I think it's even simpler than most would imagine. Countries with natural resources that could make them independent of economic or military
assistance, and who have governments that are truly representative, threaten the world's economic and military powerhouses. If a nation succeeds
without US or US ally assistance (or Russia/Russian ally assistance), it severs the umbilical and proves that said assistance was never really
necessary. That in and of itself would spark a chain reaction of, well, the truth. We can't have that now can we?
The turmoil in Syria was organized, funded, bribed, coerced, and generally caused by none other than the CIA. So all those lists of who's against
whom can be consolidated into a one-liner. CIA vs any nation that threatens to succeed.
The first part I agree with, and it is an important thought IMHO.
The second - not so simple. Knowing and hearing some people who escaped Assad before the rebellion, no. People were pushed to the very end when they
had nothing to lose. The Syrian forces sometimes murdered scores of schoolchildren just to terrify parents who dared to voice critical opinions of
their thugs. Then parents publicly recanted and said they were sorry and everything - if they could only have their children back. When finally
someone took the courage to inquire about the children taken to the police station never to reappear, they received the following answer from the
"Don't worry about your children they're all dead.
Just send us your women and you'll have new ones in no time...."
At that point, the ex-parents thought they would leave their professions and buy weapons and fight the government thugs - nothing mattered anyway any
I heard this narrative from a Syrian who escaped years ago, because the tyrant was THAT bad, and chose to learn our language and restart his career
way before the rebellion or revolution. It was years before he dared to speak anything negative about the Tyrant, he was so fearful for years.
So the whole thing was not a staged thing done by CIA - maybe they gave them some guns after a while or helped them together but by golly, there WAS a
legitimate wrath of anger we could not ever imagine mounting in ordinary folks for decades of oppression.
Plus this Alawite sect - every family had to produce at least one secret police member or military. Then they would be under checking. If you'r
Alawite, it's like being born in a Party family under Stalin. You have no choice.
I mean... yes, I am against fundamentalists and Islam HAS produced the worst kinds recently ... but these thugs are supposed to be the good guys? OK,
they are secular, but ... what kind of secular? Stalin was secular and so was Mao. Ceaucescu, famed dictator of Romania dragged to death in the first
days of the 1989 Revolution was secular.
Did you see the empty stare of Assad, have you heard the tireless clapping? The way the "Assad supporters" dare to talk, Kim Jong Un's rallies
comes to me mind... well, maybe there are less coordinated. Is this really that much better than the Wahhabi fanatics paid by our great friends, the
One group believes in a soulless State machine, a Party with Big Brother and an all-pervasive secret police, widespread torture of the kind Westerners
cannot even imagine - or perhaps in serial killer movies only, while the other are stupid fundies, killing anyone who does not convert, forcing
medieval customs on people - but flaunting modern arms and tanks...
Frankly, I like neither style.
And just as you found Christians among the ranks of fighters if America was attacked, you will find Muslims on every side. Does this horrify ATS
readers? Would an Arab paper carry news like "In attacked America, fanatical Christians are fighting at the barricades? - we don't want them to win,
they are scary!"
Well, some of them are just nominally Muslim, but some apparently take it too seriously. For justice's sake, there's more Fundamentalists there by
the numbers than in America, but there's been far more repression too...