posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 12:35 PM
a reply to: spy66
You mean this(?):
www.worldtribune.com - NATO data: Assad winning the war
for Syrians’ hearts and minds...
The data, compiled by Western-sponsored activists and organizations,
showed that a majority of Syrians were alarmed by the Al Qaida takeover of
the Sunni revolt and preferred to return to Assad, Middle East Newsline reported.
Here was from an earlier time:
www.theguardian.com - Most Syrians back President
Assad, but you'd never know from western media...
Thing is, we know people will support governments indiscriminately for these reasons:
1) Low pwersonal control
3) Threat to system
So OF COURSE syrian people will tend to support Assad, even if Assad is corrupt and kills them. The rebel groups are more likely to NOT support Assad
precisely because of the support they get from Qatar/Saudi Arabia--indirectly from US--and others (ISIS among them). Without the support they're
dependent again and have lower control and less escapability.
See given a choice and the means people will want better. And on that path they're more likely to assist the rebels in attacking Assad.
What I'm attempting to get across is that support for Assad doesn't mean we shouldn't support the rebels. We have to identify whether Assad truly is
guilty of crimes against his people. THAT will satisfy the UN. It's called hte Responsibility to Protect (RtoP/R2P). It used used during Libya:
www.un.org - United Nations Official Document: Resolution 1970
Can learn more about it here from the horse's mouth:
www.un.org - Background Information on the Responsibility to
EDIT: The question becomes also whether the support for rebels attacking Assad was legitimate or not? Regardless, Assad grossly killing his own
population--even accidentally--shows he's not fit to be a leader. Yet we must also be skeptical of the agenda of the rebels. I'm not giving them a
free pass.... Obviously Qatar/Saudi Arab were involved years ago. But did this precede the Arab Spring in 2011? Remember this was what caused a lot of
the outrage against Assad. His response was merciless attacks, similar to Gaddafi. One must show these protests were supported by Qatar and other
interests AND for malevolent reasons. And yet one cannot condone Assad's response either. It's high time for a review of Syria's history.
I did not support the war in Iraq because I felt highly uncertain about all of it. I don't want us to repeat that. I've often read that "The ME is a
mess and maybe htey need someone like Saddam to balance the power." But even if it were true ME people need a brutal dictator to maintain government,
it does not permit leaders to commit gross crimes against their people! It's wrong wherever it occurs. IF ME people are so lawless and prone to civil
war they need psychological remedy--not brutal dictators.
edit on 11/4/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)