality.

Einhard · 24-02-2012 3:53pm

cyberhog wrote: »

Those in favour of regime change have turned a blind eye to what is really going on in Homs but the truth is Assad is trying to stop terrorists from bringing down the whole country and that is no easy task when you also have Western countries fomenting civil war.

Do you have no shame whatsoever? I understand that people have issues with how the West, and particularly America, conducts itself, but to shill for a brutal dictator is a new and despiucable low for this forum.

It seems that, for some, the outrages perpetrated by even the most criminal and despotic of regimes can be denied or mitigated or even just defended, so long as the regime is seen to be anti-Western. These people claim to care about human rights but that's BS of the highest order. All they care about is there own narrow ideology, and in their eyes an enemy of an enemy is always a friend- even when that means cheerleading and defending the outrages they would quickly condemn if they were carried out by America or Israel.

It's absolutely hypocritical, and morally repugnant. People who defend the massacre of innocents for ideological or partisan reasons should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

Einhard · 24-02-2012 3:54pm

gurramok wrote: »

Who is this mysterious source?

This is a re-run of Libya. The same people proclaiming an Al-Qaeda lead uprising against the populations viewpoint with the West supporting the Jihadists are playing the same card in Syria. Crazy mentality.

Indeed. As long as a regime is against the West, people like cyberhog don't care how many people they murder and maim. It's a repugnant mentality.

RichieC · 24-02-2012 6:08pm

Einhard wrote: »

Do you have no shame whatsoever? I understand that people have issues with how the West, and particularly America, conducts itself, but to shill for a brutal dictator is a new and despiucable low for this forum.

It seems that, for some, the outrages perpetrated by even the most criminal and despotic of regimes can be denied or mitigated or even just defended, so long as the regime is seen to be anti-Western. These people claim to care about human rights but that's BS of the highest order. All they care about is there own narrow ideology, and in their eyes an enemy of an enemy is always a friend- even when that means cheerleading and defending the outrages they would quickly condemn if they were carried out by America or Israel.

It's absolutely hypocritical, and morally repugnant. People who defend the massacre of innocents for ideological or partisan reasons should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

Nothing like the old shame card to stifle a debate. well played.

mike65 · 24-02-2012 6:15pm

In other news NAZIs had a point about the Jews....

Einhard · 24-02-2012 6:27pm

RichieC wrote: »

Nothing like the old shame card to stifle a debate. well played.

Don't see any attempt at debate in your comment there Richie.

Do you agree with this or not:

what is really going on in Homs but the truth is Assad is trying to stop terrorists from bringing down the whole country

I think it is indeed shameful to hold such a view, especially when it is held for partisan purposes.

Also, there are a lot of things you could accuse me of, but considering the amount of threads I have in this forum discussing issues and arguing points with people, yourself included, stifling debate is not one of them. Nice try though.

Jaafa · 24-02-2012 7:25pm

gurramok wrote: »

Who is this mysterious source?

This is a re-run of Libya. The same people proclaiming an Al-Qaeda lead uprising against the populations viewpoint with the West supporting the Jihadists are playing the same card in Syria. Crazy mentality.

Except for the fact that most of the 'atrocities' Qaddafi had supposedly committed turned out to be false.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.

But don't worry because the former rebels have more than made up for that

Armed militias operating across Libya commit widespread human rights abuses with impunity, fuelling insecurity and hindering the rebuilding of state institutions, warned Amnesty International

http://www.amnesty.org/zh-hant/node/29746

You were lied to about Libya then, you are being lied to about Syria now.

Educate yourself.

Sunnyisland · 24-02-2012 7:32pm

Jaafar wrote: »

Except for the fact that most of the 'atrocities' Qaddafi had supposedly committed turned out to be false.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

But don't worry because the former rebels have more than made up for that
http://www.amnesty.org/zh-hant/node/29746

You were lied to about Libya then, you are being lied to about Syria now.

Educate yourself.

I am doing my best to be educated about the situation, This what your source says about syria.

Colm O'Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland, said: “The stories we are hearing from Homs are increasingly desperate. The most basic supplies are in danger of running out.

“The Syrian authorities must immediately stop this relentless bombardment and allow full, immediate and unhindered humanitarian access to affected areas.”

The Bab ‘Amr district of the city has come under intensive shelling for more than 17 days, during which time Amnesty International has received the names of 465 people reported to have been killed in Homs.The findings showed that these attacks had been carried out with the apparent knowledge and consent of commanding officers and senior members of the Syrian government.

http://www.amnesty.ie/news/amnesty-calls-gilmore-back-un-monitors-syria

Jaafa · 24-02-2012 7:35pm

realies wrote: »

I am doing my best to be educated about the situation, This what your source says about syria.

Colm O'Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland, said: “The stories we are hearing from Homs are increasingly desperate. The most basic supplies are in danger of running out.

