Bashar Al-asad

[baradar_jackson]

(bismillah)

In recent days, Brother Mac Isaac has decided to spread his infinite wisdom through the chatroom.

Today, the discussion was about oppressors and our obligation to reject them. Al-Mufeed was debating about this with Yasoob ad-Deen.

Al-Mufeed said that in Shia beliefs, being a companion of an oppressor is the worst of sins and that such a sin can land one in hell.

iSilurian came along and agreed, saying that we should not accept any oppressor, be it Saddam, Qadhafi, or Asad.

I explained to him that Bashar al-Asad was a completely separate issue and that he should not make such pronouncements just for fun.

Mac Isaac, who had entered the chatroom just before then, commented that Asad was indeed an oppressor and that anyone who questions this should look in the mirror and assess his ability to recognize truth. (He probably got the idea of looking in a mirror from earlier this morning when he was watching himself flex his muscles in the mirror).

Firstly, an Akhbari should just shut the front door about this issue. They reject reason, so how could they possibly distinguish truth from falsehood? (Unless there are narrations from the Aimmah stating that Bashar is an oppressor!)

Al-Mufeed, who was continuing his discussion with Yasoob, was reiterating his point that Shia have no tolerance for oppressors. Mac, in his typical passive aggressive fashion, said to Mufeed: "Yes, but unfortunately this point is lost on many of us."

To those of us who have a greater familiarity with Mac's ideology, we know what is meant by this statement: Seyyed Ali Khamenei is imam al-kufr and it is obligatory upon "true Shias" (i.e. he and his defector cult) to oppose him.

Let's ignore the fact that macisaac is the head ideologue of what is essentially a fraud ideology founded on egoism and a hippie "free spirit" mindset. Let's just address the point about Bashar and Syria for now, as I am sure this issue is one which has caused Shias a lot of confusion. (After all, the leadership has come out and spoken in favor of Bashar, whereas the image being projected various news outlets is of "Bashar the Butcher." Could the leadership be wrong? What should the Shia stance be, with respect to Syria?

The CNN narrative on Syria is GED simple:

- People want freedom and democracy

- Autocrat Bashar is violently standing in their way

There are a few problems with their narrative.

Firstly, there is the issue of the casualties. Ever since this issue began, there have been roughly 1400 civilian deaths. In addition to this, roughly 400 Syrian soldiers have been killed. So we have these innocent unarmed Syrians wanting democracy, standing up to this dictator Bashar. How on earth did 400 Syrian soldiers die, huh? Syria has a very powerful army, one of the largest in the world. The Syrian army has 4600 tanks. That's more than Iran, more than Korea (North or South), more than Turkey, more than Pakistan more than India. In fact, I am pretty sure Syria are ranked 4th in the world in the number of tanks they have in service (behind USA, Russia, and China).

So Syria has a very large army and it is a very mechanized army, as well. 1400 vs. 400 seems too even for this to be a battle between unarmed civilians and the ruthless bloodthirsty military of an autocrat.

For comparison, consider this:

- During the Iraqi people's 1990 uprisings, 100-200 thousand people were killed in the course of a month.

- During the 15th of Khordad uprising, tens of thousands were killed in that single day.

When a military force faces unarmed civilians, it is quite easy for the military force to kill them in droves, and the military force never suffers any casualties. The only question is whether the guys holding the guns, are willing to shoot. That is the only question. Other than that, it is quite easy for a military force to kill unarmed civilians.

Another point that needs to be considered: this conflict is happening in the border regions of Syria.

So we can deduce from the number of Syrian soldiers killed that the opposition is armed, and well-armed at that. And we know that the unrest is mostly in border areas. Is it farfetched, then, to say that these rebels got their military supplies from foreign sources? (You don't honestly think the CIA is sitting down drinking tea and watching this on CNN, do you?)

So we know that the narrative is not what CNN says it is. This is not an organic people's uprising.

Now the question is, who is Bashar? Who are his opponents?

Is Bashar the bloodthirsty autocrat? The Syrian Saddam?

Many don't know this, but initially, Bashar al-Asad was not being groomed to be a successor. One of Hafez Asad's other sons (Basil al-Asad) was being groomed, but after dying in a car crash in 1994, he was no longer an option and so Bashar took his place. Before that, Bashar was studying to be a dentist. So he was flung into this position more or less unwillingly. He was branded as a reformer, but the political structure of Syria is a way that if Bashar were to make reforms sweeping enough to threaten the ruling elites, they could easily kill him and find another ruler. So he hasn't done much; he eased restrictions on religion (hijab for example, is much more prevalent in Syria now than it was 30 years ago). That's the only noticeable reform he has made. Other than that, the reason the Asad family has remained in power is not what has changed but rather what has remained the same: Bashar continued the fight against Israel, and intensified Syria's support of Lebanon and Iran.

