Bashar Al-Assad or "Rebels"?

[Comrade Nasser]

Really just the title. Who do you lean more towards supporting? I'd like to know how the rest of the site feels about the whole issue. I personally don't know what to think.

[Goblin]

Assad. Hes the lesser of two evils.

[TheEmancipator]

I had time for the rebels until they were pretty much taken over by religious fundies. The secular movements across the Arab spring were the main reason for the start of these Revolutions (in Egypt for example, the youth took out their anger at the Mosques as much as the government officials) but sadly the end result will be a series of islamist regimes similar to Iran (except Sunni) that will discriminate against workers, gays, women, etc.. and declare their usual war on progress.

[Comrade Nasser]

I had time for the rebels until they were pretty much taken over by religious fundies. The secular movements across the Arab spring were the main reason for the start of these Revolutions (in Egypt for example, the youth took out their anger at the Mosques as much as the government officials) but sadly the end result will be a series of islamist regimes similar to Iran (except Sunni) that will discriminate against workers, gays, women, etc.. and declare their usual war on progress.

Yes at first I vehemently supported them until I saw how many of them were Islamic extremists. I mean when you hear "ALLAHU AHKBAR" all the goddamn time in their videos, you can be sure they probably aren't very nice people.

[Narodnik]

Maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Protection_Units

[Comrade Nasser]

Maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Protection_Units

Ahh the Kurdish counter-rebels eh? I've heard these groups are also filled with Christians (Arabs and Armenian) who've taken up arms to defend themselves and their family's. I've read that they are armed, funded, and protected by Assad. I heard they also work with the Syrian National Army against the rebels

[Narodnik]

As far I can see, they were founded by Democratic Union Party, which is affilliated with the Kurdistan Workers' Party.

An interesting quote "The YPG considers itself a democratic popular militia and conducts internal elections as a method of appointing officers."

[Le Socialiste]

The rebels of course, I can't fathom why anyone would consider supporting Assad. Contrary to what has been said, he's not the "less of two evils" (and quite frankly I can't believe we've reduced the situation - which is far more nuanced and complex than some give it credit for - to such an arbitrary analytical form). What we have in Syria is a whole range of fighters, some operating independently of others in the main movement to oust Assad. Ironically (or not, however you choose to look at it), it's the Islamists who have received the bulk of Western aid and arms, funneled through their allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. For those operating under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army and the Local Coordinating Committees, fighters are required to subordinate themselves to their governing authorities. Women have played a vitally integral role in building and sustaining these movements, and local grassroots efforts have been made in a variety of towns and cities towards self-governance. Add to that the fact that the fundamentalist Islamists are proportionally smaller in comparison to these dual (and integrated) movements, and it becomes clear who one ought to be supporting in this revolution.

[Geiseric]

Assad. Hes the lesser of two evils.

This motherfucker bombs hospitals where kids are being treated by doctors, who he is trying to kill, in Damascus. Assad is an animal, he started this conflict by shooting protesters.

The rebels are funded by NATO and Saudi Arabia, so you really can't support them either. It's fucked all around. It's a civil war. I would support sections of the rebels, who are legitimately defending their homes from a BOURGEOIS dictator, but you would have to be stupid to support Assad's army.

[Paul Pott]

Neither.

Particularly not the rebels, who are backed by the west.

[Comrade Nasser]

This motherfucker bombs hospitals where kids are being treated by doctors, who he is trying to kill, in Damascus. Assad is an animal, he started this conflict by shooting protesters.

The rebels are funded by NATO and Saudi Arabia, so you really can't support them either. It's fucked all around. It's a civil war. I would support sections of the rebels, who are legitimately defending their homes from a BOURGEOIS dictator, but you would have to be stupid to support Assad's army.

Yeah fuck this lesser evil stuff.

Assad and 90% of the rebels are full of shit.

[khad]

This motherfucker bombs hospitals where kids are being treated by doctors, who he is trying to kill, in Damascus. Assad is an animal, he started this conflict by shooting protesters.

The rebels are funded by NATO and Saudi Arabia, so you really can't support them either. It's fucked all around. It's a civil war. I would support sections of the rebels, who are legitimately defending their homes from a BOURGEOIS dictator, but you would have to be stupid to support Assad's army.
Many Syrian army men are fighting to protect their families and communities from Islamists. Need you be reminded what's been happening to Christian communities all over Syria?

The sword cuts both ways; you cannot declare the moral superiority of one side over the other just like that. Everyone has things to protect, and no side is fighting for socialism.

[Comrade Nasser]

Many Syrian army men are fighting to protect their families and communities from Islamists. Need you be reminded what's been happening to Christian communities all over Syria?

The sword cuts both ways; you cannot declare the moral superiority of one side over the other just like that. Everyone has things to protect, and no side is fighting for socialism.

Yes being an Arab (former christian) this hits a little bit close to home. Speaking to Syrian christian's opened up my eyes and made me see that the rebels are more of a problem to christian's and other religious & ethnic minorities. Strangely many Sunnis also support Assad. I don't know what to think really lol.

I also don't have a fondness for the U.S. arming Islamists with NATO certified bulletproof vests and american assault rifles with grenade launchers, scopes, and hi-cap magazines lmao :laugh: :laugh:

[khad]

I also don't have a fondness for the U.S. arming Islamists with NATO certified bulletproof vests and american assault rifles with grenade launchers, scopes, and hi-cap magazines lmao :laugh: :laugh:
They give them vehicles too, with everything except the guns mounted. A couple of screws and a Saudi arms dealer later, they're ready to rock.

Obama's "nonlethal" aid is a big crock of shit.

[rylasasin]

Assad or Rebels?

Aka,

"Bourgeois Petty Arab Dictator vs Bourgeois Backed Reactolution"

Option C for me.

[Tim Cornelis]

I've read that they are armed, funded, and protected by Assad. I heard they also work with the Syrian National Army against the rebels

You heard wrong. Assad withdrew from Kurdish areas to concentrate his army on fighting the FSA. The Kurdish PYD/YPG used this to their advantage, and took control. The Syrian Army has tortured YPG rebels and is bombing Kurdish areas, killing many civilians including children. The YPG and FSA initially had moderately favourable relations, but this deteriorated gradually, culminating in an attack on a Kurdish demonstration by the FSA. Since there has been some cautious cooperation between the FSA and YPG, including opening joint road checkpoints, but also continued harassment by the FSA.

https://www.facebook.com/PydInfo?ref=stream


The aerial attacks on the predominately Kurdish district of Shex Meqsud, in Aleppo, are continuing. In the early hours of Saturday two children were killed in a new attack. 16 civilians were injured and brought to a hospital in Efrin, an hour’s drive from Aleppo. According to medical reports the Syrian regime have used the chemical substance cyanide in its latest attack. We will be back with a confirmation of the medical report as soon as possible.


Tensions are high in the Kurdish district of Şêx Meqsûd in Heleb (Aleppo). The number of civilians killed after yesterdays attack by the Syrian army on Şêx Meqsûd reached 15. Today the YPG killed 9 regime soldiers in a response to the latest bombardments.


Neither.

Particularly not the rebels, who are backed by the west.

Why did you wrote, "Particularly not the rebels, who are backed by the west," and not "particularly not the regime, who are backed by Russia, China, Iran." This is indicative of favouring one form of imperialism over another, as is so common with Marxist-Leninists.


This motherfucker bombs hospitals where kids are being treated by doctors, who he is trying to kill, in Damascus. Assad is an animal, he started this conflict by shooting protesters. .

Exactly. Unbelievable how many utterly disregard this and support such an animal as you correctly call him.

The Assad regime is capitalist, imperialist, oppressive, dictatorial, racist and warrants no support whatsoever.

[Le Socialiste]

Can we please stop treating the rebels as one unified movement, lacking any diversity? The rebels aren't all Islamists, nor do they all receive funding and arms from the West. Indeed, the majority of rebels have accused the U.S. and its allies of stopping the flow of everything save for light weaponry from entering Syria. Washington has been blocking the entry of heavy weaponry into the country for the last couple of years now. That the rebels would seek weapons from outside Syria isn't a failing of the movement; they were forced to take up arms in response to the willingness of Assad's government to literally drown the revolution in its own blood. The main issue is how to obtain aid without ceding the movement's independence to foreign powers or interests.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

I don't see why leftists should necessarily support one side or the other, neither provides a particularly good option and its not as if our support for either side in this fight really matters. Similarly, neither of the factions in the war are going to be beneficial to the Syrian people, the working class, or an ultimately revolutionary situation. As such I voted for the "don't care" option though I would have preferred an option for the oppressed and poor of Syria or some such.

[l'Enfermé]

I think neo-liberalism is preferable to Salafist theocracy.

[Comrade Nasser]

I don't see why leftists should necessarily support one side or the other, neither provides a particularly good option and its not as if our support for either side in this fight really matters. Similarly, neither of the factions in the war are going to be beneficial to the Syrian people, the working class, or an ultimately revolutionary situation. As such I voted for the "don't care" option though I would have preferred an option for the oppressed and poor of Syria or some such.

I agree comrade. Although is there really an option for the oppressed and poor of Syria? I'm afraid not :(

[Narodnik]

Kurdish forces seem to be the most libertarian.

[Comrade Nasser]

Kurdish forces seem to be the most libertarian.

I agree to some extent but the Kurd forces are heavily outnumbered and if what you say is true about them attacking both the FSA and the National Syrian army then they probably will be crushed by both sides sadly :(

[Starship Stormtrooper]

I see your point, the situation there is shit all around. Would be nice if there was an alternative that the left could provide, but it's just idle wishing at this point and another reminder of opportunities lost.

[Le Socialiste]

Those who decry the present composition of the revolutionary movement in Syria as somehow unsuitable to their vision of what such a struggle ought to look like must not be aware that it is the poor, the disaffected, who are directly involved in the existing conflict. Their intervention began two years ago at the height of the rebellious fervor that swept entire sections of the Middle East and N. Africa, in the same tradition as those in Egypt, Tunisia, and others before it. Since then, we have seen a number of groups and political entities arise from the movement to oust Assad.

These components range from conservative to liberal (the Syrian National Council and National Coalition, respectively), revolutionary to reactionary, with different sections either promoting foreign intervention or guarding against it. One of the most prevalent sticking points for many on the left is the presence of armed Islamist groups, but these organizations are often independent of the others (organized under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army) and are minuscule in proportion to the array of class forces currently engaged in popular resistance against Assad. In fact, the popular movement has been deeply involved in organizing efforts to combat and criticize these Jihadist groups and their reactionary intentions.

Of note, too, is the development and ongoing evolution of the most rudimentary expressions of workers' self-government in the cities and towns throughout the country. These are known as the 'coordinating committees,' revolutionary bodies organized from the bottom up that see to the day to day needs of the population, taking care of food, housing, and health care. In the universities, students have openly declared their hostility to the Assad regime and begun organizing their numbers - despite being subjected to harassment and violence from the government and military.

Workers have been at the forefront of the struggle as well, though not yet as a unified class due to the extensive repression and general atomization of their efforts. Nevertheless, since the revolution began, 3,000 factories have been shut down as a result of the government's 'scorched earth' policy of isolating and ruining the popular movement. Women have been deeply embedded and integrated in the general struggle, organizing protests and being voted into local coordinating committees. Herein we may observe the embryonic beginnings of a mass movement built upon workers' and peoples' power, based in the democratic councils that pervade the country.

And this isn't even to mention the presence of the revolutionary left inside Syria itself, which has been involved in the struggle from the beginning. Groups like the Revolutionary Left Current have been working to engage and intervene in the mass movement, striving to unite the left (those not allied with Assad) and develop an alternative revolutionary leadership through active participation in all forms of struggle, as well as the workers' and peoples' councils and committees.

There are many moving factors in Syria that continually require fresh analysis, but what is clear is that the entry of the Syrian working-class into what has developed into a mass popular movement marks a definitive shift in its development. The rebels are not homogenous, and different segments of the opposition hold differing ideas as to what ought to happen in a post-Assad Syria. But these forces don't represent the whole of the movement, as some on here seem to think.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

I voted Assad. I don't actually "support" him in general, obviously. But in the case of the civil war, I think he's much better than the majority of the rebels, some of which aren't even rebels, but foreign (Saudi, etc) mercenaries/Salafist scum.
Of course Assad is bourgeois and a dictator, but I have a hard time believing some of the things he's accused of, considering a lot of it comes from Al-Jazeera, Qatar(a country that supports the rebels)'s propaganda channel, and also western media. I'm still not saying he's good, just that we should be careful about who we trust.


