I'm a Syrian, don't believe the media

[Eagle_Syr]

The "rebellion" and so-called rebels in Syria are nothing more than foreign puppets and radical Islamists. The truth is, Assad is a far better leader than the Brotherhood ever could be, and is better for the anti-capitalist cause. That being said, he isn't a socialist and he isn't the ideal; but I do support Assad in the current crisis against the foreign terrorists.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

"Location: Texas"

What? Are you currently in Syria? In that case what you're saying is nothing new, and it's flawed either way

[Eagle_Syr]

I grew up there and visit frequently.

I wouldn't compare Assad to Qaddafi; politically, they are very different. And Syria is very different from Libya.

Assad and his party are self-proclaimed socialists. Syria has always taken a hard stance against capitalism, until very recently with the establishment of private banks in the country.

[cynicles]

Hasn't he also been liberalizing the economy and didn't his father also brutally crack down no Syrian leftists?

[#FF0000]

I grew up there and visit frequently.

I wouldn't compare Assad to Qaddafi; politically, they are very different. And Syria is very different from Libya.

Assad and his party are self-proclaimed socialists. Syria has always taken a hard stance against capitalism, until very recently with the establishment of private banks in the country.


Ahahahahaha

Yeah I wouldn't be opposing the nonsense in Syria on the grounds that ASSAD is a socialist.

The fact that it's straight up, blatant imperialism is more than enough.

[TheRadicalAnarchist]

I have learned that when it comes to these issues, the media is always manipulating the public to force an agenda down our throats so that IF we (the US) decide to get involved directly (we are already involved indirectly) that the public would support it.

Thanks for the post!

[Eagle_Syr]

Hasn't he also been liberalizing the economy and didn't his father also brutally crack down no Syrian leftists?

He has, yes.

His father cracked down on religious fanatics. It is true that the Ba'ath Party and Syrian Communist Party did not have the best relations, but they are not opposed to each other in their support for socialism.


Ahahahahaha

Yeah I wouldn't be opposing the nonsense in Syria on the grounds that ASSAD is a socialist.

The fact that it's straight up, blatant imperialism is more than enough.

What do you mean?

What I am saying is that allowing the US to get involved and topple Assad will make everything worse for everybody in the region. The only people who benefit are the arms dealers and opportunists.

[Geiseric]

And the russian capitalists don't benefit from the arms sold to Assad? He shouldn't be supported. However we should advocate for non interventionism, i'd admit to that. assad and the rebels are both capitalist pawns, meerly from different sources of budget.

[#FF0000]

What I am saying is that allowing the US to get involved and topple Assad will make everything worse for everybody in the region. The only people who benefit are the arms dealers and opportunists.

Yup, I agree.

I'm just saying Assad isn't a friend.

[Sir Comradical]

And the russian capitalists don't benefit from the arms sold to Assad? He shouldn't be supported. However we should advocate for non interventionism, i'd admit to that. assad and the rebels are both capitalist pawns, meerly from different sources of budget.

By that logic leftists shouldn't call for the military defence of ANY semi-colonial nation on the basis that they all buy their weaponry from foreign capitalists.

Get real.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

By that logic leftists shouldn't call for the military defence of ANY semi-colonial nation on the basis that they all buy their weaponry from foreign capitalists.

Get real.

Leftists shouldn't be deciding which capitalist to support in a war between two different factions of capitalist nations. It's like half the "communists" forgot about history. Remember WW1, WW2?

[Sir Comradical]

Leftists shouldn't be deciding which capitalist to support in a war between two different factions of capitalist nations. It's like half the "communists" forgot about history. Remember WW1, WW2?

WW1 was between different IMPERIALIST states. Right now it's a case of IMPERIALIST aggression against semi-colonial Syria. In this context, for someone to equalise the Assad regime with the FSA on the basis that the Syrian army buys its military equipment from capitalists, is plain ludicrous. So wait, when Venezuela is destabilised by rightist death squads will leftists refuse to take sides because Venezuela imports its weapons? Gimme a break.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I grew up there and visit frequently.And people live in the US and consistently take the wrong position, so what's your point?


I wouldn't compare Assad to Qaddafi; politically, they are very different. And Syria is very different from Libya.Nobody made a comparison to Libya, you were the only one to do so!


Assad and his party are self-proclaimed socialists. Syria has always taken a hard stance against capitalism, until very recently with the establishment of private banks in the country.
Lots of people are self-proclaimed socialists, Stalin was, Gorbachev was, even Hitlers party had the name socialist in it. What does that prove? I don't care if you front like a socialist, I won't call you one if you're not. And if that's what you call socialism you can shove it because that's not what I'm fighting for.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

WW1 was between different IMPERIALIST states. Right now it's a case of IMPERIALIST aggression against semi-colonial Syria. In this context, for someone to equalise the Assad regime with the FSA on the basis that the Syrian army buys its military equipment from capitalists, is plain ludicrous. So wait, when Venezuela is destabilised by rightist death squads will leftists refuse to take sides because Venezuela imports its weapons? Gimme a break.Yeah I choose not to support the nationalist dictatorship of Syria. Does that mean I support the imperialist USA trying to get into Syria? No. But I refuse to support someone because they're the lesser of two evils or something(at this point can that even be said of Syria under Assad).

[Sir Comradical]

Yeah I choose not to support the nationalist dictatorship of Syria. Does that mean I support the imperialist USA trying to get into Syria? No. But I refuse to support someone because they're the lesser of two evils or something(at this point can that even be said of Syria under Assad).

What does this have to do with the lesser of two evils? Leftists should support the military defence of Syria while offerring no POLITICAL support to Assad. It should be clear by now that the FSA are a pack of imperialist proxies.

[Eagle_Syr]

Out of curiosity, why would you not consider Assad or the Ba'ath socialists?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The military defense of whom? You can't just separate the Assad regime from the defense of Syria. Who do you think rules Syria? Now obviously the FSA is a proxy army at this point, we have our politicians publicly saying that we will be arming them. I don't even know if it was so blatant when we supported the mujihadeen in Afghanistan, but that's not going to get me being on team Assad. And let's take your own advice and be real about what supporting "Syria" means. Unless your support is aimed at some sect fighting for the oppressed people in this war, your support is going right to Assad.

[Geiseric]

assad has been denationalizing oil for a while, so what's really worth defending?

[wsg1991]

do you have to support any of the Assad or this islamists USA backed opposition

first i am against imperial intervention in Syria , as that will create an ethnic disaster , and won't do anygood , Libya was much better under Gaddafi than this ''opposition'' , SYria face much worse fate than that . it's a chaos now , no central government and armed mobs fighting between each other + several assaults on Tunisian borders
Expect that in Syria + civil war and murder on ethnic

secondly about the regime , i don't support the regime either , since foreign intervention has destroyed any chance of real revolutionary move i have to take any reforms we can negotiate for NOW ,

about the opposition , i heard there is some parties that openly refused foreign direct intervention , this are the guys that should be supported

this is no longer a revolution this has became a civil war , the only loser are the Syrian people ,

any change in Syria can only be achieved by preserving Russian and chinese interest in Syria , btw unlike USA puppets in the region , Assad is an ally

[wsg1991]

assad has been denationalizing oil for a while, so what's really worth defending?

i am not sure about that , but Syria is not a major oil producer

[Sir Comradical]

The military defense of whom? You can't just separate the Assad regime from the defense of Syria. Who do you think rules Syria? Now obviously the FSA is a proxy army at this point, we have our politicians publicly saying that we will be arming them. I don't even know if it was so blatant when we supported the mujihadeen in Afghanistan, but that's not going to get me being on team Assad. And let's take your own advice and be real about what supporting "Syria" means. Unless your support is aimed at some sect fighting for the oppressed people in this war, your support is going right to Assad.