So, with this mafia-style system governing Syria, the "autocrat" isn't really an autocrat, and he does not have true freedom of action. The ruling elites do not want to have their status threatened.

Now... who are Bashar's opponents? This is a harder question. There is mass discontent in Syria. The poverty and corruption in Syria is bad even compared with other Arab countries. The reason why the country has remained so stable through the years is only due to the government's continued support of Iran and Lebanon, and its continued resistance against Israel. (Syrians are among the most anti-American people in the world.)

So who are these rebels? They are elements of Syrian Ikhwan al-Muslimeen. Ikhwan in Syria is banned from political activity; they are the largest "opposition party" in the country. I am sure we have all read the reports that, in addition to fighting the Syrian army, Ikhwan is trying to work out a peace treaty with Israel. But in reality, it's really hard to gauge what Ikhwan wants or thinks.

There are some Wahabi elements and some mainstream elements; there is no coherent, unified ideological line.

I have no doubt in my mind that in Syria, the elements of Ikhwan that are currently being armed by the US, are of the Wahabi variety. Anywhere in the world where there is some Muslim group being armed by the Americans, you can be sure they are Wahabis. Wahabis and the US are natural strategic allies.

In Afghanistan, Wahabis were armed by the US against the Soviets.

In Baluchestan, Wahabis are armed by the US against the Islamic Republic.

In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and UAE have sent their troops to quell the uprisings there. (Saudi and Emirati Wahabis are secular, but still Wahabi)

You shouldn't support someone just because of this "Arab French Revolution" CNN narrative.

But I am digressing... The point is, Wahabis have historically been allies with the US, and the armed Wahabis in Syria are no different.

So... should we cheer on the Syrian Wahabis?

Syria is religiously diverse; it has Sunnis, Christians, and Alawi Shias. Armed Wahabis taking power would most certainly come with opposition from non-Sunnis and Sunnis alike. Syria could easily become like Yugoslavia (civil war and fracture) or Lebanon (civil war and fragile unity). It's not a joke. People's livelihoods are at stake, and CNN is essentially encouraging us to cheer this all on. (In their recent reporting they have really been egging on a new civil war in Lebanon, as well.)

Why is it that there have been massive pro-Asad rallies in different Syrian cities?

Why is it that many rebel groups in Libya have defected and are now fighting on Qadhafi's side?

It's because the US has taken the people's discontent in Tunisia and Egypt (which was not to their benefit, because this discontent threatened Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak; two Israeli-friendly, American-friendly, secularist Arab leaders) and has somehow used that as a springboard for starting imperial projects in Libya and Syria (under the pretext of supporting indigenous revolutions).

The US isn't sitting down drinking tea. They are very much a player in these events.

One cannot blame the problems of Syria all on Bashar. Bashar was in a difficult position before this current crisis, and now he is in even worse of a position. He has to deal with not just the ruling elites who he cannot openly oppose but with armed Wahabis as well.

People who are ignorant should not slander someone they know nothing about.

Ya Ali

[iSilurian]

I think youre looking too much into the conspiracy side of this. If you think about it, there are fundamental principals that leaders should follow in granting their people freedom, liberty, equality and democratic values.

If Assad is in a position where he needs to send troops out to combat his own people, then theres something flawed with the dynamics of the government. These civilians arent dying in the name of some made up zionist conspiracy, theyre dying because their own govt is ordering troops to take them down.

We can look over at Egypt as a prime example of what a leader should do. If the masses are uprising, you arent supposed to gun them down like Gadaffi and Assad, you step down and/or work out the entry of a new political system for the people.

[Syrian Sister]

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

The battle for Syria is a battle to humiliate and make slaves any enemy of the Israelis. The ultimate goal is to destroy the resistance in Lebanon before bringing down Iran. Bringing down Bashar would bring down the resistance. Any man who tries to destroy the resistance, whether his name is Ali Hassan Hussain Omar Abu-Bakr John Mark David Yitzhak or Shing Fong Po, anyone who dares to disarm the resistance, will have their hands dismembered, it's as simple as that.

Secondly, bringing down Syria means Saudi will be the ultimate ruler of the M.E. So any moron who is against Syria, or keeps quiet whilst Saudi takes power and projects and infests its Wahhabi Salafist Takfiri ideology throughout the M.E. is no different than the Kharijites, and deserves to suffer under the Wahhabi barbaric terrorist rulership.

