The Syrian Predicament

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Assumption number one: Western democracy defines legitimacy. There are dozens of countries with kings, life long dictators, etc.

That's the best you got when confronted with the facts on Assad's 'legitimacy'??? The guy is simply another Middle East Despot who will kill everyone and blow up everything to remain in power.

How can you call it a 'Proxy War' when it was the people that rose up first against the Despot? There is no reason to believe foreign agents stirred up the people against Assad. They had built up grievances and saw everyone else trying to kill their despot so decided to give it a try. Only after this very organic uprising did other countries come in, pick sides and make the civil war last so long. It is a Civil War with external support from other countries, not a famous 'Proxy War'.

Spread a bunch of 'the media fooled you' when you don't like people telling you the truth...like it actually wins arguments. If I had a nickel for everyone who used that around here I'd be rich. Dates of the start of civil wars don't lie. People looking back a few years and putting their biased spins on it do.

Assad is a two bit despot backed by a Russian credit card for his military. The revolutionaries are backed by multiple Middle Eastern countries that religiously are opposed to Assad. The vast majority of people in Syria trying to kill Assad are Syrians.

And why should other countries come into their civil war ? What right does america or any other country has to interfere in another country. And again , Assad has survived for three years because he has massive support in Syria by the people of Syria . Majority of the folks in FSA, AL Nusra and ISIS are not even Syrians they are OUTSIDERs. , and you claim vast majority want to kill Assad ? Seems your simply making up stuff as you type . the NDF National Defense forces are Syrian Civilian volunteers fighting with the Assad regime . America or any other country has absolutely no moral right or obligation to interfere in Syria ...

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

1) No I didn't say anything about the West defining legitimacy...
Yes I did say the family dynasty is illegitimate & I stand by it because I believe in democracy.

2) What claim?
That people wanted the Assad regime gone... If you need proof of that you're wasting my time as its common knowledge.

3) Like I said originally, I don't know where you got the idea that this response has anything to do with what I said.

4) It's an opinion because you cannot prove that the West isn't concerned about Human Rights. It's your input, it's an opinion.


You really need to work on your reading comprehension because most of what you said has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

1) You just proved my point, you are judging legitimacy based on western constructed model of democracy. Boom. Perhaps you should practice reading comprehension on yours and my statements.

2) Please show me a evidence based study or poll from the Syrian people. By "common knowledge" you mean the fact that all of the Western media has told you guys that all of Syria wanted Assad gone for the past 3 years. Of course you think that now. Just because virtually all of the Western media told you that for 3 years doesn't make it true.

3) You need to practice taking account for your responses and what your statements imply. You said "Considering Assad's father ruled for nearly three decades, then decided his son would take over...

I'm guessing that's not too legitimate...



The people want rid of the Assad regime...


It started before "Western intervention"...

So the people of Syria wanted him gone prior to the conspiracy. " This is your attempt to justify the intervention based on supposed issues with the people.

4) It is demonstrable factually via history over the past 60 years that the track record of the west has nothing to do with human rights and democracy. If you knew history well, you would know that. The US specifically has factually removed democracies when they were not compliant and installed friendly dictators that would be. The history of Latin America for example is replete with countless examples of the US stomping on countries, installing dictators, funding proxy wars against democratically elected governments, illegally invading, and even supporting genocidal death squads in such places as Guatemala. It IS possible to evaluate whether the US or West actually have a track record of really fighting for human rights abroad.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What has any of that got to do with what I said!


You cannot debate the fact that only Assad has the means to launch Airstrikes & Barrel Bombs...
& if you search google you will find many stories of innocent civilians he has murdered.


I never said anything of the sort than Assad has killed all of the victims of this civil war, so I don't know why you mentioned that.


And you can stop assuming where I get my information...
I don't watch Fox or CNN. So they didn't tell me anything.



Why didn't you answer my question?

Where do you get your "version" of events...?
So everyone at ATS can see your sources & that may help you convince people that this is all just a Western Proxy...


Until then, good day.

The western media characterizes Assad's attacks on rebel areas as attacks on women and children. Yes, there is collateral damage, just like US drone strikes in Pakistan. Moreover, even your wording, pulled straight from western propaganda, tries to focus on the collateral damage as if that was his aim. So it fails.

Second, if it is true that the rebels are causing a similar level of collateral damage, your point fails again, because you are trying to use barrel bombs as a deflection from the fact rebels also have targeted densely packed areas using different weaponry.

Stop deflecting.