Yes but it's not based on politically agreeing with the Assad regime, that's the difference.

[Eagle_Syr]

The Ba'ath Party in Syria have historically supported solidarity and socialism. I would not write them off as complete enemies of the workers, although they are now corrupted.

The thing about Syria is, she has ties to most of the countries in the region. Something happens in Syria, it will affect Lebanon, Israel, Iraq. It will have drastic consequences on the balance of power in the region. The Lebanese and Syrian Communist Parties would, ideally, use the current situation to gain support from the masses.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Yes but it's not based on politically agreeing with the Assad regime, that's the difference.

Whether you agree with the guy or not is totally irrelevant here, I'm not saying that you personally agree with what Assad does. I'm disagreeing with you over what any kind of support you give to the regime whether it be political, economic, military, etc. I don't think that we should be defending Assad at all, even if what he's faced with is US imperialism. We should be fighting US imperialism not saying Assad needs military support. We don't need to be pro-Assad to be anti-war with Syria. The anti-war movement against the Iraq war was not pro- Saddam...

[wsg1991]

there is No Ba'ath Party in Syria , as the Assad family overthrew the real leadership of the party , and forced them to leave or die , just do a research about
Michel Afleq , a real Syrian would know that ,

the current Ba'ath Party is dominated by Shi'te ( alawiyin )

[Eagle_Syr]

The Ba'ath movement as a whole died quite a time ago. It never gained the critical support it needed from Saudi Arabia or North Africa (excluding, briefly, Egypt). The bourgeoisie Saudi Royal Family are therefore the enemies of Assad.

Syria is religiously diverse. It would be problematic for a Sunni Muslim to be in power - thus I believe it is for the best that the Alawi Assads are in charge, because under Assad, minorities and Christians have enjoyed relatively good freedom of religion.

I'm an Alawi myself, in fact

[Comrade Samuel]

The "rebellion" and so-called rebels in Syria are nothing more than foreign puppets and radical Islamists. The truth is, Assad is a far better leader than the Brotherhood ever could be, and is better for the anti-capitalist cause. That being said, he isn't a socialist and he isn't the ideal; but I do support Assad in the current crisis against the foreign terrorists.

Should it matter if the opposition in Syria is what you say it is? Does that somehow justify Assad's murdering of civilians? Saying he isn't socialist or ideal is a horrible understatement, it doesn't matter what the western media or governments want to make syria look like for their own twisted purposes it is obvious to the entire world that the people are being killed and that they want Assad out. Defending the Assad regime solely because it is anti-impiralist is like saying meth is good for you because it makes you feel nice for a while.

Perhaps you know more about Syria and the situation there more than most of us ever will and can enlighten us on some of this but right now it seems like your defending a man who's obsession with preserving his rule has lead to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people.

[Eagle_Syr]

But that's incorrect, the majority of Syrians do not want Assad ousted.

Certainly the overwhelming majority of Christians, Druze, and minority Muslim sects support Assad.

Opposition to Assad is based almost entirely on his religious background, I assure you

[agnixie]

Baath is not socialist for the same reason that anyone else pretending to be a socialist while rejecting Marx and preferring Renan as a basis for their socialist would not be considered a socialist. I'll be generous and not call them outright fascist, even if the intellectual roots of Baath are entirely the same as those of the italian fascists, including their original defection from socialism.

There is no justification in defending any state whatosever and if any of the american armchair revolutionaries wants to be consistent, rather than asking of the syrian working class to die for the sake of the Assad regime (sorry the Syrian state) they should agitate for the working class to rise up in America. This is how it's done. How it's not done is through "strong statements" 5000 miles away from the frontline.

[Sir Comradical]

Whether you agree with the guy or not is totally irrelevant here, I'm not saying that you personally agree with what Assad does. I'm disagreeing with you over what any kind of support you give to the regime whether it be political, economic, military, etc. I don't think that we should be defending Assad at all, even if what he's faced with is US imperialism. We should be fighting US imperialism not saying Assad needs military support. We don't need to be pro-Assad to be anti-war with Syria.

If according to you supporting the military defence of Syria equals backing Assad politically then what does this position of yours amount to? You may as well be a liberal.


The anti-war movement against the Iraq war was not pro- Saddam...

Exactly. Principled leftists supported the MILITARY defence of Iraq while offering ZERO political support for Saddam.

[Sir Comradical]

Telling people to die for a bourgeois over another vs agitating for local agitation and revolution. I see what you mean, clearly the second is certainly more liberal.

As an aside, the ww1-was-an-inter-imperialist-war is kind of stupid considering the original casus belli was a capitalist central european monarchy bullying a smaller capitalist central european monarchy. "Bourgeois wars are of no benefit to the working class" is something Jaures said when the saber rattling was still about Serbia. We might as well say this whole thing is also an inter-imperialist war because America and Russia are proxying.

Why because Syria's army uses Russian weapons? Like I said before, by that logic, when Venezuela is destabilised by rightist death squads I take it you'll refuse to take sides because Venezuela imports its weaponry from imperialist nations?


I don't see the principled position in cheerleading an ocean away from the lines.

In other words you don't think it's possible for the working class in imperialist countries to stop wars against semi-colonies?

[Omsk]

From all the previous experiences, - it's going to end bad for the Syrian people no matter what happens in this stage.

[ComradeOm]

What does this have to do with the lesser of two evils? Leftists should support the military defence of Syria while offerring no POLITICAL support to AssadThat's an intellectually dishonest position. The Assad regime is currently engaged in a brutal campaign of military repression to ensure its political survival. Defending the right, or means, of the Syrian state to execute this campaign (ie, "supporting the military defence of Syria") is paramount to "offering political support to Assad"

Now you may call this 'liberalism' but that doesn't change the fact that your logic is entirely unsustainable. By supporting the Assad regime military endevours are are de facto, despite any protestations to the contrary, condoning the continued existence of its political rule

[Sir Comradical]

That's an intellectually dishonest position. The Assad regime is currently engaged in a brutal campaign of military repression to ensure its political survival. Defending the right, or means, of the Syrian state to execute this campaign (ie, "supporting the military defence of Syria") is paramount to "offering political support to Assad"

Now you may call this 'liberalism' but that doesn't change the fact that your logic is entirely unsustainable. By supporting the Assad regime military endevours are are de facto, despite any protestations to the contrary, condoning the continued existence of its political rule

Ohh please, it's a civil war, it has been for a while now. It's not just one side doing the killing although it may have started off that way.

