It's not the gun laws, it's the Islamists!

[Lizard]

My opinion is based on what Syrians told me when I was in Syria.

[UGagain]

Assad has the overwhelming support of Syrians.

[Digby]

Overwhelming support in the sense that no other candidates are permitted to run and you and your family can get into rather a lot of trouble if you don't vote for the one permitted candidate, and the one permitted candidate can do what he wants with the ballot bx.

[rowan]

The alternative would be, what? Muslim brotherhood if the Sunni majority had their way. Sure, that worked out just fine in Egypt. Alernatively, a puppet government subservient to US interests, like those installed in Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya? Hmmm, that hasn't worked out too well either, has it? & what preceded the Assads - radical military rule (brought to power following a US-backed coup). It was the elder Assad who sorted the country out, initially anyway, and at least there was stability under Assad the younger until the usual suspects sent their trained monkeys in to instigate a proxy war. But if Assad is removed by force, Syria will end up exactly like Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya, who were also on the US hit-list revealed by former general Wesley Clark after 9/11, btw.

[UGagain]

Overwhelming support in the sense that no other candidates are permitted to run and you and your family can get into rather a lot of trouble if you don't vote for the one permitted candidate, and the one permitted candidate can do what he wants with the ballot bx.

None of which is true of Syria of course.

[rowan]

Right now we have some kind of coup attempt going on in Turkey. Hard to get news because the government jams up a lot of newsites when serious things happen. The Bosphorus bridges have even been blocked off, apparently...

[rowan]

Military choppers buzzing around overhead right now. & worst of all, they jammed up Facebook

It has officially been described as an uprising attempt from within the military. Last time there was an official military coup here was 1980, though there were a couple of attempts in the ninetees, and a few years after I got here the military got very upset with the government's choice of (religiously inclined) president. Then the government put the entire military heirarchy in prison and shut them up for a while in more ways than one...

[Digby]

Overwhelming support in the sense that no other candidates are permitted to run and you and your family can get into rather a lot of trouble if you don't vote for the one permitted candidate, and the one permitted candidate can do what he wants with the ballot bx.

None of which is true of Syria of course.

I suppose we could cite the candidate whose name escapes me but that had a CV which Andrea Leadsome would blanch at and who during the campaign noted people should vote for Assad. But it's probably not going out on a limb to suggest that in the real world a country with 25% and above of a displaced population isn't one with a popular leader, it'd be more credible to claim the world was flat.

[UGagain]

Overwhelming support in the sense that no other candidates are permitted to run and you and your family can get into rather a lot of trouble if you don't vote for the one permitted candidate, and the one permitted candidate can do what he wants with the ballot bx.

None of which is true of Syria of course.

I suppose we could cite the candidate whose name escapes me but that had a CV which Andrea Leadsome would blanch at and who during the campaign noted people should vote for Assad. But it's probably not going out on a limb to suggest that in the real world a country with 25% and above of a displaced population isn't one with a popular leader, it'd be more credible to claim the world was flat.

Of course the vast majority of displaced Syrians have fled to government held areas. In the real world that is.

Your statements regarding political conditions in Syria are complete falsehoods.

[Digby]

None of which is true of Syria of course.

I suppose we could cite the candidate whose name escapes me but that had a CV which Andrea Leadsome would blanch at and who during the campaign noted people should vote for Assad. But it's probably not going out on a limb to suggest that in the real world a country with 25% and above of a displaced population isn't one with a popular leader, it'd be more credible to claim the world was flat.

Of course the vast majority of displaced Syrians have fled to government held areas. In the real world that is.

Your statements regarding political conditions in Syria are complete falsehoods.

The vast majority? Or does that discount those in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan,Egypt...?

Nonetheless most politicians come under pressure if there's not a stable society that sees economic growth of 3-5% per annum. Putin's puppet presides (sort of) over a country in utter turmoil, one where with Russian support they're barrel bombing their own population, just about all the industry that was has gone, and there's no recovery on the horizon. This isn't a popular man, though like Putin he understands something of state controlled media and rigged elections.