Can we please stop treating the rebels as one unified movement, lacking any diversity? The rebels aren't all Islamists, nor do they all receive funding and arms from the West.
That's true, but if the Assad government is overthrown, who do you think is going to take over? The Salafists, or some tiny minority of leftists?

[Comrade Nasser]

I voted Assad. I don't actually "support" him in general, obviously. But in the case of the civil war, I think he's much better than the majority of the rebels, some of which aren't even rebels, but foreign (Saudi, etc) mercenaries/Salafist scum.
Of course Assad is bourgeois and a dictator, but I have a hard time believing some of the things he's accused of, considering a lot of it comes from Al-Jazeera, Qatar(a country that supports the rebels)'s propaganda channel, and also western media. I'm still not saying he's good, just that we should be careful about who we trust.


That's true, but if the Assad government is overthrown, who do you think is going to take over? The Salafists, or some tiny minority of leftists?

Many, many of the rebels are foreign mercenaries from other Arab countries (egypt, saudi, libya, qatar, iraq, etc.). The vast majority of them are not leftists but rather Islamist pieces of shit lol.

[Le Socialiste]

That's true, but if the Assad government is overthrown, who do you think is going to take over? The Salafists, or some tiny minority of leftists?

If you'd read my posts, you'd note that I said the Islamists are proportionately smaller than the whole of the opposition against Assad, their involvement being heavily overstated in the media and elsewhere. The revolutionary left in Syria is small, yes, but I wasn't referring to this small subsection of the movement. I was commenting on the masses themselves, who have organized themselves independently of the government and in conjunction with similar shifts in the armed Free Syrian Army. These are the people who originally entered into a struggle against the regime when the revolution first began, not a small band of revolutionaries - those these are present in the movement, too, and shouldn't be ignored.

This isn't to understate the role of the Islamists in Syria, however. Since they are the ones receiving money and arms from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they still pose a danger to the movement. The good news is that these groups have been the targets of protests and criticism by many within the broader struggle.

[TheEmancipator]

Last time I heard PKK was backing Assad.

[Comrade Nasser]

Last time I heard PKK was backing Assad.

Yeah I heard that also. I've also heard of the "Lijan Militias" which are apparently christian Arab and Armenian militias that patrol and protect their own neighborhoods. They are loyal to Assad (he also arms them) because they see the rebels as all foreign Islamists.

[Hermes]

I don't really feel comfortable supporting either, as others have said. Regardless of whether or not the entirety of the rebels are funded by the U.S., I find it more likely that those who are will gain the leverage needed to assume power if/when victory is achieved, much as happened in Libya.

I'm not all-knowing of the conflict, though, so any critique is appreciated.

[Sasha]

hang the new leaders with the intestines of the old, "supporting" the opposition (who are, as explained, anything but a homogeneous movement) might be a gamble but supporting Assad is reactionary by definition....

[Tim Cornelis]

Last time I heard PKK was backing Assad.

Assad narrowly "backed" the PKK in the 1990s to torment Turkey, purely geopolitical opportunism. Meanwhile, in Syria, Assad declared it an "all Arab" country, denied tens of thousands of Kurds statehood because of this, marginalised them (Kurds are on average poorer than Arabs), violently crushed protests and resistance, banned expressions of Kurdish culture, and now some here expect the PYD to support that racist regime? Even now, the Syrian regime bombards civilian populations in Kurdish areas, tortures and executes YPG POWs, and clashes with them frequently. The YPG (Popular Protection Units) was founded in 2005, after the Assad regime squashed the Qamishli riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_al-Qamishli_riots) with lethal force. Of course they do not support the Assad regime.

[Delenda Carthago]

I, as well as the communists of the country, support the last non theocratic arab state.

http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH269/20110614-204629_h-61c6a.jpg
http://www.mecn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Syrian-Arab-Army-Frees-Hostages-Held-Captive-by-Rebels-in-Homs.jpg

http://syrianfreepress.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/syrian_free_press_syrian_arab_army_20121215.jpg?w= 529



Not my cup of tea, but you only gave two choices. Its more hate for the opposition than anything.

[Delenda Carthago]

And yes, the opposition is not one unified thing, but we can figure out who is gonna take control if they gain power.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/03/26/syrian-rebel-infighting-islamists-clash-with-secularists/

[Tim Cornelis]

I, as well as the communists of the country, support the last non theocratic arab state.


You support an imperialist, racist, capitalist, oppressive and dictatorial state. Is that sufficient grounds for restriction? I like how you said, "arab state" because if you said "Middle East" it would force you on the basis of consistency to favour Israeli Zionism over Palestinian opposition because the latter includes theocratic Islamists

I reiterate from the last threads:
There are currently five Marxist-Leninist political parties active in Syria. Two (one of which is "Gorbachovist") support the Syrian regime, two oppose the regime, and one, the People's Will Party opposes the regime but has delivered a minister to the government. Additionally, the Kurdish far-left Democratic Union Party opposes the regime.

"Communists" in favour of the Assad regime:

- Communist Party of Syria (Bakdash) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Communist_Party_(Bakdash))
- Communist Party of Syria (Unified) (Syrian Communist Party (Unified))

"Communists" against the regime:
- Arab Revolutionary Workers Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolutionary_Workers_Party)
- Democratic Union Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria))
- People's Will party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Will_Party) (nominally or ambivalently)
- Communist Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Labour_Party_(Syria))

[Sasha]

I, as well as the communists of the country, support the last non theocratic arab state.


you do know that the only theocracy in the middle east is Iran which isnt arab right? even Saudi-arabia is a monarchy, not a theocracy... and outside the gulf they are all either full on parliamentary or presidential democracies (lebanon, tunisia, egypt etc etc) or democratic monarchies (marocco, jordan), some are even officially secular...


also interesting that you know the position of every single communist in syria, even those who as le socialiste already explained are in fact in the camp of the uprising... or are you just speaking of the loyal Assad lackeys of the allowed parties? no surprise there i guess as that role is exactly where the KKE would end up in a revolutionary greece...the "communists" who pledged fealty to baathism and are in coalition with the national-socialist party?.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'd rather have Assad than Al-Quaida.

[Sasha]

Yeah, funny thing is that that are not the only two options, not to mention that A. Assad invited al-Qaeda into Syria to destabilize Iraq and B. prominent backers of the Islamist rebel group have no incentive to support al-Qaeda since it is, and remains al-Qaeda's primary objective to "liberate"Mecca and all other holy sites from the house of Saud...

[Delenda Carthago]

you do know that the only theocracy in the middle east is Iran which isnt arab right? even Saudi-arabia is a monarchy, not a theocracy... and outside the gulf they are all either full on parliamentary or presidential democracies (lebanon, tunisia, egypt etc etc) or democratic monarchies (marocco, jordan), some are even officially secular...


also interesting that you know the position of every single communist in syria, even those who as le socialiste already explained are in fact in the camp of the uprising... or are you just speaking of the loyal Assad lackeys of the allowed parties? no surprise there i guess as that role is exactly where the KKE would end up in a revolutionary greece...the "communists" who pledged fealty to baathism and are in coalition with the national-socialist party?.
Actually, my party's posistion is that there are imperialist games by two sides (both usa and russia) on the backs of the people. thats just me hating the theocrats. all the other bs you be talkin, i could care less. i hate the theocrats, i hate the fsl, i hate imperialist provoked so called "revolutions" like the one in Libya.

[Sasha]

theocrats, imperialist, "revolutions"

keep going, my bingo card is almost full....

[Tim Cornelis]

, i hate imperialist provoked so called "revolutions" like the one in Libya.

So the Libyan revolution was orchestrated by foreign powers as opposed to popular grievances being used to the advantage of foreign powers? But of course, the Egyptian revolution did not require foreign orchestration huh.

This is just conspiratorial nonsense.

[Comrade Samuel]

If supporting "the lesser of two evils" worked for me then I'd probably identify as a liberal and be posting my opinions on Facebook as opposed to a place like revleft where inteligent discussions can occasionally be had.

They are both terrible and no matter who wins this civil war the working class will lose. The only aid I'd ever want to see given to Syria by the west would be of the humanitarian variety.

[X5N]

I don't really care for either side. And quite frankly, far-leftists who support a bourgeois, murderous arsehole like Assad irritate me.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't really care for either side. And quite frankly, far-leftists who support a bourgeois, murderous arsehole like Assad irritate me.

No leftist that 'supports' Assad deny those things about him. We merely prefer him over Al-Quaida rebels, however, we acknowledge he is not a leftist in any sense, and would support a Communist revolution to overthrow him.

[X5N]

No leftist that 'supports' Assad deny those things about him. We merely prefer him over Al-Quaida rebels, however, we acknowledge he is not a leftist in any sense, and would support a Communist revolution to overthrow him.

I've seen quite a few leftists who genuinely support Assad, though.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I've seen quite a few leftists who genuinely support Assad, though.

Against the rebels or as an example of a good socialist leader?

[X5N]

Against the rebels or as an example of a good socialist leader?

Not sure. But even if the former, it's pretty messed up to support a monster like Assad, even as the "lesser of two evils."

[Paul Pott]

Why did you wrote, "Particularly not the rebels, who are backed by the west," and not "particularly not the regime, who are backed by Russia, China, Iran." This is indicative of favouring one form of imperialism over another, as is so common with Marxist-Leninists.


It's not Russian imperialism that has stoked the flames of a civil war which is in no one's interest. Hence "particularly" considering this is about Iran in the end.

[Le Socialiste]

No leftist that 'supports' Assad deny those things about him. We merely prefer him over Al-Quaida rebels, however, we acknowledge he is not a leftist in any sense, and would support a Communist revolution to overthrow him.

Do you even bother reading the other posts in this thread, posts that have disproven this assertion multiple times over? Or do you just enjoy making baseless assertions with no contextual evidence at all?

Were the movements to oust Ben Ali, Mubarak, Saleh, Gaddafi, or any number of other leaders communist revolutions? Of course not, because people don't arrive at communism on a whim, or make an otherwise conscious decision to initiate something of that nature without engaging in active, organic struggle.

As Rosa Luxemburg put it, we "cannot and dare not wait, in a fatalist fashion, with folded arms for the advent of the "revolutionary situation," to wait for that which in every spontaneous peoples’ movement, falls from the clouds."

If we dismiss every manifestation of popular struggle out of hand because it doesn't fit our cookie-cutter idea of what a movement ought to look like, we're not going to get anywhere.

[Le Socialiste]

It's not Russian imperialism that has stoked the flames of a civil war which is in no one's interest. Hence "particularly" considering this is about Iran in the end.

Really? Because Russia and Iran have been shipping weapons to Assad's government since day 1. Russian, Iranian, and Chinese imperialism are as prevalent in Syria as Qatari, Saudi, and Western imperialism is (if not more so).

[Geiseric]

Can we please stop treating the rebels as one unified movement, lacking any diversity? The rebels aren't all Islamists, nor do they all receive funding and arms from the West. Indeed, the majority of rebels have accused the U.S. and its allies of stopping the flow of everything save for light weaponry from entering Syria. Washington has been blocking the entry of heavy weaponry into the country for the last couple of years now. That the rebels would seek weapons from outside Syria isn't a failing of the movement; they were forced to take up arms in response to the willingness of Assad's government to literally drown the revolution in its own blood. The main issue is how to obtain aid without ceding the movement's independence to foreign powers or interests.

I was about to say this. This false dichotomy was created by Assad supporters, as a result of his own propaganda.

I'm sure the Islamist and foreign funded rebels are doing fucked up things to christians and other minority groups. Everybody knows about that, and obviously condemn it! That's common sense, i'd hope that you'd assume that.

However this started with arab spring protests, and many of those protesters and their families now have arms as a result of the Assad reaction. Assad is the reactionary, not the working class rebels. Assad is the one who crushed the second intifada, if any of these Assad supporters, whom are condemning rebel sectarianism, can remember.

[Akshay!]

Assad, because he's against US, pro-Iran and pro-Hezbollah.

btw, whatever you choose, the "don't care" option doesn't make ANY sense!
How on earth could you not care when tens of thousands of children are dying for no reason? What if you were one of them?

Instead there should be an option called "neither side".

[Deity]

Assad, because he's against US, pro-Iran and pro-Hezbollah.

btw, whatever you choose, the "don't care" option doesn't make ANY sense!
How on earth could you not care when tens of thousands of children are dying for no reason? What if you were one of them?

Instead there should be an option called "neither side".

"No opinion" or "condemn both" would've been better wording no doubt. "Don't care" just sounds ignorant in a situation this serious.

[Skyhilist]

Where is the "neither" option?