[ComradeOm]

And you've taken a side in this civil war. That is, you are advocating continued military and political success for the Assad regime. The idea that you can distinguish between the two is nonsense

Which is something that applies to all those taking an 'anti-imperialist' position that somehow neglects the realities of the Assad regime. Bang the drum for the Syrian state if you will but don't pretend that you can do this without condoning its nature

[Eagle_Syr]

That's an intellectually dishonest position. The Assad regime is currently engaged in a brutal campaign of military repression to ensure its political survival. Defending the right, or means, of the Syrian state to execute this campaign (ie, "supporting the military defence of Syria") is paramount to "offering political support to Assad"

Now you may call this 'liberalism' but that doesn't change the fact that your logic is entirely unsustainable. By supporting the Assad regime military endevours are are de facto, despite any protestations to the contrary, condoning the continued existence of its political rule

There are two factions competing in Syria. Yes, arguably the Assad government is not socialist and is not the leftist ideal. But the point remains that its preservation is to the momentary benefit of the Syrian population. Assad is far friendlier to socialism than the "rebels"

[Tim Cornelis]

There are two factions competing in Syria. Yes, arguably the Assad government is not socialist and is not the leftist ideal. But the point remains that its preservation is to the momentary benefit of the Syrian population. Assad is far friendlier to socialism than the "rebels"

First, socialism can only be achieved through working class revolution. Would Assad allow this? No. So he is not "friendlier" to socialism.
Second, Assad's government is not arguably not socialist, it's not socialist, period.

[#FF0000]

Yeah you have to be a dweeb of the highest order to think "oh yeah assad is a socialist heh"

The fuck is wrong with you?

[Eagle_Syr]

The mode of production under Hafez Assad, and until recently, Bashar Assad, has been as socialist as the world has ever achieved (think Cuba).

That is, it wasn't socialism, but it was attempted socialism. Industries were nationalized.

[Thirsty Crow]

If according to you supporting the military defence of Syria equals backing Assad politically then what does this position of yours amount to? You may as well be a liberal.

Of course it does since military defence is the means to the political survival of the current regime as the ruling regime. It's a complete nonsense to believe that you're being consistent while criticising a capitalist state and simultaneously advocating its military apparatus in active measures to preserve the said state in its current form.

Or did you, by any chance, imply that the military defence shuld be taken as defence provided by the Russian state? I'd like to assume that no self-described communist would advocate one imperialism over another.

But that's not the whole point, is it? What is missing here is the ridiculous assumption that subordinate capitalist states somehow persist in a semi-colonial situation.
That's patently absurd and incorrect. How does the US imperialism affect the political structure and specific policies in Syria in a direct way? Presuming that "colonial" here should be taken in its precise meaning. If not, if this is just a metaphor, then you'd have to explain why communists should actively take sides in a conflict between capitalist powers, preferring one over the other. And in relation to which imperialist power is Syria a "semi-colony"? I can hardly see how you could argue that it is the US.

Of course, this can only be done by arguing that a specific state represents a jumping board towards socialism and workers' rule. Care to make that case in relation to the Syrian regime, one that precludes any independent political development of the working class as enshrined in its institution which guarantees the existence of the current political order?

Now, does all of this means that communists are somehow complicit in any form of intervention practiced by the US and its ally states? I can't see why that would be the case if said communists would also demask the function and role of this intervention. In other words, arguing for a revolutionary solution to the conflict, advocating independent working class politics.

But the fact is that odds for such a development are very slim at the moment. Should this mean that communists have to fall over themselves in their desire to be relevant and to suggest practical, immediately possible courses of action? But that again leads to a complicity with a borugeois regime, no matter the rhetoric of critical support or support for military defence.

But this whole idea of relevance is in itself ridiculoud since it assumes without voicing it that the Syrian masses are in a position to receive this criticism and to act upon it. So, whom are those communists addressing if not the Syrian masses directly? I think agnixie hit the nail on the head - the point should be raised with, in this case, American working class, and more broadly, with the political organizations of the working class throughout the world.



That is, it wasn't socialism, but it was attempted socialism. Industries were nationalized.
Then you'd have to agree that the post WWII British state presided over an "attempted socialism". There and then industries were also nationalized.

Or you could grasp the simple fact that nationalization doesn't imply socialism or a drive towards it. On the contrary, you might as well call it (alongside a presumed welfare program) a political-economic strategy of ensuring class peace and bourgeois rule.

[Eagle_Syr]

I can speak better about Hafez Al-Assad, and he very much supported the socialist mode of production and opposed foreign ownership or investment in Syria.

As for your previous point, while we shouldn't prefer one bourgeoisie over another, a Syria ruled by Syrians is preferable to a Syria ruled by foreign-backed puppets, given that both will be repressive.

[Igor]

I can speak better about Hafez Al-Assad, and he very much supported the socialist mode of production and opposed foreign ownership or investment in Syria.

Please, do define "socialist mode of production". I don't think you and rest of us are working with the same terminology. Nationalization by the Syrian state doesn't mean jack shit, opposition to foreign ownership doesn't mean jack shit. If nationalization had something to do with the socialist mode of production, it would mean countries like those in Scandinavia today would be heavily 'socialist' only because their model of capitalism relies to some extent on state ownership, now less so than a few decades ago though. But what does state ownership really mean if the state is capitalist and means of production are still not controlled by the working class? How does it empower the working class if they still have absolutely no control? This is the case in Scandinavian welfare states, this was the position of the ilks of Old Labour and it's the position of Hafez al-Assad. They seek state control, not working class control.

Also, it should be noted that I feel no need to "protect" the means of production in my home land from foreign influences, or keep it in hands of "my people". I'm opposed to foreign capitalism, as I'm opposed to domestic capitalism. It's really the main problem, nationality has nothing to do with the real issue at hand. We're wasting our time if we're just trying to switch between representatives of the ruling class, because it will leave our position in society intact: the very bottom of it. There is nothing to be gained from opposition to specifically foreign capital.

[Thirsty Crow]

I can speak better about Hafez Al-Assad, and he very much supported the socialist mode of production and opposed foreign ownership or investment in Syria.Again, nationalization and social welfare do not constitute, in themselves, a socialist mode of production, and neither does opposition to foreign ownership or investment.


As for your previous point, while we shouldn't prefer one bourgeoisie over another, a Syria ruled by Syrians is preferable to a Syria ruled by foreign-backed puppets, given that both will be repressive.
Syria for Syrians, that's straightforward and simple - nationalism. There is no other way to describe such a position which inherently leads to class collaboration.

[Eagle_Syr]

Please, do define "socialist mode of production". I don't think you and rest of us are working with the same terminology. Nationalization by the Syrian state doesn't mean jack shit, opposition to foreign ownership doesn't mean jack shit. If nationalization had something to do with the socialist mode of production, it would mean countries like those in Scandinavia today would be heavily 'socialist' only because their model of capitalism relies to some extent on state ownership, now less so than a few decades ago though. But what does state ownership really mean if the state is capitalist and means of production are still not controlled by the working class? How does it empower the working class if they still have absolutely no control? This is the case in Scandinavian welfare states, this was the position of the ilks of Old Labour and it's the position of Hafez al-Assad. They seek state control, not working class control.

Also, it should be noted that I feel no need to "protect" the means of production in my home land from foreign influences, or keep it in hands of "my people". I'm opposed to foreign capitalism, as I'm opposed to domestic capitalism. It's really the main problem, nationality has nothing to do with the real issue at hand. We're wasting our time if we're just trying to switch between representatives of the ruling class, because it will leave our position in society intact: the very bottom of it. There is nothing to be gained from opposition to specifically foreign capital.

But the workers did and do have control. It's limited control, to be sure, which is why I said Assad is not a true, ideal socialist. But I think Hafez Assad took a step in the right direction. And the Ba'ath are now in a coalition which includes the Syrian Communist Party.

Again, nationalization and social welfare do not constitute, in themselves, a socialist mode of production, and neither does opposition to foreign ownership or investment.

