Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Jafar moh

Need some information about the syrian conflict!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I would like to further facilitate a previously spoken about dialogue I had with a buddy of mine about syria... to put it plainly he does not believe in any connections between ISIS and the syrian rebels, and believes Assad is doing nothing but horrible things.

A few points I'd like to help him understand on (and myself for that matter) are:

1.) We disagree on who instigated the chemical attack on the Syrian hospital in Ghouta back in 2013: He says that it was Assad who did it, I don't see why Assad would have a reason to do so

2.) I think it is worth mentioning that he is Ukrainian, so he has an extremely distasteful view of the Russian president Vladimir Putin and finds him to be a war criminal just like Assad, however he also knows that Iran, Russia, Syria and some select others are allies and thus adds on to his confusion of whats happening in Syria since he does not trust the Russian government

3.) How do I explain to him that these Syrian rebels are not the ones who support? And how do I show him that the US are doing wrong by funding these organizations 

4.) He is also asking that; if it is really true that ISIS and the syrian rebels are similar, why are they fighting each other?

 

Some insight would be appreciated, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cant justify a position on your own, then you shouldnt stand for that position to begin with.

1.As for the first point, it is difficult to see what is going on inside syria, as Assad has banned a number of journalists from the country.  However, a number of sources indicate that his forces bombed hospitals that were supplying rebels and extremists, medical needs. In one hand, it makes sense to bomb these hospitals, as they are helping the opposition. In the other hand, doctors help people, its just what they do, regardless of who those people are.

2.I dont think Russia should be trusted any more than say, the US. Russia has its personal goals and incentives, just like every other foreign nation that is involved.

3.Though non extremist elements may exist in this war, it may not be feasible that they could gain power, as both assads forces, and extremist elements appear to be much stronger. I think US involvement is wrong, in that Syria should fight its own battle.It should reach a natural conclusion on its own, and the involvement of foreign nations in the war, only influences an unnatural and potentially unstable outcome. And this is kind of what we are seeing.  Both the Assad govt and the rebels and Isis are all able to fight for extended periods of time with the strength of foreign support.

4. They are different groups, but have similar goals in that they want a change in their government. They want Assad out of power. We can look at Egypt.  When protests erupted in Egypt that led to Mubarak stepping down, there were the moderates, and simultaneously there were some crazy guys riding camels around calling for sharia. Morsi stepped in and attempted to grant himself power over other branches of government. The muslim brotherhood were gaining a great deal of power and influence, and then Morsi was forced out of office by el Sisi. So in these events, you see that the moderates and extremist elements had a common goal of removing Mubarak. And this same situation is occurring in Syria. Some will deny the existence of moderates, but given the Assad governments history, including times in which Assads father was in control, it would be hard to imagine that there are no moderates that want him to step down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

I would like to further facilitate a previously spoken about dialogue I had with a buddy of mine about syria... to put it plainly he does not believe in any connections between ISIS and the syrian rebels, and believes Assad is doing nothing but horrible things.

A few points I'd like to help him understand on (and myself for that matter) are:

1.) We disagree on who instigated the chemical attack on the Syrian hospital in Ghouta back in 2013: He says that it was Assad who did it, I don't see why Assad would have a reason to do so

 

I've investigated the 'chemical weapons attack' in some depth actually, and i've made several threads on the issue. Check this thread out:

 

8 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

 

2.) I think it is worth mentioning that he is Ukrainian, so he has an extremely distasteful view of the Russian president Vladimir Putin and finds him to be a war criminal just like Assad, however he also knows that Iran, Russia, Syria and some select others are allies and thus adds on to his confusion of whats happening in Syria since he does not trust the Russian government

 

 

I can't help answer this currently, but ask him, do Israel [supporting 'rebels'], the US, and gulf-dictatorships who are war criminals in their own right, supporting the massacare of people in Yemen, Gaza, et al [or are silent and lame ducks], really care about the muslimeen in Syria, or do they have an agenda?

Putin is no Angel, but are ale saud, america, and benjamin netanyahu?

 

8 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

 

3.) How do I explain to him that these Syrian rebels are not the ones who support? And how do I show him that the US are doing wrong by funding these organizations 

 

Ask him to google the names of these groups : Jabhat Al Nusra, Zahran Alloush, Ahrar Asham, etc.

