What if Assad is telling the truth?

The Master of Disaster wrote: »

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.