Syria for Syrians, that's straightforward and simple - nationalism. There is no other way to describe such a position which inherently leads to class collaboration.
Certainly it is better than Syria for Americans

[Tim Cornelis]

But the workers did and do have control. It's limited control, to be sure, which is why I said Assad is not a true, ideal socialist. But I think Hafez Assad took a step in the right direction. And the Ba'ath are now in a coalition which includes the Syrian Communist Party.

That says more about the Syrian Communist Party than it does the Ba'ath Party. It is also noteworthy to point out that Ba'ath and the two Communist factions are part of the same coalition that includes the fascist Syrian Social Nationalist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party), whose logo is designed after the Nazi-swastika:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Logo_of_the_Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party.svg

In what way do workers have control over their workplaces in Syria?

[#FF0000]

hey guys did u no trade unions get to sit in on bord meatings in germany

merkels a socialist guys

[The Machine]

Ahahahahaha

Yeah I wouldn't be opposing the nonsense in Syria on the grounds that ASSAD is a socialist.

The fact that it's straight up, blatant imperialism is more than enough.

the funny thing is that Assad is also an imperialist, he's just not as good at it

[Tim Cornelis]

ssnp arent fascist,or right wing.their politics are similar to sinn feins were.
tho' arab/shami nationalism.the kataib/LF are fascists.
btw there are at least 4 syrian communist partys 2 are 'for' the govt.

Quite clearly they are. They base their views on a Great Syrian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Syria)-nationalism, i.e. on palingenetic ultranationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism)--the core basis of fascism.

From wikipedia:


According to Reeva S. Johnson, Saadeh, the party's 'leader for life', was an admirer of Adolf Hitler influenced by Nazi and fascist ideology.[30][34] The party adopted a reversed swastika as the party's symbol, sang the party's anthem to Deutschland über alles, and included developing the cult of a leader, advocating totalitarian government, and glorifying an ancient pre-Christian past and the organic whole of the Syrian Volk or nation.[27][30]


btw there are at least 4 syrian communist partys 2 are 'for' the govt.

Like I said:


It is also noteworthy to point out that Ba'ath and the two Communist factions are part of the same coalition

[campesino]

assad and associates are very corrupt and capitalist. the best thing that can be done as foreigners is ignore the rebels and not-intervene in syria.

the SSNP is not Fascist, they call for an end to feudalism and sectarian hate, they are by no means racist. Pan-syrianism is just about unity.


First Reform Principle: Separation of religion and state.

Second Reform Principle: Debarring the clergy from interference in political and judicial matters.

Third Reform Principle:Removal of the barriers between the various sects and confessions.

Fourth Reform Principle: The abolition of feudalism, the organization of national economy on the basis of production and the protection of the rights of labour and the interests of the nation and the state.

Fifth Reform Principles: Formation of strong armed forces which will be effective in determining the destiny of the country and the nation.

http://www.ssnp.com/new/ssnp/en/ssnp.htm#A

that being said the biggest threat to innocent syrian people are the rebels, who are sectarian islamist. if they were to gain power, the religious minorities of Syria would loose a great deal of freedom.

[Eagle_Syr]

That says more about the Syrian Communist Party than it does the Ba'ath Party. It is also noteworthy to point out that Ba'ath and the two Communist factions are part of the same coalition that includes the fascist Syrian Social Nationalist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party), whose logo is designed after the Nazi-swastika:

In what way do workers have control over their workplaces in Syria?

The funny thing is I was a supporter of the SSNP for a while.

They are not Fascists in any meaningful sense. They are national restorationists. The current nation-states of Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq are artificial creations of Western imperialism. The SSNP simply calls for the re-unification of these territories into what they call "Greater Syria", or Bilad al-Sham

Also, regarding Assad, Hafez al-Assad was a very close ally of the socialist USSR



Like I said

See above

[revolt]

Ohh please, it's a civil war, it has been for a while now. It's not just one side doing the killing although it may have started off that way.you completely evaded his point. it is impossible to offer military support but not political support to a government whose political survival is entirely based on military force. regardless of whether or not you advocate for their political existence through speech, you support their political existence through military means.

[revolt]

Assad and his party are self-proclaimed socialists. Syria has always taken a hard stance against capitalism, until very recently with the establishment of private banks in the country.it is very weird that some self described socialists advocate for non-intervention on the basis of Assad being a supposed socialist (which he is clearly not), rather than on the principle of not supporting your own governments military adventures.

[Omsk]

Also, regarding Assad, Hafez al-Assad was a very close ally of the socialist USSR

Comrade, since Hafez came to power in 1971,and this was the age of stagnation and the completely dark part of the history of the USSR, that actually makes things worse, because the USSR was not socialist in 1971 and because it was a rotten system, making alliances with other rotten systems.

[danyboy27]

I am not a fan of assad beccause, you know, the occupation of lebannon dosnt strike of has something a socialist would have done.

i dont think western puppet should overrthrow the regime tho, i am sure there are peoples who have their own valid reason to fight the governement, especially with all that rampant corruption and nepotism going on.

[Eagle_Syr]

Comrade, since Hafez came to power in 1971,and this was the age of stagnation and the completely dark part of the history of the USSR, that actually makes things worse, because the USSR was not socialist in 1971 and because it was a rotten system, making alliances with other rotten systems.
Well he is no friend of capitalism, that is my point.

I am not a fan of assad beccause, you know, the occupation of lebannon dosnt strike of has something a socialist would have done.


Lebanon and Syria are not different nations. Most Lebanese are grateful for the Syrian peace-keepers in Lebanon.

Lebanon and Syria were only split apart by the French in Sykos-Picot 1916

[Rafiq]

In regards to the SSNP:

Saadeh was indeed a Fascist and Right Wing scum. He was heavily influenced by social darwinism and throughout the history of hte SSNP, alliances with the Kataeb party did persist.

It wasn't until that old bastard died, and radical shifts in the party necessiated a split: One faction was Pro-Communist and Leftist (due to being thrown shoulder to shoulder with 'communsits' in prisons throughout the Middle East). Note I don't mean Leftist in our sense, i.e. Just left politics in general, though of course Bourgeois.

The other faction stuck with Saadehs bullshit and died out.

Now, the SSNP today likes to re write history and portray Saadeh as something he isn't, or never was. In all, today, it wouldn't mean much to call them right wing Fascists. They aren't. They are Bourgeois, like any other Communist party in the Middle East, but not Fascists.

Middle East politics are almost a mockery of Western ones.... You see members of the PFLP doing the Fascist salute, and it's quite confusing. This is due to the collapse of the Western Left, which had a heavy influence on Left parties across the Middle East.

[Omsk]

Well he is no friend of capitalism, that is my point.


By being a friend of the USSR of that period, he was a friend of international social-imperialism and capitalism of the East, plus, by being a friend of the revisionist, he was an enemy of communists.

[Rafiq]

Hafiz al Assad actually represented the Right Wing faction of the Ba'ath party, which later purged the Leftist, Communist sympathizing faction that would have turned Syria into something like Cuba (And on Syria's behalf, this wouldn't have necessarily been a bad thing). Very egilitarian and what not.

Though, the fact of the matter is that there resides a grain of truth with the topic started: Indeed, don't believe the media, as the FSA and the Rebels are reactionary monsters which will turn Syria into a Salafi-Sharia state, similar to Libya now or Saudi Arabia (Afghanistan under the Muj before the Taliban) and so on.