Here's some information to share with him:

 

8 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

 

4.) He is also asking that; if it is really true that ISIS and the syrian rebels are similar, why are they fighting each other?

 

Some insight would be appreciated, thanks!

Not all the 'rebels' are bad people. It is important to be balanced about this, there are groups which are moderate, which do not want a shariah shurah caliphate with jabhat al nusra at the helm or playing a leading role. 

However, alqaeda [jabhat al nusra] fought Daesh [ISIS]. Both are deplorable groups, but even if two groups are deplorable, they can still fight one another if their disagreements and conflicts and lust for power, land and authority are equal. You can argue, why did muslims fight each other in the battle of Jamal if both sides were muslims? 

We don't claim the syrian rebels are as bad as ISIS, but we claim that alqaeda affiliates like jabhat al nusra, or rebel commanders praying for Osama bin Laden are clearly not 'moderate' and are radical groups we can't support.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It definitely was the rebels, although initially it was suspected that it was Assad, an effective study done by MIT professors showed that given the geography and areas under government control, it's not possible that the chemical attack would've originated from Assad's forces. Here is the link: http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/20/mit-study-further-destroys-washingtons-syria-chemical-weapons-claim/

2) I wouldn't trust Russia and Putin completely but I know that you can definitely not trust America and the West, they've created so many wars based on lies, destabilised countries, infiltrated military coups and what not. And there's a clear motive for removing Assad, namely to weaken Iran and to destroy the link between Iran and Hezbollah, so Israel is strengthened. So given a choice, I would believe Russian media over American media, but if you want unbiased sources on this conflict, look at Latin American media, independent journalists on the ground, I posted a video of Dr. Tim Anderson, he seems pretty impartial in my opinion.

3) One need look no further than Libya, what happened when US demonised Gadaffi and the opposition backed by NATO took over? Libya turned into a failed state, it's now a terrorist haven. You can also look into documents that explain how the US has consistently tried to undermine Syria since 2006. http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath. And in the initial uprisings in 2011, though the Western media deemed the protestors to be peaceful, that was a lie. Yes, there were indeed people calling for reform, less corruption, more freedom but these protests were hijacked. Armed groups and armaments were smuggled in from Libya and Muslim brotherhood elements in Qatar and Turkey. The protests began in Daraa where boys were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti, there were protests calling for their release but these protests were hijacked. Armed groups committed some of the most heinous atrocities as early as April 2011, when western media stressed that the armed struggle began a lot later in 2012. Here's a link to what happened in daraa, at the start of the uprising. https://www.google.com/amp/s/robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/history-of-us-natos-covert-war-on-syria-daraa-march-2011-another-islamist-insurrection-by-tim-anderson/amp/?client=safari. I'm not saying people don't want government reform and change, yes those people exist but the overwhelming majority of the opposition are sectarian terrorists who would bring no democracy to Syria but instead be dictatorial and spell a bloodbath for the minorities. There's plenty of evidence to discredit many of the humanitarian groups on the ground like The White helmets, who have been found to have links with Al Qaeda. Also some rebel groups are still deemed moderate by the West like Noural-Din Al-Zinki, which beheaded a twelve year-old Palestinian child. So when the West says "moderate rebels", they are really not credible.

4) They fight each other because it's a power struggle and also their concept of a caliphate may differ from another group. The overwhelming majority of these rebel groups have the same Salafi ideology and repeatedly arms from US to "moderate rebels" have been found in Al Qaeda's hands, which shows these groups are either linked or they are different only because of minute differences over caliphate and power. Journalists have reported there are indeed Syrians that want change in the government, but they don't see their president as much of a problem as the terrorism. 

I am not a fan of Assad, I am certain he has committed warcrimes, but I think his replacement at this stage would be even worse, because it would be an extremist group and it would be an authoritarian government with no protection for minorities, you could see Shias and Christians massacred on an enormous scale. Assad is just a small part of the big picture, which is resisting a Zionist/Wahhabi/Imperialist government, which would be worse for the Syrian people, and they would lose their independent sovereignty as well. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iCambrian said:

If you cant justify a position on your own, then you shouldnt stand for that position to begin with.