[rowan]

There was stability in Syria. There might have been simmering discontent, just as there is in many countries allied to the West, but there was definitely stability. I went there shortly before the whole think kicked off, hooked up with a UN photographer and wrote a couple of articles for the press about the place. So the moment rebels started pouring in after the Arab Spring everybody in Turkey knew exactly what was going on and who was behind it (but I might be called an "anti-Westerner" or "anti-American" if I mention who). They're very savvy about that kind of thing here. This has to be a lot more subtle than WOMDs, however. This one was started as a proxy war, with rebels quickly turning to vicious acts of terrorism against civilians (including the chemical attack in Damscus), basically forcing the government to defend itself, thus creating a brutal civil war. Now the rebels are on the back foot and holed up in civilian areas, so the media can gleefully report whenever unpleasant methods and civilian casualties are involved. Add water, stir thoroughly and - hey presto! - another Hitler of the Month. Amazing how many people fall for this strategy each time just because it's managed in a slightly different way...

[UGagain]

I suppose we could cite the candidate whose name escapes me but that had a CV which Andrea Leadsome would blanch at and who during the campaign noted people should vote for Assad. But it's probably not going out on a limb to suggest that in the real world a country with 25% and above of a displaced population isn't one with a popular leader, it'd be more credible to claim the world was flat.

Of course the vast majority of displaced Syrians have fled to government held areas. In the real world that is.

Your statements regarding political conditions in Syria are complete falsehoods.

The vast majority? Or does that discount those in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan,Egypt...?

Nonetheless most politicians come under pressure if there's not a stable society that sees economic growth of 3-5% per annum. Putin's puppet presides (sort of) over a country in utter turmoil, one where with Russian support they're barrel bombing their own population, just about all the industry that was has gone, and there's no recovery on the horizon. This isn't a popular man, though like Putin he understands something of state controlled media and rigged elections.

Clearly it doesn't discount them.

Putin's puppet, barrel bombs, state controlled media,rigged elections.

You've hit 4 of your talking point targets.

You haven't addressed the issue. Bashar Al-Assad has the overwhelming support of the Syrian people because they understand that Syria's turmoil is the direct result of western proxy forces attacking their country.

[Sandydragon]

Of course the vast majority of displaced Syrians have fled to government held areas. In the real world that is.

Your statements regarding political conditions in Syria are complete falsehoods.

The vast majority? Or does that discount those in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan,Egypt...?

Nonetheless most politicians come under pressure if there's not a stable society that sees economic growth of 3-5% per annum. Putin's puppet presides (sort of) over a country in utter turmoil, one where with Russian support they're barrel bombing their own population, just about all the industry that was has gone, and there's no recovery on the horizon. This isn't a popular man, though like Putin he understands something of state controlled media and rigged elections.

Clearly it doesn't discount them.

Putin's puppet, barrel bombs, state controlled media,rigged elections.

You've hit 4 of your talking point targets.

You haven't addressed the issue. Bashar Al-Assad has the overwhelming support of the Syrian people because they understand that Syria's turmoil is the direct result of western proxy forces attacking their country.

To call it overwhelming is a bit misleading. He has support in the areas he controls where he polls well. In other areas, he is less popular. His support base is tribal as much as anything so perhaps not surprising that he has natural supporters who would prefer him. Assad has a power base, if he didn't then he, and his father, would not have lasted as long as they have. Equally, its clearly apparent that significant parts of the country are far less supportive of him, exacerbated by the regimes use of extreme violence against them. The use of indiscriminate aerial bombardment against civilian areas which is a war crime.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bashar-al- ... ll/5495643

[Sandydragon]

There was stability in Syria. There might have been simmering discontent, just as there is in many countries allied to the West, but there was definitely stability. I went there shortly before the whole think kicked off, hooked up with a UN photographer and wrote a couple of articles for the press about the place. So the moment rebels started pouring in after the Arab Spring everybody in Turkey knew exactly what was going on and who was behind it (but I might be called an "anti-Westerner" or "anti-American" if I mention who). They're very savvy about that kind of thing here. This has to be a lot more subtle than WOMDs, however. This one was started as a proxy war, with rebels quickly turning to vicious acts of terrorism against civilians (including the chemical attack in Damscus), basically forcing the government to defend itself, thus creating a brutal civil war. Now the rebels are on the back foot and holed up in civilian areas, so the media can gleefully report whenever unpleasant methods and civilian casualties are involved. Add water, stir thoroughly and - hey presto! - another Hitler of the Month. Amazing how many people fall for this strategy each time just because it's managed in a slightly different way...