“The Syrian authorities must immediately stop this relentless bombardment and allow full, immediate and unhindered humanitarian access to affected areas.”

The Bab ‘Amr district of the city has come under intensive shelling for more than 17 days, during which time Amnesty International has received the names of 465 people reported to have been killed in Homs.The findings showed that these attacks had been carried out with the apparent knowledge and consent of commanding officers and senior members of the Syrian government.

http://www.amnesty.ie/news/amnesty-calls-gilmore-back-un-monitors-syria

I don't dispute any of that. I'm sure these people have died. However is it possible for us to tell if they were insurgents or civilians? Seeing as the FSA operates in civilian clothing? (Again I don't dispute that they need this advantage, however it seems to be a costly one for civ's)

southsiderosie · 24-02-2012 8:15pm

MOD NOTE:

Before this thread goes any further, let me remind everyone that smart-ass one-liners, rolley-eyes, and other obnoxious, dismissive posts that don't actually address the topic of hand but are instead simply flamebait and/or trolling are unwelcome in this forum. If you comment doesn't add to or further the discussion, then you probably should not post it.

Off-topic posting and responses have been deleted.

If you have a problem or a question, PM me.

SSR

Jaafa · 24-02-2012 8:40pm

Einhard wrote: »

Indeed. As long as a regime is against the West, people like cyberhog don't care how many people they murder and maim. It's a repugnant mentality.

Your lack of knowledge about Syria is showing. Syria has been very pro-west despite it's rhetoric.

1. It provides a secure boarder for Israel, and has been in a state as virtual peace with them for a long time now. Assad would rather stay in control rather than attempt to reclaim the lands lost in previous wars.

2. It was at the forefront of the (small) Arab effort in 1991 alongside the US, against Iraq.

3. It's intelligence has worked closely with the US after 9/11 and is suspected of allowing the US 'holding sites' within the country.

4. It didn't oppose the Saudi plan for peace with Israel in return for a token non-state in the west bank and Gaza.

5. It bans Palestinian organisations from planning or executing operations against Israel on Syrian soil.

I suspect in fact the above is the reason why Assad hasn't fallen yet.

Einhard · 24-02-2012 8:49pm

Jaafa wrote: »

Your lack of knowledge about Syria is showing. Syria has been very pro-west despite it's rhetoric.

1. It provides a secure boarder for Israel, and has been in a state as virtual peace with them for a long time now. Assad would rather stay in control rather than attempt to reclaim the lands lost in previous wars.

2. It was at the forefront of the (small) Arab effort in 1991 alongside the US, against Iraq.

3. It's intelligence has worked closely with the US after 9/11 and is suspected of allowing the US 'holding sites' within the country.

4. It didn't oppose the Saudi plan for peace with Israel in return for a token non-state in the west bank and Gaza.

5. It bans Palestinian organisations from planning or executing operations against Israel on Syrian soil.

I suspect in fact the above is the reason why Assad hasn't fallen yet.

Looking after its own interests =/= the Syrian regime being pro-Western.

Supporting Western efforts in a minor way in the early 90s does not make one pro-Western. If that were a valid criterion, one would have to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein and Washington were the best of friends during the 90s.

The West and America want Assad ousted. That means that

The West and Syria are in conflict. For some people, that's more than enough reason for them to argue the Syrian side, even when it conflicts entirely with their alleged concern for human rights.

southsiderosie · 24-02-2012 8:50pm

mike65 wrote: »

In other news NAZIs had a point about the Jews....

What?

Jaafa · 24-02-2012 8:59pm

Einhard wrote: »

Looking after its own interests =/= the Syrian regime being pro-Western.

Supporting Western efforts in a minor way in the early 90s does not make one pro-Western. If that were a valid criterion, one would have to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein and Washington were the best of friends during the 90s.

The West and America want Assad ousted. That means that

The West and Syria are in conflict. For some people, that's more than enough reason for them to argue the Syrian side, even when it conflicts entirely with their alleged concern for human rights.

You addressed one of my points (probably the weakest) and ignored the rest.

Simply stating Syria and the west were hostile to each other before the the rebellion, is not going to cut it. Nor does it lend you any more credibility. I have provided proof and evidence for my argument, you have not done the same for yours. Until you wish to do so, this conversation is over for me.

Einhard · 24-02-2012 9:24pm

Jaafa wrote: »

You addressed one of my points (probably the weakest) and ignored the rest.

Simply stating Syria and the west were hostile to each other before the the rebellion, is not going to cut it. Nor does it lend you any more credibility. I have provided proof and evidence for my argument, you have not done the same for yours. Until you wish to do so, this conversation is over for me.

I responded to your points. Read my post again. The fact that the poster here defending the massacre of civilians by the Syrian government was also exculpating Gadaffi of his crimes, and that at least two of those who thanked his posts were posting similarly in the Libyan thread, illustrates clearly to me that their agenda is ideological.