Lastly, there is only one reason why they want to bring down Iran. It's not because they fear Israel will be destroyed by them, Israel's term as almost ended anyway, but because the ultimate fear is China emerging as the sole global hyper-power. China is beyond destruction through any political or economic means. Only way now to control China, is to control its energy. To control its energy, you need to control its energy sources, or, control the price fluctuations.

To do that, you take over Iraq (energy reasons), you take over Afghanistan (geo-strategic reasons), you take over Libya (energy reasons), you take over Venezuela (using Columbia, for energy reasons), you stop any decent and peace-activism on home soil using the so-called 'Patriot' and 'Homeland Security Act', and you bring down Syria and Iran so that your puppet tool (OPEC) has complete and unhindered dominance of the world energy market.

Their plans however have failed in Syria. The Syrian people are virtually all behind the president. They've been educated about what Saudi Wahhabirabia is trying to do, and so any terrorist seen on the street will get a straight bullet between the eyes. Bandar-bin-Shaytan has lost a LOT of money and resources there from the recent campaign.

What ever they do, won't work. They're a bunch of miserable failures. And unfortunately we have some oblivious 'Shia' who think they're being oh-so-religious by trying to bring down the so-called 'dictator' Bashar.

[Noah-]

Lastly, there is only one reason why they want to bring down Iran. It's not because they fear Israel will be destroyed by them, Israel's term as almost ended anyway, but because the ultimate fear is China emerging as the sole global hyper-power. China is beyond destruction through any political or economic means. Only way now to control China, is to control its energy. To control its energy, you need to control its energy sources, or, control the price fluctuations.

Why is that then China and Russia both voted and imposed 4 rounds of sanctions on Iran via UNSC? They are part of imposing no-fly-zone on Libya! And why is that they want Iran remain weak-beggar? I don't see any love here!

Pakistan is not the only source of NATO supply route, especially after their supplies are are being repeatedly attacked. NATO is being supplied in Afghanistan through Tajikistan and other central Asian routes under the supervision of Russians and with the agreement of China.

[Yousuf Ahmed]

:o :o

Syria has a very powerful army, one of the largest in the world. The Syrian army has 4600 tanks. That's more than Iran, more than Korea (North or South), more than Turkey, more than Pakistan more than India. In fact, I am pretty sure Syria are ranked 4th in the world in the number of tanks they have in service (behind USA, Russia, and China)..

Oh PLEASE !!!!!! 500,000 active duty personell make one of the largest armies in the World. Thats news. Lol brother.

By the way, if supporting unarmed people shouting "Allahu Akbar" and dying with the Shahada on their lips means being a Wahhabi, then I'm a Wahhabi. If supporting a religious people against a secular-oriented dictatorship means being a Wahhabi, I'm a Wahhabi.

Today's anti-regime protests after Friday prayers -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N1bHH8MelI

[Yousuf Ahmed]

. Any man who tries to destroy the resistance, whether his name is Ali Hassan Hussain Omar Abu-Bakr John Mark David Yitzhak or Shing Fong Po, anyone who dares to disarm the resistance, will have their hands dismembered, it's as simple as that.

., and so any terrorist seen on the street will get a straight bullet between the eyes. .

I am sorry to hear this from you brother, because that means a 10-yr old child's hands can be dismembered, and a 75-yr old man can get a bullet through the head.

And you write about dismembering of hands, it is the same Dhalimeen who dismemebered the hands of 'Abbas (ra)

The sort of rhetoric you have made, is also given by the Zionists-----to "preserve" the Zionists State, anybody can be shot, raped and maimed.......and you say, to preserve the "resistance", anybody's hands can be dismembered and anybody can be shot..

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

Why is that then China and Russia both voted and imposed 4 rounds of sanctions on Iran via UNSC? They are part of imposing no-fly-zone on Libya! And why is that they want Iran remain weak-beggar? I don't see any love here!

Pakistan is not the only source of NATO supply route, especially after their supplies are are being repeatedly attacked. NATO is being supplied in Afghanistan through Tajikistan and other central Asian routes under the supervision of Russians and with the agreement of China.

The sanctions are useless. Everyone knows that. In fact, the sanctions have assisted Iran being where it is today, the most independent and self-sufficient State entity of all nations. Whilst China and Russia might be seen as having passed sanctions in the failed UNSC, Russia is still the primary force behind Iran's nuclear buildup, and China and Iran are in bed in regards to energy, e.g. South Pars gas.

In respect to Libya, Russia knew that Ghaddafi's days were over. NATO was already striking deals with the rebels in Benghazi over what happens to the country's energy and gold reserves. McCain arrived in Benghazi before the Russian contingent could. Russia couldn't protect Ghaddafi, they don't have very close relations, he's been a British agent for decades. However Assad is different, Russia emphatically said it'll veto any resolution against Syria.

