Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

What if Assad is telling the truth?

124678

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 998 ✭✭✭Suff


    I think this thread is being deliberately polarised by some people into two extremely simplistic views:

    1. Assad is the bad guy who assumes complete responsibility.
    2. Assad has no responsibility whatsoever for the violence.

    We have to weight both sides before we can make our mind. Look what happened in Iraq, back then everyone jump on the WMD wagon, now the country and UN credibility are both in ruins.

    I think most of us realise that the reality is a quagmire that lies somewhere in between but it's very hard for us, living in Ireland and most without any direct knowledge of Syria, to make definitive judgements based on what we know now. Yes I believe Assad, if he has a conscience, should step down. It would be a hugely powerful symbol if the President who is perceived to be responsible for most of the killing and has the most power to stop it would renounce the violence on both sides. It may just be enough to rescue the situation. Then again the thread title is "What if Assad's telling the truth' and the truth, Assad's truth, is that he may genuinely believe that he's doing right by his people, that he is protecting them from a bloody sectarian civil war. Regardless of what we think that may well be his POV.

    I am leaning more towards the idea that Assad has no power within the regime, this however doesn't mean he's not held responsible for the regime's actions. He's the president and he's responsible. - unless some evidence surface at some stage to proof otherwise.
    Nonetheless I think the longer this goes on the less direct control Assad can exercise and the more he becomes a symbol. The country is becoming so chaotic and fractured that individual army and militia commanders are taking their own initiative and acting without concise instructions from higher up, particularly in the case of the latter. Do you think the old heads of inner government want to relinquish power after decades? Do you think the army et al. want to come out on the losing side given what some of them have done, knowing that either the ICC or their own countrymen will be waiting to administer justice?

    I agree to a point. The Army is formed under an Ba'ath ideology, and have been for the past 40 years governed by it. It cannot see itself as anything else but a Ba'ath Army, the extremely low number of defectors is a clear confirmation of this. For the regime to fall, its not only a political matter but also military one. The Army needs to be reformed, this is an extremely sensitive issue giving Syria's current state of war with Israel. Any major disassembling/ reforming of the army could invite Israel to launch a strike at Syria to weaken its defences.
    Therefore, the Army will remain intact. loyal and under the control of the regime. A military strike or a change of the political figure at the top (Assad) is not a simple matter.

    Even if Assad is gone, the regime needs to be routed out of the country. This is MAJOR work. The Ba'ath regime has been in power for 40 years, its ideologies have penetrated every aspect of the political, industrial and social elements of the Syrian society. Our schools, colleges, labour unions, and local representatives all have been infected. I remember when to get accepted into a union, professional association or even a sports club you'd have to be a member of the Ba'ath party!! When joining elementary school in Damascus I was asked if I wanted to join the Ba'ath party, my decline forced my father to pull few strings to get me accepted into school - No he's not a member of the Ba'ath party, as my uncle was tortured by them when they came to power in the early 70's. My uncle passed away after 6 months. I can go on and on...

    This is going to be a very long, long recovery for Syria.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    We have to weight both sides before we can make our mind. Look what happened in Iraq, back then everyone jump on the WMD wagon, now the country and UN credibility are both in ruins.

    Everyone knows the UN is essentially a proxy for America. They used it in Korea to give legitimacy to their armed invasion and they emasculated it in the Congo (their influence spread there too despite Hammarskjold's good intentions). The real power in the world lies with the United States and their network of "socii et amicii". Everything in the world piques America's direct interest. The UN should really stop behaving as a plaything and acting as it should- representing world opinion and not the side of the USA.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Jaafa wrote: »
    The oppositions claims of defections are highly exaggerated, all in all, its likely only about 10000 defections occurred, some of them yes high ranking officers. But from an active force of around 300,000 that is a very small figure

    How much of that force is seeing action? what about the pro-government militias? how are defections any indication that the level of violence may not be what is being reporting considering similar events in history?

    I'm sorry but a comparison to north korea is not possible. North Korea is by far a special case, no other country in the world comes even close to the level of blatant indoctrination and iron fisted rule there.