3

Yeah that is fair. although It wasn't exactly a debate, it still sparked my curiosity to look into and unfortunately I do not have the time in the day to do my own studies so I assumed it was harmless to ask a question on an open forum

 

extremely informative responses I will do my best to touch on each point, thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, uponthesunnah said:

I've investigated the 'chemical weapons attack' in some depth actually, and i've made several threads on the issue. Check this thread out:

 

 

I can't help answer this currently, but ask him, do Israel [supporting 'rebels'], the US, and gulf-dictatorships who are war criminals in their own right, supporting the massacare of people in Yemen, Gaza, et al [or are silent and lame ducks], really care about the muslimeen in Syria, or do they have an agenda?

Putin is no Angel, but are ale saud, america, and benjamin netanyahu?

 

Ask him to google the names of these groups : Jabhat Al Nusra, Zahran Alloush, Ahrar Asham, etc.

Here's some information to share with him:

 

Not all the 'rebels' are bad people. It is important to be balanced about this, there are groups which are moderate, which do not want a shariah shurah caliphate with jabhat al nusra at the helm or playing a leading role. 

However, alqaeda [jabhat al nusra] fought Daesh [ISIS]. Both are deplorable groups, but even if two groups are deplorable, they can still fight one another if their disagreements and conflicts and lust for power, land and authority are equal. You can argue, why did muslims fight each other in the battle of Jamal if both sides were muslims? 

We don't claim the syrian rebels are as bad as ISIS, but we claim that alqaeda affiliates like jabhat al nusra, or rebel commanders praying for Osama bin Laden are clearly not 'moderate' and are radical groups we can't support.

 

Without saying we must support isis or alqaida but is it so bad that some people want to establish sharia law in syria ? After all its better than à secular state from à muslim point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

Without saying we must support isis or alqaida but is it so bad that some people want to establish sharia law in syria ? After all its better than à secular state from à muslim point of view.

Not if they are Wahabis with anti Shia and anti resistance bias. They are essentially the same type of people who beheaded Imam Hussain (AS) and his followers. Head chopping is a norm for these type of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

Yeah that is fair. although It wasn't exactly a debate, it still sparked my curiosity to look into and unfortunately I do not have the time in the day to do my own studies so I assumed it was harmless to ask a question on an open forum

 

extremely informative responses I will do my best to touch on each point, thank you

An open forum full of pro assad sentiment :P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iCambrian said:

An open forum full of pro assad sentiment :P.

well we have you don't we! haha, and as far as this thread goes I don't really see anybody exactly pro assad as they do recognize he aint the prettiest either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

well we have you don't we! haha, and as far as this thread goes I don't really see anybody exactly pro assad as they do recognize he aint the prettiest either

Iran supports Assad, Iran is The shia country of the world, and this is shiachat.  And while people may not recognize him as a perfect leader, theyre typically still for him.  I dont think anyone who has posted yet is against him.

But its all good, nothing wrong with asking around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Not if they are Wahabis with anti Shia and anti resistance bias. They are essentially the same type of people who beheaded Imam Hussain (AS) and his followers. Head chopping is a norm for these type of people.

The problem is that I have the feeling that for most shia when à sunni want to establish an islamic state its always à wahabitte.  You will find that maybe caricatural what I said but its what I saw. And it's maybe polemical what I say buy beheading is an acceptable form of punishment for some death sentences according to sharia law (I dont say that for justify the acts of isis and others but I say that for those who criticize this practice for some death sentence).

Edited by alidu78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Iran supports Assad, Iran is The shia country of the world, and this is shiachat.  And while people may not recognize him as a perfect leader, theyre typically still for him.  I dont think anyone who has posted yet is against him.

But its all good, nothing wrong with asking around.

They dont really support assad in reality  but the syrian government in particular  (baath) which had many links with iranian government since the islamic revolution.  After the end of the war the iranians and russians will probably get out assad from presidency and put another président. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, alidu78 said:

The problem is that I have the feeling that for most shia when à sunni want to establish an islamic state its always à wahabitte.  You will find that maybe caricatural what I said but its what I saw. And it's maybe polemical what I say buy beheading is an acceptable form of punishment for some death sentences according to sharia law (I dont say that for justify the acts of isis and others but I say that for those who criticize this practice for some death sentence).