In respect to China, China's GDP is nearly on par with the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 and it's only getting warmed up. There isn't a household on earth where half its products aren't Made In China. The factory and industry infrastructure has already been build up. China too is trying to buy out ever element on the atomic table, this year alone they've gobbled up 100tonnes of Gold http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/165498/20110620/lear-capital-chinas-gold-buying-spree-continues.htm and is dumping all its US treasuries http://www.leap2020.eu/When-China-prepares-its-Great-Escape-from-the-dollar-trap-for-the-end-of-summer-2009_a3582.html . Meanwhile, the US economy is facing financial collapse, its debt is beyond control

there is no escape for the US.

It's only choice is to be the sole controller of the world energy market. This way, it has leverage over any State, and can dictate economics and trade. Here are the list of oil producers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

and oil suppliers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

Of the top 20 countries, the US doesn't have in its backpocket are Iran, Brazil, Venezuela, Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Azerbaijan and Sudan.

It's struggling to keep hold of Libya, it fought a war over Iraq and it's trying its best to bring down Iran by destroying Lebanon and Syria.

To win over Venezuela, it's been arming Columbia, and arresting peace activists:

http://www.laactivist.com/2011/05/22/fbi-raids-la-peace-advocate/

"Montes, an organizer for the Southern California Immigration Coalition, twice traveled to Columbia to meet with union leaders, farm worker centers and universities. His trips prompted him to speak against the U.S. drug war. He called the Colombian president Alvaro Uribe a puppet of U.S. foreign policy and condemned the killing of indigenous people and labor activists by paramilitaries."

and others http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/u-s-justice-department-prepares-for-the-ominous-expansion-of-law-prohibiting-material-support-for-terrorism.html

in a possible attempt to open a confrontation between Columbia and Venezuela

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_60730.shtml

http://geofinancial.blogspot.com/2010/07/colombia-vs-venezuela-big-oils-secret.html

The US is in a state of desperation. Millions in the US have now shifted their cross-hairs on Bernanke, the Fed and the globalist banking cartel, and the domestic attack on the Wall st Mafia is imminent, they're going into red-alert emergency mode.

It's all downhill from here, especially since their ME policy has failed.

[satyaban]

The battle for Syria is a battle to humiliate and make slaves any enemy of the Israelis. The ultimate goal is to destroy the resistance in Lebanon before bringing down Iran. Bringing down Bashar would bring down the resistance. Any man who tries to destroy the resistance, whether his name is Ali Hassan Hussain Omar Abu-Bakr John Mark David Yitzhak or Shing Fong Po, anyone who dares to disarm the resistance, will have their hands dismembered, it's as simple as that.

Secondly, bringing down Syria means Saudi will be the ultimate ruler of the M.E. So any moron who is against Syria, or keeps quiet whilst Saudi takes power and projects and infests its Wahhabi Salafist Takfiri ideology throughout the M.E. is no different than the Kharijites, and deserves to suffer under the Wahhabi barbaric terrorist rulership.

Lastly, there is only one reason why they want to bring down Iran. It's not because they fear Israel will be destroyed by them, Israel's term as almost ended anyway, but because the ultimate fear is China emerging as the sole global hyper-power. China is beyond destruction through any political or economic means. Only way now to control China, is to control its energy. To control its energy, you need to control its energy sources, or, control the price fluctuations.

To do that, you take over Iraq (energy reasons), you take over Afghanistan (geo-strategic reasons), you take over Libya (energy reasons), you take over Venezuela (using Columbia, for energy reasons), you stop any decent and peace-activism on home soil using the so-called 'Patriot' and 'Homeland Security Act', and you bring down Syria and Iran so that your puppet tool (OPEC) has complete and unhindered dominance of the world energy market.

Their plans however have failed in Syria. The Syrian people are virtually all behind the president. They've been educated about what Saudi Wahhabirabia is trying to do, and so any terrorist seen on the street will get a straight bullet between the eyes. Bandar-bin-Shaytan has lost a LOT of money and resources there from the recent campaign.

What ever they do, won't work. They're a bunch of miserable failures. And unfortunately we have some oblivious 'Shia' who think they're being oh-so-religious by trying to bring down the so-called 'dictator' Bashar.

If you didn't have Israel to blame all of your problems on would you than recognize Asad as a butcher of children and women that he is? The crowds of protesters are growing with each woman and child killed and towns attacked with tanks.