It's fine if people dislike America. America has done an awful lot of crappy things. But to side with despots against the people they oppress just because the despot doesn;t see eye to eye with the West is, IMO, pretty despicable. They say they care about the oppressed in these situations, but their concern only ever seems to be with the oppressors- and if the tyrant or regime shares their POV re the West, then their crimes are whitewashed and defended.

plasmaguy · 24-02-2012 9:28pm

At the risk of being flamed, it's probably going to happen anyways.

It's too simplistic to say this is just an Islamic or Sunny uprising. Many Alawites support the uprising and are members of the Free Syrian Army, also many christians support it, having said that the majority of these minority sects and religions probably oppose the uprising or rather the majority have no opinion one way or the other, and just want to preserve themselves and possessions.

Assad is a brutal dictator. He started this and has continued to fan it by daily shooting at innocent protestors and people only trying to bury their dead.

These are not pro western stooges he is killing. These are mostly people who have had enough of the terror and brutality of the regime.

mike65 · 24-02-2012 11:20pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

What?

You know what I can't even remember what point I was trying to make, its getting late and I'm a bit tired. I probably meant it as a crude parallel - how some will attack a "hated" people Jews then Americans now to score cheap political points and so end up effectively giving succour to vicious regimes.

Cardinal Richelieu · 24-02-2012 11:49pm

Anyone else find it unsettling that the main supporters of the Syria rebels in the Arab World appear to be those two beacons of democracy Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Nodin · 25-02-2012 12:28am

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Anyone else find it unsettling that the main supporters of the Syria rebels in the Arab World appear to be those two beacons of democracy Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

It is, however that support may not be reciprocated. At this stage its rather obscure as to the make up of the syrian opposition and its allegiances.

southsiderosie · 25-02-2012 12:31am

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Anyone else find it unsettling that the main supporters of the Syria rebels in the Arab World appear to be those two beacons of democracy Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Doesn't this have to do more with the Sunni/Shia split in the region than the actual nature of the regime?

plasmaguy · 25-02-2012 1:15am

mike65 wrote: »

You know what I can't even remember what point I was trying to make, its getting late and I'm a bit tired. I probably meant it as a crude parallel - how some will attack a "hated" people Jews then Americans now to score cheap political points and so end up effectively giving succour to vicious regimes.

+100

As Churchill said, if Hitler invaded Hell, I would side with the devil.

That is exactly what many are doing, siding with Assad, the Chinese and Russians against what they perceive, wrongly for the most part, the real evil of the United States.

They view democracy, free speech and McDonalds as the real evil, and Assad using live ammunition on his own people as the good guy.

cyberhog · 25-02-2012 5:02am

Einhard wrote: »

Indeed. As long as a regime is against the West, people like cyberhog don't care how many people they murder and maim. It's a repugnant mentality.

Accusations, insults and personal attacks are no substitute for well-reasoned arguments. In fact, resorting to such attacks is an obvious sign that you are unable to refute the points I raised in the OP. If you can bring an intelligent counterargument to the points I raised in the OP then I'm happy to respond as long as you desist from making personal remarks.

Einhard · 25-02-2012 6:45pm

cyberhog wrote: »

Accusations, insults and personal attacks are no substitute for well-reasoned arguments. In fact, resorting to such attacks is an obvious sign that you are unable to refute the points I raised in the OP. If you can bring an intelligent counterargument to the points I raised in the OP then I'm happy to respond as long as you desist from making personal remarks.

To state that one believes that an argument is shameful constitutes neither personal attack nor insult. There was nothing in my post that came close to an ad hominem. If you feel otherwise, I suggest that you report the post and draw these scurrilous attacks on your character to the attention of a mod. Otherwise one might be lead to believe that such accusations on your part are more a ploy to avoid reasoned response to the charges levelled.

wingsof daun · 25-02-2012 8:17pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Assad is a brutal dictator. He started this and has continued to fan it by daily shooting at innocent protestors and people only trying to bury their dead.

These are not pro western stooges he is killing. These are mostly people who have had enough of the terror and brutality of the regime.

Im fed up of hearing "dictator". "Oh he's so terrible that dictator". Why don't people use leader. A for a "leader" like Obama maybe dictator would be more appropriate.

What about the people who came out in support of Assad? Are they no longer civilians (according to NATO anyway) and they can be murdered in their masses without western media batting a eyelid. That's whats coming. Thanks Sky News and NATO for telling us the people who deserve to live and those who don't, I didn't realize those people weren't human. Those who don't love your freedom and democracy don't deserve to live, according to NATO. Or is your "freedom and democracy" just a smokescreen? Democracy can never be achieved down the barrel of a gun, it hasn't been achieved in Libya and it won't in Syria.

southsiderosie · 25-02-2012 8:37pm

wingsof daun wrote: »

Im fed up of hearing "dictator". "Oh he's so terrible that dictator". Why don't people use leader. A for a "leader" like Obama maybe dictator would be more appropriate.