[Rafiq]

Assad, because he's pro-Iran and pro-Hezbollah.


you blundering fool, the only reason any leftist can sustain half a piss poor reason to support him is because he's fighting islamists!

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Akshay!]

you blundering fool, the only reason any leftist can sustain half a piss poor reason to support him is because he's fighting islamists!


And who are those "islamists" being funded by? Who is giving weapons to them? You deleted half of my comment in which I said "because he's against US". How can one forget the whole experience with funding islamist groups in Afghanistan? Will the Civil war continue if both sides stopped providing weapons?

Also, instead of insults ("blundering fool"), name calling, etc.. why don't you instead provide me with an argument? Is it impossible to have a civilized debate?

[Rafiq]

because, you shit slinging moron, the Iranian state and it's toadies abroad are just as much reactionary islamist scum. The only reason, I might add, the Iranian state didn't help the muj in afghanistan was because of their fear of the Soviet Union who stationed soldiers on their border.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Fourth Internationalist]

Not sure. But even if the former, it's pretty messed up to support a monster like Assad, even as the "lesser of two evils."

If you have a choice between two evils, choosing the one that is lesser evil is by definition less messed up than supporting the other.

[Comrade Samuel]

Assad, because he's against US, pro-Iran and pro-Hezbollah.

btw, whatever you choose, the "don't care" option doesn't make ANY sense!
How on earth could you not care when tens of thousands of children are dying for no reason? What if you were one of them?

Instead there should be an option called "neither side".

I'm fairly certain that this is argument enough. There is a very disturbing trend among leftists that I've noticed, people suddenly seem to believe that if a person or group stands against western imperialism that suddenly means they can do no wrong. I have no idea what you're trying to prove with the "pro-Iran and Hezbollah" business but whatever it is I think it's invalid on the face of it because Iran is a total shit hole and Hezbollah is just another Islamist movement with no potential to help the working class to speak of.

[Geiseric]

No leftist that 'supports' Assad deny those things about him. We merely prefer him over Al-Quaida rebels, however, we acknowledge he is not a leftist in any sense, and would support a Communist revolution to overthrow him.

I'm not going to swear, but you're misinformed about the history of this conflict and the combatants thereof. I don't know why you get off supporting a butcher, maybe you want to feel important who knows, but innocent people are being killed by him, who is just as bad as any NATO crony. He himself and his bastard father are NATO cronies, who supported both U.S. campaigns in Iraq.

Seriously, supporting bourgeois dictators should be bannable. Assad is not the lesser evil. At all. That's like saying Saddam Hussein was a lesser evil to Iran, because he was fighting Islamists! It's a different bloc of capitalists who support Assad, and a different bloc who support several rebel factions. There are rebels who are noble in their fight against the son of the last dictator in charge of Syria, who has no qualm about shooting people like you and me for nonviolent protesting.

[Sasha]

So the Libyan revolution was orchestrated by foreign powers as opposed to popular grievances being used to the advantage of foreign powers? But of course, the Egyptian revolution did not require foreign orchestration huh.

This is just conspiratorial nonsense.

its fairly standard anti-imp'ism, any strongman that nominally utters the words imperialism and socialism before being ousted is kicked out by an CIA orchestrated coup while strongmen they dont like is overthrown by the proletarian masses. So movemnets against Ben Ali, Mubarak etc etc are legitimate uprisings, while those against Gaddafi , Assad, Milosovics and the various easter europe balkan uprisings are Cia/Mossad cooked up coups...

maybe instead of the bingo card we should make a revleft drinking game, we would all have an exploded liver by the end of the week ;)

[Akshay!]

because, you shit slinging moron,


you blundering fool

Apparently, it's impossible to have a civilized debate with you, but still I'll try.

I never thought I'd say this phrase but - I know Assad is not a Communist!
So what? I'm for anybody who weakens US imperialism. I can smell Christopher Hitchens in some of these comments against Hezbollah and Iran. Don't you understand that Hezbollah defended Lebanon against Israel? And that people in the middle east do really believe in Islam? And that Iran is not some kind of totalitarian dictatorship whether or not you agree with it? (and I don't!)

Look, here's the problem - people have certain views, and then they think that everybody in the world has the exact same views.

Syria is in a situation of civil war. It's not like Assad is the only guy killing people. It's a complicated situation and choosing one side or another is really difficult. I, almost reflexively, chose Assad because he's anti-US Imperialism. That's obviously not enough of a justification -- but that's the whole point! If I had a really good reason to support what I'm saying - this wouldn't be a complicated question to begin with.

[urstaat]

its fairly standard anti-imp'ism, any strongman that nominally utters the words imperialism and socialism before being ousted is kicked out by an CIA orchestrated coup while strongmen they dont like is overthrown by the proletarian masses. So movemnets against Ben Ali, Mubarak etc etc are legitimate uprisings, while those against Gaddafi , Assad, Milosovics and the various easter europe balkan uprisings are Cia/Mossad cooked up coups...

maybe instead of the bingo card we should make a revleft drinking game, we would all have an exploded liver by the end of the week ;)

Tiny sips:
-How do [Trots/MLMs/LibComs/&c.] justify this?
-NEED HALP DEBATING OBJECTIVIST
-The material conditions were not ripe for [anything].

Finish your beer:
-Comrade, fascism refers to a very specific sociohistorical phenomenon and it doesn't behoove us to recklessly throw the term around to describe any figure or regime you don't approve of.
-New Fifth International/Workers' Party chartered.
-I stand with the workers, against both western imperialist bloodlust and comprador bourgeois personality cults!
-Bro, do u even LIFT?
-Communique from comrade requiring urgent support!

Double shot:
-Getting a reply with a footnote from the Selected Works of Enver Hoxha. For every subsequent Ibid. in the same post, take an additional shot.

Caveat emptor: I have no problems with any of these types of posts/posters, I <3 you all! :-*

[Delenda Carthago]

So the Libyan revolution was orchestrated by foreign powers as opposed to popular grievances being used to the advantage of foreign powers? But of course, the Egyptian revolution did not require foreign orchestration huh.

This is just conspiratorial nonsense.
Is this conspiracy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Coalition_action_against_Libya.svg/570px-Coalition_action_against_Libya.svg.png

[Tim Cornelis]

Is this conspiracy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Coalition_action_against_Libya.svg/570px-Coalition_action_against_Libya.svg.png

You said the revolution was "provoked" by imperialist powers, which implies they initiated it and that without their interference there would have been no uprising, which is indeed a conspiracy — the notion that western countries have the ability to manipulate a population to such an extent is ludicrous.

[Sasha]

I'm for anybody who weakens US imperialism.

Adolf Hitler? Didi Amin? Pol Pot? Al-Qaeda?

[Delenda Carthago]

You said the revolution was "provoked" by imperialist powers, which implies they initiated it and that without their interference there would have been no uprising, which is indeed a conspiracy — the notion that western countries have the ability to manipulate a population to such an extent is ludicrous.
So, you say that, it just happened to be that they wanted to overthrow Gaddafi and just happened to pop up a revolt against him, by people that just happened to openly ask for NATO intervation?

[Akshay!]

Adolf Hitler? Didi Amin? Pol Pot? Al-Qaeda?

Let me respond to these one by one -

1) Al-Qaeda was created by the US.
2) Adolf Hitler was pretty famous in the US. So was fascism and nazism. FDR, supposedly the "liberal" referred to Mussolini as the "admirable Italian gentleman". Henry Ford was Hitler's hero. Practically all major corporations including GM, IBM, etc.. supported Hitler in all kinds of ways. And I wouldn't really say that US and Hitler fundamentally disagreed in their goals.
3) I haven't read enough about Didi (Idi?) Amin and Pol Pot to comment.
4) One clarification - When I said I'm "for" Assad, I didn't mean that I agree with him. Of course not. I'm an anarchist and a communist (and an atheist) so obviously I disagree with other ideologies. What I meant is that if a civil war is going on, then I'd support the side which weakens US imperialism the most.

[Sasha]

I thought I saw it all with "communists" taking sides in bourgeois nationalist struggles but now even selfdeclared anarchists do it too? And on the side of authoritarian strongman too?
God...

[Sasha]

Also, al-Qaeda created by the US? They might originally funded the mudjahdeen but this reeks of silly conspiracy crap, you can just as well say Hamas was created by Israel... My god, anti-imp anarchists, you know that that Emma Goldman from you sig would be rolling in her grave if she could right?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

1) Al-Qaeda was created by the US.
2) Adolf Hitler was pretty famous in the US. So was fascism and nazism. FDR, supposedly the "liberal" referred to Mussolini as the "admirable Italian gentleman". Henry Ford was Hitler's hero. Practically all major corporations including GM, IBM, etc.. supported Hitler in all kinds of ways. And I wouldn't really say that US and Hitler fundamentally disagreed in their goals.

This is all besides the point; no matter how much certain elements of the American state supported al-Qaeda or the NSDAP, these movements still fought the United States. By your own logic, then, we should support them - which is obviously nonsensical, particularly considering how the Nazi imperialist state aimed to crush the Soviet Union and enslave its population.


4) One clarification - When I said I'm "for" Assad, I didn't mean that I agree with him. Of course not. I'm an anarchist and a communist (and an atheist) so obviously I disagree with other ideologies. What I meant is that if a civil war is going on, then I'd support the side which weakens US imperialism the most.

Revolutionary socialism is not at all identical to the ridiculous, uncritical anti-Americanism that has become fashionable lately. Obviously, no sane revolutionary socialist would have supported Germany in the Second World War, even though they fought America.


Also, al-Qaeda created by the US? They might originally funded the mudjahdeen but this reeks of silly conspiracy crap, you can just as well say Hamas was created by Israel...

As I recall it, Israel did sponsor Hamas, particularly against left-wing groups like the PFLP. In general, the interests of Islamism - representing semifeudal elements in Middle Eastern societies and the most reactionary layers of the domestic bourgeoisie - and the interests of imperial capital tend to be aligned, hence the current Islamist regimes in Afghanistan, in Iraq and so on.

Concerning the Syrian Ba'ath, of course they are neither socialist nor proletarian. And resistance to the Ba'ath has strong popular elements. But is this enough? It seems to me that the most likely scenario in the case of a rebel victory is a reactionary-semifeudal state of the effendis and of the clerics; surely this is something we aim to avoid? The victory of these elements would set back the Syrian proletariat immensely.

[Tim Cornelis]

So, you say that, it just happened to be that they wanted to overthrow Gaddafi and just happened to pop up a revolt against him, by people that just happened to openly ask for NATO intervation?

So, you say that, the people were living happily and satisfied, and were not oppressed, so they had no reason to revolt, and then, the all-powerful Western powers somehow manipulated the population into thinking they benevolent rulers were not so benevolent at all.... How did they do this?

And how is it that the Egyptian population rose up against a pro-US dictator? Apparently, it's not possible for people to rise up against dictators unless through external interference and manipulation, so who manipulated the Egyptian people "who just happened to want to overthrow Mubarak, and happened to pop up a revolt against him, by people that just happened to openly declare support for... the Muslim Brotherhood." My god, the commu-Islam uprising was a conspiracy by Muslamic communists. What other reason for revolt could there be?

The Libyan people had genuine grievances, were genuinely oppressed, and genuinely rose up. They were prepared to accept help from anyone willing to assist them, Qatar, NATO, whomever, this is no more than logical. This was convenient to Western powers that offered help -- not some conspiracy.

But no, people themselves rising up against a dictatorship is not possible! Wait, people themselves rising up against a dictatorship is only possible when that dictatorship is US-aligned! Otherwise, it's those fascist-imperialist-bourgeois-reactionary wreckers that somehow trick people into rising up!

Popular revolt against pro-US Tunisian dictator: genuine revolt.
Popular revolt against pro-US Egyptian dictator: genuine revolt.
Popular revolt against anti-US Libyan dictator: US manipulates population out of nowhere with no ostensible means available to do so while the population had no reason to rise up against this dictator at all.

Why do I even bother?

Speaking of bothering, are you going to reply to the fact that most "communist" organisations in Syria oppose Assad (which you said they didn't), or how you support a racist, capitalist, imperialist regime?

[Sasha]

And that's all on the premise that gadaffi and Assad where somehow not already long back in the arms of the US. The only reason Assad is still in place is because Israel and the US wanted him to remain there as the enemy they know and trust. They are only now getting involved because its unavoidable that he will fall sooner or later and they want some influence in his replacement...
But that doesn't fit in the anti-imps simplicity.

[ind_com]

Assad.

[Akshay!]

