The Syrian Civil War. Do you support a side?

[Swadius 2.0]

Remember what happened last time the western world gave rebels sophisticated weapons, funding, and support?

I Remember that one time Imperial France gave sophisticated weapons to some rebels and those rebels later ended up saving their asses 2 centuries down the line.

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

Accidentally, I'm sure.
Your typical politician scarcely looks further than half a decade ahead. Lest they better not drive around in open topped cars.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

Remember what happened last time the western world gave rebels sophisticated weapons, funding, and support?

Libya?

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

I think he might be trying to refer to Afghanistani Stingers some three decades back. And some other minor things.

 

[Mage246]

隐藏

Orly?

Seems strange, since I'm pretty sure there have been lots of rebellions since then. Guess he just has amnesia.

 

[Moose!]

Why should the west provide AA and AT weapons? It would be very uncertain as to whether that would shift the power in favor of secular forces.

But the West isn't interested in supporting the "secular" forces of this war.  I believe that the Syrian (and for that matter, the Iraqi) Baath party is secular, although they perhaps are better described by the French term Laïcité, rather than the general concept of secularism (which is unsurprising, considering their colonial history). Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Syrian constitution. Apparently, many Syrian Christians are siding with the government precisely because of this freedom of religion. They fear that this freedom will be infringed upon by the Rebel Alliance.

 

[Mage246]

The secular forces just happen to be more than willing to massacre their own people in the hundreds of thousands, though.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

Well yeah, but the religious affiliations of both sides are really muddled.



The Syrian government is using Hezbollah fighters for a huge amount of their fighting, and they're an extremist group. The FSA used to be composed of mostly secular people, but now Al-Nusra and other extremist groups are joining in. The trend I've been seeing is that violence against Israel and the West has been on the decline, whereas sectarian violence is increasing. Most terrorists jihading against the West are home growns nowadays.

 

[Duh]

Why should the west provide AA and AT weapons? It would be very uncertain as to whether that would shift the power in favor of secular forces.

But the West isn't interested in supporting the "secular" forces of this war. 

We were speaking of islamic radicals vs the rest of the rebel movement. Do you mean to say that governments arent differentiating between the two and providing support accordingly?

 

[rejenorst]

On the note of chemical weapons:

Syrian rebels making and using chemical gas on rabbits with generic threats:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-6O-gApVrU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIflzlYS-LA

United Nations has strong suspcions that rebels are using chemical weapons
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/06/un-says-there-are-strong-suspicions-syrias-rebels-have-used-chemical-weapons/

Reports that raids on Al-Nusra insurgent houses along the Syrian/Turkish border by Turkish forced resulted in the arrest of around 12 individuals an a confiscation of a 2kg Cylinder of Sarin gas. The Turkish president later denied that any Sarin gas was found. Mainly the Russian media picks up on this story.

http://nsnbc.me/2013/06/02/syrian-military-seizes-sarin-gas-from-rebels-russia-blocks-un-quasir-resolution/
http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/
http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_05_31/Moscow-expects-Turkey-s-explanations-for-Syrian-rebels-sarin-Lavrov-4286/
http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_05_30/Turkey-dismisses-reports-that-terror-suspects-had-sarin-2726/
http://inserbia.info/news/2013/05/turkey-group-carrying-2kg-cylinder-with-sarin-for-syria-arrested/


Problems with any information coming out of Syria is that all groups have a vested interest and are actively feeding this **** storm and possibly giving out a ton of misinformation. I would neither trust the western media or the eastern media as to what exactly is going on in Syria.