Edited July 2, 2011 by satyaban

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

If you didn't have Israel to blame all of your problems on would you than recognize Asad as a butcher of children and women that he is? The crowds of protesters are growing with each woman and child killed and towns attacked with tanks.

1. Since when have you become a mouth-piece of the Saudi terrorists that have been killing those women and children? Stop supporting the Terrorists coming out of Riyadh and attacking Syria.

2. Why do you find the need to make your text larger and bigger? Are you so useless in your arguments that you find the need to resort to it, is it the only way you think you can make your voice heard louder?

[satyaban]

It is easier for me to read and maybe it will benefit others the same way.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

It is easier for me to read and maybe it will benefit others the same way.

Rubbish, won't Lakshmana Ram & Hanuman punish you for being a liar?

Every web browser allows you to increase your font sizes. Stop being an eye-sore for all the members.

[iSilurian]

Rubbish, won't Lakshmana Ram & Hanuman punish you for being a liar?

Every web browser allows you to increase your font sizes. Stop being an eye-sore for all the members.

Actually the print does help, i am personally a fan of it. It does make the words easier to read.

On another note, there are innocent people dying in Syria, we should hope for the best, and time will expose truth behind the situation, inshaAllah.

[yassameen]

i remmber watching a live show on arabic BBC which just like our Hebrew channel or diluted aljazeera sort of channel

the show was about Syria and i think teh group of guests who were invited were chosen to show their support to the uprising , the syrian man spoke and said in a way that clearly confused the presenter who cut the show way sooner that it should lol

teh man said it clearly , this is a political move on political chess against the greater interests of Syria and Syrian with or without Bashar , and i am not gonna support it

many who went to syria felt same feeling from people ,despite their unliking to Bashar or the baath party , but i think all hav seen how Iraq and Afghanistan and Lybia turned out , daily blood baths and total submission to the regional and global super powers

for those who live on their comfy armchairs away , enjoying teh fruits of teh imperialism and the colonial behavior of their countries , i would have more respect for them if they simply didnt comment at all , showiing sympathy while electing one war monger after another is sick

[iSilurian]

teh man said it clearly , this is a political move on political chess against the greater interests of Syria and Syrian with or without Bashar , and i am not gonna support it

many who went to syria felt same feeling from people ,despite their unliking to Bashar or the baath party , but i think all hav seen how Iraq and Afghanistan and Lybia turned out , daily blood baths and total submission to the regional and global super powers

I believe that, whether or not you support it, for whatever reason, is important. However, something also important, arguably equal if not more important, are the laws by which Assad's government operates on.

We look at a country like Iraq and Libya, and what we have are oppressive leaders who use brute force against their own people. If we look over at Egypt, we have a leader, who recognized an issue and he stepped down, and low and behold, there isnt mass homicide in egypt because he was wise enough to step down in favor of reform of government law, constitutional rights among other things.

Saddam didnt seek reform, he simply dropped bombs on his political opposition. Gaddafi isnt seeking reforms, hes simply using gunships. In syria, hes also using forceful actions, which is an issue. ya know...where are his diplomatic opponents and what do they say? Where is the voice of the people? Clearly the people are speaking but are not being heard under the sound of tanks and mortors.

So diplomatic games of chess may be occurring yes, but ultimately there are greater fundamental issues in this situation that can be settled should Assad choose to do so.

or so it appears, feel free to respond.

Edited July 2, 2011 by iSilurian

[Yousuf Ahmed]

Of the top 20 countries, the US doesn't have in its backpocket are Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Azerbaijan

All the above countries are notorious for denying their Muslim citizens their basic religious rights - closing down Mosques, banning Hijab and Niqaab from schools and Universities, imprisioning the Ulema, controlling the Khutbas etc. I wonder how a Muslim can support them.

[Marbles]

It's easy to answer the long rant of the opening post.

Assad may well be playing the role of 'our boy' in the larger landscape of American-Israeli interference and hegemony in the region but is he a legitimate ruler of Syria? No. He inherited it from his butcher Baathist dad. So what does it make him? Obviously an oppressor; of his nafs and of his own people.

Now the question is: Should Shia defend Assad's ass because he is a useful tool in the great game of the Middle East. Or should Shia side with the Syrian masses in their rejection of the four decades old rotten Baathist rule and in their demands of a democratically elected government, which gives them honour and respects their basic rights; a government which can also be democratically voted out if need be. (Currently an impossibility in the length and breadth of the glorious Muslim Middle East, unless the West intervenes).

Not hard to see what the sane would chose or is it? :unsure:

Edited July 2, 2011 by Marbles

[baradar_jackson]

It's easy to answer the long rant of the opening post.