Also, al-Qaeda created by the US? They might originally funded the mudjahdeen but this reeks of silly conspiracy crap, you can just as well say Hamas was created by Israel... My god, anti-imp anarchists, you know that that Emma Goldman from you sig would be rolling in her grave if she could right?

This is just plain factually inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#History


The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979 – February 1989).[22] The U.S. viewed the conflict in Afghanistan, with the Afghan Marxists and allied Soviet troops on one side and the native Afghan mujahideen, some of whom were radical Islamic militants, on the other, as a blatant case of Soviet expansionism and aggression. A CIA program called Operation Cyclone channeled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the Afghan Mujahideen who were fighting the Soviet occupation.[82]
At the same time, a growing number of Arab mujahideen joined the jihad against the Afghan Marxist regime, facilitated by international Muslim organizations, particularly the Maktab al-Khidamat,[83] which was funded by the Saudi Arabia government as well as by individual Muslims (particularly Saudi businessmen who were approached by bin Laden). Together, these sources donated some $600 million a year to jihad.[84][page needed]
In 1984 Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), or the "Services Office", a Muslim organization founded to raise and channel funds and recruit foreign mujahideen for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, was established in Peshawar, Pakistan, by bin Laden and Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a Palestinian Islamic scholar and member of the Muslim Brotherhood. MAK organized guest houses in Peshawar, near the Afghan border, and gathered supplies for the construction of paramilitary training camps to prepare foreign recruits for the Afghan war front. Bin Laden became a "major financier" of the mujahideen, spending his own money and using his connections with "the Saudi royal family and the petro-billionaires of the Gulf" to influence public opinion about the war and raise additional funds.[85]


Omar Abdel-Rahman
From 1986, MAK began to set up a network of recruiting offices in the U.S., the hub of which was the Al Kifah Refugee Center at the Farouq Mosque on Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue. Among notable figures at the Brooklyn center were "double agent" Ali Mohamed, whom FBI special agent Jack Cloonan called "bin Laden's first trainer,"[86] and "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman, a leading recruiter of mujahideen for Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda evolved from MAK.
Azzam and bin Laden began to establish camps in Afghanistan in 1987.[87]
U.S. government financial support for the Afghan Islamic militants was substantial. Aid to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan mujahideen leader. and founder and leader of the Hezb-e Islami radical Islamic militant faction, alone amounted "by the most conservative estimates" to $600 million. Later, in the early 1990s, after the U.S. had withdrawn support, Hekmatyar "worked closely" with bin Laden.[88] In addition to receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in American aid, Hekmatyar was the recipient of the lion's share of Saudi aid.[89] There is evidence that the CIA supported Hekmatyar's drug trade activities by giving him immunity for his opium trafficking, which financed the operation of his militant faction.[90]


In response to all those who just said "Oh, don't support Assad!!! he's not a revolutioary Communist!!! He's a theocratic dictator!!! This means you would support Hitler!!!"

Well...

) I know Assad is not a Communist!!!
When I said I'm "for" Assad, I didn't mean that I agree with him. Of course not. What I meant is that if a civil war is going on, then I'd support the side which weakens US imperialism the most.

WW2 doesn't look like a "civil war", at least not to me... And I already pointed out the distinction between supporting someone and ideologically agreeing with someone. I'm sure it's not that difficult to understand.


ridiculous, uncritical anti-Americanism

Initially I could just smell Hitchens. Now I can hear Bill O'Reilly!

[Tim Cornelis]

In response to all those who just said "Oh, don't support Assad!!! he's not a revolutioary Communist!!! He's a theocratic dictator!!! This means you would support Hitler!!!"

Well... When I said I'm "for" Assad, I didn't mean that I agree with him. Of course not. What I meant is that if a civil war is going on, then I'd support the side which weakens US imperialism the most.

An opinion is no substitute for a justification of that opinion. Why do you support a side in civil war that weakens US imperialism? Why only in civil war? This seems completely arbitrary.

If a civil war in Greece breaks out between a popular front supported by the US and Golden Dawn, would you support the latter out of an infantile anti-Americanism?


WW2 doesn't look like a "civil war", at least not to me...
That distinction between civil war and other wars seems completely arbitrary to me, what's so fundamentally different that one warrants an entirely different position? Is it a safeguard against pushing your premises to their logical conclusion that you should have supported Nazi-Germany in WW2? It seems so.


And I already pointed out the distinction between supporting someone and ideologically agreeing with someone. I'm sure it's not that difficult to understand.

That's (whether you support or agree with X) not the issue here, the issue is that that is a very weak reason.



Initially I could just smell Hitchens. Now I can hear Bill O'Reilly!

No, infantile anti-Americanism has no basis in a socialist paradigm. I remember in my early teen years me and my friends hated the US (during the Iraq War) because the US was arrogant and policed the world. Our anti-Americanism did not stem from a material, Marxist, or socialist paradigm or analysis. It was infantile because this anti-Americanism rooted in hatred for arrogance, while we had no qualms with Chinese imperialism which is more hidden but no less imperialistic or aggressive.

If you are going to uphold such infantile anti-Americanism, favouring it over proper socialist analysis of world affairs (and favouring Russian and Chinese or Iranian imperialism over US imperialism for some arbitrary reason), you better come up with a terribly good reason and not a red herring how you "don't agree with the Syrian regime, but..."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In response to all those who just said "Oh, don't support Assad!!! he's not a revolutioary Communist!!! He's a theocratic dictator!!! This means you would support Hitler!!!"

Well...

WW2 doesn't look like a "civil war", at least not to me... And I already pointed out the distinction between supporting someone and ideologically agreeing with someone. I'm sure it's not that difficult to understand.

In fact, the Second World War contained numerous conflicts that could accurately be described as civil wars. Consider Romania for example; would you have supported the Iron Guard against the coalition of king Michael, the liberals and the communists? After all, the defeat of that coalition would have inconvenienced America.

Nor has anyone claimed that Assad is a "theocratic dictator". Quite the contrary, the Ba'ath is consistently secular.


Initially I could just smell Hitchens. Now I can hear Bill O'Reilly!

Me and O'Reilly have several things in common - we are both male, white, large in girth, balding, and evil - but I simply do not share his unhealthy obsession with America. Those that think an opposition to imperialism and to capitalism is a simple vulgar anti-Americanism, however, do.

Here is something that you might find shocking: the United States are not the only state on the planet, nor are they the only imperial power. And our opposition to imperialism is the result of a consistent application of Marxist theory, not a distaste for America. This childish "anti-U$A" mentality is simply an inverted American patriotism (for which reason it seems especially prevalent in the States, which I can at least understand - I mean, I despise my own country as well), and it remains as limited as American patriotism.

[Geiseric]

So, you say that, it just happened to be that they wanted to overthrow Gaddafi and just happened to pop up a revolt against him, by people that just happened to openly ask for NATO intervation?

Oh so its the same reasoning stalinists support the red army in hungary during their revolution in 1956?

[TheEmancipator]

Again, we shouldn't just generalise the entire rebel movement. It started off like most revolutions due to a disgruntlement with the established order. Its only after the various muslim factions hijacked a revolutionary movement for their own support that things went tits up. I stil firmly believe in the Arab Spring, a far better alternative than what we had before, and I don not understand communists who fight for the tin-pot rulers installed by the West (and the USSR it must be noted) during decolonisation.

I still think a good deal of secularist revolutionaries are probably out there, albeit poorly funded compared to Muslism organisations or the West. The Western media also likes to sensationalise a lot, so I wouldn't go thinking secularist revolutionaries are that small.

[Sasha]

This is just plain factually inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#History


no, thats proofs exactly that what i said is factual accurate, the CIA might have funded (among others) the section of the Mudjahadeen that spawned al-qaeda out of opportunist geo-political tit for tat inperialism with the soviets but to say "they created Al-Qaeda" implies they had control and have still influence over Al-Qaeda which is clear bollox. yes, they got in a serious "bitten the hand thats fed them" situation, so did Israel with Hamas who after all also got initially funded by the Mossad to undermine the PLO, but "created" implies a premeditated plan and continuing controll.

[Le Socialiste]

So, you say that, it just happened to be that they wanted to overthrow Gaddafi and just happened to pop up a revolt against him, by people that just happened to openly ask for NATO intervation?

Well, it's not all too surprising given the revolts occurring in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt, including the general wave of rebellion sweeping the region around that particular time. There's no denying this was a popular revolt, and the U.S. and its allies weren't about to allow the country with the largest oil reserves in Africa and the 5th such reserves in the world to just fall out of its hands. They had a pretty good thing going with Gaddafi for the last decade or so before his death; it wasn't until it became clear that he was on the way out that the West began preparing for an "orderly transition," relying heavily on former regime officials, military defectors, and 'friendly elements' to carry it out. But the initial phases of the rebellion were organic outgrowths of public dissatisfaction. The successful ousting of Ben Ali and Mubarak spurred many others to exact similar measures, from Libya to Bahrain.

[Le Socialiste]

Again, we shouldn't just generalise the entire rebel movement. It started off like most revolutions due to a disgruntlement with the established order. Its only after the various muslim factions hijacked a revolutionary movement for their own support that things went tits up. I stil firmly believe in the Arab Spring, a far better alternative than what we had before, and I don not understand communists who fight for the tin-pot rulers installed by the West (and the USSR it must be noted) during decolonisation.

I still think a good deal of secularist revolutionaries are probably out there, albeit poorly funded compared to Muslism organisations or the West. The Western media also likes to sensationalise a lot, so I wouldn't go thinking secularist revolutionaries are that small.

Y'all keep on saying the movement has been hijacked, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Why?

[Crabbensmasher]

Well, any notion of Syria being a continuation of the Arab Spring-style revolt seems unlikely. It's turned out to be a full of civil war, with many conditions more similar to Iraq than anything else.

At this point, I still have hope for the rebels, but, yes, as it's dragged on for so long, there are some questions about the legitimacy of their movement. I'd hesitate to say that it's been hijacked, but there definitely will be some questions that can only be answered when they topple Al-Assad.
I think right now, the most favorable outcome would be a post-Arab spring style democracy. Even if the religious groups have more power in the new state, this will give a chance for the left to organize and regroup. Under Assad, they were firmly held in place, incapable of organizing at all.
Things in North Africa also seem somewhat stable now, and I know that doesn't seem very true, but given the circumstances, it could be a lot worse. If some group truly does hijack the revolution, and averts the course away from democracy, then you will see much more bloodshed and civil violence.

[TheEmancipator]

Y'all keep on saying the movement has been hijacked, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Why?

What do you mean? That it was started by islamists or it hasn't been hijacked by islamists?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Y'all keep on saying the movement has been hijacked, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Why?

Because the Islamists make up 1/4th of the opposition and control all the major supply routes perhaps? Seriously, the Kurds are the only half way decent faction.

[Akshay!]

"they created Al-Qaeda" implies they had control and have still influence over Al-Qaeda...."created" implies a premeditated plan and continuing controll.

Since when did the word "created" started to mean controlled them forever?
They also created the Taliban. They no longer control them. They initially supported Saddam Hussein and later used him as an excuse to invade Iraq. US doesn't care about their Islamist ideologies. What they do care is using one person against the other so that both of them kill each other and US becomes more powerful. That's why they initially supported USSR in WW2, and later hired all the main Nazi scientists, technocrats, etc. in the CIA. I know I'm going a bit off-topic here but my main point is that the initial policy has absolutely nothing to do with future policies.


If a civil war in Greece breaks out between a popular front supported by the US and Golden Dawn, would you support the latter out of an infantile anti-Americanism?


I'm sure you must've read about American support of Franco in the Spanish civil war. What you mentioned here is an interesting situation. My response would be that this is simply not possible because fascism is no longer a threat to the US - that's why it can be used as a tool to suppress other current threats - communism, radical anti-American Islamism, etc.. When Fascism was a threat, communism and other things could be used to suppress it, and so on... the main task is to maintain what is referred to as "stability".



No, infantile anti-Americanism has no basis in a socialist paradigm. I remember in my early teen years me and my friends hated the US (during the Iraq War) because the US was arrogant and policed the world. Our anti-Americanism did not stem from a material, Marxist, or socialist paradigm or analysis. It was infantile because this anti-Americanism rooted in hatred for arrogance, while we had no qualms with Chinese imperialism which is more hidden but no less imperialistic or aggressive.



Here is something that you might find shocking: the United States are not the only state on the planet, nor are they the only imperial power. And our opposition to imperialism is the result of a consistent application of Marxist theory, not a distaste for America. This childish "anti-U$A" mentality is simply an inverted American patriotism (for which reason it seems especially prevalent in the States, which I can at least understand - I mean, I despise my own country as well), and it remains as limited as American patriotism.