You have a good grip on the facts historically . Thought I would pass this along because it historically marks where the false notions we have today get their birth .

Cheney wasn’t wrong about the “hue and cry.” Every single country other than the United States in the Organization of American States voted against the invasion of Panama, but by then it couldn’t have mattered less. Bush acted anyway.

What changed everything was the fall of the Berlin Wall just over a month before the invasion. Paradoxically, as the Soviet Union’s influence in its backyard (eastern Europe) unraveled, it left Washington with more room to maneuver in its backyard (Latin America). The collapse of Soviet-style Communism also gave the White House an opportunity to go on the ideological and moral offense. And at that moment, the invasion of Panama happened to stand at the head of the line.

As with most military actions, the invaders had a number of justifications to offer, but at that moment the goal of installing a “democratic” regime in power suddenly flipped to the top of the list. In adopting that rationale for making war, Washington was in effect radically revising the terms of international diplomacy. At the heart of its argument was the idea that democracy (as defined by the Bush administration) trumped the principle of national sovereignty.

Latin American nations immediately recognized the threat. After all, according to historian John Coatsworth, the U.S. overthrew 41 governments in Latin America between 1898 and 1994, and many of those regime changes were ostensibly carried out, as Woodrow Wilson once put it in reference to Mexico, to teach Latin Americans “to elect good men.” Their resistance only gave Bush’s ambassador to the OAS, Luigi Einaudi, a chance to up the ethical ante. He quickly and explicitly tied the assault on Panama to the wave of democracy movements then sweeping Eastern Europe. “Today we are... living in historic times,” he lectured his fellow OAS delegates, two days after the invasion, “a time when a great principle is spreading across the world like wildfire. That principle, as we all know, is the revolutionary idea that people, not governments, are sovereign.”

www.informationclearinghouse.info... a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

1) Once again, in international law legitimacy is not defined by democracy versus basically kingship or family lineages. I'm not saying I am a fan of family based regimes. But I'm explaining international law to you.

2) It's a proxy war based on the fact that the west wants Assad out as an ally and outpost of Iran and Russia. It's also a classic proxy war based on the fact that the US, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar are funding, arming, and training a consortium of fighters (foreign and domestic) against Assad, a regime funded, armed, and trained by Iran and Russia. Boom, sorry it doesn't fit your CNN narrative.

3) The sides that were picked were purely based on geopolitical lines and alliances, hence again a proxy war. You know, just like in Vietnam.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Assumption number one: Western democracy defines legitimacy. There are dozens of countries with kings, life long dictators, etc.

That's the best you got when confronted with the facts on Assad's 'legitimacy'??? The guy is simply another Middle East Despot who will kill everyone and blow up everything to remain in power.

How can you call it a 'Proxy War' when it was the people that rose up first against the Despot? There is no reason to believe foreign agents stirred up the people against Assad. They had built up grievances and saw everyone else trying to kill their despot so decided to give it a try. Only after this very organic uprising did other countries come in, pick sides and make the civil war last so long. It is a Civil War with external support from other countries, not a famous 'Proxy War'.

Spread a bunch of 'the media fooled you' when you don't like people telling you the truth...like it actually wins arguments. If I had a nickel for everyone who used that around here I'd be rich. Dates of the start of civil wars don't lie. People looking back a few years and putting their biased spins on it do.

Assad is a two bit despot backed by a Russian credit card for his military. The revolutionaries are backed by multiple Middle Eastern countries that religiously are opposed to Assad. The vast majority of people in Syria trying to kill Assad are Syrians.

Oh so Assad is actualy liked by the Syrian people and the U.S, UK and the rest of Europe were actualy lying about Syria the whole time in order to justify more illegal wars?

Sounds about right.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Thanks for all the non-Western sources to back up your claims.



You've wasted enough of my time repeating the same thing over & over.



Assad is a murdering dictator who is doing all he can to stay in power...

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

"Collateral damage"???



That's the most Westernised statement I've heard in this entire thread & knowing that's how you feel...
We are done.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: solarstorm

Go to youtube and watch footage of the Syrian army snipers, air force and ground troops taking care of business.

If you call Barrel Bombs & Airstikes on women & children "taking care of business"...

Then good luck to you.

Your the same one whose supporting the Ukrankian fascist Pro NATO government in Ukraine i shouldn't be to surprised of your reply on Syria it was only matter of time.

If you call Barrel Bombs & Airstikes on women & children "taking care of business"...

The same alleged Barrel Bombs which are always and usually posted by the Syrian Opposition is rather quite questionable of there authentication no doubt you would have believed this video as real.

