Bashar al-Assad - Is His Time Up?

Fat_Dragon

Fat_Dragon

Well-known member
Reports all over the media suggesting the Rebels are on the outskirts of the Syrian capital Damascus. If the rebels do take control of Damascus then Bashar al-Assad will most likely flee the country and Syria will be run by a group which are designated as a terrorist group by the UN and US. It really is chaos in the Middle East. Wonder how Iran and Russia will respond.
 
Sad thing is that many of the rebels on the march aren't good guys either.

Assad is a genocidal d*ckhead and the world would be better without him, but I'm hoping it's not a case of going from bad to worse.
 
I agree the Media put out the rebels are the good guys, but I suspect former members of ISIS will be integrated within them.

Christians within Syria in the recent past were scared stiff that the rebels gain control of the country.
 
Last edited:
Al Quaeda renamed / rehashed: a group of well-financed, armed, fanatical, terrorist extremists, backed by the USA and Israel.
Designed to weaken the axis of resistance against the Zionist Genocide in occupied Palestine.
Sticky fingerprints of British and US Intelligence "psyops" and black propaganda all over it.
Look out for the rebirth of "Syrian Girl" on Twitter.
 
r00fie1 said:
Al Quaeda renamed / rehashed: a group of well-financed, armed, fanatical, terrorist extremists, backed by the USA and Israel.
Designed to weaken the axis of resistance against the Zionist Genocide in occupied Palestine.
Sticky fingerprints of British and US Intelligence "psyops" and black propaganda all over it.
Look out for the rebirth of "Syrian Girl" on Twitter.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree with most of this. Without getting into a debate about Isreal / Palestine, why do you think US and others would support the group? It does seem odd that such a significant army has basically been ran out of town in a few days
 
cliverd said:
Don't disagree with most of this. Without getting into a debate about Isreal / Palestine, why do you think US and others would support the group? It does seem odd that such a significant army has basically been ran out of town in a few days
Click to expand...
Geopolitics. If you have five minutes give the "The End?" thread a read. It goes into a bit of detail about the whats and whys.

Essentially, anything that destabilises Russia is a current "good". No doubt we'll be going to war with these "rebels" in a decade or so.
 
cliverd said:
Don't disagree with most of this. Without getting into a debate about Isreal / Palestine, why do you think US and others would support the group? It does seem odd that such a significant army has basically been ran out of town in a few days
Click to expand...
The American occupation of the oil rich area of Syria has weakened Syria's economy for at least the last 15 years. The Israeli's occupy Syria's Golan Heights, which have a key military significance for the bombing of Damascus and other areas like Homs, which the Israelis have been doing continuously to terrorise the Syrian civilians. With Russian support, the Syrian Arab Army has kept the "rebels" [terrorists] at bay: a convoy of Russian troops was earlier securing the Syrian / Turkish border. There is a relationship between Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Iraq as the main axis of resistance. Iraq has played a key role in attacking American bases in the Conoco Oil-fields since October 7th and its Parliament agreed to push out all US presence from its territory by 2025. At the moment, Iraqi troops are waiting for the order to move towards the Syrian border to prevent any incursions by the terrorists, but as of now, their President has hesitated.

Israel hopes that, with US backing of the terrorists in Syria, it will cut off any supply lines and weaken Hezbollah`s ability to defend Lebanon, opening up the way for the Americans to resupply Israel's attacks and intention to capture a significant proportion of the country. Israel has breached the "ceasefire" with Lebanon over 100 times since its "agreement", but Hezbollah have not responded. It's a big risk. It's also a big risk for Turkey, who have been providing support through the back door to these terrorists. The authoritarian Turkish President, Erdoğan, talks a lot of hot air about Israel and its actions in the occupied territories, but he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Under the cloak of Turkey's long-standing issues with the Kurds, he has allowed the "rebels" to organise and prepare for the current "charge" into Syria.

​
 
TeaCider said:
Sad thing is that many of the rebels on the march aren't good guys either.

Assad is a genocidal d*ckhead and the world would be better without him, but I'm hoping it's not a case of going from bad to worse.
Click to expand...
Basically the same as Saddam Hussein in that he is the leader by dint of the UK/French carving up of the middle east after WW1. They deliberately installed the minor tribes/sects as the rulers to ensure everywhere was run with an iron fist to prevent them being deposed - simultaneously preventing strong nations from developing.
 
r00fie1 said:
The American occupation of the oil rich area of Syria has weakened Syria's economy for at least the last 15 years. The Israeli's occupy Syria's Golan Heights, which have a key military significance for the bombing of Damascus and other areas like Homs, which the Israelis have been doing continuously to terrorise the Syrian civilians. With Russian support, the Syrian Arab Army has kept the "rebels" [terrorists] at bay: a convoy of Russian troops was earlier securing the Syrian / Turkish border. There is a relationship between Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Iraq as the main axis of resistance. Iraq has played a key role in attacking American bases in the Conoco Oil-fields since October 7th and its Parliament agreed to push out all US presence from its territory by 2025. At the moment, Iraqi troops are waiting for the order to move towards the Syrian border to prevent any incursions by the terrorists, but as of now, their President has hesitated.