Well, I'm fairly cognizant of the fact that there are various other imperialist countries in the world - but I think everyone here would agree that currently US is easily the most militarily powerful one (and the most imperialistic too). What I feel is that, (and this is just my personal opinion), one of the main tasks of anarchists/socialist revolutionaries today ought to be weakening US Imperialism. A socialist utopia cannot co-exist with an imperialist power like US (or for that matter, any powerful imperialist power). Therefore, anything that weakens US Imperialism and is Not a serious threat (for example, I don't really think, unlike other people, that Bashar al Assad is going to take over the world) ought to be supported (while at the same time we must express our complete disagreement with it).

I mean suppose you're US, and you know that USSR and Nazi Germany are too big threats. You first use USSR, and other genuine anti-fascists to kill Germany, and then you use Islamists like Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.. along with the Nazi scientists, along with other anti-communists to kill USSR. If you sit in a room and try to sound really moral while you're having no effect whatsoever on anything - then one of them will kill you. Similarly, if Assad or Hezbollah or Khomeini is fighting US Imperialism, I don't have a problem with that - since I know that he's not a serious threat.

btw, on a sidenote, I just wanted to say that I love this forum. It's a lot of fun to debate you guys. I know we have certain disagreements but believe me, we have a lot in common too. As Mao said (in a different context) "let a hundred flowers bloom".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Neither Binh nor the PSL but International Socialism!

Neither Assad nor the rebels should be supported.

The Baathist regime of Hafez al-Assad started out as a left Bonapartist regime. Assad Sr. seems to have to come to power as a rightist element w/in the Baath radicals. He was forced by mass popular pressure and events to move to the left. The economy was collectivized, there was a welfare state developed and protection for workers. It was still a brutal shitty regime.Assad Sr. massacred Palestinians and the people of Hama, among others.

Lack of economic diversification and the pressures of globalization forced the regime to adopt neo-liberalism. A corrupt well connected crony capitalist elite emerged.Fractures in Syrian society inevitably developed along sectarian lines.

The rebellion against Bashar started off as a legitimate uprising against a viscous corrupt brutal regime.The lack of a meaningful left and working class movement (as I understand there were attempts at strike action by transportation workers, which flopped) led to a rapid dissolution. Armed conflict meant sectarian or peasant based militias, none of which are socialist or working class oriented to any degree.

Both sides are guilty of horrific atrocities. This is almost inevitable given the nature of the conflict.Possibly the Assad regime is more guilty.The rebels are not unified and while not all Islamists, many are and are supplied by such progressive regimes as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the US.

As Khad said groups and factions are fighting for their own individual interests.Meanwhile there is a horrendous death toll and the country is being destroyed.

I feel it would be a big disservice to the working class of Syria to give any political support to either side.This time no "lesser of two evils" of either Assad or the rebels.

[DarkPast]

I feel it would be a big disservice to the working class of Syria to give any political support to either side.This time no "lesser of two evils" of either Assad or the rebels.

Aye, this should be common sense for a revolutionary socialist. But apparently it isn't so. I particularly like the posts along the lines of "I don't support Assad/the rebels but... (I actually do)".

Posts like that remind me of those sorry fools who, almost 100 years ago, called themselves "socialists" but supported World War I.

[Sudsy]

Neither, but to hell with the opposition, with a passion.

[Tim Cornelis]

Neither, but to hell with the opposition, with a passion.

So you do not passionately hate a person bombing hospitals and deliberately targeting civilians? Some here are unbelievable.

[Sudsy]

So you do not passionately hate a person bombing hospitals and deliberately targeting civilians? Some here are unbelievable.
Yeah i get that my comment may have sounded strange, in terms of the war, i`m aware of the terrible war crimes, what i was trying to say is that although I don`t consider Bashar-Al Assad to be any sort of progressive leader, i`m quite sure the salafists will not do anything good for Syria, they are not fighting for freedom as the US wants us to believe.

[Le Socialiste]

What do you mean? That it was started by islamists or it hasn't been hijacked by islamists?

I'm contesting your assertion that the movement has been hijacked by Islamists who, as I've said countless times, number proportionately less than the fighters and brigades organized under the FSA and Local Coordinating Committees. The presence of Islamists doesn't negate the fact that there's some serious organizing going on on the ground in many Syrian cities and towns. They're not as connected as they should be, but this is largely due to the 'scorched earth' policy undertaken by Assad's government than anything else. But it's notable that these community bodies continue to crop up regardless.


I feel it would be a big disservice to the working class of Syria to give any political support to either side.This time no "lesser of two evils" of either Assad or the rebels.

Enough with the "lesser of two evils" crap! It's a shitty method of reasoning and doesn't apply to those of us who aren't supporting the rebels because they're some kind of 'lesser evil,' but because they're part and parcel of the same popular movement that continues to play out all over the country. Only someone with little to no understanding of what's going on can say the rebels and Assad are two sides of the same coin. Once again, the rebels - who by no means constitute the only force involved in ousting Assad - are not a homogenous group. Comrades need to first quit having such knee-jerk reactions to the situation and then reacquaint themselves with the nature and composition of the conflict.

Suffice it to say, I'm frustrated (though not surprised) by the amount of people here who keep on regurgitating disproven arguments - which could be avoided if they even bothered to read the entire thread...:glare:

[Comrade Nasser]

I, as well as the communists of the country, support the last non theocratic arab state.

http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH269/20110614-204629_h-61c6a.jpg
http://www.mecn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Syrian-Arab-Army-Frees-Hostages-Held-Captive-by-Rebels-in-Homs.jpg

http://syrianfreepress.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/syrian_free_press_syrian_arab_army_20121215.jpg?w= 529



Not my cup of tea, but you only gave two choices. Its more hate for the opposition than anything.

Lmao all the men in these pictures look like me o_O

[Chris]

Neither. I don't know enough about the Syrian situation, and I doubt many non-Syrians do, in order to really formulate an educated opinion on who is the 'better' alternative for the Syrian people. I do think strongly that other countries should stay out of the Syrian Civil War, and support neither Assad nor the rebels. This is for the Syrian people themselves to determine, and state-support for either Assad or the Rebels ultimately have imperialistic ambitions in mind.

[#FF0000]

You're an absolute stooge if you "support" either side here.

[melvin]

I don't support either side (I have nothing to offer either side...). I also don't favor either side ideologically.

I didn't vote though because I am not going to say "don't care".

[DarkPast]

Once again, the rebels - who by no means constitute the only force involved in ousting Assad - are not a homogenous group.

The pro-Assad forces aren't a homogenous group either, but this is something "conveniently" avoided by the local pro-rebels.

Who exactly do you support among the rebels, anyway? I have yet to see any proof that, aside from one or two tiny, fringe groups, any of the original rebels are actually anti-capitalist. Not that it matter much now because the rebels who offer the most effective, armed resistance to the regime really are islamists backed by foreign interests (and even if they aren's islamists, it's not like liberals are any better - both are capitalist for fuck's sake). For example, a Croatian general recently bragged that the rebels include mercenaries paid - I quote - "up to $2000 per day due to rich foreign donators".

[Geiseric]

The pro-Assad forces aren't a homogenous group either, but this is something "conveniently" avoided by the local pro-rebels.

Who exactly do you support among the rebels, anyway? I have yet to see any proof that, aside from one or two tiny, fringe groups, any of the original rebels are actually anti-capitalist. Not that it matter much now because the rebels who offer the most effective, armed resistance to the regime really are islamists backed by foreign interests (and even if they aren's islamists, it's not like liberals are any better - both are capitalist for fuck's sake). For example, a Croatian general recently bragged that the rebels include mercenaries paid - I quote - "up to $2000 per day due to rich foreign donators".

Obviously there are mercs on both sides, that's how wars work. You haven't seen Vice's documentary about Syria. Its pretty good. Assad started the war by shooting protesters, that's the only argument anybody needs, and if you say "that's not true" you look crazy.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

If you'd read my posts, you'd note that I said the Islamists are proportionately smaller than the whole of the opposition against Assad, their involvement being heavily overstated in the media and elsewhere. The revolutionary left in Syria is small, yes, but I wasn't referring to this small subsection of the movement. I was commenting on the masses themselves, who have organized themselves independently of the government and in conjunction with similar shifts in the armed Free Syrian Army. These are the people who originally entered into a struggle against the regime when the revolution first began, not a small band of revolutionaries - those these are present in the movement, too, and shouldn't be ignored.

This isn't to understate the role of the Islamists in Syria, however. Since they are the ones receiving money and arms from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they still pose a danger to the movement. The good news is that these groups have been the targets of protests and criticism by many within the broader struggle.
I have read your posts, but I don't know where your evidence is that the Islamist presence is so "minuscule" in comparison to everyone else. Like you said, they have the foreign support, so I don't think many of the secularists have a chance at toppling the regime anyway, except the ones that are also agents of foreign imperialism. Let's not forget that non-Islamist groups can be western puppets too.

[Devrim]

Kurdish forces seem to be the most libertarian.

Either you have little idea about what libertarian means, or you have little idea how the PKK operates.

Devrim

[Devrim]

4) One clarification - When I said I'm "for" Assad, I didn't mean that I agree with him. Of course not. I'm an anarchist and a communist (and an atheist) so obviously I disagree with other ideologies. What I meant is that if a civil war is going on, then I'd support the side which weakens US imperialism the most.
Revolutionary socialism is not at all identical to the ridiculous, uncritical anti-Americanism that has become fashionable lately. Obviously, no sane revolutionary socialist would have supported Germany in the Second World War, even though they fought America.

I totally agree with Semendyaev comments on this. There are a couple of things I would like to add. First, you are not, as you claim, an anarchists, as anarchists don't go around backing states. Second, why oh why with so many American posters here is it always so self centred. No interest in the situation in Syria, or the region. The big question is about the US. Why is it always about you?

Devrim

[Per Levy]

Second, why oh why with so many American posters here is it always so self centred.

well like the us bourgeoisie, many (privileged) us posters on here see themselfs as the center of the world and its all about the them afterall.

[Narodnik]

Either you have little idea about what libertarian means, or you have little idea how the PKK operates.
AFAIK, PKK is leftist, but not authoritian state-capitalism "leftist", and the Syrian party aligned with has non-authoritarian socialism as it's ideology (as pointed out here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/kurds-socialism-syrian-t178589/index.html ), and, as I quoted, their forces are democratically organized.

[Devrim]

AFAIK, PKK is leftist, but not authoritian state-capitalism "leftist", and the Syrian party aligned with has non-authoritarian socialism as it's ideology (as pointed out here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/kurds-socialism-syrian-t178589/index.html ), and, as I quoted, their forces are democratically organized.

I don't think that there is much that is in any way 'libertarian' or democratic about the PKK's organization in any way, and to be quite frank I am surprised at how a bit of 'libertarian' phraseology has been whole heartedly picked up by some European anarchists, who seem to have forgotten somehow that the PKK is a thoroughly nationalist organization with a cult of personality that would make Stalin blush.

Devrim

[Comrade Nasser]

Wow. This conflict is so crazy. I don't know who to side with. Atrocities are being commited by both sides. I see more of it being commited by 90% (NOT ALL OF THEM) these 'rebels' (more like new world order pawns and salfists amirite?). I've heard of them assaulting disabled people, torturing loyalists, blowing up schools, beheading people (Christians), blowing themselves up, forcing civilians to fight with them (some aren't even muslim, there are reports of Alawis, Armenians, Christians, forced into fighting with these groups), and last but not least, WAVING THE FREAKING BLACK AL-QAEDA FLAG (a.k.a ISLAMIST SCUM)

Assad's no saint either. The fucker bombs hospitals full of kids. Both sides are truly scum.

Some pictures of our "freedom fighter" Syrian rebels waving the flag of Al-qaeda:

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2013/0411/0411-world-oitsofficial/15519205-1-eng-US/0411-world-oitsofficial_full_600.jpg

Scum.

http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/USalliesSyria.jpg

More scum.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-10/bashar-al-assad-syria.jpg

And dictator scum...

[dēmistĕfī]

Wow. This conflict is so crazy. I don't know who to side with. Atrocities are being commited by both sides. I see more of it being commited by 90% (NOT ALL OF THEM) these 'rebels' (more like new world order pawns and salfists amirite?). I've heard of them assaulting disabled people, torturing loyalists, blowing up schools, beheading people (Christians), blowing themselves up, forcing civilians to fight with them (some aren't even muslim, there are reports of Alawis, Armenians, Christians, forced into fighting with these groups), and last but not least, WAVING THE FREAKING BLACK AL-QAEDA FLAG (a.k.a ISLAMIST SCUM)

Assad's no saint either. The fucker bombs hospitals full of kids. Both sides are truly scum.
All I see here - and in the rest of this thread, too - are emotive, moralistic and democratic appeals, and hardly a shred of scientific socialist analysis.

