The Confused Situation in Syria

[Anonymous]

^ Assad, "democratically elected".... You are funny.

Not "democratically elected" in any sense of a free society choosing its leaders from among the best it has...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Assad, "democratically elected".... You are funny.

Not "democratically elected" in any sense of a free society choosing its leaders from among the best it has...

Are your Syrian? Did you vote in Syria? How would you know otherwise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Assad, "democratically elected".... You are funny.

Not "democratically elected" in any sense of a free society choosing its leaders from among the best it has...

Are your Syrian? Did you vote in Syria? How would you know otherwise?

Because the vetting and nominating process specifically excluded many other popular candidates, leaving just Assad and two others who pretty much everyone acknowledges were only little known, symbolic candidates to give it a semblance of legitimacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Assad, "democratically elected".... You are funny.

Not "democratically elected" in any sense of a free society choosing its leaders from among the best it has...

Are your Syrian? Did you vote in Syria? How would you know otherwise?

Because the vetting and nominating process specifically excluded many other popular candidates, leaving just Assad and two others who pretty much everyone acknowledges were only little known, symbolic candidates to give it a semblance of legitimacy.

Who did you hear this from? Do you have Syrian friends? What other differing viewpoints did you consider before accepting this one as being closest to the truth? Do you trust that our MSM is impartial and unbiased?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Assad, "democratically elected".... You are funny.

Not "democratically elected" in any sense of a free society choosing its leaders from among the best it has...

Are your Syrian? Did you vote in Syria? How would you know otherwise?

Because the vetting and nominating process specifically excluded many other popular candidates, leaving just Assad and two others who pretty much everyone acknowledges were only little known, symbolic candidates to give it a semblance of legitimacy.

Who did you hear this from? Do you have Syrian friends? What other differing viewpoints did you consider before accepting this one as being closest to the truth? Do you trust that our MSM is impartial and unbiased?

That hissing sound you hear is your credibility fizzling out. Assad would not have run in an election that he didn't know that he would win. The 87% of the vote he got was not quite up to Soviet standards, but demonstrates the lack of serious opposition he faced.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Assad, "democratically elected".... You are funny.

Not "democratically elected" in any sense of a free society choosing its leaders from among the best it has...

Are your Syrian? Did you vote in Syria? How would you know otherwise?

Because the vetting and nominating process specifically excluded many other popular candidates, leaving just Assad and two others who pretty much everyone acknowledges were only little known, symbolic candidates to give it a semblance of legitimacy.

Who did you hear this from? Do you have Syrian friends? What other differing viewpoints did you consider before accepting this one as being closest to the truth? Do you trust that our MSM is impartial and unbiased?

That hissing sound you hear is your credibility fizzling out. Assad would not have run in an election that he didn't know that he would win. The 87% of the vote he got was not quite up to Soviet standards, but demonstrates the lack of serious opposition he faced.

What credibility do I have as an anonymous writer to begin with? I just wanted to know how the conclusions were drawn. I am not on Syria's side or Russia's side. I just want us to question what we hear and read and consider that there are many sides to the story. No good guys, no bad guys. Everyone works towards an end.

[Anonymous]

This was recently going around FB.


If in case it was all too confusing for you, here's a summary:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) while some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

There is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is good) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so the U.S. says they are bad while secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin (who is bad because he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks, including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi, has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing (!?).

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons with which to bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad which is good, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that silly anti-Semite who leads the Labor Party, Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (super bad -- see Paris, November 2015).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS and, because Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good?) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only consistently bad).

To Sunni Muslims an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War. Therefore, the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (duh).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point?) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad ) many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad ) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (now, straining credulity, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started.

Got it?

Very simplistic and wrong is a few cases. Also how can you talk about Syria without mentioning Israel involvement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Assad, "democratically elected".... You are funny.

Not "democratically elected" in any sense of a free society choosing its leaders from among the best it has...

Are your Syrian? Did you vote in Syria? How would you know otherwise?

Because the vetting and nominating process specifically excluded many other popular candidates, leaving just Assad and two others who pretty much everyone acknowledges were only little known, symbolic candidates to give it a semblance of legitimacy.