Stability enforced by absolute rule. There were uprisings before which were brutally put down. Plenty of countries can be described as stable yet that doesn't mean they are properly democratic and that law and order isn't enforced in a way which can only be described as brutal.

[UGagain]

The vast majority? Or does that discount those in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan,Egypt...?

Nonetheless most politicians come under pressure if there's not a stable society that sees economic growth of 3-5% per annum. Putin's puppet presides (sort of) over a country in utter turmoil, one where with Russian support they're barrel bombing their own population, just about all the industry that was has gone, and there's no recovery on the horizon. This isn't a popular man, though like Putin he understands something of state controlled media and rigged elections.

Clearly it doesn't discount them.

Putin's puppet, barrel bombs, state controlled media,rigged elections.

You've hit 4 of your talking point targets.

You haven't addressed the issue. Bashar Al-Assad has the overwhelming support of the Syrian people because they understand that Syria's turmoil is the direct result of western proxy forces attacking their country.

To call it overwhelming is a bit misleading. He has support in the areas he controls where he polls well. In other areas, he is less popular. His support base is tribal as much as anything so perhaps not surprising that he has natural supporters who would prefer him. Assad has a power base, if he didn't then he, and his father, would not have lasted as long as they have. Equally, its clearly apparent that significant parts of the country are far less supportive of him, exacerbated by the regimes use of extreme violence against them. The use of indiscriminate aerial bombardment against civilian areas which is a war crime.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bashar-al- ... ll/5495643

So you haven't addresed the point either.

[UGagain]

There was stability in Syria. There might have been simmering discontent, just as there is in many countries allied to the West, but there was definitely stability. I went there shortly before the whole think kicked off, hooked up with a UN photographer and wrote a couple of articles for the press about the place. So the moment rebels started pouring in after the Arab Spring everybody in Turkey knew exactly what was going on and who was behind it (but I might be called an "anti-Westerner" or "anti-American" if I mention who). They're very savvy about that kind of thing here. This has to be a lot more subtle than WOMDs, however. This one was started as a proxy war, with rebels quickly turning to vicious acts of terrorism against civilians (including the chemical attack in Damscus), basically forcing the government to defend itself, thus creating a brutal civil war. Now the rebels are on the back foot and holed up in civilian areas, so the media can gleefully report whenever unpleasant methods and civilian casualties are involved. Add water, stir thoroughly and - hey presto! - another Hitler of the Month. Amazing how many people fall for this strategy each time just because it's managed in a slightly different way...

Stability enforced by absolute rule. There were uprisings before which were brutally put down. Plenty of countries can be described as stable yet that doesn't mean they are properly democratic and that law and order isn't enforced in a way which can only be described as brutal.

Do you describe the UK as as democratic?

[rowan]

There was stability in Syria. There might have been simmering discontent, just as there is in many countries allied to the West, but there was definitely stability. I went there shortly before the whole think kicked off, hooked up with a UN photographer and wrote a couple of articles for the press about the place. So the moment rebels started pouring in after the Arab Spring everybody in Turkey knew exactly what was going on and who was behind it (but I might be called an "anti-Westerner" or "anti-American" if I mention who). They're very savvy about that kind of thing here. This has to be a lot more subtle than WOMDs, however. This one was started as a proxy war, with rebels quickly turning to vicious acts of terrorism against civilians (including the chemical attack in Damscus), basically forcing the government to defend itself, thus creating a brutal civil war. Now the rebels are on the back foot and holed up in civilian areas, so the media can gleefully report whenever unpleasant methods and civilian casualties are involved. Add water, stir thoroughly and - hey presto! - another Hitler of the Month. Amazing how many people fall for this strategy each time just because it's managed in a slightly different way...