Historically it has been a strong man taking over the Middle East and declaring himself the calipha, and the masses accepting it. That came to an end with the ottoman empire. Sunni's are generally not a political active sect, as in their sect is based on accepting whomever is in charge as legit. They are not revolutionaries. Wahabi's on the other hand are, and they are the ones who are active, and it also makes their movement attractive to sunni masses who see no real leadership from their scholars. 

Beheading in islam, if allowed, is very conditional. Wahabis on the other hand, use it as political statement. It like how the enemies of Imam Hussain (AS) beheaded their bodies after they had been killed and paraded them. If the current Wahhabis existed back then, they would have done the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Historically it has been a strong man taking over the Middle East and declaring himself the calipha, and the masses accepting it. That came to an end with the ottoman empire. Sunni's are generally not a political active sect, as in their sect is based on accepting whomever is in charge as legit. They are not revolutionaries. Wahabi's on the other hand are, and they are the ones who are active, and it also makes their movement attractive to sunni masses who see no real leadership from their scholars. 

Beheading in islam, if allowed, is very conditional. Wahabis on the other hand, use it as political statement. It like how the enemies of Imam Hussain (AS) beheaded their bodies after they had been killed and paraded them. If the current Wahhabis existed back then, they would have done the same.

All the sunni school if thought recognizes sharia law and sharia law must be applicated in an islamic state. That is my point.  And yes I am sorry but there is à problem with many shia because for them its like "secular sunni ? Good sunni. Sunni who wants to establish an islamic state ? Wahabitte !".

And no beheading is not "conventional" like you say , that was the méthod of punishment used by the muslims during the first times of islam. They never hanged or shot people , they beheaded them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

All the sunni school if thought recognizes sharia law and sharia law must be applicated in an islamic state. That is my point.  And yes I am sorry but there is à problem with many shia because for them its like "secular sunni ? Good sunni. Sunni who wants to establish an islamic state ? Wahabitte !".

And no beheading is not "conventional" like you say , that was the méthod of punishment used by the muslims during the first times of islam. They never hanged or shot people , they beheaded them.

Were there beheading during the rule of Rasoulallah or Imam ali, sanctioned by them? Did they behead their captured enemies? What the Wahhabis are doing are completely different from the school of ahlul bait.

Wahabism is indeed real. They're nasibis, who have hatred of Shias. If Sunnis join with them, then we put them in the same category. For Shias, secular sunnis are infinitely better than Shia hating wahabis and the sunnis siding with them.

Our problem isn't with Sunnis having sharia in their states, but rather the religious and political stance they take. Due to the limitations of their sect, it almost impossible for them to have a islamic state with full sharia while siding against the zionist and the imperialists. Egyptian revolution is an example of their incapability to have a proper revolution.  Only the Shias can pull that off due to the influence of the Imams, and guidance from Allah which Sunnis are lacking. The hope is for the Sunnis to come to the realization of the limitation of their belief system and shift towards the true islam of Ahlul bait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Were there beheading during the rule of Rasoulallah or Imam ali, sanctioned by them? Did they behead their captured enemies? What the Wahhabis are doing are completely different from the school of ahlul bait.

Wahabism is indeed real. They're nasibis, who have hatred of Shias. If Sunnis join with them, then we put them in the same category. For Shias, secular sunnis are infinitely better than Shia hating wahabis and the sunnis siding with them.

Our problem isn't with Sunnis having sharia in their states, but rather the religious and political stance they take. Due to the limitations of their sect, it almost impossible for them to have a islamic state with full sharia while siding against the zionist and the imperialists. Egyptian revolution is an example of their incapability to have a proper revolution.  Only the Shias can pull that off due to the influence of the Imams, and guidance from Allah which Sunnis are lacking. The hope is for the Sunnis to come to the realization of the limitation of their belief system and shift towards the true islam of Ahlul bait. 

Yes they beheaded there ennemies. One of the most best exemple its when imam Ali  (as) beheaded himself between 600 and 900 jews of banu qurayza for fight against muslims.