Who did you hear this from? Do you have Syrian friends? What other differing viewpoints did you consider before accepting this one as being closest to the truth? Do you trust that our MSM is impartial and unbiased?

That hissing sound you hear is your credibility fizzling out. Assad would not have run in an election that he didn't know that he would win. The 87% of the vote he got was not quite up to Soviet standards, but demonstrates the lack of serious opposition he faced.

What credibility do I have as an anonymous writer to begin with? I just wanted to know how the conclusions were drawn. I am not on Syria's side or Russia's side. I just want us to question what we hear and read and consider that there are many sides to the story. No good guys, no bad guys. Everyone works towards an end.

For someone who supposedly has no dog in the hunt thou protesteth too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Assad, "democratically elected".... You are funny.

Not "democratically elected" in any sense of a free society choosing its leaders from among the best it has...

Are your Syrian? Did you vote in Syria? How would you know otherwise?

Because the vetting and nominating process specifically excluded many other popular candidates, leaving just Assad and two others who pretty much everyone acknowledges were only little known, symbolic candidates to give it a semblance of legitimacy.

Who did you hear this from? Do you have Syrian friends? What other differing viewpoints did you consider before accepting this one as being closest to the truth? Do you trust that our MSM is impartial and unbiased?

Why don't you give an example of how the Syrian election was 100% legitimate with ABSOLUTELY NO FRAUD OR SHENANIGANS.

Since the MSM is all full of lies and the US is just overthrowing another democratically elected government like the one in Iraq (but not Libya. See, Colonel G held no formal leaderdship title after the early 1970s), we need YOU to guide us with the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Assad, "democratically elected".... You are funny.

Not "democratically elected" in any sense of a free society choosing its leaders from among the best it has...

Are your Syrian? Did you vote in Syria? How would you know otherwise?

Because the vetting and nominating process specifically excluded many other popular candidates, leaving just Assad and two others who pretty much everyone acknowledges were only little known, symbolic candidates to give it a semblance of legitimacy.

Who did you hear this from? Do you have Syrian friends? What other differing viewpoints did you consider before accepting this one as being closest to the truth? Do you trust that our MSM is impartial and unbiased?

Why don't you give an example of how the Syrian election was 100% legitimate with ABSOLUTELY NO FRAUD OR SHENANIGANS.

Since the MSM is all full of lies and the US is just overthrowing another democratically elected government like the one in Iraq (but not Libya. See, Colonel G held no formal leaderdship title after the early 1970s), we need YOU to guide us with the truth.

We are two different posters. I posed the questions but I am not the poster who wrote that "US is just overthrowing another democratically elected government." I also didn't say MSM was full of lies. I was saying that there is no one in this fight that is all good or all bad, including our MSM, and that we should question the end they are leading us to.

I don't have the answers or the truth. Just possible scenarios. I do have tons of questions.

Why didn't President Obama send troops when we had the chance? What was he hoping would happen?
Why did Putin say Turkey stabbed them in the back? Why is he imposing sanctions on Turkey so quickly? Was this all planned out ahead of time by any chance?
Why did Turkey REALLY shoot down the plane?
Etc.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have the answers or the truth. Just possible scenarios. I do have tons of questions.

Why didn't President Obama send troops when we had the chance? What was he hoping would happen?
Why did Putin say Turkey stabbed them in the back? Why is he imposing sanctions on Turkey so quickly? Was this all planned out ahead of time by any chance?
Why did Turkey REALLY shoot down the plane?
Etc.

I'm not sure what you mean about Obama having the chance to send troops. He requested an authorization of the use of force from Congress and Congress failed to provide one. Obama doesn't have authorization to attack the government of Syria, only terrorists responsible for 9/11. If you think troops should be deployed in Syria, you should talk to Congress. It would also be nice if you could outline the role that you believe these troops should play.

Putin said Turkey stabbed them in the back because Turkey shot down a Russian bomber. Putin is imposing sanctions in retaliations. It does not take long to accuse someone of stabbing you in the back or to impose sanctions, so no need for advanced planning.

Who knows why Turkey really shot down the plane? Maybe it was protecting ethnic Turkmen or maybe it was retaliation for Russia bombing ISIS oil tankers that were delivering oil to Turkey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was recently going around FB.