I find it impossible to take comments like this seriously. Please tell us on what planet a democratically elected leader like Obama who has to deal with a duly elected legislature, an independent judiciary, and a free press classify as a dictator? This is illogical hyperbole at its worst.

wingsof daun · 25-02-2012 9:32pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

I find it impossible to take comments like this seriously. Please tell us on what planet a democratically elected leader like Obama who has to deal with a duly elected legislature, an independent judiciary, and a free press classify as a dictator? This is illogical hyperbole at its worst.

Well what evidence have you that Assad is a dictator? A dictator according to my dictionary is one who doesn't tolerate any criticism or dissent from anyone. One who glorifies himself in every way and promotes himself and his own interests ahead of everyone else's interest. And, above all, he thinks he is actually is God. He is completely selfish is his ways and all his actions are to the detriment of the society and the people. His life is spent dreaming up new ways to control everything in his country and new wealth he can accumulate. - I think that sums up what a dictator actually is.
There can be a democratic election but the group to come into power by that means may not allow democracy. How can one political party who become elected represent people who support another party? A country may have 100 political parties and ideologies. Why should one such party, who are democratically elected dictate to the entire country and all it's ethnicities and the 99 other parties? It's a sham. In America you have the 2 major parties that completely dominate all political affairs. Someone from another party has next to zero chance of becoming president. All other groups are marginalized or the controlled media rubbish them.
I might be off topic now for the thread, but we should know more about Assad before we label him. So far I have seen no evidence of brutality from Assad and that is the truth as far as I'm concerned. Nor would I ever believe Assad's forces would kill innocent civilians from his own country. Prove me wrong if you can.

Sunnyisland · 25-02-2012 10:31pm

wings of dawn wrote: »

Well what evidence have you that Assad is a dictator? A dictator according to my dictionary is one who doesn't tolerate any criticism or dissent from anyone. One who glorifies himself in every way and promotes himself and his own interests ahead of everyone else's interest. And, above all, he thinks he is actually is God. He is completely selfish is his ways and all his actions are to the detriment of the society and the people. His life is spent dreaming up new ways to control everything in his country and new wealth he can accumulate. - I think that sums up what a dictator actually is.
There can be a democratic election but the group to come into power by that means may not allow democracy. How can one political party who become elected represent people who support another party? A country may have 100 political parties and ideologies. Why should one such party, who are democratically elected dictate to the entire country and all it's ethnicities and the 99 other parties? It's a sham. In America you have the 2 major parties that completely dominate all political affairs. Someone from another party has next to zero chance of becoming president. All other groups are marginalized or the controlled media rubbish them.
I might be off topic now for the thread, but we should know more about Assad before we label him. So far I have seen no evidence of brutality from Assad and that is the truth as far as I'm concerned. Nor would I ever believe Assad's forces would kill innocent civilians from his own country. Prove me wrong if you can.

There are times here when a post makes no sense at all and I find it hard to answer this above post,what a load of crap.

There are now hundreds of media & independent witnesses of what is now happening in syria and you come along now and say you cant see it,That's unbelievable,really.

plasmaguy · 25-02-2012 11:16pm

wingsof daun wrote: »

Im fed up of hearing "dictator". "Oh he's so terrible that dictator". Why don't people use leader. A for a "leader" like Obama maybe dictator would be more appropriate.

What about the people who came out in support of Assad? Are they no longer civilians (according to NATO anyway) and they can be murdered in their masses without western media batting a eyelid. That's whats coming. Thanks Sky News and NATO for telling us the people who deserve to live and those who don't, I didn't realize those people weren't human. Those who don't love your freedom and democracy don't deserve to live, according to NATO. Or is your "freedom and democracy" just a smokescreen? Democracy can never be achieved down the barrel of a gun, it hasn't been achieved in Libya and it won't in Syria.

Obama is opposed, criticised and made fun of every day on the streets and in the media in the United States. There are whole News Channels (Fox News for one) that oppose him, yet he doesn't order his troops to shoot at these people.

In Syria you can and will be shot if you voice an opinion against Assad.

That's the main difference.

As for NATO imposing democracy down the barrel of a gun as you say, that wasn't their job in Libya. Their job in Libya was to protect civilians from Gaddafis thugs, and they did this with remarkable success. Once Gaddafi was neutralised, they pulled out of the country and left it to the Libyans. If the Libyans can't organise a demcracy having been handed a golden opportunity, it's certainly not NATO who is to blame, it's the Libyans themselves.

plasmaguy · 25-02-2012 11:22pm

realies wrote: »

There are times here when a post makes no sense at all and I find it hard to answer this above post,what a load of crap.