The red line for the U.S. is if Syria uses chemical weapons. Ie: Syria can look forward to Western intervention if it uses them. On the other hand the rebels have been known to blame acts on the Assad regime which it itself has committed. So they would profit from a likely chemical weapon attack indirectly in the long run. Russia on the other hand is giving its assurance that they are overseeing the chemical weapons stockpile of Syria in hopes of avoiding U.S. interference against their ally Syria:
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-syrian-chemical-weapons-under-control-111437169.html

This situation makes it really difficult to see the trees from the forest since the Russians are arming the regime, the US is backing the rebels, the EU has just lifted the arms embargo on the rebels because Hezbollah has joined the frey on Assad's side, Saudi munition cases have been found in use by the rebels etc etc... every country has a vested interest:

An image of the goals of some outside parties by a participant of the International Peace Delegation:

    Israel: wants Syria divided in smaller parts, detached from Iran, status quo for Golan Heights, and a new map for the Middle East;
    USA: wants what Israel wants and control over oil, gas, pipelines;
    UK: wants what USA wants;
    France: co-responsible with the UK for post-Ottoman colonization in the area, wants confirmed friendship France-Syria;
    Russia: wants a naval base in the Mediterranean, and an “ally”;
    China: wants what Russia wants;
    EU: wants both what Israel-USA want and what France wants;
    Iran: wants Shia power;
    Iraq: majority Shia, wants what Iran wants;
    Lebanon: wants to know what it wants;
    Saudi-Arabia: wants Sunni power;
    Egypt: wants to emerge as the conflict-manager;
    Qatar: wants the same as Saudi Arabia and Egypt;
    Gulf States: want what USA-UK want;
    The Arab League: wants no repetition of Libya, tries human rights;
    Turkey: wants to assert itself relative to the (Israel-USA) successors to the (France-UK-Italy) successors to the Ottoman Empire, and a buffer zone in Syria.
    UN: wants to emerge as the conflict manager.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/on-the-road-to-damascus-an-eyewitness-report/5336070

Ultimately its a **** storm.

Personally I would prefer it if the Syrian government wins because:

a) I don't like the militancy and religious extremist views of Al Nusra who have more influence and resources than the FSA itself http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group


b) because the rebels are a mish mash of various groups that have little in common with the original aims of ousting Assad from power in a fight for freedom and democracy. Its now turned into the desire for an Islamic state. Under Assad the state practiced religious tolerance, I should know because I was there in 2006 and there where plenty of Churches and Mosques and no real religious oppression. Apart from which the Syrian rebels have had and do have a lot of infighting and its possible that the war will continue even after Assad is toppled: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2013/05/01/Syria-s-other-war-intra-rebel-skirmishes.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=773_1355764026

c) Some of the rebels don't mind taking UN hostages and making idiotic demands with non-leverage: http://rt.com/news/syria-un-rebels-peacekeepers-hostage-910/  they were later released thanks to a brokered ceasefire. Technically the Syrian government could have just ignored the situation and made the rebels look even worse indirectly but they didn't afaik but then I have little information on this. 

d) This conflict has the potential to explode and become regional with so many actors having their hand in the pot, already the conflict has spilled over to Lebanon and trickled over to Israel thanks to Israeli airstrikes on Damascus due to potential arms trading with Hezbollah who are Syria's ally. In my opinion Hezbollah are ****ing kittens compared to some of the rebel groups in Syria. The Iraqi military have also gotten involved and have helped Assad's regime at the border to Iraq thanks to majority Shia influence. As for the Kurds in Syria the Syrian troops pulled out of Kurdish areas in the hope that they remain neutral in the conflict, the Kurds did fight against the rebels for a time and then decided to align with them but have complained about the infighting and lack of organization in the FSA:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/23/world/kurdish-militia-decides-to-align-with-syria-rebels/#.UbAeRtg-fTU
I think that they would prefer to not side with anyone since they understand that democracy won't be achieved by either party: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130426/syria-rebels-and-kurds-clash-aleppo
The only reason why I wouldn't root for the Kurds is because I don't think their position is tenable. I would like for them to have autonomy in the region but I am unsure if Turkey will be accommodating or not. Apart from which, as an actor they can't rule over the whole of Syria unfortunately without the entire situation reverting back to square 1.