And it's not because the égyptien révolution failed that they are unable to do that.  We could also say that the iraqi and bahraini révolutions file against there sunni leaders its not for that we will say that shia are unable to have an islamic state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, alidu78 said:

Yes they beheaded there ennemies. One of the most best exemple its when imam Ali  (as) beheaded himself between 600 and 900 jews of banu qurayza for fight against muslims.

was it beheading or are we making assumptions? what are your sources? This event lacks authenticity as there are only sunni historical sources.

Regardless, the Wahabis beheading has nothing to do with justice, as it is a tool of terror. You can see it in their videos as they magnify the heartbeat of the person about to be executed and add other effects to it. Its a propaganda tool, creating a shock and awe effect, terrifying their foes into surrendering. This is why you see them playing with the victims cut off head, beheading a dead person, crucifying the christians, burning their victims, etc.. 

Wahabis are nasibis, with hatred of the true followers of Rasoullalah, the Shias. The Shias are the model of how the enemies should be treated. We don't see them beheading them. Wahabis have no claim to following anything related to Rasoullalah, just mere fantasies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, alidu78 said:

And it's not because the égyptien révolution failed that they are unable to do that.  We could also say that the iraqi and bahraini révolutions file against there sunni leaders its not for that we will say that shia are unable to have an islamic state.

Iraqis initially failed because they followed the west back in 1990's and not the Shias in Iran. When they did listen, they succeeded through other means. Bahrain is an ongoing revolution. It will succeed. 

Sunnis on the other hand, have not had a single success in the last 37 years since the Shia revolution. A revolution against the zionist empire is extremely complicated and requires proper leadership with basirat (ability to see the truth) and heckmat (wisdom) (which they lack). They can try as many times as want, and still not succeed beyond the initial efforts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

was it beheading or are we making assumptions? what are your sources? This event lacks authenticity as there are only sunni historical sources.

Regardless, the Wahabis beheading has nothing to do with justice, as it is a tool of terror. You can see it in their videos as they magnify the heartbeat of the person about to be executed and add other effects to it. Its a propaganda tool, creating a shock and awe effect, terrifying their foes into surrendering. This is why you see them playing with the victims cut off head, beheading a dead person, crucifying the christians, burning their victims, etc.. 

Wahabis are nasibis, with hatred of the true followers of Rasoullalah, the Shias. The Shias are the model of how the enemies should be treated. We don't see them beheading them. Wahabis have no claim to following anything related to Rasoullalah, just mere fantasies. 

Its written like that in all biography if im not wrong . The only divergence is the number of people exactly executed. 

And even in many biographies you could see many People executed by beheading. But could I ask , what is exactly your problem with that ? Its the beheadings in général ? Or just the fact that people are beheading without justice ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Iraqis initially failed because they followed the west back in 1990's and not the Shias in Iran. When they did listen, they succeeded through other means. Bahrain is an ongoing revolution. It will succeed. 

Sunnis on the other hand, have not had a single success in the last 37 years since the Shia revolution. A revolution against the zionist empire is extremely complicated and requires proper leadership with basirat (ability to see the truth) and heckmat (wisdom) (which they lack). They can try as many times as want, and still not succeed beyond the initial efforts. 

So because they made mistakes they must still keep on mistakes ? Nice logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, alidu78 said:

So because they made mistakes they must still keep on mistakes ? Nice logic.

Its not just a mistake, its the inability and limitation of their sect. Its obvious to the revolutionary Shias who have actually succeeded in the revolution and know what it takes. 

Example is, you have a car with weak engine and one with strong engine. when both going down hill, you don't see the difference, but uphill, the difference is noticeable. The driver of the car with strong engine knows whats needed, however, the weaker car still thinks it can do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, alidu78 said:

Its written like that in all biography if im not wrong . The only divergence is the number of people exactly executed. 

And even in many biographies you could see many People executed by beheading. But could I ask , what is exactly your problem with that ? Its the beheadings in général ? Or just the fact that people are beheading without justice ?

All of them are taken from a few sunni sources and no mention of beheading is made. History of islam according to Sunni's is considerably different than how Shias view it. Even if we take it at face value, it was torah law used to carry out such punishment and not islamic law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

All of them are taken from a few sunni sources and no mention of beheading is made. History of islam according to Sunni's is considerably different than how Shias view it. Even if we take it at face value, it was torah law used to carry out such punishment and not islamic law. 