[Eagle_Syr]

Rafiq,

The aims of the SSNP are noble, in my humble opinion. While it is true that ultimately, we should abolish the concept of the nation-state, in contemporary history the artificial division by Western powers of the Near East has been a source of great conflict and identity unrest.

I agree fundamentally with the idea of Syrian nationalism, at least in comparison with the existing order, which is a bunch of artificial Western puppet states.

Saadeh's fundamental idea is Syrian nationalism. His ideas on social and economic structure were never concrete and probably were influenced by the Fascists of Europe if only because of convenience in politics. You cannot claim that he was a friend of the bourgeoisie.

[wsg1991]

Well he is no friend of capitalism, that is my point.



Lebanon and Syria were only split apart by the French in Sykos-Picot 1916

most of the current Arab countries are shaped by Ottomans and then British and French Imperialism ( for Libya : Italia ) . thus the idea of Reuniting this ''countries'' , nationalism is needed

Egypt and Sudan were one region , Syria and Lebanon also region ( AL sham )
Kuwait is a part of Iraq , but they were separated to prevent any future development of any arab state by fragmenting them

but that does not mean you can annex a country by force

[Rafiq]

Saadeh was not only a friend of the Bourgeoisie, he was their dog as well, like Hitler. Or perhaps the Pettie Bourgeoisie.

Saadeh was an enemy of all Communists. How do you explain the SSNP's alliance with the Fascist Kataeb party, if he wasn't a reactionary?

[Eagle_Syr]

Hafiz al Assad actually represented the Right Wing faction of the Ba'ath party, which later purged the Leftist, Communist sympathizing faction that would have turned Syria into something like Cuba (And on Syria's behalf, this wouldn't have necessarily been a bad thing). Very egilitarian and what not.


You know as well as I do that the politics of the Near East are complicated. You have to take demographics into account. You have to take into account the fact that there exists a Sunni majority eager and ready to massacre everybody else as soon as the leash holding them back is cut.

The rise to power of Hafez al-Assad guaranteed representation and protection of Christians and minority groups. It is an unfortunate reality that religion plays such a prominent role in politics, but it is the reality, and as such the alternative is Sharia theocracy.



By being a friend of the USSR of that period, he was a friend of international social-imperialism and capitalism of the East, plus, by being a friend of the revisionist, he was an enemy of communists.

Maybe.

[Eagle_Syr]

but that does not mean you can annex a country by force

Nobody is suggesting doing anything by force. The SSNP seeks political supremacy in both Lebanon and Syria; it has the support of many Lebanese as well as Syrians.

For example, it enjoys solid support from the Orthodox community in Lebanon.
Indeed, historically the only group opposed to re-unification with Syria were the Maronites.


Saadeh was an enemy of all Communists. How do you explain the SSNP's alliance with the Fascist Kataeb party, if he wasn't a reactionary?

I think the historical climate needs to be taken into consideration. But nonetheless, your dislike of Saadeh or even the mass of his ideas does not automatically mean that the idea of Syrian re-unification is a corrupt idea.

If there is one good idea he had, it's that.

[Rafiq]

Eagle Syr, what exactly did that have to do with Purging the Left Wing faction of the Ba'ath party, which was more secular than the Right Wing faction?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The funny thing is I was a supporter of the SSNP for a while.


I don't know if that's something to brag about



They are not Fascists in any meaningful sense. They are national restorationists. The current nation-states of Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq are artificial creations of Western imperialism. The SSNP simply calls for the re-unification of these territories into what they call "Greater Syria", or Bilad al-Sham
"National restorationists"? Ugh ... what a dreary sounding ideology. Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan and Iraq are artificial creations, but they are no more artificial than *Greater Syria*. For most of its history, Syria, the Levant and Mesopotamia was either ruled by small states or broader empires from outside the area. The State would be unable to impose a state of "Greater Syria" without trampling all over the rights of people who do not identify with such a national grouping. Needless to say, many Lebanese, Jordanians, Palestinians, Israelis, Kurds and Arabs would not want to live under a Syrian Nationalist state. All of their respective states must be dismantled to negate the violence and exploitation in the Middle East, but the answer is not to create some new Syrian super-state.



Also, regarding Assad, Hafez al-Assad was a very close ally of the socialist USSR
One thing which everyone from Stalinists to Trotskyists to Anarchists to LeftComs can agree upon-the USSR was hardly very socialist by the time that it started backing the Syrian regime.


The mode of production under Hafez Assad, and until recently, Bashar Assad, has been as socialist as the world has ever achieved (think Cuba).

That is, it wasn't socialism, but it was attempted socialism. Industries were nationalized.

By that standard, we should applaud American intervention since the government purchased GM and stocks in Citibank. Government owned businesses are not socialist, they are businesses that happen to give their surplus value to the State and not investors and landlords.


You know as well as I do that the politics of the Near East are complicated. You have to take demographics into account. You have to take into account the fact that there exists a Sunni majority eager and ready to massacre everybody else as soon as the leash holding them back is cut. So basically, the response to the political problems of the Middle East is ethnic oppression towards the Sunni population? How is this in any way worse than what the Sunni fanatics are doing? This is playing into the kind of petty racism and bigotry which these regimes rely on to survive.


yeh,altho the syrian regime is not dominated by alawites.assad is alawite.


A lot of the elites in the Syrian government are Alawites from the same tribe as Assad though, even if the regime is not "sectarian" it seems that many Sunnis as well as many Kurds feel that the regime is biased against them, as much as the insurgents are biased against Alawites. From what I have read Syria is sectarian more along tribal lines than religious lines, and that some Alawite tribes are just as bad off as the Sunnis, but that does not mean that Syria's government does not participate in sectarian and ethnically biased politics.

It seems that there is a sectarian element in the FSA and "insurgents" against Assad, but it seems that many of the initial protestors and dissidents were ethnically diverse, even if Sunnis were over-represented, and that the Syrian government itself is fairly sectarian in its orientation..


also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_Jadid
How is the Baathist ruler from the 50s and 60s who was replaced by Assad relevant to the current rule? It seems his position within Baathism was very different from Assad. Sadat took over from Nasser, and Mubarak from Sadat, so the so-called "left nationalists" always swing to the right as they become more engaged with the international backers they need to keep them in power (USA in Egypt, Russia in Syria). Nor does he seem particularly "Leftist".



no its not.altho the sectarianism is being helped by the syrian mb,and foreign arabian satelite channels and religious clerics
This seems like the argument that the Mubarak government used ... sectarianism is the tool of the ruling class to divide the masses. The Assad regime certainly seems to have played a role in antagonizing sectarianism.



the baath are politcally left ,arab nationalists.
What is "Left" about gassing kurds, denying kurds citizenship, bombing Shiites with helicopters, invading Iran on behalf of American-Arab Imperialist interests, bringing the economy to a state-affiliated elite, and stressing ethnic nationalism??? Baathism in Iraq and Syria alike have routinely adopted very reactionary policies. Arab nationalism and militarist statism taken to its logical conclusion swings to the Right, not the Left.

[Eagle_Syr]

Eagle Syr, what exactly did that have to do with Purging the Left Wing faction of the Ba'ath party, which was more secular than the Right Wing faction?

