RugbyRebels

Digby wrote: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.

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote: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.

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote: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 wrote:

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:

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 wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:
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.

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:
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.

rowan wrote: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...

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:
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 wrote:

rowan wrote: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.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote: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.

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote: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 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote: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 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote: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 wrote:

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: 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.

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]