Assad may well be playing the role of 'our boy' in the larger landscape of American-Israeli interference and hegemony in the region but is he a legitimate ruler of Syria? No. He inherited it from his butcher Baathist dad. So what does it make him? Obviously an oppressor; of his nafs and of his own people.

Now the question is: Should Shia defend Assad's ass because he is a useful tool in the great game of the Middle East. Or should Shia side with the Syrian masses in their rejection of the four decades old rotten Baathist rule and in their demands of a democratically elected government, which gives them honour and respects their basic rights; a government which can also be democratically voted out if need be. (Currently an impossibility in the length and breadth of the glorious Muslim Middle East, unless the West intervenes).

Not hard to see what the sane would chose or is it? :unsure:

Go ahead and cheer on civil war and imperial projects.

This "sane choice" is doing well for the people of Libya.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

It's easy to answer the long rant of the opening post.

Assad may well be playing the role of 'our boy' in the larger landscape of American-Israeli interference and hegemony in the region but is he a legitimate ruler of Syria? No. He inherited it from his butcher Baathist dad. So what does it make him? Obviously an oppressor; of his nafs and of his own people.

Now the question is: Should Shia defend Assad's ass because he is a useful tool in the great game of the Middle East. Or should Shia side with the Syrian masses in their rejection of the four decades old rotten Baathist rule and in their demands of a democratically elected government, which gives them honour and respects their basic rights; a government which can also be democratically voted out if need be. (Currently an impossibility in the length and breadth of the glorious Muslim Middle East, unless the West intervenes).

Not hard to see what the sane would chose or is it? :unsure:

anyways, your theory would sound all nice and dandy was it not for the 'Syrian masses' rubbish. Close friends (sunnis mind you) have just returned from syria, and they're laughing at you and people like you who dribble such rubbish. Nationalist tendencies are so high at the moment, that if anyone spots a gulf person (particularly saudis), he'll be chased down by not only common by-standers, but men with walking sticks and grandmothers too. Mind you, these are the same people that were oppressed by Assad's father. But they see this attack on their country as it is, it's an attempt to bring forth the Salafists, to stop any anti-Israeli sentiment in the region, to bring down the close ally Iran and to turn it into a humiliated State just like Jordan, Egypt (that's trying to make amends), and the rest of the gulf states.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Ya Aba 3abdillah
Off-Topic section removed

[iSilurian]

This "sane choice" is doing well for the people of Libya.

I would say that it is, every day that passes in which a bad leader wages war against civilians is a clear demonstration for future leaders ~what not to do~. And when Gaddafi is out of the way, future leaders will presumably not be violent dictators.

no pain, no gain.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

I would say that it is, every day that passes in which a bad leader wages war against civilians is a clear demonstration for future leaders ~what not to do~. And when Gaddafi is out of the way, future leaders will presumably not be violent dictators.

no pain, no gain.

The libyan rebels only started their campaign after they received assurances from NATO. This was contrived MONTHS ago. Mind you, the rebels themselves were hijacked by other traitor rebels. Some were genuinely wanting to overthrow Ghaddafi. However little did they know higher-up members within their camps were sleeping with the devil.

If the rebels say that Libyan oil is to be nationalized (just like Chavez did) NATO will turn their bombs on them, this is factual.

[Yousuf Ahmed]

anyways, your theory would sound all nice and dandy was it not for the 'Syrian masses' rubbish. Close friends (sunnis mind you) have just returned from syria, and they're laughing at you and people like you who dribble such rubbish. Nationalist tendencies are so high at the moment, that if anyone spots a gulf person (particularly saudis), he'll be chased down by not only common by-standers, but men with walking sticks and grandmothers too. Mind you, these are the same people that were oppressed by Assad's father. But they see this attack on their country as it is, it's an attempt to bring forth the Salafists, to stop any anti-Israeli sentiment in the region, to bring down the close ally Iran and to turn it into a humiliated State just like Jordan, Egypt (that's trying to make amends), and the rest of the gulf states.

The vast majority of Syrian Sunnis follow the creed which you call "Salafi". Sorry to be the person to break this to you. The same with Egypt - the majority are "Salafi". Don't confuse Egyptian or Syrian Salafis with the ruling class of Saudi Arabia - they are two entirely different things.

I guess all of these people are Saudi funded -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkbR_WYW5pk

Edited July 4, 2011 by Ya Aba 3abdillah
Off-Topic section removed

[iSilurian]

The libyan rebels only started their campaign after they received assurances from NATO. This was contrived MONTHS ago. Mind you, the rebels themselves were hijacked by other traitor rebels. Some were genuinely wanting to overthrow Ghaddafi. However little did they know higher-up members within their camps were sleeping with the devil.