Syria was having coups right and left during that time of turbulence. Hafez al-Assad was primarily interested in the preservation of religious minorities, especially the Alawites. His actions had greater significance, and support, than the "left-wing" branch of the Ba'ath (and I wouldn't classify Hafez as "right")


I don't know if that's something to brag about

I support the primary aim of re-unification of the Levant.
And I'm not secretive about my past sympathies with Fascism (which, of course, is not the case any longer)


"National restorationists"? Ugh ... Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan and Iraq are artificial creations, but they are no more artificial than *Greater Syria*. For most of its history, Syria, the Levant and Mesopotamia was either ruled by small states or broader empires from outside the area.
Nevertheless, Anton Saadeh recognized that there existed in the Levant the potential for a geographically, historically, culturally, and ethnically justified nation.

Greece, too, used to be a collection of separate tribes and city-states waring with each other, but that doesn't diminish their common identity.



What is "Left" about gassing kurds, denying kurds citizenship, bombing Shiites with helicopters, invading Iran on behalf of American-Arab Imperialist interests, bringing the economy to a state-affiliated elite, and stressing ethnic nationalism??? Baathism in Iraq and Syria alike have routinely adopted very reactionary policies. Arab nationalism and militarist statism taken to its logical conclusion swings to the Right, not the Left.

The Ba'ath of Iraq are fundamentally different from the Ba'ath of Syria. You can't compare the two.

[#FF0000]

Nevertheless, Anton Saadeh recognized that there existed in the Levant the potential for a geographically, historically, culturally, and ethnically justified nation.

Greece, too, used to be a collection of separate tribes and city-states waring with each other, but that doesn't diminish their common identity

destroy all nations imo.

[wsg1991]

What is "Left" about gassing kurds, denying kurds citizenship, bombing Shiites with helicopters, invading Iran on behalf of American-Arab Imperialist interests, bringing the economy to a state-affiliated elite, and stressing ethnic nationalism??? Baathism in Iraq and Syria alike have routinely adopted very reactionary policies. Arab nationalism and militarist statism taken to its logical conclusion swings to the Right, not the Left.

The Iraqi Ba'ath and Syrian Ba'ath are not the same ,
perhaps you shouldn't make any more comments here

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The Ba'ath of Iraq are fundamentally different from the Ba'ath of Syria. You can't compare the two.


The Iraqi Ba'ath and Syrian Ba'ath are not the same ,
perhaps you shouldn't make any more comments here

He said "Baathism" not "Syrian Baathism" however, which refers to the ideological origins and developments in both countries. If they are so different then the generic term "Baathism" should be dropped. Even so, there are huge differences between Syria and Iraq in terms of their ideology and institutions, but there also seem to be important similarities which lead to the regime becoming alienated from the people. Both regimes solidified around a powerful family (the Saddams and Assads), both relied on extreme forms of nationalism, and both emphasized a welfare state at first but slowly replaced it with a more hierarchical and militarized society over time as the ruling elites became more entrenched. Both had influences from fascism, hyper nationalism and militarism, and both seem to stress a "progressive elite" instead of working class power. Whatever differences they may have, nationalism, a police state and kleptocracy seem to result in both places.

Perhaps you two could explain which particular differences are relevant to making Syrian Baathism somehow more leftwing than Iraqi Baathism? A "progressive elite" is a road to destitution for the working class and the differences between Syria and Iraq seem to just show different ways in which that same principle can fail.

[wsg1991]

He said "Baathism" not "Syrian Baathism" however, which refers to the ideological origins and developments in both countries. If they are so different then the generic term "Baathism" should be dropped. Even so, there are huge differences between Syria and Iraq in terms of their ideology and institutions, but there also seem to be important similarities which lead to the regime becoming alienated from the people. Both regimes solidified around a powerful family (the Saddams and Assads), both relied on extreme forms of nationalism, and both emphasized a welfare state at first but slowly replaced it with a more hierarchical and militarized society over time as the ruling elites became more entrenched. Both had influences from fascism, hyper nationalism and militarism, and both seem to stress a "progressive elite" instead of working class power. Whatever differences they may have, nationalism, a police state and kleptocracy seem to result in both places.

Perhaps you two could explain which particular differences are relevant to making Syrian Baathism somehow more leftwing than Iraqi Baathism? A "progressive elite" is a road to destitution for the working class and the differences between Syria and Iraq seem to just show different ways in which that same principle can fail.


do communists says that China and USSR is the same ?

[wsg1991]

He said "Baathism" not "Syrian Baathism" however, which refers to the ideological origins and developments in both countries. If they are so different then the generic term "Baathism" should be dropped. Even so, there are huge differences between Syria and Iraq in terms of their ideology and institutions, but there also seem to be important similarities which lead to the regime becoming alienated from the people. Both regimes solidified around a powerful family (the Saddams and Assads), both relied on extreme forms of nationalism, and both emphasized a welfare state at first but slowly replaced it with a more hierarchical and militarized society over time as the ruling elites became more entrenched. Both had influences from fascism, hyper nationalism and militarism, and both seem to stress a "progressive elite" instead of working class power. Whatever differences they may have, nationalism, a police state and kleptocracy seem to result in both places.

Perhaps you two could explain which particular differences are relevant to making Syrian Baathism somehow more leftwing than Iraqi Baathism? A "progressive elite" is a road to destitution for the working class and the differences between Syria and Iraq seem to just show different ways in which that same principle can fail.


*the hyper militarization started with the Iranian-Iraqi war , which is a natural to a war situation , dictators need police to protect them from inner threat , not the military . both Syria and Iraq had conflicts with other countries .


*the Iraqi Ba'athist ( which i personally know few , fellow students ) says that Syrian Ba'ath are traitors and fakes and enemy enemy of the real Ba'ath and point at how they kick out one the main Ba'ath theoretical writers , Michel afleq .

* the Syrian regime was allied himself with the Theocratic regime of Iran , against his fellow Iraqi Ba'athist arab regime , i don't that can be classified as an arab nationalist policy

[campesino]

this is getting ridiculous, all baath suck, they don't suck on paper, but in real life they do. We are now are arguing about the baath party, when this thread should be about media deception and the push for war.

[revolt]

this is getting ridiculous, all baath suck, they don't suck on paper, but in real life they do. We are now are arguing about the baath party, when this thread should be about media deception and the push for war.If people are saying that a ruling party which enthusiastically supports
David Duke is socialist then I think it's worth the thread derail to show them what reality looks like.

[blake 3:17]

this is getting ridiculous, all baath suck, they don't suck on paper, but in real life they do. We are now are arguing about the baath party, when this thread should be about media deception and the push for war.

Thanks! Those of us in the imperialist countries should be working against sanctions and military intervention.

[revolt]

Well he is no friend of capitalism, that is my point.


Lebanon and Syria are not different nations. Most Lebanese are grateful for the Syrian peace-keepers in Lebanon.

Lebanon and Syria were only split apart by the French in Sykos-Picot 1916if we are defining a nation as a nation state, then they are obviously different nations. if we are using the word nation in the sense of how Native American tribes are considered nations, then neither Syria or Lebanon are nations, they are countries with different nations inside them.

either way, you're a national chauvinist.

[revolt]

You cannot claim that he was a friend of the bourgeoisie.when workers in Syria strike for better conditions it is obvious what side he would have be on were he still alive.

you are pro-baathist and a supporter of hardline nationalism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

do communists says that China and USSR is the same ?

No but there are some very interesting structural parallels in the USSR and PRC which both caused the regimes to degrade.