There are now hundreds of media & independent witnesses of what is now happening in syria and you come along now and say you cant see it,That's unbelievable,really.

I think you will find its a waste of time trying to have a proper debate with such people. They live in a parallel universe where people like Gaddafi and Assad are the good guys, and Sarkozy, Merkely, Obama and all the democratically elected leaders are the bad evil nasty people.

Assad never won a genuine, free, non rigged election, that alone makes him a dictator.

Einhard · 25-02-2012 11:30pm

wingsof daun wrote: »

Well what evidence have you that Assad is a dictator? A dictator according to my dictionary is one who doesn't tolerate any criticism or dissent from anyone. One who glorifies himself in every way and promotes himself and his own interests ahead of everyone else's interest. And, above all, he thinks he is actually is God. He is completely selfish is his ways and all his actions are to the detriment of the society and the people. His life is spent dreaming up new ways to control everything in his country and new wealth he can accumulate. - I think that sums up what a dictator actually is.
There can be a democratic election but the group to come into power by that means may not allow democracy. How can one political party who become elected represent people who support another party? A country may have 100 political parties and ideologies. Why should one such party, who are democratically elected dictate to the entire country and all it's ethnicities and the 99 other parties? It's a sham. In America you have the 2 major parties that completely dominate all political affairs. Someone from another party has next to zero chance of becoming president. All other groups are marginalized or the controlled media rubbish them.
I might be off topic now for the thread, but we should know more about Assad before we label him. So far I have seen no evidence of brutality from Assad and that is the truth as far as I'm concerned. Nor would I ever believe Assad's forces would kill innocent civilians from his own country. Prove me wrong if you can.

Absolute and total nonsense.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. People who have such an ideological bent against America and the West that they will tie themselves up the most convoluted knots in order to excuse massacres of civilians of unelected dictators as long as those dictators have sufficent anti-Western credentials. It's so amazingly hypocritical. If the truth for you is that Assad has not acted in a brutal fashion, then frankly, you have no conception of the truth.

wingsof daun · 25-02-2012 11:33pm

Why are you so anti-Assad plamsaguy? It is a very biased opinion you have.

The media is a privately owned corporate heap of scum used for the benefit of people with politcial goals and nothing else! They don't even report from one side hardly at all. There is a media blackout on Libya, for example. WHy?

The terrorists in Syria kill innocent people and blame it on the government of Assad. You don't think al qaeda could be in Syria? There is Libya and loads of other countries, as is the cia. They work with the evil media empire. If there are terrorists in any country the government has weapons to deal with them. What do countries have weapons and armies for? For fun?! To fire missiles for show?

Einhard · 25-02-2012 11:38pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

This is illogical hyperbole at its worst.

It's not illogical if one's view of the world is shaped almost entirely by an absolute antagonism towards America, as seems to be the case with a small but significant portion of those on the Left. Nick Cohen wrote a book on the phenomonen a few years back. It's very interesting and quite depressing. Such people claim that they care about human rights, but really they care more about having a go at America at every single opportunity. It seems that human lives only have worth for these people if they can be used to further their anti-American/Western agenda.

plasmaguy · 25-02-2012 11:59pm

In terms of anti Americanism, there are a lot of bad guys in the middle east, dictators and their supporters mostly.

Occassionally the United States has to go in and take them out. Sometimes innocent civilians get in the way, but to be clear, Iraqi insurgents and Al Quida killed more civilians than the Americans did.

I oppose all mass murdering thugs, in that I am consistant, including with Assad.

Einhard · 26-02-2012 12:00am

wingsof daun wrote: »

Why are you so anti-Assad plamsaguy? It is a very biased opinion you have.

Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe that people should be allowed to elect their own governments? If so, then you should be against Assad.

The media is a privately owned corporate heap of scum used for the benefit of people with politcial goals and nothing else!

RTE isn't privately owned; neither is BBC; are Amnesty International and the Internation Red Cross also privately owned scum determned to spread misinformation and black propoganda about the glorious leader Assad?

They don't even report from one side hardly at all. There is a media blackout on Libya, for example. WHy?

Because Assad doesn't allow any foreign media in the country. The journalists who do manage to get in do so at enourmous personal risk, as illustrated by the death of maria Colvvin this week. But then, she too is probably scum too eh?

You don't think al qaeda could be in Syria?

Of course they're in Syria. They want to take advantage of the crisis in the country. Not sure what that has to do with it, but no doubt it's part of an attempt to portray anyone who opposes Assad as a terrorist.

They work with the evil media empire.

Seriously, this is kinda scary. To see someone so brainwashed by his own delusions is more than a little unsettling. Of course, you'll no doubt think that you're the free thinker, free from the influence of the evil media...

If there are terrorists in any country the government has weapons to deal with them. What do countries have weapons and armies for? For fun?! To fire missiles for show?