Stability enforced by absolute rule. There were uprisings before which were brutally put down. Plenty of countries can be described as stable yet that doesn't mean they are properly democratic and that law and order isn't enforced in a way which can only be described as brutal.

Sure, like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Qatar and a whole bunch of other longstanding US allies. But perhaps you prefer puppet governments subservient to US interests, such as those installed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Assad was sipping tea with the queen of England and meeting with the pope not so long ago. How quicky he was turned into the latest Hilter-of-the-month by a proxy war instigated by foreign powers and employing terrorist methods! There is about a million times more reason to lynch Obomber, Hillary, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield et al, and don't try to tell me America has democracy and that there is no brutality toward its own citizens.

[UGagain]

There was stability in Syria. There might have been simmering discontent, just as there is in many countries allied to the West, but there was definitely stability. I went there shortly before the whole think kicked off, hooked up with a UN photographer and wrote a couple of articles for the press about the place. So the moment rebels started pouring in after the Arab Spring everybody in Turkey knew exactly what was going on and who was behind it (but I might be called an "anti-Westerner" or "anti-American" if I mention who). They're very savvy about that kind of thing here. This has to be a lot more subtle than WOMDs, however. This one was started as a proxy war, with rebels quickly turning to vicious acts of terrorism against civilians (including the chemical attack in Damscus), basically forcing the government to defend itself, thus creating a brutal civil war. Now the rebels are on the back foot and holed up in civilian areas, so the media can gleefully report whenever unpleasant methods and civilian casualties are involved. Add water, stir thoroughly and - hey presto! - another Hitler of the Month. Amazing how many people fall for this strategy each time just because it's managed in a slightly different way...

Stability enforced by absolute rule. There were uprisings before which were brutally put down. Plenty of countries can be described as stable yet that doesn't mean they are properly democratic and that law and order isn't enforced in a way which can only be described as brutal.

Sure, like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Qatar and a whole bunch of other longstanding US allies. But perhaps you prefer puppet governments subservient to US interests, such as those installed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Assad was sipping tea with the queen of England and meeting with the pope not so long ago. How quicky he was turned into the latest Hilter-of-the-month by a proxy war instigated by foreign powers and employing terrorist methods! There is about a million times more reason to lynch Obomber, Hillary, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield et al, and don't try to tell me America has democracy and that there is no brutality toward its own citizens.

Dude, you have no idea of the capacity of these people to excuse mass murder of black and brown people.

[Sandydragon]

There was stability in Syria. There might have been simmering discontent, just as there is in many countries allied to the West, but there was definitely stability. I went there shortly before the whole think kicked off, hooked up with a UN photographer and wrote a couple of articles for the press about the place. So the moment rebels started pouring in after the Arab Spring everybody in Turkey knew exactly what was going on and who was behind it (but I might be called an "anti-Westerner" or "anti-American" if I mention who). They're very savvy about that kind of thing here. This has to be a lot more subtle than WOMDs, however. This one was started as a proxy war, with rebels quickly turning to vicious acts of terrorism against civilians (including the chemical attack in Damscus), basically forcing the government to defend itself, thus creating a brutal civil war. Now the rebels are on the back foot and holed up in civilian areas, so the media can gleefully report whenever unpleasant methods and civilian casualties are involved. Add water, stir thoroughly and - hey presto! - another Hitler of the Month. Amazing how many people fall for this strategy each time just because it's managed in a slightly different way...

Stability enforced by absolute rule. There were uprisings before which were brutally put down. Plenty of countries can be described as stable yet that doesn't mean they are properly democratic and that law and order isn't enforced in a way which can only be described as brutal.

Do you describe the UK as as democratic?

Compared to much of the world, yes.