    I can't think of a standing dictator who couldn't organise a mass rally.
    Regardless of how long it took the rebels to become organised and good at killing soldiers the point is they were doing it almost from the start.

    No, they weren't "doing it" from the start. There were isolated incidents, compared to a high amount of incidents of protests and funerals being shot at by armed and security forces.
    This in direct contrast to the usual narrative that it was august before any sort of insurgency occurred against the army, army deaths were never reported up until then, and if they were it was always to say they were soldiers killed for defecting.

    Not true, army deaths were reported, I can provide links for this.

    I have no idea which outlets you are referring to? but all army deaths were certainly not reported as defection reprisals.
    It is naive to think all these weapons were flooding into the country and not being used till much much later.

    There seems to be a large gap in understanding here. If there are protests against the leadership of a country and that leadership starts to shoot, kill, mass arrest and torture the citizens then it is extremely naive to believe that people will not start shooting back, getting revenge, forming militias.
    An armed response by the regime was to be expected, especially if these early rebels were bringing arms to protests with the aim of 'protecting civilians'.

    To fight Assad? to kill security forces/soldiers who killed friends, relatives, family members in cold blood?

    The Shiites rose up against Saddam, I really cannot for the life of me remember them being subtly blamed for the violence that followed (which happened on both sides incidentally)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Around 80 people killed in latest attack on a village

    UN have difficulty visiting the village, being blocked and turned back by the military.

    Of course, if this genuinely was a "terrorist attack" the regime would be tripping over itself to show the press and plaster images all over state TV.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    Also, the massacre was once more preceded by government shelling.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201267144045962996.html

    This isn't a case of a band of thugs operating independently of the government, it's clear the government is supporting the work of these thugs, by softening up towns before they go in. It's looking like a systematic campaign by the government to ethnically cleanse certain areas of the country, since it is always Sunni areas that are impacted by these massacres and the perpetrators usually come from nearby Alawite towns.

    Whether Assad is "in full control of his army" or not is pretty irrelevant. He's the President and Commander in Chief and he bears primary responsibility. He has the power to issue orders, to attack or pull back, and so far the orders have only been to attack.

    Assad knows well he can commit massacres like this, in fact there will be many more because Assad's rationale seems to be the more massacres like this, the more he is condemned by the west and the more he is condemned by the west the more Russia, China and the usual anti-western brigade including on forums like this jump to his defence.

    Also the belief that the FSA are somehow to blame and if they laid down their weapons Assad would stop killing people is utterly naive. Assad only knows one policy, kill as many people as possible and be bears full responsibility when his soldiers shell towns, there is no escaping that responsibility even if his apologists on here try to portray him as a nice guy who is only a pawn of someone else.

    Finally, these people murdered in this new massacre posed no threat to Assad, and it just goes to show the guy derives a sick, perverted and sadistic pleasure from killing innocent women and children.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    there is no escaping that responsibility even if his apologists on here try to portray him as a nice guy who is only a pawn of someone else.
    and the usual anti-western brigade including on forums like this jump to his defence.

    :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    UN monitors trying to reach the village were shot at.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18352281

    Whats the next excuse from the Assad apologists? Aljazeera is a western backed mouthpiece??!

    Biggest hint yet from the UN that it was govt backed militia's that are doing the massacres.
    UN wrote:
    In a speech to the UN General Assembly on Thursday, Annan confirmed that massacres of civilians have taken place in the towns of Houla and al-Qubayr. While not assigning blame for the mass killings, the former UN secretary general said that the government, not the armed opposition, had the "first responsibility" to halt violence.

    "I must be frank and confirm that the [six-point peace] plan is not being implemented," he said.

    He said that despite urging President Bashar al-Assad to "make a strategic decision to change his path," the government's shelling of cities had continued, and government-backed militias "seem to have free reign, with appalling consequences".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    I think the situation in Syria has now entered a dangerous new phase, something like happened in Rwanda when the Hutu's thought they would lose power and in desperation decided to kill as many Tutsis as possible in a last desperate attempt to cling to power.

    And yes Assad is every bit as evil as that Hutu regime and well capable of killing a million people if he was left unopposed. This is what happens with dictators, other human beings become nothing to them, they are used to being treated like Gods and have such a lack of respect for their "subjects" that they don't care if they all died.