Israel hopes that, with US backing of the terrorists in Syria, it will cut off any supply lines and weaken Hezbollah`s ability to defend Lebanon, opening up the way for the Americans to resupply Israel's attacks and intention to capture a significant proportion of the country. Israel has breached the "ceasefire" with Lebanon over 100 times since its "agreement", but Hezbollah have not responded. It's a big risk. It's also a big risk for Turkey, who have been providing support through the back door to these terrorists. The authoritarian Turkish President, Erdoğan, talks a lot of hot air about Israel and its actions in the occupied territories, but he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Under the cloak of Turkey's long-standing issues with the Kurds, he has allowed the "rebels" to organise and prepare for the current "charge" into Syria.

​
Click to expand...
Interesting perspective.

In your opinion what would a good outcome? Ultimately as with any conflict, normal civilians will pay the price
 
cliverd said:
Interesting perspective.

In your opinion what would a good outcome? Ultimately as with any conflict, normal civilians will pay the price
Click to expand...
I'll be honest and say that if Assad were to fall, it would create more problems in West Asia, with the toxic cocktail of external influences and supplies of weapons from the USA. Those same "rebels" are the ones the Americans created when fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. However, once the Americans had armed and trained them and driven the Soviets out of Afghanistan, they turned on the Americans and began killing and terrorising whole areas, including Christians non-fundamentalists and dissenters. All I can see at the moment are piles of bodies and bloodshed. If lawless terrorists are supplied with weapons, and with a record like theirs, it's like giving an arsonist a can of petrol and a match. Unfortunately I don't think there's a straight-forward solution? It will evolve, but goodness knows at what cost.​
 
r00fie1 said:
The authoritarian Turkish President, Erdoğan, talks a lot of hot air about Israel and its actions in the occupied territories, but he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Under the cloak of Turkey's long-standing issues with the Kurds, he has allowed the "rebels" to organise and prepare for the current "charge" into Syria.

​
Click to expand...

Erdoğan is a wolf in wolf's clothing isn't he? Who plays a game playing off interests between Europe, the Middle east, Russia and the countries along the old silk road. In fairness though Turkey are the only Nato member who have publicly shot down a Russian jet fighter.

Although Authoritarian etc, he did just lose the last set of regional and city elections very badly. Let's see.

His main beef though is that he views himself as the first modern populist. He is very p*** that Trump doesn't acknowledge this. He now predicts that Trump will follow his model though - neuter the media, and lock up the opposition and dissident generals.
 
Ref Oil Industry in Syria - I haven't heard about before, I would guess its pretty small relative to the rest of the Middle East oilfields.

Ref Britain and France dividing up the Middle East after WW1 1918 - My belief is Britain and France wanted Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, what is now Jordan, Iraq etc for their own Empires and to keep access to cheap oil open at all times. After 1948 they had to slightly reluctantly give up possession, because of growing demands for independence, it was costing money, international pressure from say USA. They obviously wanted to hand over to rulers who were pro-Western, pro-capitalist, but not necessarily minority dictators.

The original rebels in Syria were a mixed group, but about one third were Islamic fundamentalists who broke away to form ISIS (DESH) and wanted a religious caliphate, in part of Iraq and Syria. They ran this for a while with horrendous consequences for anyone who disagreed with them or who was different. Nearly all their equipment was American as the Yanks had supplied it thinking they were part of the good guys when in Syria. There was a multi-part documentary about Iraq on the BBC that gave this information. Syrian conflict to me is bad v bad, but there much be a danger in the medium term that ISIS or a similar group will return which is someone 99% of the UK population would not want running the country.
 
masquesmog said:
Erdoğan is a wolf in wolf's clothing isn't he? Who plays a game playing off interests between Europe, the Middle east, Russia and the countries along the old silk road. In fairness though Turkey are the only Nato member who have publicly shot down a Russian jet fighter.

Although Authoritarian etc, he did just lose the last set of regional and city elections very badly. Let's see.

His main beef though is that he views himself as the first modern populist. He is very p*** that Trump doesn't acknowledge this. He now predicts that Trump will follow his model though - neuter the media, and lock up the opposition and dissident generals.
Click to expand...
Turkey is a secular country, but there is some danger that Islamic fundamentalist could spread into Turkey and have the country run on religious lines. Syria has been a bit of a buffer, but may not be if the Government there falls. Iraq is still a mess and provides no buffer. The Kurds are a significant force, but they hate the Turks and the Islamic fundamentalist groups, so the Kurds don't want to help Turkey, unless Turkey gives up land for a new country for them. Turkey joined NATO to give it some protection from the old USSR, which used to border it. If a NATO member is attacked the other NATO members have a legal and moral obligation to defend it.
 
Redwurzel said:
Ref Britain and France dividing up the Middle East after WW1 1918 - My belief is Britain and France wanted Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, what is now Jordan, Iraq etc for their own Empires and to keep access to cheap oil open at all times. After 1948 they had to slightly reluctantly give up possession, because of growing demands for independence, it was costing money, international pressure from say USA. They obviously wanted to hand over to rulers who were pro-Western, pro-capitalist, but not necessarily minority dictators.
Click to expand...
Yeah, probably slightly over-simplified it in my earlier post. The main point being the majority of the problems in both the Middle-East and Africa can be traced back to decisions made between the British Empire and a variety of other empire-building Western nations. Lines on maps that deliberately messed up the reality on the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top