*the hyper militarization started with the Iranian-Iraqi war , which is a natural to a war situation , dictators need police to protect them from inner threat , not the military . both Syria and Iraq had conflicts with other countries .This seems more like a similarity than a difference. Both the governments headed by Assad and Saddam thrived in a state of military confrontation with outside power. It makes sense that such situations start during wartime, but where do they end? Syria and Iraq have been in a state of external and internal military struggle more frequently than most poorer countries of their size in the past 30 years, and the regimes used it to bolster themselves and their credibility.


*the Iraqi Ba'athist ( which i personally know few , fellow students ) says that Syrian Ba'ath are traitors and fakes and enemy enemy of the real Ba'ath and point at how they kick out one the main Ba'ath theoretical writers , Michel afleq .

* the Syrian regime was allied himself with the Theocratic regime of Iran , against his fellow Iraqi Ba'athist arab regime , i don't that can be classified as an arab nationalist policy I'll admit that these are big differences, but they don't seem to impact the fact that on some level both governments are kleptocratic and authoritarian yet claim to be grounded in a "progressive" elite.



your info is wrong.fkd up regimes yes,see iraq
both assad and sadaam overthrew regimes compromised of leftwing baathists and communists.

So there were leftist Baathists who were convinced that the system could work for the left, but isn't it telling that both systems degraded in similar ways? Rightwing and authoritarian families took over both and used tribal connections to oppress minorities, especially non-Arab groups like Kurds (Assad may not have been so harsh as Saddam Hussein but I understand that they denied citizenship to many Kurds). Both countries eventually have problems with ethnic violence, police states, corruption, kleptocracy and repressed class struggle. Pan-Arabism was replaced by petty local nationalism.

I don't claim to be an expert on Baathist ideology or even Arab socialism more broadly, but there certainly seem to be some pretty substantial parallels between the regimes in Iraq and Syria, even though they opposed each other on many important international and internal affairs and even though there were very well-intentioned Left Baathists who saw it as a potentially revolutionary ideology. Why did Iraq and Syria both become corrupt, conservative regimes which were dependent on Imperialist powers?

The biggest difference I can see is that Syria seemed better at picking reliably anti-Imperialist fights to base its struggle on, whereas Iraq was much more opportunistic, as in its invasions of Iran and Kuwait. This makes Syria seem more credible as a player in this situation. However in terms of the structure of the regime, the strategies it uses to stay in power and the class makeup there are a lot of parallels.



baath partys was in other arab countrys alsoa question of interest, how successful have Baathists been in other Arab countries since the takeover, and what is their opinion on the regimes in Iraq and Syria? Do they have good socio-economic analysis and do they have any modern day relevance?

[wsg1991]

This seems more like a similarity than a difference. Both the governments headed by Assad and Saddam thrived in a state of military confrontation with outside power. It makes sense that such situations start during wartime, but where do they end? Syria and Iraq have been in a state of external and internal military struggle more frequently than most poorer countries of their size in the past 30 years, and the regimes used it to bolster themselves and their credibility.





one thing here , it's Isreal who attacked Syria , in 6 days war 1967 and occupied Golan heights , it's not like it was Syrian choice ,


in Economics , Iraqi Ba'ath managed to create a very solid social services system (welfare state style), the best arab Healthcare in The 70ies and early 80ies and did improve women rights ( the only country that was able to rival Tunisia ), and did use the Oil funds to create government sector industry , unlike the Saudi arabia and other neighbors countries .

that level of social spending was unusual to Golf countries

[Eagle_Syr]

when workers in Syria strike for better conditions it is obvious what side he would have be on were he still alive.

you are pro-baathist and a supporter of hardline nationalism.

I'm not pro-Ba'ath, and I do indeed support Syrian re-unification.

My opinion of the Assad chapter in the history of Syria is that it is simply one step on a long path which hopefully will end with the Marxist ideal.

[revolt]

I'm not pro-Ba'ath, and I do indeed support Syrian re-unification.

My opinion of the Assad chapter in the history of Syria is that it is simply one step on a long path which hopefully will end with the Marxist ideal.you think the Assad chapter will end with some sort of marxism?

Assad?

Syrian re-unification is completely in service of the ruling class.

[Eagle_Syr]

No. Assad will eventually be replaced. But some of the accomplishments made during these years will continue to matter.

[Rafiq]

?

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z212/lancero2007a/dezembro/3300a339.jpg



the ssnp have been enemys for years with the lebanese phalangists.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2379448&postcount=110

Only when it best served them. The SSNP originally, was allied with the Lebanese Kataeb. It was not until the 50's until they started to oppose one and another.


any links/info for your arguments?


My source was taken down, but they indeed did clash with Communists and were bitter rivals with them.


In Syria the SSNP grew to a position of considerable influence in the years following the country's independence in 1946, and was a major political force immediately after the restoration of democracy in 1954. It was a fierce rival of the Syrian Communist Party and of the radical pan-Arab Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, the other main ideological parties of the period. In April 1955 Colonel Adnan al-Malki, a Ba'athist officer who was a very popular figure in the Syrian army, was assassinated by a party member. This provided the Communists and Ba'athists with the opportunity to eliminate their main ideological rival, and under pressure from them and their allies in the security forces the SSNP was practically wiped out as a political force in Syria.


indeed, these motherfuckers were Fascists, and not in the loose sense. They were literal Fascists.

[Rafiq]

why are you using lame propaganda.it sham aramaic,assyrian(whatever they call it) oath salute..being lebanese ,syrian or whatever, you would know that,or you saying they all fascists-seems a racists think to say rafiq.

The salute was only adopted around after the 1950's. Strikes me as coincidental. It is a salute that was common around ancient places of all of the mediteranian, as I've known. It just so happens they utilized it only after the Nazis did.


further proving my point that you dont know anything about lebanon ,syria etc -just get snippets from wikpedia.

I'm Lebanese, and you should know very well I know people belonging to all of these factions. Actually, I recall an SSNP apologist telling me "Yeah, the Kataeb were good at first but then became bad". That's pretty common around SSNP members.


what and what did that show,that you know fk all about syria.lebanese but can use wikipedia .


The SSNP members who fled Lebanon in the 60's-70's to the United States today all hate Communists and do nothing but complain about them.

Fuck you, piece of shit. You asked me for some fucking links, and now you're going to say I don't know anything and have no personal experience? Go fuck yourself long and hard, you Bourgeois scum.


n.b. i couldnt care less of the baath or ssnp.if you want arabic info on them ,read up on them,rather than using wikipedia.


Why not get info from members of those parties themselves?

[hashem]

It is true that the Ba'ath Party and Syrian Communist Party did not have the best relations, but they are not opposed to each other in their support for socialism.

Nazis support their own kind of "socialism" as well. Ba'ath parties are arabic Nazi parties and Syrian "Communist" Party is the brother of eastern bloc revisionists, "Communist" Party of Iraq which is serving imperialists, Tudeh party of Iran, Khalg and Parcham factions of Afganestan and similar criminals.

your socialism is not proletarian, it represents backward sections of bourgeoisie. proletarian socialism is based on Soviets (councils) of workers and toilers, not a monarchy like Syria. allies of a Proletarian state are Proletariat, toilers and oppressed masses of others countries, not a fascist regime like islamic republic of Iran or russian and chinese capitalists. and finally, a proletarian state (or even a democratic bourgeoisie state) has no problem about dealing with some terrorists and puppets of other countries.