    It looks like Syria is now entering a phase similar to Rwanda where a desperate government wants to kill as many people as possible in the hope of staying in power. There will be more massacres in the next few days. Assad seems to believe his time is nearly up.

    I really think now is the time for the international community to arm the FSA and if nothing else they might be able to prevent massacres of civilians. I don't think NATO intervention will happen any time soon, but there has to be some way to stop these pro Assad militia from committing massacres at will. Like the Rwandan Genociaires, they seem to have the taste for blood now and once started, don't know how to stop.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Everyone knows the UN is essentially a proxy for America. They used it in Korea to give legitimacy to their armed invasion and they emasculated it in the Congo (their influence spread there too despite Hammarskjold's good intentions). The real power in the world lies with the United States and their network of "socii et amicii". Everything in the world piques America's direct interest. The UN should really stop behaving as a plaything and acting as it should- representing world opinion and not the side of the USA.

    In this case, it seems the whole world with the exception of Russia and China, want something done.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    In this case, it seems the whole world with the exception of Russia and China, want something done.

    The question is, is it good for Syria or good for America- I mean the world?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 252 ✭✭1stimpressions


    Suff first I would just like to say I'm so sorry at what is going on in your country.

    I think you have given us a very good insight into whats going on. You are a valuable source for us living far away from it trying to grapple with the whole situation. However I would like other Syrian views (not necessarily contradictory) and I was wondering what sources, newspapers, twitter accounts or journalist are doing a good job of reporting if any. Do you only get your news from friends and family or is there other sources you think reliable we could follow. Even though I know so little about Syria I find much of the reporting unbelievably presumptuous or lacking in detail or context.

    I have trained myself as a journalist but I really just want the sources to try and understand the news I'm hearing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    The question is, is it good for Syria or good for America- I mean the world?

    People will be critical of the US regardless of what they do and regardless of how involved or not they are in a situation. In some cases it appears to be their sole aim.

    The roots of this unnecessary violence and bloodshed lays within a classic case of a decades-old coup-proof family dictatorship preserving power by any means. Whether the Syrian people capitulate and accept it or whether they fight against it, they suffer either way. Assad is just making sure they suffer a hell of a lot more if they try to remove him.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 998 ✭✭✭Suff


    gurramok wrote: »

    Whats the next excuse from the Assad apologists? Aljazeera is a western backed mouthpiece??!

    Al Jazeera is owned and operated by the government of Qatar... enough said!

    Link on the reliability of the channel


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 998 ✭✭✭Suff


    Suff first I would just like to say I'm so sorry at what is going on in your country.

    Thank you, it does break my heart. It is unbelievable to witness such events in the country that was the cradle of civilisations and in my home city - Damascus, the city of Jasmine.
    I think you have given us a very good insight into whats going on. You are a valuable source for us living far away from it trying to grapple with the whole situation. However I would like other Syrian views (not necessarily contradictory) and I was wondering what sources, newspapers, twitter accounts or journalist are doing a good job of reporting if any. Do you only get your news from friends and family or is there other sources you think reliable we could follow. Even though I know so little about Syria I find much of the reporting unbelievably presumptuous or lacking in detail or context.

    I have trained myself as a journalist but I really just want the sources to try and understand the news I'm hearing.

    When the events started last year, we didn't know which sources to believe.

    The National Syrian TV, Al Dounia TV and the Syrian news channel, when compared to Aljazeera (qatar) and Al Arabiya(saudi) the difference was unreal, it was as if each were reporting on a different conflict in two different countries. One stated that 'Terrorists groups' were killing people and the army is defending the country, the other were 'heavily' campaigning against the regime. Even to a point that Al Jazeera have used old footage from the 2006 Lebanon Israeli war trying to pass them as being taken from Syria.
    Al Jazeera have lost all its credibility due to such acts, which lead to the resignations of all their senior staff. Link 1

    Link 2

    The BBC, CNN or France24, their source of information was Aljazeera and Al Arabiya as you have seen on your TV.


    All the above lead me to ignore all major news channels as a reliable source. since they have their own agenda; for or against the conflict.

