posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:05 PM
I've posted this on other threads, a really brief and extremely simplified summary of my understanding of it, which seems relevant to consider:
Assad is probably not an entirely nice guy, though by all appearances he is not nearly half the tyrant his father was, and Syria is pretty much a
police state, think Gestapo and the Stasi, though Assad has made some reforms in the last few years.
His father came to rule by an overthrow of the previous govt. During his rule, one of the things that happened, was a Muslim Brotherhood uprising (in
the '80s), which he put down, brutally yes, but that's pretty much the gist, and you can then see why the ever deepening police state. A few years
before he died, he got sick and was just about overthrown himself...by his brother, who was pretty much in charge of the military. Yeah. He got
better, exiled his brother, jailed/killed the others involved, and carried on. He died and the son came to power, much to the bitterness of the
brother. The brother is exiled in France, and guess what? He's all for the 'rebels', who are primarily, you guessed it, Muslim Brotherhood.
(that's the Syrians that were involved from the beginning. Of course, by now, the majority of the FSA are non-Syrians that were shipped in).
It is true that the US (and others) has spent millions over the last 10 years or more setting up NGO's all over the middle east, including in Syria,
to promote 'freedom and democracy'. Do you think they do this out of altruism? No. They US (and others) also work at fomenting and supporting the
malcontents, in this case, the Muslim Brotherhood, ever more bitter since the last go round. A few years go by...and bingo, things start to happen.
So, again, is Assad some kind of Saint? No. Is he what we're told he is? No. Did this 'revolution' just appear out of nowhere? No. Are 'we'
Were there citizens in Syria who genuinely wanted change and political reform, who didn't like Assad? Yes. Was that reform happening? Yes, until the
fighting (fomented by 'us') broke out, and all that came to an end until the fighting stops.
Does the FSA, and ergo the Muslim Brotherhood, actually represent that 'freedom and reform'? No, though they seemed to in the beginning. What their
aim is, an Islamic state, translates to less freedom, not more. (It is now Secular).
And guess what? A lot of those people who were railing against Assad for change, and even for him to be gone? A lot of them are now on his side, if
only because they know what will replace him is worse.
There are also other opposition groups who are calling for change and reform, but it's not a requisite that Assad go. There are those that are okay
with Assad going; But what they all agree they do NOT want, is foreign intervention under any circumstances. And guess what? NONE of those groups, or
members of those groups, are part of, or even invited to be a part of the 'official opposition' being paraded around by "The Friends of Syria" and
now being recognized by other countries as the "Official representatives of the Syrian people".
*Another thing I recently came across suggested that the govt the father overthrew to come into power was felt to have been a western backed coup with
which we're quite familiar. Again, this gives context as to 'why he just won't step down' and why most Syrian people would not want him to, even
those that do not like him. It was not that long before the father came to power that they were ruled by the French, and one of the things the father
stood for, what the Baath party stands for, is secular and Pro-Arab, anti-Western policies. So it does seem to me that no matter how many Syrians
wanted reforms and greater freedom, and even an end to Assad rule, the LAST thing they would want would be outside interventions with their country
and politics from either the FUKUS countries, or Islamist ones.
**And in regard to the chemical weapons: his father, who was more brutal and more of a tyrant, even he DID NOT use them in the 80's when putting down
the last MB uprising.