[Sandydragon]

There was stability in Syria. There might have been simmering discontent, just as there is in many countries allied to the West, but there was definitely stability. I went there shortly before the whole think kicked off, hooked up with a UN photographer and wrote a couple of articles for the press about the place. So the moment rebels started pouring in after the Arab Spring everybody in Turkey knew exactly what was going on and who was behind it (but I might be called an "anti-Westerner" or "anti-American" if I mention who). They're very savvy about that kind of thing here. This has to be a lot more subtle than WOMDs, however. This one was started as a proxy war, with rebels quickly turning to vicious acts of terrorism against civilians (including the chemical attack in Damscus), basically forcing the government to defend itself, thus creating a brutal civil war. Now the rebels are on the back foot and holed up in civilian areas, so the media can gleefully report whenever unpleasant methods and civilian casualties are involved. Add water, stir thoroughly and - hey presto! - another Hitler of the Month. Amazing how many people fall for this strategy each time just because it's managed in a slightly different way...

Stability enforced by absolute rule. There were uprisings before which were brutally put down. Plenty of countries can be described as stable yet that doesn't mean they are properly democratic and that law and order isn't enforced in a way which can only be described as brutal.

Sure, like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Qatar and a whole bunch of other longstanding US allies. But perhaps you prefer puppet governments subservient to US interests, such as those installed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Assad was sipping tea with the queen of England and meeting with the pope not so long ago. How quicky he was turned into the latest Hilter-of-the-month by a proxy war instigated by foreign powers and employing terrorist methods! There is about a million times more reason to lynch Obomber, Hillary, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield et al, and don't try to tell me America has democracy and that there is no brutality toward its own citizens.

Do you see me praising the likes of Saudi arabia? your distraction technique doesn't answer the fact that many people in Syria obviously weren't happy.

[Sandydragon]

Stability enforced by absolute rule. There were uprisings before which were brutally put down. Plenty of countries can be described as stable yet that doesn't mean they are properly democratic and that law and order isn't enforced in a way which can only be described as brutal.

Sure, like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Qatar and a whole bunch of other longstanding US allies. But perhaps you prefer puppet governments subservient to US interests, such as those installed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Assad was sipping tea with the queen of England and meeting with the pope not so long ago. How quicky he was turned into the latest Hilter-of-the-month by a proxy war instigated by foreign powers and employing terrorist methods! There is about a million times more reason to lynch Obomber, Hillary, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield et al, and don't try to tell me America has democracy and that there is no brutality toward its own citizens.

Dude, you have no idea of the capacity of these people to excuse mass murder of black and brown people.

Take a deep breath and calm down please.

[Sandydragon]

An interesting view on the causes of the Syrian civil war, corruption, nepotism and internal suppression.

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2013/08/2648161/

[Sandydragon]

This is also interesting. Adds a bit more depth to why the problem exists, rather than just blame the West.

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttn ... 4oQpFcmH8s

Tribalism has fueled unrest throughout Syria, including in places such as Dera’a, where mass opposition demonstrations began on March 15, 2011, in the eastern city of Deir al-Zor on the Euphrates River, and in the suburbs of Homs and Damascus, where some of the fiercest combat between the Syrian military and armed opposition groups has occurred. Millions of rural and urban Syrians express an active tribal identity and tribal affiliation is used extensively to mobilize the political and armed opposition against the Assad government as well as to organize paramilitary forces in support of the Syrian regime.

The Syrian Ba’ath Party has traditionally sought to undermine the independence of the country’s tribes through intimidation, infiltration, and dependence. These aggressive policies continued under the Assad government and were exacerbated by decades of economic stagnation and the near total collapse of the rural economy of regions in southern and eastern Syria due to drought, corrupt use of water resources and mismanagement of croplands where many tribesmen resided

Over the last several decades, relationships between different tribes have been strengthened by the mutual difficulties that all Syrian tribesmen face, and by a shared bond of kinship and a common Arab-Bedouin heritage that differentiates tribesmen from the ruling Assad family that usurped the power of the Syrian Ba’ath Party. [1] The economic disaster facing tribal youth, combined with the political pressure that is constantly applied by the Assad government, caused Syrian tribes to look to each other for mutual help and support. The traditional vertical authority of the shaykhs over the rest of their tribesmen weakened over time, causing decision-making authority to extend beyond one person (or family) in a specific tribal lineage to mutually supporting individuals in a wider network of tribes. [2] Under coercion from the state, many tribal shaykhs were forced to leave their traditional areas to live quietly in Damascus or Aleppo, or left Syria entirely, becoming remote figures from the perspective of their tribesmen. Without revenues, they became unable to provide for the essential needs of their tribes, particularly during the most recent drought that began in 2003 and lasted through the rest of the decade.