 

[Moose!]

Why should the west provide AA and AT weapons? It would be very uncertain as to whether that would shift the power in favor of secular forces.

But the West isn't interested in supporting the "secular" forces of this war. 

We were speaking of islamic radicals vs the rest of the rebel movement. Do you mean to say that governments arent differentiating between the two and providing support accordingly?

Ah, that makes sense. And no, governments are differentiating between the two, although I imagine it would be difficult to provide support accordingly, particularly if that support was military hardware.

 

[xenoargh]

The fact is, there is nothing like a classical-liberal faction in Syria worth mentioning. 

That the Baathists are "secular" is totally irrelevant; so was the Nazi Party and so were the Communists, yet that didn't stop them from killing millions or being evil. 

Let's say instead, more accurately, that the Baathist's religion is Power and Keeping the Shiites In Their Place, with the inevitable consequences as the Shiite population exploded over the last 30 years but remained at the bottom of the totem-pole economically, socially, politically, etc.

Like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, all the people who could provide democratic government are totally compromised or are exiles or are dead.  Like all three places, Sunnis and Shiites are at each other's throats over issues that are so old and dangerous that nobody in their right mind would get in the middle unless they were completely ready and able to sit on them.

If the West wants to do more than talk, we're talking about another long occupation, otherwise it's a complete waste of time, money and human lives. 

Sadly, I don't think the West has the spine or the capital to back up it's lofty rhetoric and has done the worst of all possible things; call for change and then sit around looking impotent. 

Obama had to be practically dragged to the issue by the Far Left over here and only got involved at all because he had an election to win.  I think that his speech telling Assad to step down was the most reluctant speech he's ever given; it was obviously insincere at the time and, well... look how much the U.S. has done since.  It's pretty sad when the EU is more excited about doing something about such an obvious mess than we are.

More to the point, the Russians and Chinese have very few reasons to play ball in the UN this time; unlike Afghanistan, it's not an obvious quagmire for whoever was foolish enough to invade it and unlike Iraq, it's not terribly important strategically, so they have very little reason to do anything but commiserate in public... but privately tell us that they will regrettably have to veto any motions to do more than make speeches.  The Russians in particular have played this round very well. 

And of course, all the Arab League fat cats are in a tizzy; normally, they'd throw in with Assad and help him quell the uprising (he's one of them, after all and they've played that game for decades) but ever since Egypt, I think they're afraid of taking sides in public, lest the same thing happen to them. 

The Iranians must be laughing a lot; it's a pretty good revenge over that WikiLeak'd diplomatic correspondence where they practically begged the U.S. to knock out their nuclear program...

Hence stalemate and impotence for two years after Obama told Assad that he should go and the EU tepidly agreed with him, and a hundred thousand dead civilians.  And the West will get all the blame, no matter who wins.

 

[Moose!]

Let's say instead, more accurately, that the Baathist's religion is Power and Keeping the Shiites In Their Place, with the inevitable consequences as the Shiite population exploded over the last 30 years but remained at the bottom of the totem-pole economically, socially, politically, etc.

Assad is a Shi'ite. You're mixing up Iraqi and Syrian Baathist parties.

 

[rejenorst]

That the Baathists are "secular" is totally irrelevant; so was the Nazi Party and so were the Communists, yet that didn't stop them from killing millions or being evil. 

What would you prefer? A secular government interested in the stability of its own country or a theocracy aligned and in part composed of Al Queda that's possibly interested in removing U.S. influence from all Middle-Eastern Islamic nations?

Ie: not irrelevant.

The group is generally described as being made up of Sunni Islamist Jihadists. Its goal is to overthrow the Assad government and to create a Pan-Islamic state under sharia law and aims to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate.[14] It encourages all Syrians to take part in the war against the Syrian government.[15]

In an interview with a UAE newspaper, Abu Ahmed, a man identifying himself as the Al Nusra military commander for the Hasakah Governorate, described the organisation's goals as deposing Bashar al-Assad, and then establishing a state under the Quran and sharia.[citation needed] Alcohol, tobacco and entertainment considered immoral would be banned, but the rules would be introduced gradually and after giving people advice first.