This still, no offense but...its not addressing the point of the violence Gaddafi is using.

and yes i agree, there are a decent number of genuine rebels who are fighting for the greater good. I think we should all agree on supporting the regime change/reform.

The same goes for Syria.

If a country ever ends up turning itself inside out into a civil war, its a testament to the need for reformations.

Edited July 2, 2011 by iSilurian

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

This still, no offense but...its not addressing the point of the violence Gaddafi is using.

and yes i agree, there are a decent number of genuine rebels who are fighting for the greater good. I think we should all agree on supporting the regime change/reform.

The same goes for Syria.

If a country ever ends up turning itself inside out into a civil war, its a testament to the need for reformations.

You can't defend Ghaddafi's force, he's a criminal and a dictator, just like Saddam was, and Mubarak, and Bin Ali, and Arafat, and Saleh, and Abdullah. This is a war for power, just like the Abbassids took over from the Umayyads. They're both horrible. Meanwhile, the people are the biggest losers either way.

As much as I despise Ghaddafi, who's still hiding the whereabouts of one of my personal greatest heroes (Imam Mousa Sadr), i know the consequences of having global energy dominance. NATO couldn't give a rat's tail about the Libyan people.

[satyaban]

The libyan rebels only started their campaign after they received assurances from NATO. This was contrived MONTHS ago. Mind you, the rebels themselves were hijacked by other traitor rebels. Some were genuinely wanting to overthrow Ghaddafi. However little did they know higher-up members within their camps were sleeping with the devil.

If the rebels say that Libyan oil is to be nationalized (just like Chavez did) NATO will turn their bombs on them, this is factual.

If you think people are going to accept it as factual because you said it is you are wrong. Present your facts and I hope it is a better source than PressTV or any of that ilk.

I also think that someone in a position of responsibility should not cast sexual slurs on someone who is not present to defend herself, don't you oops er I guess you don't. That is a low life thing to do.

Edited July 2, 2011 by satyaban

[Akritas]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that little has changed in Egypt. Mubarak stepped down, sure, but the army is still in control and who knows how much power they will really give up. The Egyptian story is just getting started, not that most people have the attention span to notice. But these things never take long to get bogged down in politics and local rivalries. To use the first example that springs to mind, look at Hungary in 1848. The ethic Magyars (Hungarians) revolted against Austrian proclaiming republican virtue and freedom, yadayada. They took a very expansive view of what was Hungarian though, and the local Croats and Serbs ended up figuring they didn't want to be in a state ruled by Magyars, democratic or no, so they fought for the Austrians and were important in being put down. It should be noted the Hungarians were quite ruthless in killing off Croats in the probably self-fulling belief they weren't loyal. You could find scores of similar examples. So to get down to my point, just because Assad is a consciousless ass with no feelings doesn't mean the anti-government forces won't take the axe to minorities the government favored when they get power. I'd bet they will. So said minorities favor the government, largely out of self-preservation. Life sucks and there usually isn't an easy answer.

[Akritas]

I'm going to steer clear of accusations of Satanism or pond-scumism (pond scumness? Whatever.) but the notion that the 'majority' has some particular insight or right to rule is actually quite humanist and wasn't that common until (relatively) recently. My own personal opinion is that the 'majority' in Syria care less about who rules in Damascus than keeping their skins intact, their families fed and getting something not too corrupt in the way of government so they can have peace, prosperity and pride, the three desires I find motivate people through the ages. If they have that most people don't care if they are governed by Sharia or personal fiat or Parliamentary Democracy or whatever. But I'm a cynic and old at heart.

[JimJam]

It's easy to answer the long rant of the opening post.

Assad may well be playing the role of 'our boy' in the larger landscape of American-Israeli interference and hegemony in the region but is he a legitimate ruler of Syria? No. He inherited it from his butcher Baathist dad. So what does it make him? Obviously an oppressor; of his nafs and of his own people.

Now the question is: Should Shia defend Assad's ass because he is a useful tool in the great game of the Middle East. Or should Shia side with the Syrian masses in their rejection of the four decades old rotten Baathist rule and in their demands of a democratically elected government, which gives them honour and respects their basic rights; a government which can also be democratically voted out if need be. (Currently an impossibility in the length and breadth of the glorious Muslim Middle East, unless the West intervenes).

Not hard to see what the sane would chose or is it? :unsure:

A democratic Syria would be a power vacuum, open to all kinds of influence, the political scene could end up being as violent and sectarian as the in Pakistan. Assad is an evil but he is a lesser evil compared to a country run by Saudi backed politicians. I've seen enough of this in Pakistan.