The regime and the rebels both insist that they are protecting the Syrian nation from one another. Now the nation is an imagined political community whose function is to subvert proletarian solidarity and mystify the existence of class struggle, so in that sense both the regime and the rebels are doing a wonderful job of protecting the Syrian nation. Bless them.

Nationalism and democracy are the two principal forces driving the reconciliation of class antagonisms today, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the major players in Syria support both and work entirely contrary to the interests of "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things". There can be no sides to choose from.

[hashem]

progressive forces shouldnt support Assads regime. on the other hands you cant put anyone who opposes Assad in a single category named "rebels". there are many groups which oppose his regime with different purposes. islamists, Kurdish nationalists, communists and ... some of them are reactionary, some are revolutionary and some are unstable.

[Geiseric]

Wow. This conflict is so crazy. I don't know who to side with. Atrocities are being commited by both sides. I see more of it being commited by 90% (NOT ALL OF THEM) these 'rebels' (more like new world order pawns and salfists amirite?). I've heard of them assaulting disabled people, torturing loyalists, blowing up schools, beheading people (Christians), blowing themselves up, forcing civilians to fight with them (some aren't even muslim, there are reports of Alawis, Armenians, Christians, forced into fighting with these groups), and last but not least, WAVING THE FREAKING BLACK AL-QAEDA FLAG (a.k.a ISLAMIST SCUM)

Assad's no saint either. The fucker bombs hospitals full of kids. Both sides are truly scum.

Some pictures of our "freedom fighter" Syrian rebels waving the flag of Al-qaeda:

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2013/0411/0411-world-oitsofficial/15519205-1-eng-US/0411-world-oitsofficial_full_600.jpg

This thread is fucking terrible. 0/10 to the OP for the poll which makes the rebels sound like a homogeneous group. There is only one group that should be supported, the Syrian working class, and anybody with a brain knows that the only way to do that is to stop the violence. Not to support a bourgeois army of any type.

There are people like you and me who are sick of Assad's regime, whom reacted like a bulldog to mass demonstrations, which nobody seems to mention in the goddamn news or on this forum.

Also for the idiots who are supporting Assad, fuck you. There I said it, you're insane. His police would shoot you and torture you to death if his regime saw you as any kind of threat, which you should be since you claim to be a communist. And they are doing that now as we speak to children. He supported the Iraq war, and crushed the Palestinian uprisings. Thus you support the Iraq War, and thus imperialism, by supporting Assad.

The thing that sparked this war was the body of a 15 year old demonstrator being dumped at his families house, after the secret police tortured him to death. If they didn't do stuff like that, this wouldn't of happened.

[Le Socialiste]

This thread is so fucking depressing. It really highlights a level of misunderstanding of the issue, and the comments here reflect that. You can say over and over that the rebels and mass movement aren't a homogenous group, but you'll still get comrades who can't seem to get beyond anything other than "Look, Al Qaeda!" and act like their actions represent the struggle as a whole. Sick of this shit.

[Brutus]

Many people are acting like the rebels are a homogenous movement.
I agree with broody 100%- we should support the Syrian working class

[Comrade Nasser]

I'll say it again. Bashar Al-Assad and 90% of the rebels (NOT ALL OF THEM! I realize they are not a homogenous group) are full of shit. Although the al-Qaeda and assorted salafist scum make more of a name for themselves.

[Comrade Nasser]

This thread is so fucking depressing. It really highlights a level of misunderstanding of the issue, and the comments here reflect that. You can say over and over that the rebels and mass movement aren't a homogenous group, but you'll still get comrades who can't seem to get beyond anything other than "Look, Al Qaeda!" and act like their actions represent the struggle as a whole. Sick of this shit.

You and Broody are right man. Assads a piece of shit and a good portion of the rebels are. Now, a question comrades: Do you believe that the Al-Qaeda section of rebels ate proportionally blown up by the media?

[Goblin]

Scum
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/06/07/Foreign/Images/511455943.jpghttp://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/06/06/1226386/739971-120607-syria-rebels.jpg

[khad]

Scum
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/06/07/Foreign/Images/511455943.jpghttp://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/06/06/1226386/739971-120607-syria-rebels.jpg

What are you talking about? It's every child's dream to behead and pillage and die a glorious martyr.

GA5WQmJPdT4

[Akshay!]

After watching a few documentaries and videos on Syria, I think now I don't support any side... both are equally bad. All that said, I still don't think we should be asking the imperialist powers to give weapons to either side. If they had never given these weapons the war would never have deteriorated so much.

[Geiseric]

You and Broody are right man. Assads a piece of shit and a good portion of the rebels are. Now, a question comrades: Do you believe that the Al-Qaeda section of rebels ate proportionally blown up by the media?

Of course they are. That's how the media displays anybody from a middle eastern country armed with a gun. I'm asking you if the government was shooting protesters, outside your door, would you not arm yourself? Our of defending your family? Assuming out of all of the rebels through Syria, that half of them realistically are Islamists funded by NATO is not smart. There is a social and class base for large, i'd say most of the rebels.
The way some of them see it, the enemy of Assad is their friend. Assad used to be friendly with the U.S. if you remember the Iraq War and the Intifada, so he is by no means any more progressive than the most fanatic Islamist rebels.

[Le Socialiste]

You and Broody are right man. Assads a piece of shit and a good portion of the rebels are. Now, a question comrades: Do you believe that the Al-Qaeda section of rebels ate proportionally blown up by the media?

Yes, of course. I'd go into why I think this is, but I think I've sufficiently covered that in my numerous other posts to this thread.

[Le Socialiste]

After watching a few documentaries and videos on Syria, I think now I don't support any side... both are equally bad. All that said, I still don't think we should be asking the imperialist powers to give weapons to either side. If they had never given these weapons the war would never have deteriorated so much.

I find that hard to believe, considering Assad had started massacring nonviolent demonstrators in the streets well before people started taking up arms themselves.

[khad]

Gonna leave this here:

http://vk.com/id160300242?z=video160300242_164905736%2Fvideos160 300242

[Comrade Nasser]

Gonna leave this here:

http://vk.com/id160300242?z=video160300242_164905736%2Fvideos160 300242

Links not working for me but isn't tsarev the guy that wannabe mujahid who tried to blow up the marathon with his half-wit brother?

[khad]

Links not working for me but isn't tsarev the guy that wannabe mujahid who tried to blow up the marathon with his half-wit brother?
Yep. The link was to one of his FSA videos.

[Comrade Nasser]

Yep. The link was to one of his FSA videos.

Why am I not surprised this idiot would be supporting them.

[#FF0000]

Of course they are. That's how the media displays anybody from a middle eastern country armed with a gun. I'm asking you if the government was shooting protesters, outside your door, would you not arm yourself? Our of defending your family? Assuming out of all of the rebels through Syria, that half of them realistically are Islamists funded by NATO is not smart. There is a social and class base for large, i'd say most of the rebels.

Er, there are a lot of islamists, though, and there is a large religious aspect to it (Sunni vs. Alawite, mainly), and that's without even looking at the ethnic/regional conflicts going on besides.

What rebel group is there to cheer on, exactly?

[Geiseric]

Er, there are a lot of islamists, though, and there is a large religious aspect to it (Sunni vs. Alawite, mainly), and that's without even looking at the ethnic/regional conflicts going on besides.

What rebel group is there to cheer on, exactly?

You're so full of hot air, like everybody else on the forum. These ones are the ones you should be supporting, by supporting the democratic process against Assad, a bourgeois dictator. These civil wars aren't fucking football games when you just pick a side, you have to think three dimensionally about these conflicts, anywhere in the world. Why does the FSA not exist past the point when Assad was ordering the army to shoot protesters? Because it's clear to them that the people want to not even get rid of Assad, but force him to help them with the woes that everybody in that region face. Replacing him IMO isn't even enough, Morsi has shown us that even if the FSA bureaucracy takes over Syria they would do the same things, not enacting any real change. The only program to support is ending the fighting, which is the only option which doesn't aid any capitalists.:

http://www.vice.com/ground-zero/syria-assads-child-victims

http://www.vice.com/ground-zero/under-fire-for-bread-in-aleppo

[#FF0000]

You're so full of hot air, like everybody else on the forum.

Chill.


These civil wars aren't fucking football games when you just pick a side, you have to think three dimensionally about these conflicts, anywhere in the world.

Yeah, I agree. I misunderstood you and thought you were saying that we should "support" the rebels.

[Geiseric]

Chill.



Yeah, I agree. I misunderstood you and thought you were saying that we should "support" the rebels.

Sorry I'm stressed out.

[Comrade Nasser]

Well at least some good news.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/carr-pledges-aid-boost-for-syria-refugees/story-e6frfku9-1226625529473

[Left Turn]

I voted that I support the rebels. By this I mean the mass popular uprising against Assad which contrary to what many assert on here, has not been subsumed by the Islamists. Of course I'm opposed to the Islamist and their foreign imperialist funding, but this is only one faction in a multi-faceted opposition to the Assad regime.

Assad has committed and continues to commit war crimes against his own people, his army having slaughtered over 70,000 Syrians to date. He's not going to go peacefully, because when he loses power he'll almost certainly be tried and convicted of war crimes and quite possibly sentenced to death. The rebels don't want to stand down either, as most of them have lost friends and/or relatives at the hands of the Assad regime.

Assad can only win if he can get the entirety of the Syrian people and all the foreign funded Islamists to give up the fight against Assad. That would require tens of thousands of more dead Syrians, possibly even into the hundreds of thousands more.

The road to victory for the rebels isn't easy, but they can most likely end the bloodshed once they oust Assad. That's not a bloodless path by any means, but it's mos likely a less bloody path than an Assad victory.

If we put compassionate, humanist values at the forefront of our politics, then it makes sense to support the outcome that ends the current nightmare with the lowest number of dead Syrians.


The rebels of course, I can't fathom why anyone would consider supporting Assad. Contrary to what has been said, he's not the "less of two evils" (and quite frankly I can't believe we've reduced the situation - which is far more nuanced and complex than some give it credit for - to such an arbitrary analytical form). What we have in Syria is a whole range of fighters, some operating independently of others in the main movement to oust Assad. Ironically (or not, however you choose to look at it), it's the Islamists who have received the bulk of Western aid and arms, funneled through their allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. For those operating under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army and the Local Coordinating Committees, fighters are required to subordinate themselves to their governing authorities. Women have played a vitally integral role in building and sustaining these movements, and local grassroots efforts have been made in a variety of towns and cities towards self-governance. Add to that the fact that the fundamentalist Islamists are proportionally smaller in comparison to these dual (and integrated) movements, and it becomes clear who one ought to be supporting in this revolution.

I agree with the analysis put forwards by Le Socialiste here and in their other posts in this thread.

[Akshay!]

To be honest, I'm still confused between supporting Assad or not supporting anyone.

But here are a few thoughts -

US and Saudis are clearly funding the opposition and Israel is clearly opposed to the Assad regime. But Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, Russia, and many other countries are pretty good allies of Assad. Now, I know that Assad is killing many people but so is the opposition. Let's stop pretending that Assad doesn't have any support. It's called a "civil war" for a reason. Now surely I don't "support" either side in the sense that I don't agree with their ideology, but who do I want to win? That's the hard question. I don't think there's any question that the Islamists are the most organized fighters in the opposition - so I don't understand why on earth we'd want them to win, and as a result weaken Iran, Russia, Venezuela, etc. and strengthen US, Israel and the Saudis..?? If we think this thru, maybe, just maybe Assad is, indeed, the lesser of two evils. What do you think?

[Comrade Nasser]

Akshay you're pretty much right except that neither of them are the lesser of two evils. Fuck that. Both are scum. Dictator scum and Islamist scum (not all the rebels obviously). They are worse than each other.

[Le Socialiste]

To be honest, I'm still confused between supporting Assad or not supporting anyone.

Why does a lack of support for Assad have to entail a withdrawal of support for each and every side involved in the conflict? I'm puzzled by this logic, quite honestly. Comrades still seem to equate the presence of Islamist elements in the rebellion with the whole of what has emerged as a significantly larger and more complex movement than some give it credit for. Folks look to the ruthless brutality of the Syrian ruling-class, expressed fully in the intentions of the governing leadership (headed by Assad), and the reactionary conservativism of the Islamists (themselves patronized by leading interests in the West and Middle East), and conclude they have no stake in this fight.