So you'd wholeheartedly support Israel if she bombed the Gaza Strip into the ground, purposely targeting civilians as he did so?

You'd have supported the British had they constantly lobbed missiles in the Bogside during the Troubles?

Most of the people who Assad and his regime are targeting have done nothign more wrong than seek the same democratic rights that you and I take for granted. They want to be able to have a say in who rules them. They want to be able to raise a protest against their government in peaceful manner. Assad seeks to deny them those basic rights, and you stand here cheerleading him as he does so.

Einhard · 26-02-2012 12:11am

Seems wingsofdaun has form in this kind of thing:

On Gadaffi:

Finally someone in this country decides to hold a commemoration for one of the greatest leaders of modern times.

You don't know any Libyan people or obviously you would know that democracy in it's fullest existed in Libya for 42 years until recently. Direct democracy, illustrated in the Green Book written by Gaddafi, the 3rd Universal Theory, the Jamahiriya. This is real democracy my friend.

RIP Brother Leader

On how the regimes of Assad and Gadaffi are/were no more repressive than that of the FG/Labour regime in Ireland, elected last February:

Have you been to either of these countries? How are their regimes any more oppressive than Ireland's or the USA's?

There really is no point in even attempting to counter such ideological delusion with rationale debate.

wingsof daun · 26-02-2012 12:22am

Thanks for your contribution Einhard.

But back to Nato, they did not protect civilians and never have, actually the opposite. It is like a genocide not a war, bombing from the sky against powerless people below.

No, I don't believe people should elect their own governments, but yes I believe in democracy for all. No elected group can ever represent the people in my book, they always have their own selfish interests to the detriment of the people. FF for example in Ireland, look what they did.

The Red Cross and others are zionist controlled, or so it has been said. In Sirte all they gave the natives were body bags, no supplies nothing. They only gave medical care to the rebels. Amnesty International are employed by westeners with politcal goals, if the employees dont report as they are supposed to, they will be sacked. It doesn't matter about human lives or rights abuses. Just political goals.

Independent journalists like Lizzie Phelan can only be trusted. Others will report on what they are TOLD to report on, by their masters. Or report what they are ALLOWED to report hence the biased and foggy media reports we get on the news.

Ok, free-thinker. What good has the media ever done to Libya, Palestine or Iraq?

The people we see dead from Syria were killed by the free Syrian Army and they film it for our tvs. So mabye you are the one who is mind-controlled? But those in the bogside were freedom fighters not terrorists.

Manic Moran · 26-02-2012 2:07am

Back to the OP, out seems to me that the Syrian people are simply SOL. Few countries can help, of the ones which can, the Russians seem disinclined to, the Israelis would n't have their involvement appreciated at all as they've been the enemy for sixty years, and nearly every time the Americans get involved in something on their own initiative, people beat up on them.

So, not much to be done really, except send the Syrian rebels good luck cards.

cyberhog · 26-02-2012 4:02am

Einhard wrote: »

To state that one believes that an argument is shameful constitutes neither personal attack nor insult.

Your comments were clearly aimed at me.

Einhard wrote: »

Do you have no shame whatsoever?

Then you accuse me of shilling for a brutal dictator.

Einhard wrote: »

to shill for a brutal dictator is a new and despiucable low for this forum.

Then you accuse me of being anti-West and that I have no smypathy for those dying.

Einhard wrote: »

As long as a regime is against the West, people like cyberhog don't care how many people they murder and maim. It's a repugnant mentality.

Then you have the gall to claim.

Einhard wrote: »

There was nothing in my post that came close to an ad hominem.

Your attempt to conflate my argument with support for Assad is an intellectually-dishonest debate tactic and it doesn't give you a right to personalise the topic.

Einhard wrote: »

Otherwise one might be lead to believe that such accusations on your part are more a ploy to avoid reasoned response to the charges levelled.

No my friend I am more than happy to have a reasoned argument with you just as soon as you present an actual counter-argument to the points I raised in the OP.

AlekSmart · 26-02-2012 8:17am

Einhard wrote: »

I responded to your points. Read my post again. The fact that the poster here defending the massacre of civilians by the Syrian government was also exculpating Gadaffi of his crimes, and that at least two of those who thanked his posts were posting similarly in the Libyan thread, illustrates clearly to me that their agenda is ideological.

It's fine if people dislike America. America has done an awful lot of crappy things. But to side with despots against the people they oppress just because the despot doesn;t see eye to eye with the West is, IMO, pretty despicable. They say they care about the oppressed in these situations, but their concern only ever seems to be with the oppressors- and if the tyrant or regime shares their POV re the West, then their crimes are whitewashed and defended.

Oddly enough,and in the context of being a "thanker" of this sort of thing,I've no real hang-up's about Uncle Sam at all.

As the modern day cradle of democracy,often taken to it's extremes,the USA stands head and shoulders above any other place on Earth as somewhere people wish to gravitate to in order to live their dream.

