rowan wrote:So what's your idea, Sandydragon? The students, teachers and doctors involved in the so-called Arab Spring demonstrations in Damascus suddenly morphed into fully-armed, psychopathic, head-chopping, missile-firing terrorists in the north? So why were they entering from Iraq and Turkey then? Why was America training and arming them (and freely admitting it)? Why would Assad carry out a chemical gas attack on his own people the very day UN inspectors arrived in Damascus to check things out? Is he simply the most stupid leader ever? & why is America more interested in this guy than the absolute monarchs and brutal despots who've been running Saudi Arabia? Why is Israel attacking Hezbollah inside Syria, when Hezbollah is fighting ISIS? Why did a NATO member down a Russian plane when the Russians were there at the invitation of the government (unlike America & co), fighting ISIS? & why have 2 journalists just been thrown in prison for 5 years for exposing weapons supply lines directly from a NATO member to terrorists in Syria? Do you actually have any idea what's going on there? This is not the first time the US has attempted regime change in Damascus, btw. A few year's before they successfully overthrew Iran's first democratic government in 1953 (leading to the return of a brutal Shah and another quarter century of oppression), they had a crack at Syria - but failed. That's how Syria became aligned with the Soviets during the Cold War, and why they maintain close military contacts with Russia to this day.
Syria is a nation with significant tribal divides. Some support Assad, some don't. Those protesting against him obviously didn't and still don't. Assad used violence against them. He helped turn non-violent demonstrators into an armed insurgency. Weapons are freely available in the region - the border with Iraq is porous enough to allow pretty much anything to cross. This isn't the first time that the Syrian regime has responded with excessive violence, the rebellion in the 1980s saw Syrian planes bombing civilian targets, with thousands of civilian deaths.
As civil wars continue, they tend to get more bloody. Ordinary people lose any restraints and yes they do morph into people capable of carrying out despicable acts. If you read any account of mass violence, you will easily find out that the vast majority of perpetrators were normal people before hand, not closet psychopaths.
There is definitely outside assistance, but to both sides. Hezbollah have been supporting Assad for some time, before that, his position was far less secure. A variety of countries are helping the opposition. The more extreme elements of the opposition have different origins in some respects. ISIS has taken advantage of the collapse of regime power in certain parts of the country. WHilst they are attracting many ideologically driven fighters, there will be just as many who are siding with them because they offer an effective opposition to Assad. Morals go out of the window when faced with defeat and death. Incidentally, Islamic rebellion in SYria is not new, there are examples of this from the 1970s and 1980s.
You are referring otthe same UN inspections team which broadly dismissed Syrian government explanations for the presence of Sarin gas on the battle field? Was Assad personally aware of the deployment of chemical weapons on that day in that location? Its perfectly possible that he was not. CHemical weapons have been used on a number of occasions, its entirely possible that control was handed down to battlefield commanders who were unaware of the bigger picture.
WHy Syria and not Saudi? Saudi isn't engaged in a civil war. The uS would have minimal interest in Syria if not for the civil war. The Syrian government has been pro-Russian for a long time so the US aren't that friendly towards them, but there would be no support for opposition groups to the current scale if not for the murderous response by the regime towards what was legitimate protest. For the record, the Saudi government is almost as repellent as that of Assad, but lets not pretend that oil doesn't make us ignore some of the less savoury elements.
Israeli actions against Hezbollah aren't new. I strongly suspect that Tel Aviv is concerned at security along the Golan Heights and is taking steps to ensure that a terrorist organisation that wants to destroy Israel doesn't get too powerful.
The Turks claim that the Russian plane infringed their airspace. It certainly did, albeit for a short period of time. An overreaction - very much so.
Russia supports Assad and some Nato countries have supported the rebels. Every nation has its own political views on the matter. You cant condemn one without condemning both sides. Personally, Id be quite happy to allow both sides to fight it out on their own and just provide humanitarian support.
Im very aware of whats happening in Syria. Ive had the benefit of reading literature not in the public domain on the matter. Thanks for asking though.
Previous US activity isn't entirely relevant. The Arab Spring took on a life of its own, thanks to the internet, and I doubt that anyone in Washington would have expected such a widespread outpouring of anger against established regimes. Its often forgotten that during the Arab Spring, American allies were undermined as much as the opposition. If you seek to place the blame for the conflict purely on the west, then you ignore the role of the Assad regime. That would be intellectually dishonest. The current Baathists took power in a Coup and have held onto power through authoritarian government ever since; not a model for legitimate government of the people by the people.
Some other information you might be interested in. Those election results where Assad won over 90% of the votes were uncontested. Not exactly a beacon for a modern democracy is it? Until the new constitution was released in 2012 (after the civil war started) Syria was a one party state. Is it surprising that democracy protestors wanted to see change?
Meanwhile, Russian and Syrian air strikes are killing combatants and non-combatants indiscriminately. This is in contrast to the laws of armed conflict where proportionality and discrimination in attacking targets is stressed. Yet if Nato planes were doing a fraction of this damage in Afghanistan, there would be outrage. Somehow, Putin and Assad are praised for doing far worse than the West, but the same people who shout loudest whenever a Nato aircraft accidentally kills civilians.
So I do find it strange that a reporter who travels to Syria only sees one side of the conflict and ignores the many examples of war crimes by the government and its backers. There are plenty of eyewitness reports from those who have been on the ground in Syria which contradict her, so why do you automatically believe her and not them? I'd see your perspective if there was merely one or 2 contradictory reports, but there are far more than that. Its clearly a propaganda effort by Assad and Putin, but of course its only your opponents who are blinded by propaganda. Im not suggesting that the opposition are made up of nice people with good intentions, but if you cant see the crimes of the Syrian and Russian governments here then I worry about your sense of perspective.