    I follow the situation by constantly being in touch with my friends using social media and voip applications (Viber and Skype). I have friends in Homs, Aleppo and of course Damascus. Each one has their own views, some are supportive of Assad other are against, but within these two none would call for foreign intervention or civil war. We all know the consequences of a civil war, we have lived it once witnessing Lebanon's civil war in the 80's.

    I don't trust the media any more. There was once a time when the media had reliable sources to back up stories but now, anything goes as long as its controversial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Suff wrote: »
    The National Syrian TV, Al Dounia TV and the Syrian news channel

    How many of these are state-run?

    Basically, if the regime is killing civilians have any of these channels ever reported it or is it always blamed on "terrorists"?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 998 ✭✭✭Suff


    Here's an interesting link to view on the credibility of the Al Jazeera news channel.

    Who's been the 'ONLY' source of information on the events in Syria.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 998 ✭✭✭Suff


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    How many of these are state-run?

    Basically, if the regime is killing civilians have any of these channels ever reported it or is it always blamed on "terrorists"?

    They are all state run, and of course they'll blame it on the 'terrorists' thats why they have no credibility what so ever.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Suff wrote: »
    They are all state run, and of course they'll blame it on the 'terrorists' thats why they have no credibility what so ever.

    Yeah they are basically bull**** propaganda stations, so anything from those sources is essentially nonsense. Information has been relatively sparse from Syrian due to heavy restrictions on foreign media. However information is still coming out of the country.

    Foreign media have had access to doctors, interviewed eyewitnesses, seen the grim videos, pcitures, reports, also information from the Arab league, observers. Whilst individual media outlets may be subject to mistakes, misreporting, misrepresentation and even bias - the overall picture is unmistakeable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Suff wrote: »
    Who's been the 'ONLY' source of information on the events in Syria.

    No, there have been dozens of outlets with reporters in Syria, however as the conflict has gone on this has tapered off, there were several reporters killed including in the shelling. Al Jazeera have been one of the top sources for the Arab Spring (and accused of bias) however they are far from the only source on Syria.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    One thing I noticed- I don't recall there being as much of an international outcry over Assad Senior's mass-murdering of his own people (I believe he killed 20,000 in one massacre in Homs no less; the tally so far in Syria doesn't even come close to one massacre this guy did) so we have to ask the question- is it more convenient now for there to be interest in the internal affairs of Syria or what?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    One thing I noticed- I don't recall there being as much of an international outcry over Assad Senior's mass-murdering of his own people (I believe he killed 20,000 in one massacre in Homs no less; the tally so far in Syria doesn't even come close to one massacre this guy did) so we have to ask the question- is it more convenient now for there to be interest in the internal affairs of Syria or what?

    I believe you are moving increasingly into troll territory, the same
    territory which was occupied by many in the thread about Libya.

    However, in answer to your question, there was no internet in those days and much media in general including facebook, twitter, youtube and so on.

    Assad junior thought he could repeat what his father did and no-one would take any notice but in that he was wrong, except for people like you who have still to come out and condemn Assad unequivocally.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Syria was an ally of the USSR back then involved in the Cold War. Information about that atrocity was hard to come by just like atrocities in the USSR. Sure atrocities were committed in Salvador for example under the watchful eye of the USA who simply did not care and the info did not get huge publicity. Back then, both sides could hide any involvement in crimes unless the info got out.

    Not anymore as the world order has shifted since 1989. Its harder to hide atrocities now unless you want a state like North Korea. The open internet has helped inform people too.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    I believe you are moving increasingly into troll territory, the same
    territory which was occupied by many in the thread about Libya.

    Nice to know your lack of debating skills has reached such a low that to resort to labelling those who have any opinions that are different from yours as trolls. I would really like to reply to your comment with just a rolleyes smiley, but considering I got an infraction for it before I don't think I will.

    Honestly mate, explain to me how I am a troll? I am simply stating my opinion and asking relevant questions. It is always important to question sources and not to simply regurgitate them.

    You seem to like the word troll- in fact using it in the wrong context all over the place. I'm through arguing with you if you continue with this line of banter.