That single point is worth defending.

However,the sense developing here,appears to be of every position taken on an issue needing to be cross-referenced to one's view of Uncle Sam and his family.

I'm quite comfortable to allow history to make the call on Gadaffi,as I believe he was a unique leader in personality terms,who actually did have vision for his country.

Sadly for him,and Libya,that vision was in danger of being realized to a degree which caused unease in many quarters,with the USA being only one of them.

For example,the danger of a recession riddled West suddenly having an African alliance with access to outer-space without having to cross some white palms with silver,was but one of the causes of discomfort in a few clubs around Pall-Mall.

With Libya today no longer being mainstream news and our News gatherers having decamped to Syria's borders the "ordinary" Libyan people now continue with a process which has deposited them some 70 years back in time.

They are now having to get familiar once again with the traditions of Tribalism and associated regionalism as well as long lost elements of culture now reasserting themselves.

I wonder how many posters would feel if,suddenly,an Irish Travellers Liberation movement staged a putsch,ousting Enda and installing a provisional goverment of family allegiances to run this country in conformance with their beliefs and traditions....it would be a challenge for sure,would it not ?

I have a strong sense that we,as a culture,simply have no real idea of how countries in Africa/Asia/Mid East work.

We fully declare our confidence in Democracy and it's principles and yet express amazement when,on many occcasions,our imposition of it on these regions simply falls flat,with people having little affinity for the new "Freedoms" which come with it.

I keep seeing visions of young,committed fresh-faced 1960's Americans jetting around the World to bring the message of the Peace-Corps to such folks and then,as age draped its cloak over them,having to scratch their heads in frustration because their crusade did'nt succeed in capturing the hearts & minds of the oppressed.

I suppose to some eyes my views could be termed Idealogical,but I would drop it a notch or two to just not being prepared to accept the bundled package which is beamed out to us "Western Observers"

old_aussie · 26-02-2012 8:54am

Let the allies of Syria step in to help them.

So, no one is going to step up to help Syria, there must be a message here somewhere.

cyberhog · 27-02-2012 5:11am

old_aussie wrote: »

Let the allies of Syria step in to help them.

So, no one is going to step up to help Syria, there must be a message here somewhere.

Syrians don't want anyone "stepping in" they want the crisis sorted out through mediation.

74. ... the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf

The problem is the opposition are only interested in toppling the regime and refuse to negotiate with Assad and that is why the crisis is dragging on.

nacho libre · 28-02-2012 6:03am

plasmaguy wrote: »

Occassionally the United States has to go in and take them out. Sometimes innocent civilians get in the way, but to be clear, Iraqi insurgents and Al Quida killed more civilians than the Americans did.

I oppose all mass murdering thugs, in that I am consistant, including with Assad.

it seems you're not consistent at all, as you will seemingly go to great lengths(civilians get in the way sometimes - those pesky civilians) to exculpate the west for their crimes, while at the same time professing to oppose the murder of innocent civilians.
while i do agree with einhard's point to an extent, there are those on the other side of the spectrum who refuse to hold America to account for anything.

nacho libre · 28-02-2012 6:07am

Meanwhile Doha Debates found that 55 percent of Syrians wanted al-Assad to stay in power- of course that's not necessarily an endorsement of him, rather those polled fear the consequences for their stable and secular lifestyle if the likes of the Syrian national council, which mostly comprise the muslim brotherhood, hold the balance of power in Syria post Assad.

gurramok · 28-02-2012 10:54pm

nacho libre wrote: »

Meanwhile Doha Debates found that 55 percent of Syrians wanted al-Assad to stay in power- of course that's not necessarily an endorsement of him, rather those polled fear the consequences for their stable and secular lifestyle if the likes of the Syrian national council, which mostly comprise the muslim brotherhood, hold the balance of power in Syria post Assad.

Did you actually query that online poll before spouting its nonsense?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349

"It is not good to say that 55% of Syrians, for example, think that Assad should stay when only 97 people were asked that question

Really, you back up your claims of Assad support with just 97 people?!

nacho libre · 29-02-2012 12:30am

gurramok wrote: »

Did you actually query that online poll before spouting its nonsense?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349

Really, you back up your claims of Assad support with just 97 people?!

My claims? I merely cited a poll.
I actually read the BBC report a few days ago. I wonder would the BBC have queried the poll result if it has said 55 percent wanted him to go? I'm not convinced by the narrative that Assad has little support in Syria. However, that may changes if the middle classes in Damascus start to feel the pressure from economic sanctions.
The fact is there has been no other poll to go on. We don't know what the majority of Syrians want.

