Syria crisis: rebels condemn opposition coalition
Source: BBC News
Rebels on the ground in Syria have launched a blistering attack on the Syrian opposition coalition outside the country.
A statement issued by the Revolutionary Movement in Syria said the coalition had failed to represent the Syrian revolution.
The criticism comes amid Russian and US efforts to arrange a conference on Syria in June.
An emergency UN debate on Syria is also due in Geneva on Wednesday.
The statement by grassroots opposition groups inside Syria says the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (SC) is unable to fulfil its obligations due to "ongoing discord".
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22698358
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Megalo_Man
(88 posts)And fuck anyone who supports them. Scum of the earth.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)If so, you are the one who needs to fucked for being true scum of the Earth!! The Syrian people are fighting for their future & have every right to be upset with us for not helping & especially for us working with the Russians who are responsible for he carnage in Syria!!
If I misunderstood your comment then please explain what you meant...I am just sick & tired of folks here on DU supporting the most disgusting regimes on the planet simply because they are against the USA or because in the case of Syria they don't want the US to get involved so they act as if the Assad regime has done nothing wrong & the US just wants to get into another war for war sake.
The Syrian people deserve to right to pick their own leaders just like we do!!
Response to SkyDaddy7 (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Is this post for real?
It could've been written by the Assad regime itself.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Megalo_Man
(88 posts)Al-Qaeda-filled sharia-law, entire-village-men-women-and-children-massacre-ing scum that they are.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Have regime forces not done any massacring of their own?
belowaveragenin
(1 post)Prior to Assad drafting the new constitution, the US State Department complained that Syria had “failed to join an increasingly interconnected global economy,” which is to say, had failed to turn over its state-owned enterprises to private investors, among them Wall Street financial interests. The State Department also expressed dissatisfaction that “ideological reasons” had prevented Assad from liberalizing Syria’s economy, that “privatization of government enterprises was still not widespread,” and that the economy “remains highly controlled by the government.” [11]
Were Assad to demonstrate a readiness to appease Wall Street’s demands he would have departed holus bolus from the dirigiste practices that had irritated the State Department. Instead, he did the opposite, drafting a constitution that mandated that the government maintain a role in guiding the economy on behalf of Syrian interests, and that the Syrian government would not make Syrians work for the interests of Western banks, oil companies, and other corporations. This was effectively a slap in Washington’s face.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Below average in what?
Response to Megalo_Man (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)The minority!!!! Are you aware of how this started in the first place? It had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Islamic radicals attacking the Assad regime...It was the Assad regime torturing & killing little kids for spray painting anti-regime messages on walls!
The Assad regime needs to be completely destroyed & they need to be brought to justice to face war crimes or go the way of Qaddafi.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)As abhorrent as the Assad government is, it is a known entity. The "Free Syrian Army" and others fighting against the Assad regime are being armed openly by the despotic monarchs in Saudi Arabia (who have a strong affinity for very conservative Islam) and Qatar, and they are paying foreign fighters to go into Syria to fight Assad. When Assad claims he's fighting "terrorists", he's referring to the same people the US has suppposedly been fighting a war on terror against.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar both want Assad out because he's Iran's main ally in the region (and neither of those countries have ever liked Iran because it's mostly Shiite). There is a lot more going on in Syria than the CNN-based, superficial understanding you have of the situation SkyDaddy. We hear conservatives in the US warning of a creeping Caliphate in the Middle East, yet here is John McCain and other idiots (including the annoying John Kerry and many Democrats) suggesting we arm the radical al-Nusra Islamists.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)You said, "There is a lot more going on in Syria than the CNN-based, superficial understanding you have of the situation SkyDaddy" Now that was very CUTE...Did that help you somehow feel superior or more content about the views you hold when it comes to Syria? Or was that simply a diversion meant to hide the fact you avoided the main point of my comment & probably did not even take the time to look at why I said what I did or who & what I was replying to?
Yes, I am fully aware after reading your reply to me that you could very well be one of those people who are simply looking for a fight & who could care less about having an intellectual conversation/debate based on facts...But just in case you are not one of those type of people like your comment strongly suggest you are...
Let me help walk you through the comment I was replying to & why I replied to what was said in the manner I did...
First, I replied to this comment:
"5. Yes, I absolutely support the Assad regime if they are the alternative.
Al-Qaeda-filled sharia-law, entire-village-men-women-and-children-massacre-ing scum that they are."
Here is my reply:
"14. Right now the Islamic radicals are...
The minority!!!! Are you aware of how this started in the first place? It had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Islamic radicals attacking the Assad regime...It was the Assad regime torturing & killing little kids for spray painting anti-regime messages on walls!
The Assad regime needs to be completely destroyed & they need to be brought to justice to face war crimes or go the way of Qaddafi."