If in case it was all too confusing for you, here's a summary:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).

Too simplistic:

Bashir Assad is weak and the people around him who were in his father's inner circle and have too much to lose with reforms drove that whole push back against democratic reform

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) while some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

Islamic Sate ( IS) are not native to Syria, they came from Iraq and their numbers are added to by dissafected 2nd generation Muslims from EU and US Ask any Syrian still there. Their country has been taken over by foreign militias.

So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

The US is pretty immature in being able to devine who is a "good investment" of our military aid and training. Giving weapons to poorly understood groups has ended up defeating our intended policy and lead to the arming of groups like IS who go on to destroy places like Syria with weapons we made available.
[b]
WE are not " the good guys" to these people. When you are a child in the Middle East or a parent who has lost a family member, the USA ceases being good when the shrapnel that killed your family has teh words " made in the USA" stamped on it[/b]

There is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is good) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so the U.S. says they are bad while secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Bring back Kurdistan. It happens to be the only chance

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin (who is bad because he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks, including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi, has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing (!?).

Russia didn't just decide to do this . Russia has been supporting Syria for 50 years. They have bases there. Its their ME satelite state, which is partly why Israel hates Syria so much.

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Actually, we show less loyalty to " the people we are backing " than Putin does his.

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons with which to bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

Iran has always supported Hezbollah and has always been allied with Assad family.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad which is good, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that silly anti-Semite who leads the Labor Party, Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (super bad -- see Paris, November 2015).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS and, because Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good?) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only consistently bad).

This is spin only

To Sunni Muslims an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War. Therefore, the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (duh).

Everyone knows IS is crazy Everyone

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point?) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad ) many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad ) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (now, straining credulity, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started.

No, we have the EU, Iran Russia and Hezzbolah all wanting to crush IS and we have Russia calling out Turkey on its smuggling undermining the effort.


The only one left supporting IS is Saudi Arabia and with the Iranians looking for a buyer for 3bn barrels , the Saudis are increasingly irrelevant.

As for Assad, have you ever noticed what Russians do with those who are no longer useful to them ?

Got it?

[Anonymous]

As stated before, Putin is definitely playing dangerous games. He has only made a few token strikes against IS positions, while instead focusing the brunt of Russian military assets against Assad opposition forces.

Meanwhile, as many as 7,000 Russians may be part if IS, and IS has declared part of the Caucasus to be under its control.

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russias-false-narrative-syria-december-1-2015

[Anonymous]

A day after meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Paris, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that Israel will continue to protect its interests by acting in Syria to prevent the transfer of game-changing weaponry to Hezbollah.

Netanyahu, speaking in Acre at the Galilee Conference, repeated what he said two weeks ago at a Jerusalem Post conference: that Israel acts from time to time in Syria to prevent it from being turned into another terror front against Israel, as he said Iran was trying to do on the Golan Heights.

http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Netanyahu-admits-that-Israel-operates-in-Syria-from-time-to-time-435950#article=6017NzBFNUMyQUY0ODgxN0Q3RUZBRkRCRDA4NTVBQjQ3OUM=

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A day after meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Paris, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that Israel will continue to protect its interests by acting in Syria to prevent the transfer of game-changing weaponry to Hezbollah.

Netanyahu, speaking in Acre at the Galilee Conference, repeated what he said two weeks ago at a Jerusalem Post conference: that Israel acts from time to time in Syria to prevent it from being turned into another terror front against Israel, as he said Iran was trying to do on the Golan Heights.

http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Netanyahu-admits-that-Israel-operates-in-Syria-from-time-to-time-435950#article=6017NzBFNUMyQUY0ODgxN0Q3RUZBRkRCRDA4NTVBQjQ3OUM=

Hezbollah is apparently fighting against ISIS and in support of Assad. And Russia considers Hezbollah to be a friendly force. http://www.jpost.com/International/Russia-does-not-consider-Hezbollah-a-terrorist-group-encourages-their-cooperation-in-Syria-433175

And ISIS has declared war on Hamas and Fattah in Palestine. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to buy into the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend thinking. https://www.rt.com/news/270952-hamas-isis-israel-threat/