The muslims never beheaded someone during the time of rasulllah  (saws) ? Its à joke ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Its not just a mistake, its the inability and limitation of their sect. Its obvious to the revolutionary Shias who have actually succeeded in the revolution and know what it takes. 

Example is, you have a car with weak engine and one with strong engine. when both going down hill, you don't see the difference, but uphill, the difference is noticeable. The driver of the car with strong engine knows whats needed, however, the weaker car still thinks it can do it. 

They suceed only in iran and in big part because usa were tired of the shah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alidu78 said:

The muslims never beheaded someone during the time of rasulllah  (saws) ? Its à joke ?

Show me an instance when rasoulalah gave order under islamic law for beheading the captives of war. This incident won't qualify as evidence. We're not dealing with torah's laws when analyzing the Wahabis. How does zooming on this issue even justify what the Wahhabis are doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Show me an instance when rasoulalah gave order under islamic law for beheading the captives of war. This incident won't qualify as evidence. We're not dealing with torah's laws when analyzing the Wahabis. How does zooming on this issue even justify what the Wahhabis are doing?

Just see this vidéo about the death penalty on islam. 

And in général you read all the biographies of Muhammad (saws) there were beheadings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Jafar moh said:

I would like to further facilitate a previously spoken about dialogue I had with a buddy of mine about syria... to put it plainly he does not believe in any connections between ISIS and the syrian rebels, and believes Assad is doing nothing but horrible things.

A few points I'd like to help him understand on (and myself for that matter) are:

1.) We disagree on who instigated the chemical attack on the Syrian hospital in Ghouta back in 2013: He says that it was Assad who did it, I don't see why Assad would have a reason to do so

2.) I think it is worth mentioning that he is Ukrainian, so he has an extremely distasteful view of the Russian president Vladimir Putin and finds him to be a war criminal just like Assad, however he also knows that Iran, Russia, Syria and some select others are allies and thus adds on to his confusion of whats happening in Syria since he does not trust the Russian government

3.) How do I explain to him that these Syrian rebels are not the ones who support? And how do I show him that the US are doing wrong by funding these organizations 

4.) He is also asking that; if it is really true that ISIS and the syrian rebels are similar, why are they fighting each other?

 

Some insight would be appreciated, thanks!

In Syria 60% are Sunnies and 10% Christians.  Assad belonging to a religious minority promised free election. A promise he did not keep, well knowing that he would not gain the votes of the Sunnies and Christians and no longer be president (dictator). And hell broke lose. His option is to opress the majority, alternatively kill them or force them to flee out of Syria. He uses all three methods to stay in power. Iran and Russia want Assad to stay. USA wants him to go, but is not prepared to risk the life of US soldiers. The rebels cant defeat Russia, but can Russia defeat the rebels? The civil war continues.

Except for the ruling class that does not wish to risk privileges, Syrians wish the democrasy they were promised. ISIS can not deliver this.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, andres said:

In Syria 60% are Sunnies and 10% Christians.  Assad belonging to a religious minority promised free election. A promise he did not keep, well knowing that he would not gain the votes of the Sunnies and Christians and no longer be president (dictator). And hell broke lose. His option is to opress the majority, alternatively kill them or force them to flee out of Syria. He uses all three methods to stay in power. Iran and Russia want Assad to stay. USA wants him to go, but is not prepared to risk the life of US soldiers. The rebels cant defeat Russia, but can Russia defeat the rebels? The civil war continues.

Except for the ruling class that does not wish to risk privileges, Syrians wish the democrasy they were promised. ISIS can not deliver this.

 

 

 

Actually don't the christians support Assad, because an alternative sectarian sunni government would be a death sentence for them? Look at the difference between Syria where churches are allowed and people can practice christianity freely, and in Saudi Arabia, the main backer of opposition groups who hijacked the peaceful protestors calling for reform in 2011, with no religious freedom and whose education system emphasises that all christians, jews and shias are wrong, scummy, they should be killed etc. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Actually don't the christians support Assad, because an alternative sectarian sunni government would be a death sentence for them? Look at the difference between Syria where churches are allowed and people can practice christianity freely, and in Saudi Arabia, the main backer of opposition groups who hijacked the peaceful protestors calling for reform in 2011, with no religious freedom and whose education system emphasises that all christians, jews and shias are wrong, scummy, they should be killed etc. 