And a democratic Syria would not necessarily give people the more jobs or cheaper food and electricity, the things which really matter. Democracy is a method of selecting leadership. Its not a cure for economic problems.

[Schrodinger]

If they have that most people don't care if they are governed by Sharia or personal fiat or Parliamentary Democracy or whatever. But I'm a cynic and old at heart.

It's easy to plug every country into the same template psychologists like to form for countries but Syria is very different. People are politically activated. You just never saw it because it was suppressed.

Now that it is unsuppressed' date=' the truth reveals itself: the external politics is completely aligned with the government as well as secularism. This surprised our idiotic enemies who are moving around like a blind dog trying to sniff for trouble.

A democratic Syria would be a power vacuum

Wrong, a democratic Syria will still have Bashaar as the president because Syrians are not stupid unlike their Arab/American counterparts. Democracy sucks, but with Syrians, we turn everything we touch into gold.

Oh and "humanism" is a mental illness as with every other -ism.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Schrodinger

[Akritas]

It's easy to plug every country into the same template psychologists like to form for countries but Syria is very different. People are politically activated. You just never saw it because it was suppressed.

Now that it is unsuppressed, the truth reveals itself: the external politics is completely aligned with the government as well as secularism. This surprised our idiotic enemies who are moving around like a blind dog trying to sniff for trouble.

Well, I admit that that's a oversimplification. Almost anything will be, people are complicated. And I am sure most people have some sort of political opinion/pet theory whatever. The key is that the number of people actually willing to do anything about it is always a minority. Only about half of Americans care enough about democracy to get off their butts long enough to vote, that's how much we care. Several Western countries have taken to forcing people to vote by law since the threat of a $200 fine is more motivating than civic duty. When it comes it life-altering choices the number is invariably even smaller.

[Schrodinger]

Well, I admit that that's a oversimplification. Almost anything will be, people are complicated. And I am sure most people have some sort of political opinion/pet theory whatever. The key is that the number of people actually willing to do anything about it is always a minority. Only about half of Americans care enough about democracy to get off their butts long enough to vote, that's how much we care. Several Western countries have taken to forcing people to vote by law since the threat of a $200 fine is more motivating than civic duty. When it comes it life-altering choices the number is invariably even smaller.

Yeah I agree with you about the ever-depressing American model.

In Syria and Lebanon though, we're constantly at war so the mind frame of the post-structural slaves does not actually apply. This confused the conspirators greatly, who assumed we were all living out our normal daily lives and have forgotten that we're neighbouring the statified version of satan himself.

This is why you saw 9.365 million Syrians mobilised over the issue of the media conspiracy -- and then they knew for sure it was a conspiracy when it was reported as "thousands".

You should hear the political discussions at a cafe. Syria was a pressure cooker of politics, now the cooker has exploded but it has not landed in our enemies favour. Instead its headed right for their neck, which will hopefully break so we can bury them.

[Akritas]

I have little doubt politics is talked about a lot in Syria nowadays and most people have an opinion of some sort. That's not what counts though. What counts is organization and how many people are willing to risk stopping a bullet for their cause. I'd bet that's a minority in Syria like anywhere else since the whole population isn't fighting but what the heck. The important point is that the army is holding together and thus it will probably win, unless some large external force comes in. I doubt the West will, they are finding Libya embarrassing enough. I doubt Turkey will either for all the tough talk but only God knows the future for sure.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

Their only card now is to either start a war, or assassinate Assad.

[satyaban]

Their only card now is to either start a war, or assassinate Assad.

What you are still here? Well I guess they will deal with you after the holidays but you have no credibility left here. Perhaps you can tell us how Marbles posts and those with your despicable behavior and admission to it have disappeared. I'll tell you I copied them and added them to "my documents" and you can't erase my computer. Perhaps we can make a bargain.

[baradar_jackson]

I would say that it is, every day that passes in which a bad leader wages war against civilians is a clear demonstration for future leaders ~what not to do~. And when Gaddafi is out of the way, future leaders will presumably not be violent dictators.

no pain, no gain.

Firstly, it is clear that the intentions of NATO is not pure; otherwise, why Libya? There is plenty of human suffering in the world. Why Libya?

When the intentions are impure, all other impurities will emanate from that initial impurity.

As for "no pain, no gain" ...

1) It is unclear whether there will be any "gain." The Americans want to re-install the crown prince.

2) Only Libyans can make that choice, not us. And judging by the fact that some of the rebels are defecting to join Qadhafi, I think they are not exactly in favor of getting bombed by NATO (who knew!).

Edited July 4, 2011 by baradar_jackson