They're mistaken, and I've tried to outline just how and why that is. Ranging from the involvement of revolutionary left currents to the organic developments of democratic self-management expressed through local coordinating councils, from the visible role of women to the decrees of the LCCs in conjunction with those of the FSA instructing fighters under their purview to refrain from the torture, harassment, and discrimination of ethnic and religious minorities, the popular movement to overthrow Assad is one that each and every leftist worth their salt needs to acquaint themselves with and lend their critical support to.


But here are a few thoughts -

US and Saudis are clearly funding the opposition and Israel is clearly opposed to the Assad regime.

On the contrary, while the Israeli regime has publicly voiced its opposition to Assad and demanded his resignation, it is just as terrified at the prospect of his downfall. Israel has relied on the existence of stable dictatorships throughout the Middle East (especially on its borders) for both tactical and security purposes. Beyond its reliance on the Assad regime's ability to repress dissent within Syria's borders while handling both Lebanon and Hezbollah (as well as maintaining stability along the northern border of Palestine), Israel knows - as does the U.S. - that its capacity to shape and influence a post-Assad Syria is uncertain at best.


Let's stop pretending that Assad doesn't have any support. It's called a "civil war" for a reason. Now surely I don't "support" either side in the sense that I don't agree with their ideology, but who do I want to win?

I think this is the wrong way to look at the situation. The Syrian revolution should be assessed from a purely analytical standpoint, taking into account the movements of class forces and whatever natural outgrowths emerge from these shifts through the conflict. The FSA and other parties to the opposition possess some questionable ideological beliefs, but it is necessary to look at the FSA as a movement composed of differing, often competing, groups and subsections of a broader popular revolt against Assad. It bears remembering that the effort to unseat Assad and his government initially bore a greater resemblance to similar movements in Egypt and Tunisia, before it was compelled to take up arms in response to the Assad administration's willingness to fire on protesters.

Nevertheless, we need to understand the situation as a constantly evolving conflict based on the fundamental pressures and inequities fostered by the neoliberal project pushed through by the Syrian ruling-class (something the U.S. backed - Clinton praised Assad as "a reformer" in 2011). Large swathes of the Syrian working-class have been thrust into struggle, and we've been seeing how this has manifested itself over the years. At the heart of the matter is the natural compulsion of the laboring classes onto the stage of history both by its own initiative and the socioeconomic state of the Syrian economy. The integrated role and presence of radical and progressive forces in the movement speaks to the potential for the revolt to evolve further, for greater, more expansive goals and demands. The working-class won't realize this potential instantaneously, but through struggle and experience. It must learn through its own successes and setbacks.


That's the hard question. I don't think there's any question that the Islamists are the most organized fighters in the opposition - so I don't understand why on earth we'd want them to win, and as a result weaken Iran, Russia, Venezuela, etc. and strengthen US, Israel and the Saudis..?? If we think this thru, maybe, just maybe Assad is, indeed, the lesser of two evils. What do you think?

Wait, what? When did we start supporting Russia and Iran in all this? This borders on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy, and is incorrect on a whole number of levels that I just don't have time to go through.

If the Islamists are the most organized fighters in the opposition, doesn't it make sense to support the non-Islamist elements rather than declare all sides unworthy? Wouldn't it just make better sense to hope for a defeat of both Assad and the fundamentalists?

[Akshay!]

On the contrary, while the Israeli regime has publicly voiced its opposition to Assad and demanded his resignation, it is just as terrified at the prospect of his downfall.

LOL, that totally explains why Israel is bombing Assad's supporters. (**sarcasm**)

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes at first I vehemently supported them until I saw how many of them were Islamic extremists. I mean when you hear "ALLAHU AHKBAR" all the goddamn time in their videos, you can be sure they probably aren't very nice people.

allahu ahkbar is pretty much something we will always say. Just like Inch'allah, Allah y Tachibel or Hamdulila.... Hearing Muslims say that is not a guarantee for them being extremists.

[Le Socialiste]

LOL, that totally explains why Israel is bombing Assad's supporters. (**sarcasm**)

And Assad bombed Palestinian refugee camps in return. Come back when you're willing to move beyond sarcasm and actually address what I wrote above.

[Brutus]

Why would Assad bomb Palestinian refugee camps? Isn't that helping Israel?

[pax et aequalitas]

I read an interview with an old Israeli general or something in the newspaper a few days ago. He said that while Israel won't publicly take a side they are in fact behind the scenes supporting Assad because they are afraid of what will happen if he falls. As mentioned before: They want stability in the region, which Assad provides and they are worried that the rebels, who are of course are diverse but probably generally dislike Israel, if they win might become a problem for Israel.

That said I personally prefer the rebels over Assad, but I don't really like either of them a lot. Assad I'm just sure about he's no good and there's still a chance that there are some rebels which are ok.

[Le Socialiste]

Why would Assad bomb Palestinian refugee camps? Isn't that helping Israel?

Psycho noticed it first in the other Syria thread going on right now:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2614746&postcount=25

[hatzel]

Why would Assad bomb Palestinian refugee camps? Isn't that helping Israel?

He's a Middle Eastern 'anti-imperialist' strongman, why wouldn't he want to help Israel?

If I own a factory making mousetraps, I can talk all day long about my intense desire to rid people's homes of mice and tell everybody how my lovely traps can do that, but the fact of the matter is that if there are no mice in people's homes then I'm out of a job, so of course I'd go to bed every night praying my traps don't do what I promise they will...

[Dear Leader]

Neither. I support the establishment of Syrian workers councils, and the overthrow of the existing regime and defeat of the rebels.

[Luís Henrique]

I read an interview with an old Israeli general or something in the newspaper a few days ago. He said that while Israel won't publicly take a side they are in fact behind the scenes supporting Assad because they are afraid of what will happen if he falls. As mentioned before: They want stability in the region, which Assad provides and they are worried that the rebels, who are of course are diverse but probably generally dislike Israel, if they win might become a problem for Israel.

Linked to that there is the issue of what happens to Assad's weaponry if he is ousted.

Luís Henrique

[Le Socialiste]

LOL, that totally explains why Israel is bombing Assad's supporters. (**sarcasm**)

Still waiting for something a little more substantive from you besides ridiculous one-liners...

I wrote a lot more that you've yet to address.

[Akshay!]

Still waiting for something a little more substantive from you besides ridiculous one-liners...

I wrote a lot more that you've yet to address.

Look, I've already stated my position - I don't particularly like either side. It's a civil war. People should stop deluding themselves into thinking that one side is xyzxyzxyz and the other side is the working class or something.

Both sides are crazy and as almost everyone on either side acknowledges, the Saudi backed Islamists are the best fighters in the opposition. Now, thinking that if the oppositions wins, somehow the part of the opposition that you happen to like would suddenly come to power is simply a denial of the reality.

I'm NOT saying that Assad should stay in power, I just think that the Islamists shouldn't. So, maybe some kind of deal between Assad backers and FSA would be a first step. If this doesn't happen, the minorities (Alawites etc...) would be crushed.

[Le Socialiste]

Now, thinking that if the oppositions wins, somehow the part of the opposition that you happen to like would suddenly come to power is simply a denial of the reality.

That would be true if I'd ever said the outcome of this conflict would end in the opposition's favor, or at least for those elements I personally support on a critical basis. To argue that they will simply 'win' would be a denial of reality - which is why I've never made that claim. My point is that they represent the most progressive and revolutionary sections of the movement; as such, I have sought to argue that any Marxist worth their salt should necessarily take a harder look at the rebellion's composition and evaluate which elements are worth backing.

The unfortunate truth is that these sections are fighting on two fronts: 1) overthrowing Assad, and 2) resisting Islamic fundamentalism. The odds aren't particularly in their favor, as everything from the LCCs to the FSA has been largely atomized as a result of Assad's 'scorched earth' policy. Nevertheless, they represent the backbone of this struggle, having emerged out of the street protests and actions in 2011. Which brings me to my original question (which no one has answered yet): If comrades don't like Assad or the jihadists, doesn't it make far more sense to lend critical support to those elements within the rebellion that are still irrefutably tied to the movement's origins?

[L1NKS]

There appears to be an option missing from the poll - "none of the above". It seems like in Syria we now have the situation that two non-democratic parties of murdering bastards are fighting over power. I frankly don't see any elements there purporting to fight for a free Syria. Not to mention a social Syria to which elementary human and civil rights are applicable.

[Geiseric]

There appears to be an option missing from the poll - "none of the above". It seems like in Syria we now have the situation that two non-democratic parties of murdering bastards are fighting over power. I frankly don't see any elements there purporting to fight for a free Syria. Not to mention a social Syria to which elementary human and civil rights are applicable.

You must only me exposed to secondary sources of information. I've seen videos of the fighters who are defending hospitals from assads weapons, I decided to show backbone and support people like that instead of adopting a petit bourgeois, jaded view.

[L1NKS]

You must only me exposed to secondary sources of information. I've seen videos of the fighters who are defending hospitals from assads weapons.
And I've seen videos of Syrian Rebels torturing and killing their detainees. Big deal. My main source of information is HumanRightsWatch, if they count for anything. HWR reported the following in September 2012:

Armed opposition groups have subjected detainees to ill-treatment and torture and committed extrajudicial or summary executions in Aleppo, Latakia, and Idlib, Human Rights Watch said today following a visit to Aleppo governorate. [...] Human Rights Watch documented more than a dozen extrajudicial and summary executions by opposition forces. Two FSA fighters from the Ansar Mohammed battalion in Latakia told Human Rights Watch, for example, that four people had been executed after the battalion stormed a police station in Haffa in June 2012, two immediately and the others after a trial. [...] A detainee who had been held in a school told Human Rights Watch that FSA fighters there had beaten him regularly for 25 days before he was transferred to the detention facility where Human Rights Watch interviewed him:

They beat me every two or three days. They tied me to a cross with my face down. Five guys started beating me, using cables. The first time they hit me for about an hour. The third time they hit me from early in the morning until noon. They also hit me in the face. The FSA fighters wanted me to confess to having killed several people with a knife. Eventually I confessed because they beat me, although I have not killed anybody. The FSA fighters said that they would kill me if I said something about the torture.
Now you might be a torture-fan, but I'm not. That is not how you show your commitment to liberating the Syrian people. That is how you show that you are going to be just about as savage as Assad. You show what is in store for future generations - yet another oppressive regime in the middle east violating its people. I despise that.

I decided to...
You decided to engage in a poorly executed ad-hominem attack, just because you didn't like what I had to say.

[Comrade Nasser]

There appears to be an option missing from the poll - "none of the above". It seems like in Syria we now have the situation that two non-democratic parties of murdering bastards are fighting over power. I frankly don't see any elements there purporting to fight for a free Syria. Not to mention a social Syria to which elementary human and civil rights are applicable.

Lol I guess the "none of the above" option would kind of fall under the category of "Don't know, don't care". Sorry about that.

[evermilion]

Lol I guess the "none of the above" option would kind of fall under the category of "Don't know, don't care". Sorry about that.

"Don't know, don't care" is the perfect way to describe such an attitude. It is clear that U.S. imperialism stands to gain from its investment in the "rebels." Where the United States, the most powerful reactionary force on the planet, invests in "spreading democracy" and "stopping dictators," what they're clearly doing is forcing economies to open to exploitation. It is true the working people of Syria are oppressed, inasmuch as all workers outside of communism are, but allowing the U.S. to wantonly overthrow governments for the sake of profit is unacceptable to me as a Marxist. This is not a civil war between imperialist powers; this is a much more powerful country coercing a smaller, weaker country.

[Dropdead]

In my opinion Assad is better than the rebels.

[TheIrrationalist]

I can't understand why would anyone, let alone Marxist, support bourgeois quasi fascist like Assad. Neither I don't support the rebels as they are as bourgeois as Assad.

[human strike]

What I find interesting is how often Marxists will choose a side in any given conflict. I can only assume it is out of some desperate need to feel relevant - the conflicts invariably are the ones being covered in the media. I suppose it's also a great opportunity for having an argument. And we all know how important it is to "win the argument", i.e. to dominate.

[Radix1944]

Assad's Syria is 10x better than islamist's Syria. But Syria ruled by proletariat would be 1000x better thas Assad's Syria.

[evermilion]

What I find interesting is how often Marxists will choose a side in any given conflict. I can only assume it is out of some desperate need to feel relevant - the conflicts invariably are the ones being covered in the media. I suppose it's also a great opportunity for having an argument. And we all know how important it is to "win the argument", i.e. to dominate.