I agree with your view on Saudi Arabia, but why bring them in? They are Wahabi Muslims. In Sunni and Shia nations Christians are allowed, or at least tolerated. Why would they be killed in Syria if Syria should become a democratic nation with Sunni majority in the parliament?  What is so special with Syrian Sunnism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, andres said:

I agree with your view on Saudi Arabia, but why bring them in? They are Wahabi Muslims. In Sunni and Shia nations Christians are allowed, or at least tolerated. Why would they be killed in Syria if Syria should become a democratic nation with Sunni majority in the parliament?  What is so special with Syrian Sunnism?

Because sectarians backed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the two biggest funders of ISIS, make up the bulk of the opposition unfortunately. Even in 2011, when there were indeed protestors calling for reform, these protests were hijacked by insurgents coming in from Libya, neighbouring Iraq, Jordan, and this was this support from Saudi Arabia. As early as April 2011, there were members of the opposition chanting slogans like christians to Beirut, Alawis to the tomb. The problem is the sectarian narrative that the West has been trying to push about Syria is not entirely accurate, many journalists that have gone on the ground in Syria have stated that this is something Syrians themselves deny. I can understand why citizens would want change from an authoritarian government, but many understood that this revolution would not provide democracy, instead it would end up being a dictatorial regime without religious freedom, which is worse than what the Syrians have now. I encourage you if you want to learn more about the uprising to watch this; 

Of course this dude denies Saudi involvement which is barbaric considering how heavily they are involved in Syria and Yemen now too, but it helps show that there were things we weren't aware of about the uprising from the very beginning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mohammed 1993

Many will disagree with your description, but should Saudi Arabia have succed to seduce the Syrian majority to be obidient to Saudi, did this justify Assads actions? The simple truth is that the alawites do not want to be ruled by the Sunni majority, and are prepared to go to war on this backed by Russia and Iran. Russia wants to keep their friend Assad in power for strategic reasons. Iran for obvious reasons does not wish a Sunni ruled Syria. I can understand that Shias tries to defend what Iran does, just like many Christans and Jews try to defend what Israel does. But I am certain that somewhere we all know that Assad (and Netanyahu) is a criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

Hi Mohammed 1993

Many will disagree with your description, but should Saudi Arabia have succed to seduce the Syrian majority to be obidient to Saudi, did this justify Assads actions? The simple truth is that the alawites do not want to be ruled by the Sunni majority, and are prepared to go to war on this backed by Russia and Iran. Russia wants to keep their friend Assad in power for strategic reasons. Iran for obvious reasons does not wish a Sunni ruled Syria. I can understand that Shias tries to defend what Iran does, just like many Christans and Jews try to defend what Israel does. But I am certain that somewhere we all know that Assad (and Netanyahu) is a criminal.

I mean they could disagree, but they'd have to provide evidence against evidence I provided, which would be hard to do. Of course, I am not giving Assad a freepass and I'm sure his security forces made a lot of blunders in dealing with the protestors. But again, I don't know if some of the so-called democracies in the world would not crack down brutally either. I mean just looking at some of the DAPL protestors and how security forces fired teargas upon people, tells me otherwise. Assad is guilty of warcrimes, not denying that, but after seeing what happened in Libya and Iraq, I don't support a foreign imposed government which I think will be worse for the Syrian people, who are already suffering a great deal. I would support a democratic Syria, if there was a guarantee that the "democracy" did not mean having a foreign imposed puppet. There are genuine opposition groups in Syria and there are currently peace talks being had in Kazakhstan, and I hope that some democratic reforms come out of this. Ideally everyone would leave Syria (Russia/US/Iran/Saudi/Qatar/Turkey/even Israel) alone and they would deal with their issues alone. Its really a choice between bad and worse in my view at this point. Too many failed regime change operations in the past suggest the alternative is worse. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mohammed 1993

Assad is already a puppet, unable to stay in power without help from Russia and Iran. This would not be necessary, had he had the support of his people. Unlucky for him, 60% of them are Sunnies and 12% Christians. Assad could never win an election. He is an evil man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...