[Eagle_Syr]

Rafiq,

Fine. Ignore the SSNP. But address their fundamental and primary goal, a goal which is not Fascist in itself: the re-unification of the Levant.

That is not a bad thing.

[Eagle_Syr]

i think its there anyway,forgetting political borders.
even the rebels think they are gonna bring back their bilad ashsham

I think among the everyday people of the region, there is a sense of community between the peoples of the Levant. But politically there is immense animosity between Lebanon (and within Lebanon), the Jordanian Monarchy; Assad; the various peoples of Iraq; and of course, the Palestinians.

[Tukhachevsky]

So huge disappointment, I thought was someone posting from Syria :closedeyes:

[Binh]

Assad and his party are self-proclaimed socialists. Syria has always taken a hard stance against capitalism, until very recently with the establishment of private banks in the country.

This "socialist" regime tortures and imprisons socialists:
http://links.org.au/node/2841

[Juche]

You can count me in on taking President Assad's side over the rebels.

Of course, on almost everything that America supports I tend to support the opposite.

So I pressed the like button on Assads facebook page. :D

[#FF0000]

Of course, on almost everything that America supports I tend to support the opposite.

you're doing it wrong bro

[Ostrinski]

Supporting Russian imperialism is anti-imperialism apparently.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wow, Bashir al-Assad has a Facebook page?! :blink:

[Sir Comradical]

Supporting Russian imperialism is anti-imperialism apparently.

Russia is imperialist towards Syria is it?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Russia is imperialist towards Syria is it?
Yes. What other motivation could there be behind their foreign policy? Putins love for Syrian national sovereignity?

[barbelo]

Russia is imperialist towards Syria is it?

You don't know about russian naval base in Syria?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_base_in_Tartus

[cynicles]

Wow, Bashir al-Assad has a Facebook page?! :blink:
Did you think he was one o fthose lame dictators like Al Saud still stuck on myspace?

[ckaihatsu]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/02/14877313-us-move-to-sideline-syria-opposition-group-stems-from-exiles-dysfunction?lite


US move to sideline Syria opposition group stems from exiles' dysfunction


Slideshow: Syria uprising
A look back at the violence that has overtaken the country


By Paul Nassar, NBC News

News analysis

BEIRUT -- The Obama administration’s suggestion this week that it was prepared to sideline the opposition-in-exile Syrian National Council and attempt to handpick more representative leaders at a crucial meeting next week came after months of frustration over the group's dysfunction and ineffectiveness.

Made up of Syrian intellectuals and political exiles, the Istanbul-based SNC has barely been able to coordinate the simplest of tasks, let alone run the opposition against a well-entrenched regime such as Bashar Assad’s.

It has clearly exhausted the patience of the United States.

On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration was suggesting names and organizations that should feature prominently in any new rebel leadership that is to emerge from a four-day conference starting Sunday in Doha, the capital of Qatar.

"This cannot be an opposition represented by people who have many good attributes but who, in many instances, have not been inside Syria for 20, 30, 40 years," Clinton said during a visit to Croatia.

"There has to be a representation of those who are in the front lines fighting and dying today to obtain their freedom," she said.

Anti-regime activists say at least 36,000 people have been killed since the struggle to oust Assad began 19 months ago.

U.S. officials have watched with concern the SNC’s inability to rally around a common cause.

Syrian opposition wary of US push to coalesce leadership

The members appear incapable of electing a leader that the whole council could agree on. More often than not, they opt for bland technocrats to fill the void.

Lacking a strong leader, the SNC has been ineffectual at inspiring the opposition.

A leaderless revolution

Most importantly, the members of the council have no relevance to the people who are fighting and dying on the Syrian battlefields.

Some of the rebel fighters are former Syrian Army conscripts who defected to the rebels rather than be forced to kill their own. But most are novices to combat.

Former farmers or businessmen, many of these rebels have only the most rudimentary training and are poorly equipped. When asked questions about the SNC, their responses tend to be lukewarm, at best.

These are not rebels caught in the zeal of fighting behind a charismatic leader.

As fighting rages in Syria with heavy air raids, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. would push for a major revamp in Syria's opposition leadership. NBC's Keith Miller reports.

Instead, their unity stems from a hatred of the regime in Damascus -- but little else. The SNC enjoys little influence among them.

There is no genuine leader to rally around. This is a leaderless revolution.

Faiz Amru, a Syrian army general who defected earlier this year, told The Associated Press that any transitional government or body created abroad cannot possibly represent those dying in Syria.

"Everyone is trying to push their own agendas," he said by phone from the Turkish-Syrian border. "The big powers have hijacked the Syrian revolution."

The West fears that an opposition leadership vacuum would allow the anti-Assad rebellion to tilt toward Islamic radicalism, rather than toward the inclusive, secular and democratic values the SNC claims to uphold.

Anybody traveling through rebel-held areas in northern Syria can easily spot the foreign fighters, driving around under the Islamist black flag.

These men are not Syrian. Some are Libyans, others Chechen. They are all radical in their religious and political beliefs.

So it is unsurprising that the United States has decided to seek an amicable divorce from the SNC. The events of the past year have proved just how fickle a partner they were.

Lessons from Iraq war

The United States also may be applying lessons learned from the Iraq War.

The Bush administration was burned when it put its weight behind Iraqi exiles, such as Ahmed Chalabi, who had little relevance in the eyes of the local population.

People resisting the army of President Bashar al-Assad in northern Syria cope with loss and prepare for fighting.

So far, nothing suggests that Syria will be any different.

Attempts have been made in the past to rectify the disunity and make the SNC more relevant.

But when members of the opposition met in Cairo last June, the results were nothing short of catastrophic. Screaming matches ensued. Nothing of value was decided.

It would have been comic, had the reality in Syria itself not been so tragic.

Machine guns operated by motorcycle brakes? Get a glimpse at the rebels fighting against Assad's forces in Syria's mountainous Jabal al-Zawiya area.

US: 'We're not giving them a list’

The State Department has spent the past few months determining which members are worth backing in Doha, but insists it would not issue dictates.

"We're not giving them a list," said State Department spokesman Mark Toner. "Ultimately it's up to the Syrians themselves to make those choices. This is in no way telling them what to do."

Syria warplanes pound rebel strongholds

Muhydin Lazikani, a London-based writer and SNC member, told the AP that Clinton had no right to criticize the SNC at a time when the Obama administration has no clear path for Syria.

"All they try to do is blame the SNC," said Lazikani.

Mohammad Sarmini, a Turkey-based SNC spokesman, told the AP that the United States, through this new push, is "trying to make up for its shortcomings and impotence to stop the killings and massacres in Syria."

The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to internal opponents of Assad and is limiting its aid to non-lethal humanitarian assistance.

Progress or paralysis?

Western officials hope that the meetings in Doha, held over five days, would be everything that the Cairo ones were not.

Participants and observers hope the gathering will prove effective in choosing a unified council that is made up of all of Syria’s ethnic and religious groups.

It remains to be seen whether the opposition is able to elect a representative who can serve as the face of the rebellion against the Assad regime. The SNC will be allocated seats on the new council, although they are expected to remain in the minority.

But if the Doha meetings fail, the only certainty will be that Syria’s nightmarish civil war will drag on and the tragic events played out every day throughout the country will continue unabated.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Russia is imperialist towards Syria is it?

Every capitalist nation is imperialist, my man. Just depends on how much cash and carpet-bombs they have.