Thread: Syria

Well I don't understand the conflict, but I am 100% sure it is not as simple as the BBC etc would like to make out. (I.e. Bashir al-Assad is an evil dictator who likes to kill his people...)

I think Russia and China are right to force the UN to hold back. The problem should be solved by the Syrians themselves, without meddling by anyone. But as usual, certain countries can't keep their hands off but keep inflaming the situation.

As I understand, Syria is quite a mixed country with both Moslems and Christians, as well as different peoples and languages. There are millions of refugees from both Iraq (recently) and Palestine who have resettled there in a sort of permanent exile.

Up until now all the different groups have been living peacefully, respecting each other, with the rights of minorities protected.

My interpretation of the situation is that there was unhappiness with the government there, inspired by the Arab Spring. Certain Western powers which have wanted to oust the current Syrian government for decades, ceased the opportunity and did everything it could to stir up the rebels, arm them and launch a media campaign to support them. How legitimate the complaints of the rebels are, I would not know - but al-Assad is definitely no Saddam Hussein, he is/was genuinely liked by many and has in fact tried hard to improve the country although his rule is probably not without faults.

Isn't it strange that the riots happen mostly in the city of Homs? Is it a coincidence that nearly all crude petroleum and natural gas transport infrastructure as well as the railroad line happen to be in this very location?

Don't know, this is too complicated for me. But taking down the regime in Syria has been on the US war "roadmap" for a decade according to many sources, for example General Wesley Clark. General Wesley Clark reveals US war plan - 2007 - YouTube

I expect they have a "good" reason for wanting to do this, and these reasons normally have to do with oil, don't they....

I read that Homs is a very religious (moslem) city. The people there are traditionalist.

Originally Posted by Hanna

How legitimate the complaints of the rebels are, I would not know - but al-Assad is definitely no Saddam Hussein, he is/was genuinely liked by many and has in fact tried hard to improve the country although his rule is probably not without faults.

I bet you said the same about each dictator and criminal in power of the past, till the moment the bastard deservedly got hanged or shot by their own people.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Well I don't understand the conflict, but I am 100% sure it is not as simple as the BBC etc would like to make out. (I.e. Bashir al-Assad is an evil dictator who likes to kill his people...)

I think Russia and China are right to force the UN to hold back. The problem should be solved by the Syrians themselves, without meddling by anyone. But as usual, certain countries can't keep their hands off but keep inflaming the situation.

As I understand, Syria is quite a mixed country with both Moslems and Christians, as well as different peoples and languages. There are millions of refugees from both Iraq (recently) and Palestine who have resettled there in a sort of permanent exile.

Up until now all the different groups have been living peacefully, respecting each other, with the rights of minorities protected.

My interpretation of the situation is that there was unhappiness with the government there, inspired by the Arab Spring. Certain Western powers which have wanted to oust the current Syrian government for decades, ceased the opportunity and did everything it could to stir up the rebels, arm them and launch a media campaign to support them. How legitimate the complaints of the rebels are, I would not know - but al-Assad is definitely no Saddam Hussein, he is/was genuinely liked by many and has in fact tried hard to improve the country although his rule is probably not without faults.


Don't know, this is too complicated for me. But taking down the regime in Syria has been on the US war "roadmap" for a decade according to many sources, for example General Wesley Clark. General Wesley Clark reveals US war plan - 2007 - YouTube

I expect they have a "good" reason for wanting to do this, and these reasons normally have to do with oil, don't they....

I read that Homs is a very religious (moslem) city. The people there are traditionalist.

If you look at the facts, Syria doesn't have a large supply of oil. Although the U.S. DOES have a large pro-war lobbyists, for the average person, war is NOT a good thing. Assad IS bad, he does need to go.

If Syria had a lot of oil, you could bet that the U.S. would have already intervened.

I honestly don't think it's in NATOs best intrest to have an armed conflict in Syria. Countries such as Turkey had good relations with Syria, and Turkey has the second largest army in NATO. Why would anybody benefit from having an armed insurrection?