Members of the group are accused of attacking the religious beliefs of non-Sunnis in Syria, including the Alawis.[16]

Members of the group have referred to the United States and Israel as enemies of Islam[16] and warned against Western intervention in Syria.[14] Syrian members of the group claim they are only fighting the Assad government and would not attack Western states.[14] The United States accused it of being affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq;[17] in April 2013 the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq released an audio statement affirming this connection.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front

For now they're promising not to and I can only hope that they continue to hold to that promise.

More to the point, the Russians and Chinese have very few reasons to play ball in the UN this time; unlike Afghanistan, it's not an obvious quagmire for whoever was foolish enough to invade it and unlike Iraq, it's not terribly important strategically, so they have very little reason to do anything but commiserate in public... but privately tell us that they will regrettably have to veto any motions to do more than make speeches.  The Russians in particular have played this round very well. 

Russia has a naval facility in Tartus (Syria) its the only base they have in the Mediterranean, an electronic surveillance facility in Latakia and an air base at Tadur Palmyra. Additionally its said that about 10% of all of Russia's arms sales are to Syria. So strategically I'd say they have plenty of interest. They certainly won't play ball in the UN and are getting quite annoyed at U.S. and EU attempts to interfere. They claim for example that arming the rebel group is in violation of international law.
http://rt.com/news/syria-opposition-illegal-law-216/

Something Austria seems to agree with: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2013/may/14/austria-eu-syria-arms-embargo

They were certainly interested in avoiding another Libya.

As for another potential strategical significance; Syria is allied with Iran and Hezbollah. Any war with Iran would have to factor in the possibility of supply lines to Hezbollah via Syria and military consequences from Syria. There's also oil:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/oil-and-pipeline-geopolitics-the-us-nato-race-for-syrias-black-gold/5330216

Syria’s proven oil reserves, amounting to 2.5 billion barrels, are greater than those of all neighboring countries except Iraq: according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s estimation of its oil reserves. This makes Syria one of the largest producers and exporters of crude oil in the Middle East.

 

[Kobrag]

Meh, I 'support' the rebels.
If only because Iran becomes more isolated and Putin is a facist dickhead.


My general opinion is that civil wars should be allowed to let themselves play out without interference. In this case I say arm the rebels and damn the consequences, Russia and Syria both had a chance to solve it peacefully and avoid the aftereffects of a possible eradication of the current regime.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Shouldn't we support the rebels from Star Wars against the Sith Empire is the rebels are losing? Or even if they're not, surely any support would be good.

 

[Moose!]

You Rebel scum. 

 

[rejenorst]

Depends on what or who your supporting. Right now its like closing your eyes and throwing weapons into the dark hoping some nut doesn't use them to shoot you or your allies. Its easy to support civil war in countries which we deem fascist but the question is does the majority of that country support the regime or is the majority against it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda

Or perhaps the better question is do the majority support all out civil war?

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

You're using pretty biased sources in your posts here Rej, like Russian gov. websites and "anti-mainstream propaganda" sites that get sources from conspiracy sites.

 

[rejenorst]

When I use RT sources I generally make sure I get a secondary source for the same article unless I state that its the "Russian point of view".

RT sources used:
Inconsequential since I am stating this is what the Russians think:
http://rt.com/news/syria-opposition-illegal-law-216/
Counterpart:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2013/may/14/austria-eu-syria-arms-embargo

Inconsequential since I already stated that Turkey denies the allegations:
http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/
Counterpart:
http://nsnbc.me/2013/06/02/syrian-military-seizes-sarin-gas-from-rebels-russia-blocks-un-quasir-resolution/


As for anti-mainstream... yeah sorry not to spoon feed you information from the mainstream.