AlekSmart · 29-02-2012 6:34am

nacho libre wrote: »

My claims? I merely cited a poll.
I actually read the BBC report a few days ago. I wonder would the BBC have queried the poll result if it has said 55 percent wanted him to go? I'm not convinced by the narrative that Assad has little support in Syria. However, that may changes if the middle classes in Damascus start to feel the pressure from economic sanctions.
The fact is there has been no other poll to go on. We don't know what the majority of Syrians want.

Looking back on the Gadaffi ousting,this scenario appears to gain ground for Syria also.

Gadaffi's general standing was holding up in the face of the initial rebel challenges and threatened to continue in that vein.

The media-coverage of Rebel advances in the early days usually featured large numbers of disaffected Libyan youth jumping about and yelling,whilst their elders sat silently in the background saying little.

This silent-support however was forced to commit after Gadaffi's ability to fund his regime was stopped.....No Money to pay Wages and Pensions etc meant the recipients were effectively starved into supporting the rebellion.

Those lessons have been learned and I would suspect may well be applied on a larger scale to Al-Assad's regime...The Red's willing,of course.

gurramok · 29-02-2012 9:47am

nacho libre wrote: »

My claims? I merely cited a poll.
I actually read the BBC report a few days ago. I wonder would the BBC have queried the poll result if it has said 55 percent wanted him to go? I'm not convinced by the narrative that Assad has little support in Syria. However, that may changes if the middle classes in Damascus start to feel the pressure from economic sanctions.
The fact is there has been no other poll to go on. We don't know what the majority of Syrians want.

You used that poll to support your claim "55 percent of Syrians wanted al-Assad to stay in power", you've only backtracked now that the poll credibility has been destroyed and highlighted in a retort to your claim.

On numbers who may or may not support Assad, the middle classes are a small minority in that country. Syria ain't a first world country with a large middle class, most of its population would be working class poor.

SamHarris · 01-03-2012 12:49am

It's interesting how terrorists and Islamic radicals seem to shift from being pure fabrications of the US to justify its attacking a place or no real threat to enormous entities with the power to tear down and replace mutliple Arab governments based purely on how a poster wishes to frame a series of events/ the actions of some.

Very similiar to how a dictator always seems to become a misunderstood philanthropist, magically coinciding with their position towards the west (See Gadaffi/Assad/Castro)

Particularly obvious with those who are constantly seeking to show the West as the root of all evil.

Who cares if 55% of Syrians wish for Assad to stay in power, if Obama was shelling New York I somehow doubt you would take that as some kind of shield.

People have become so consistantly awful at being unable to recognise bias and hypocrisy within even the narrow band of their own ideology on this thing its laughable.

I would love to have a new politics forum, with some kind of standards.

SamHarris · 01-03-2012 12:51am

Jaafa wrote: »

You addressed one of my points (probably the weakest) and ignored the rest.

Simply stating Syria and the west were hostile to each other before the the rebellion, is not going to cut it. Nor does it lend you any more credibility. I have provided proof and evidence for my argument, you have not done the same for yours. Until you wish to do so, this conversation is over for me.

Syria did not even have diplomatic relations with many Western countries untill recently. They are a staunch (probably the only) ally of Iran. There have been and are numerous sanctions in place for decades.

SamHarris · 01-03-2012 1:11am

wingsof daun wrote: »

But back to Nato, they did not protect civilians and never have, actually the opposite. It is like a genocide not a war, bombing from the sky against powerless people below.

Any evidence of intentional systemic bombing by NATO forces of civilians?

wingsof daun wrote: »

The Red Cross and others are zionist controlled, or so it has been said. In Sirte all they gave the natives were body bags, no supplies nothing. They only gave medical care to the rebels. Amnesty International are employed by westeners with politcal goals, if the employees dont report as they are supposed to, they will be sacked. It doesn't matter about human lives or rights abuses. Just political goals.

Any evidence for this? Make it credible.

Westerners? where are you from? So your position is people from "the West" are just not to be trusted? What group/ region of people do you think has earned everyones trust by treating their own citizens in a better way?

wingsof daun wrote: »

Independent journalists like Lizzie Phelan can only be trusted. Others will report on what they are TOLD to report on, by their masters. Or report what they are ALLOWED to report hence the biased and foggy media reports we get on the news.

Who are these "masters"? who are these people that every news outlet is biased against/for?

wingsof daun wrote: »

Ok, free-thinker. What good has the media ever done to Libya, Palestine or Iraq?

Do you even know what the media is or its purpose?

wingsof daun wrote: »

The people we see dead from Syria were killed by the free Syrian Army and they film it for our tvs. So mabye you are the one who is mind-controlled?

So your contention is that every independant scource of information that is in Syria is actualyl in there for the purpose of mind control, and that the Syrian government are the only unbiased scource to be trusted there? Are you a Syrian government employee by any chance?

I probably shouldnt even be engaging, but it took me so long to figure out if this was an actual opinion or a joke that Im now fascinated.

Syrians search for the truth

Comments