Your comment really had NOTHING to do with the above conversation at all! WHY?
You proceeded to jump my case in a poor attempt to show me for one, your dislike for CNN? WHY? And then perhaps to make yourself feel good about what you THINK YOU KNOW about the conflict in Syria? I am not sure.
You seem to know some of the main characters like Syria, FSA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar & Iran but whether it was on purpose or simply due to your ignorance you failed to explain why it is that some do want to arm the Syrian people. Instead you mention John McCain's dumb ass & other dumbass chicken hawk Conservatives as if that alone discredits the idea, it most certainly does not!
Here is why...
The vast majority of fighters in Syria are fighting with the "Free Syrian Army" & are NOT radical Islamist! The FSA is made up of a majority of soldiers who defected from the Syrian Army Forces as well as volunteers...With an estimated 25,000-30,000 fighters but no one knows for sure the exact number. The majority of these fighters are Sunnis, Syria's largest community, it includes Palestinians, Kurds, Druze & Turks...As well as some Alawites opposed to the Assad regime.
However, there are radical Islamist groups who make up a SMALL MINORITY of the overall opposition forces...The two main ones are al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham...With an estimated 6000-8000 fighters.
Yes, things have gotten way out of control & YES some of the opposition has decided to repeat some of the disgusting acts the Assad regime has been doing for DECADES...But lets not act as if the opposition started this whole mess like you & others seem to be doing all because you think any regime is a good regime as long as they are anti-USA. A strong argument could be made that had the USA set up a no fly zone a year ago many of these acts could have been prevented or at the very least expedited the end to this madness!!
I find it quite telling that you probably consider yourself a Liberal yet you are perfectly contempt watching the innocent people in Syria be tortured, mutilated & killed simply because they want what YOU HAVE! As your comment suggest you seem perfectly fine talking as if the Syrian opposition is no better than the Assad regime! WHY? What is so hard for you to understand all they want is the right to choose their leaders & not have to worry about if one of their loved ones says something against the government could go missing & may never be seen again until their tortured & broken dead body is shipped back to the house like those little kids who spray painted anti-Assad messages were...This incident with the CHILDREN along with DECADES of oppression is what set off this entire Civil War NOT radical Islamic groups like the Assad Regime & YOU claim!!
Your arrogant comment reminds me of what I would expect from ignorant Conservatives who speak with such passion & confidence about topics they are grossly misinformed about...They also make lame excuses about the media like you did as well.
Maybe you should take some time to watch media from all over the world as I do & read media from all over the world as I do, & YES that includes CNN, & maybe you would not end up in the situation you are now being called out for your arrogance & ignorance.
The Syrian people have been BEGGING the USA to help by setting up a no-fly zone for 2yrs now...PLEASE tell me why this is not a reasonable request? The longer we wait the more RADICALIZED the opposition will get like happens in any war! Yet folks like yourself are content with forgetting why this conflict started & the most disturbing of all you & folks like yourself are content with adopting the BULLSHIT story the Assad regime & Russia are spewing that terrorist are to blame! SAD!!
I follow this topic very closely because I HATE to see people suffer in the way the Syrian people have suffered...And I am not going to bow to the pressure of the minority of my so-called "Liberal" friends who have no good reason that I have heard of as to why we should not be using our military for something good for a change & helping the Syrian people out like we did the Libyan people. (Seriously, do not bring up Benghazi it won't work) We do not have to get bogged down in a war like Iraq...We don't even have to put any of our guy on the ground...But left up to you & others like you, folks like myself should just shut up & ignore the carnage because after all we are LIBERALS!! HOORAY!! And that stuff going on over there is just sensationalized by the main stream media like CNN, huh?
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)And I'm being kind. This is like supporting Augusto Pinochet or Idi Amin.
I mean, come on.
rastaone
(57 posts)sought refugee there. Do not exaggerate because we do not like him. IMO, he is no worse that the Qatari, Saudi or UAE govt.
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)Perhaps something better than all of those can result.
eissa
(4,238 posts)as members of the opposition have been shown to do. The Assad regime may be a dictatorship, but a brutal, secular dictatorship is preferred by many (especially the Syrians themselves) over an equally brutal terrorist-backed Islamic theocracy. Let's be real, this is the Saudi's and their fundamentalists ilk finally getting rid of a minority "heretic" Muslim leader that they've always despised and putting one of their own in. It's nothing more than payback for Hama.
pampango
(24,692 posts)the possibility, but not certainty, of a "an equally brutal terrorist-backed Islamic theocracy"?
If Assad had stepped aside and took his billions into exile at the beginning of this, the likelihood of an Islamic theocracy may have been no higher than in neighboring Turkey. I am sure the terrorists are happy that Assad militarized the crisis. Fighting and bombing are what terrorists do best.