The same westren news outlets quickly used the video to demonize Assad and Syrian government by claiming those were Syrian Snipers trying to kill the boy.

Before realizing only after the facts that the video footage wasn't even taken in Syria.

Considering Assad's father ruled for nearly three decades, then decided his son would take over...

Would you had preferred the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to Rule Over Syria then? it was thanks to Assad Family in which it made it possible to ban that the same party.

The people want rid of the Assad regime...
Which Syrian people? was there even a poll in Syria asking them if they want Assad gone?

I'm guessing that's not too legitimate...

So by your logic a legitimate leader is someone whom has to be either pro NATO, Pro Westren and Pro American and if thats not enough they have to be Pro Arabian and Israeli in order to be legitimate.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Thanks for all the non-Western sources to back up your claims.

This is comical, you remind me so much of some other users on here when they are showing you from a different news point of view rater then, the westren sources.

Where they all have the one sided narrative. No doubt you enjoy the chaos in Libya.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Assad is a murdering dictator who is doing all he can to stay in power...

Your beloved Free Syrian Army rebels whom arent even rebels are the ones whom are not only a gang of murdering thugs but abusers of the uses of child soldiers.

Considering the facts that you also support the Ukrankian government and the rebels in Syria that says a lot.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Your the same one whose supporting the Ukrankian fascist Pro NATO government in Ukraine i shouldn't be to surprised of your reply on Syria it was only matter of time.

This is the part where I demand that you find one post of mine that backs up this ludicrous statement...

I've been here nearly a year... Good luck with that bull#.




I refuse to entertain anything else you said until you provide proof of your lie...

Which you can't...

So I won't...

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

So you're telling me that the only source you guys have is in your pea-sized anti-Western Brains...



To be honest, that's what I originally thought anyways.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

I think you've confused me with someone else you engage your anti-Western rhetoric with.


Please go away now.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Users have posted you sources you either have just ignored them or attacked as you did like the following.

Thanks for all the non-Western sources to back up your claims.

To you, you only prefer westren sources on Syria even though these same sources haven't being truthful. As i have shown you that video of that Syrian boy fake hero.

It shows that you really dont to take your time and finding it out on your own so rather when others post sources you just attack them or the sources by insulting.

You have to be a little respectful here, cause people here wont take your snooty attitude.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

I don't see why I should be respectful to someone who lies about me.


I asked for non-Western sources because people complained about Western sources...
None have been shared as of yet...

Take your evidence YouTube video somewhere else.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Hope this helps your quest for knowledge.

BBC caught lying about syria chemical weapons 2013

A video of a BBC interview with a doctor in Syria in the aftermath of a napalm-style attack appears to have been artificially dubbed to falsely make reference to the incident being a "chemical weapons"

Fake BBC Video

Irrefutable evidence of a stunning bit of fakery by the BBC

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Yeah I knew about the chemical weapons fabrication, pal.


Thanks anyways.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
1) Once again, in international law legitimacy is not defined by democracy versus basically kingship or family lineages. I'm not saying I am a fan of family based regimes. But I'm explaining international law to you.

In 2012 Syria changed it's constitution to a multi-party system and HELD AN ELECTION. Syria has in fact HELD MANY ELECTIONS. Do I have to tell you what an ELECTION is??? It's the foundation of a DEMOCRACY! Well, it sure the hell isn't a family dictatorship, which is the TRUTH of what is going on in Syria. You are seriously impaired arguing the legitimacy of Assad.

2) It's a proxy war based on the fact that the west wants Assad out as an ally and outpost of Iran and Russia.

If you mind is stuck in the Cold War era then I guess every war is still a proxy war. Amazingly enough the rest of the world has moved on. When people rise up and try to kick out there government it's a CIVIL WAR. Very simple. The definition doesn't change because of who they get help from. Of course geopolitical lines are going to guide countries to help one side or the other. DOESN'T MAKE IT A PROXY WAR.

Here is the Oxford dictionary definition of Proxy War:
A war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved
www.oxforddictionaries.com...

The Syrian war was INSTIGATED by the PEOPLE OF SYRIA against ASSAD.

I understand you want to add labels and shift blame onto the West or Russia or whoever else your agenda of the day demands. It simply isn't true.

a reply to: maddy21

Maddy,

You forgot to add that Syria is one of the core centers which holds a lot of answers about our origins. It is NOT AN ACCIDENT that the Mesopotamia area has been kept under a continuous ware zone for so long...