Perhaps it isn't right to take sides per se as much as it is to understand the situation objectively. I have more sympathy for Assad than I do the United States government, yes, and I feel that U.S. imperialist aggression is something I cannot abide. I also endeavor to understand how it is that a situation as the one under Assad arises. I don't think it's a question of the individuals in charge; it's a question of how material conditions have affected class consciousness in the region. We don't want to weaken the struggle against imperialism as practiced by the U.S. and its allies, but we also can't neglect the task of empowering the non-properties classes of these countries.

[Turinbaar]

I support the overthrow of the regime, because the fractured nature of the rebels suggests to me that the upheavals in syria would not end with the overthrow of Assad. There would necessarily have to be a fight with the islamists, as their is now in Egypt, though it will likely be much more bloody, maybe even on the scale of the Algerian civil war. An Islamist regime will become a parody of the old dictatorship, and the people will rise again. This future contest with the islamists is the only chance for the working people of Syria to seize any real power.

[Le Socialiste]

I support the overthrow of the regime, because the fractured nature of the rebels suggests to me that the upheavals in syria would not end with the overthrow of Assad. There would necessarily have to be a fight with the islamists, as their is now in Egypt, though it will likely be much more bloody, maybe even on the scale of the Algerian civil war. An Islamist regime will become a parody of the old dictatorship, and the people will rise again. This future contest with the islamists is the only chance for the working people of Syria to seize any real power.

I agree with this for the most part, but the outcome of this conflict is far from decided. The rebels could lose, or win and divide along multiple lines, etc. The Islamists won't necessarily be the victors in an outcome where Assad is overthrown - it all comes down to how those fighters under the FSA and the LCCs react to the situation, including those who fall under neither.

[Nicolas_Cage]

The rebels have been give permission to rape Assad's family. They don't seem to be in any way better than Assad democracy-wise and if anything seem worse. Aiding THESE rebels seems to be working in the opposite direction and making matters worse. If some proper opposition came up against Assad it would be a different situation.

-NC

[Nikolay]

Assad's Syria is 10x better than islamist's Syria. But Syria ruled by proletariat would be 1000x better thas Assad's Syria.

I agree. I voted for the rebels originally, but now I regret that. Any country ruled by the proletariat is the best option. PERIOD.

[evermilion]

I agree. I voted for the rebels originally, but now I regret that. Any country ruled by the proletariat is the best option. PERIOD.

What about when that isn't an immediate option?

[Nikolay]

What about when that isn't an immediate option?

If a proletariat ruled Syria isn't an immediate option, then I would be in favour of Assad. At first I thought the rebels would be the best option, but after further reading they seem to be ultra-Islamist, and very poorly organized. Also, they don't seem to be in a hurry to help the working class.

I prefer stability in the region, and Assad would provide that. Obviously I don't want either option; I prefer a proletariat ruled Syria, but that won't happen anytime soon. Assad isn't the best option, but like someone said earlier on in this thread, he's the lesser of two evils.

[Comrade Nasser]

If a proletariat ruled Syria isn't an immediate option, then I would be in favour of Assad. At first I thought the rebels would be the best option, but after further reading they seem to be ultra-Islamist, and very poorly organized. Also, they don't seem to be in a hurry to help the working class.

I prefer stability in the region, and Assad would provide that. Obviously I don't want either option; I prefer a proletariat ruled Syria, but that won't happen anytime soon. Assad isn't the best option, but like someone said earlier on in this thread, he's the lesser of two evils.

The Islamists (NOT all the rebels, obviously) operating in Syria have no plan to help the working class of Syria. They are quite literally destroying Syria, and freaking Assad is not helping by bombing hospitals and houses full of kids. The fuckers on a screw loose like Saddam Hussein, the rebels also aren't helping by running around in the street like chickens who just got their heads chopped off screaming "ALLAHU AHKBAR" (again not all the rebels). Wrath of the Ba'ath, man.

[Comrade Nasser]

I wan't everyone to take a good look at this rebel.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/12/11/1279548687/h_50490715.jpg.1000x297x1.jpg

The man has a scoped AK-47 assault rifle with a foregrip on it. Where do you suppose he got that? Not to mention the batman tattoo on his arm lol.

Again another Syrian Rebel with what appears to be an M16 variant with a high-powered scope on it. He also has what I assume is an ammo vest on his chest.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--6o9_W24JMY/T_zI-442GoI/AAAAAAAABi4/MxApIcoxLFk/s1600/Rastan_Syria_resistance.jpg

This rebel with a bulletproof vest and a helmet and a PKM light machine gun. Where do you think he could get this stuff?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02249/syr_2249947b.jpg

Who is arming them you think (this is not an advocation to support either side i'm just really curious). Discuss.

[Dropdead]

I wan't everyone to take a good look at this rebel.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/12/11/1279548687/h_50490715.jpg.1000x297x1.jpg

The man has a scoped AK-47 assault rifle with a foregrip on it. Where do you suppose he got that? Not to mention the batman tattoo on his arm lol.

Again another Syrian Rebel with what appears to be an M16 variant with a high-powered scope on it. He also has what I assume is an ammo vest on his chest.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--6o9_W24JMY/T_zI-442GoI/AAAAAAAABi4/MxApIcoxLFk/s1600/Rastan_Syria_resistance.jpg

This rebel with a bulletproof vest and a helmet and a PKM light machine gun. Where do you think he could get this stuff?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02249/syr_2249947b.jpg

Who is arming them you think (this is not an advocation to support either side i'm just really curious). Discuss.

Didn't the US just aid the rebels a while ago for 123 million dollars? :confused:

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

To me, picking a side here is worthless as they are both responsible for countless deaths that cannot be justified in terms of emancipating human beings from the yoke of the capitalists.

[BAMslam15]

If Obama decides to help out the Syrian rebels, it could very well end up like Reagan helping out the Mujahideen against the PDPA and Soviet Union. Another Taliban could rise up and we'd be in more dookie than we currently are with Afghanistan :ohmy:

[Craig_J]

Neither, what's the point when who ever wins, if it ever does end, will still be a dictator oppresing people? Either way it's going to end badly.

[John Lennin]

Neither.
This is war, there is no "right" side.

[Theophys]

Bashar Al-Assad must not fall. His opponents are nothing more than US-backed "terrorists" that split from the army, "democratic" terrorists/"freedom fighters", and Islamists. The last thing we need is the fall of a secular government in favor a "democratic", divisive, sectarian, Islamist government such as in the case of the Islamist governments that rose after the revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. are all relevant examples. Furthermore, Syria is one of the last strongholds against Israel. If it falls, the US-Israel militaristic imperialism cannot be threatened nor halted in the Middle-East. This is especially the case after the fall of Gaddafi. We saw what happened to Gaddafi, an astounding leader (look up the statistics of Libya under Gaddafi, the form of government, the direct democracy, the referendum, the decentralization, the living standards, the statistics compared to other African countries, etc.), and that mistake must not happen again.

[Le Socialiste]

Furthermore, Syria is one of the last strongholds against Israel.

Yeah, 'cause Assad's been such a stalwart opponent against Israeli imperialism. :rolleyes:

[Theophys]

Yeah, 'cause Assad's been such a stalwart opponent against Israeli imperialism. :rolleyes:
Actually he is. Historically he has been one of the core opponents of Israeli militaristic imperialism alongside the other various Arab opposition such as Libya, Egypt, and so on. Not only that, but he is quite close to Hizbollah and Iran, two of the staunchest opponents of Israel.

So the question is, are you kidding me?

[slum]

I wan't everyone to take a good look at this rebel.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/12/11/1279548687/h_50490715.jpg.1000x297x1.jpg

The man has a scoped AK-47 assault rifle with a foregrip on it. Where do you suppose he got that? Not to mention the batman tattoo on his arm lol.

Again another Syrian Rebel with what appears to be an M16 variant with a high-powered scope on it. He also has what I assume is an ammo vest on his chest.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--6o9_W24JMY/T_zI-442GoI/AAAAAAAABi4/MxApIcoxLFk/s1600/Rastan_Syria_resistance.jpg

This rebel with a bulletproof vest and a helmet and a PKM light machine gun. Where do you think he could get this stuff?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02249/syr_2249947b.jpg

Who is arming them you think (this is not an advocation to support either side i'm just really curious). Discuss.

it's been primarily Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Turkey, to my knowledge, for a long time.

US clients essentially. i have suspicions that it goes further than that (in terms of CIA involvement and supply not just of arms but intel and training) but no info to back it up so i won't make that claim. US admitted recently to providing "nonlethal" (HAH!) aid, which should tell you they've been doing it for a long damn time before now.

[Le Socialiste]

Actually he is. Historically he has been one of the core opponents of Israeli militaristic imperialism alongside the other various Arab opposition such as Libya, Egypt, and so on. Not only that, but he is quite close to Hizbollah and Iran, two of the staunchest opponents of Israel.

So the question is, are you kidding me?

Nope.

Contrary to what appears to be the popular opinion on here, Israel is absolutely horrified at the prospect of a successful revolution ousting Assad. Israel has long depended on the existence of stable dictatorships along its borders, both for propaganda reasons ("Israel is the only Middle Eastern democracy"), and for matters of security. Having a highly repressive, stable regime neighboring you can have its perks if said government is responsible for keeping tight maintenance and control over its populations and stability along its northern border with occupied Palestine (Assad), while working to keep Hezbollah in Lebanon in check (Assad again). (In case it wasn't clear, this is the same Assad that has ordered bombings of Palestinian refugee camps in the past (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/18/syria-palestinian-refugees-flee-yarmouk).)

In fact, Israel was quick to contact Assad (http://ca.reutersmedia.net/article/idCABRE94505I20130506) in the aftermath of its latest bombings within Syrian territory in order to assure his administration that their intent wasn't "to weaken him in the face of a more than two-year-old rebellion." Indeed, Israeli officials are saying that Israel is reluctant to take sides in Syria's civil war as they are worried it might help "boost" Islamists who would be even more hostile to Israel than Assad's family ever was. An Israeli Defense Ministry strategist, Amos Gilad, even went so far as to say that Israel isn't concerned about the Syrian government's possession of chemical weapons, saying "the good news is that this is under full control (of the Syrian government)."

Israel's not fully prepared to outright abandon a regime that has brought it a 40-year long peace along its northern border. Just take this article (http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/despite-netanyahu-s-weekly-warnings-on-iran-syria-is-more-imminent-danger.premium-1.515547) from Haaretz for example: "the worrisome scenario in the North is that after Assad is gone, Israel will be attacked, and the Syrian Golan will turn into a new version of the Gaza Strip, with southern Lebanon serving as a base for launching rockets and missiles. This is what is concerning the IDF's top brass. Assad's control of the Golan is disintegrating as his forces are being drawn into the decisive battles around Damascus and the fight for the city's international airport."

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

[Geiseric]

Actually he is. Historically he has been one of the core opponents of Israeli militaristic imperialism alongside the other various Arab opposition such as Libya, Egypt, and so on. Not only that, but he is quite close to Hizbollah and Iran, two of the staunchest opponents of Israel.

So the question is, are you kidding me?

You are the one ignorant about basic history. Assad arms Hezbollah (not the PLO) and helped crush the second intifada with his army.

[Theophys]

You are the one ignorant about basic history. Assad arms Hezbollah (not the PLO) and helped crush the second intifada with his army.
Oh really now, kiddo?

First of all, I clearly stated that Syria arms Hezbollah, I did not even mention the PLO, although they do arm the PLO.

Secondly, do you even realize that Hezbollah are militantly against Israeli militaristic imperialism? They are "allied" with Syria and Iran and opposing Israel's actions. Not only that, but the PLO were funded by the Syrian government and army during the Lebanese Civil War against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. The PLO sided with the Muslim militias, Communist organizations, Leftists and the Syrian army against the Rightists, Christian militias, and the Israeli army during that Civil War. Seriously, read up on your history. And yet he called me "ignorant about basic history".

Oh and the Second Intifada crushed by the Syrian army? Are you kidding me? Cite that. Now.

Furthermore:
"Following an October 4 suicide bombing in Maxim restaurant, Haifa, which claimed the lives of 21 Israelis, Israel claimed that Syria and Iran sponsored the Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, and were responsible for the terrorist attack. The day after the Maxim massacre, IAF warplanes bombed an alleged former Palestinian training base at Ain Saheb, Syria, which had been mostly abandoned since the 80s. Munitions being stored on the site were destroyed, and a civilian guard was injured."

Syria, with Iran, were and are funding Hezbollah and the Palestinian resistance groups against Israel.