    I want to be very informal in my condemnation of you, but this is a civilised forum, and I want to respect the rules of debate and of conduct. You may continue your zealotry if you want, but from now on, I'm just going to ignore you, because you're not worth my time.
    Syria was an ally of the USSR back then involved in the Cold War. Information about that atrocity was hard to come by just like atrocities in the USSR. Sure atrocities were committed in Salvador for example under the watchful eye of the USA who simply did not care and the info did not get huge publicity. Back then, both sides could hide any involvement in crimes unless the info got out.

    But isn't Syrian internet highly regulated and censored? Even then we are not sure about a lot of things in this conflict. We are however aware of it I suppose.

    Also, that attack was in Hama, not Homs. My mistake.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    Eggy, you are just a waste of space like everyone who fails to unequivically condemn Assad.

    I suppose you will deny the latest massacre in Hama was also the work of Assad thugs.

    You and your ilk truely disgust me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    But isn't Syrian internet highly regulated and censored? Even then we are not sure about a lot of things in this conflict. We are however aware of it I suppose.

    Syrians ain't thick, they can circumvent official access.

    Severe restrictions on reporting has resulted in citizens uploading thousands of videos often of massacres in motion, most are genuine despite the effort of fakes from the regime.

    Have a look(if you can digest) at the disgusting videos of protesters being shot dead by Assad's forces, they ain't actors.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    MOD NOTE:

    This thread seems to be spiraling into a mess of personal abuse, and is generating more heat than light. If things do not get back on track soon, I see little reason to keep this thread open much longer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Syrians ain't thick, they can circumvent official access.

    Severe restrictions on reporting has resulted in citizens uploading thousands of videos often of massacres in motion, most are genuine despite the effort of fakes from the regime.

    Have a look(if you can digest) at the disgusting videos of protesters being shot dead by Assad's forces, they ain't actors.

    I've seen those actually. I've also seen videos of protracted gun and sniper battles between factions.

    I also remember a video that the Syrian regime put up of guys who were apparently "armed terrorists" firing with pistols at a camera- although that looked weird and staged.

    And I didn't say Syrians were thick, they clearly aren't if they are rising up against this farce of a government. Although I maintain that the initial protests were sparked by economic conditions, like in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and elsewhere, then developed into criticisms of the regimes of those places.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    And I didn't say Syrians were thick, they clearly aren't if they are rising up against this farce of a government. Although I maintain that the initial protests were sparked by economic conditions, like in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and elsewhere, then developed into criticisms of the regimes of those places.

    Yes, it was that with the unarmed peaceful demo's. I fear now what Assad is playing is his last card. That is using his religious Alawite position as a weapon of fear among Alawite\Christian\whoever listens and using it as a battering ram against the majority Sunni's. He is trying to create a sectarian war.

    Reminds me of Milosevic in Bosnia, fermenting and inciting local Bosnian Serbs to act against Bosniaks in a genocidal way using fear of the future as a weapon. In this case, Assad is using the Sunni extremists by branding them as mainstream when they are not, control of state tv is a useful propaganda tool.

    We all know where the next stages in Syria are leading without any change of mind from Russia\China. Its going to be a sectarian war with Assad leading it and it will draw in Lebanon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Channel 4 journalist Alex Thomson claims the FSA rebels deliberately put him in harms way in the hope he would be killed so they could blame Assad.
    I’m quite clear the rebels deliberately set us up to be shot by the Syrian Army. Dead journos are bad for Damascus.

    http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/hostile-territory/1863


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    The Russians are complicit in Assads massacres no mistake about it, both by vetoing a number of UN sanctions against him and also by supplying arms to him.

    Their latest idea is for a conference on Syria.

    Its fairly apparant they are up to their old tricks of trying to distract the international community away from armed intervention, thus allowing Assad to continue.

    Russia don't want Assad gone, no matter what they say.

    Contrast Libya today where armed intervention ousted a tyrant not unlike Assad with what is happening in Syria. The lessons are clear. The only way to remove tyrants like Assad is through armed intervention, the Russians know that as much as anyone, that is why they are playing their games and trying to buy time for Assad. They say one thing but always mean the opposite.


Advertisement