The result is a series of horizontal, activist networks of mainly young and economically displaced tribesmen residing in Syria’s most restive cities who have adopted an inter-tribal identity that champions the importance of their shared tribal cultural background and dissatisfaction with their economic and political marginalization in what they view as a corrupt, repressive state. The torture and subsequent death of tribal youth in Dera’a by agents of the regime, as in other regions of the country such as Deir al-Zor and the suburbs of Homs, Aleppo, and Damascus, makes such agents of the government the target of retributive violence by aggrieved tribesmen, codified under ‘urf, or customary tribal law. With the recent evolution of tribal social networks, murdered al-Zoubi tribesmen are mourned for and revenged not only by their tribal kinsmen in Dera’a, but also by networks of tribal peers, such as the Shammar who recently migrated to Dera’a from the north in large numbers. Two of the most famous opposition martyrs in Dera’a in the opening months of the uprising, Hasan al-Shammari and Hamza Khateeb, were tribal youth who were part of these activist networks. [3]

I won't quote the rest, but the picture it paints is hardly one of a land flowing with milk and honey suddenly torn asunder by nasty Nato agents.

[rowan]

You've just described your own nation there, Sandy, and many others besides, but - in reality - it was your country which helped start this war and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, just as it did to Libya, and just as it did to Iraq and Afghanistan. It's ongoing imperialism, only now your country is riding along on America's coat-tails.

Since at least as far back as 2005, the US has been financing and training anti-government opposition in Syria with a view toward regime-change. When members of these US-funded groups complain about their connections to America, concerned over serving foreign interests rather than the national cause, evidence from Egypt shows that they are quickly ousted from membership. [1]

The ostensible justification for this funding is ‘democracy promotion,’ however we should remember what International Relations scholar John J. Mearsheimer said about Washington’s democracy promotion activities abroad.

Referring to the crisis in Ukraine, he stated, “and when you talk about promoting democracy, what you’re really talking about is putting in power leaders who are pro-Western and anti-Russian … promoting democracy, which was all about putting in power pro-Western leaders.”

However, Syria was in the crosshairs of the empire long before 2005. In a 2007 speech, General Wesley Clark recounts a conversation he had with then Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in 1991 regarding Operation Desert Storm.

He quotes Wolfowitz as saying “one thing that we learned is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won’t stop us, and we got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

In the same speech, Clark recounts another conversation he had 6 weeks after 9/11 with an officer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The officer he quoted refered to a classified memo received from the Secretary of Defense’s office which stated that it was US policy to attack and destroy the governments of 7 different countries in the next 5 years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.

Long before any outrage was generated at Assad’s crackdown of protesters, and long before any pretexts or justifications were concocted, it was already decided that the US would attack and topple the Syrian government, going at least as far back as 1991. The intention of regime change came first, propaganda and pretexts came later.

Further adding to this evidence is the testimony of former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, who stated on television that, roughly 2 years before hostilities began in Syria, British officials admitted to him that they were ‘preparing something’ in the country.

“England was preparing the invasion of the rebels in Syria,” he said, stating that the officials had asked him to participate, to which he refused. “This is to say that this operation comes from far away. It was prepared, conceived, and organized … in the simple purpose of removing the Syrian government, because, in the region, it is important to know that this Syrian regime has anti-Israel remarks … I’m judging the confidence of the Israeli Prime Minister who had told me a while ago: ‘We will try to get along with the neighboring states, and those who don’t get along, we will take them down.’ It is a policy. It is a conception of history.”



http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-who- ... tion/24591

http://www.mintpressnews.com/MyMPN/the- ... civil-war/

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/324992-nato- ... syria-war/

[Sandydragon]

So you are claiming that prior to the West interfering as you out it, Syrians were just one big happy family?

If, and its a big if, the West were supporting opposition groups (Inote how they are supporting them isn't mentioned so we are left to draw our own conclusions) then logic dictates that there has to be some discontent for them to seize upon. If there were no discontent then any attempts at subversion would fail.