Assad has, quite intentionally I am sure, turned this into a "it's me or the terrorists" scenario. The only effective strategy a "brutal dictator" has when his people rebel against him is not to pretend that he is a best option that a liberal or humanist could imagine but that he is 'the lesser of two evils'. It has taken two years but he has substantially achieved this.
eissa
(4,238 posts)living there (both natives and refugees from Iraq) over the propaganda we're given here. They have far more fear of the rebels that terrorize their villages than they ever had for the mukhabarat (secret police.)
I'm unclear as to why Assad should have stepped down at the behest of some fundamentalist opportunists trying to capitalize on the "Arab Spring" and their foreign-backers/mercenaries. Minorities, those in the middle class, and secular-leaning Muslims of various sects still support the regime. They are hardly blind to Assad's many faults, but given the nightmarish alternative...well, I can hardly blame them.
pampango
(24,692 posts)do not necessarily represent the attitudes of 'most' Filipinos any more than mine represent the beliefs of 'most' Americans.
Why should a dictator step down? Why should a liberal have to answer such a question?
I have yet to see a definition of 'liberal' or 'progressive' that does not include a belief in the 'consent of the governed'. Assad was chosen by his father and retains power thanks to his secret police and the military. He has one of the largest militaries in the region. It has not killed a single Israeli in the past 40 years but has been quite effective in the civil war. Many Syrians may have been surprised that their jets and tanks have not been used to attack or defend against Israel but used against their own cities and towns.
Why were the popular protests that started in March 2011 more suspect than those in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and other countries? They were all ruled by dictators, each with a feared secret police. It does not surprise me that people do not like being ruled by a dictator and his secret police/military. I would not like that. They all were supported by segments of society. All dictators have a base of support. That does not make them legitimate.
As a smart person Assad knew that militarizing this crisis would either result in a quick victory for his vaunted military against civilians and defecting soldiers without the heavy weapons the military possesses or it would drag out into a protracted civil war. In the latter scenario, unless he is clueless, he would know that many violent people in the region would be attracted to a violent conflict. He would then be able to play the "it's me or the terrorists" card.
Supporting dictators in Third World countries has been a conservative American foreign policy for many decades. We have a long history of supporting repressive regimes which promise to replace the 'chaos' of democracy with a firm hand that is (depending on which sells better) anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-terrorist, anti-fundamentalist, etc. It does not happen often, but for once the US is not on the side of the 'anti-terrorist' dictator.
BTW, according to Amnesty International, the vast majority of war crimes and human rights abuses have been committed by the government, not the opposition. Kind of makes you wonder which side should be labeled as the 'terrorists'.
eissa
(4,238 posts)Syria is not Tunisia or Egypt. Its society is not as homogenous as those nations. It's a patchwork of various religions, sects, and ethnicities, with as many varying political fractions. What does bind them (for the most part) is the acceptance of a secular-led government that can hold all those factions together in relative security. This does not translate into the Syrian people necessarily liking the Assad regime; I'm certain the majority would prefer it gone. HOWEVER, given the choice of retaining the current regime or replacing it with a Taliban-esque theocracy, the Assad regime would win hands down. And make no mistake, that is exactly the type of government that the Saudis and their ilk are financing and betting on replacing in Syria.
pampango
(24,692 posts)a choice between Assad and a theocracy they would choose Assad.
And that is the beauty of Assad's strategy all along. At the beginning of the protests the majority would have preferred Assad to be gone (as you say) with a more representative and open government taking its place. (If the majority wanted Assad gone, and I agree they did not want to replace him with a theocracy, they probably hoped for a something like Turkey with its Sunni majority, Shia minority and functional democracy.) As a smart dictator he knew he could not win if the choice was between open and representative government and a dictator.
He could come out on top if the choice became between a dictator or a "Taliban-esque theocracy". By militarizing the conflict and dragging the country into a civil war along with the predictable arrival of Sunni terrorists, he has successfully changed the choice facing the Syrian people to one in which he looks like the winner. I suspect that Assad has "won" in the sense that he has changed the nature of the choice facing the Syrian people. No one ever accused him of not being smart.
eissa
(4,238 posts)The regime, or the Saudi-backed rebels? Unlike their counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt -- whose protestors were predominantly the young and educated urban dwellers -- the ones in Syria were the opposite: radicalized villagers. It would be like a mass of elderly and armed teabaggers storming Washington and demanding that Obama step down or face the consequences (something we could easily see Alex Jones or Glenn Beck advocating here.) How many Americans would support our government's appeasement to the fringe?
Syria has so much potential, and it deserves so much better than its current government. But the sad fact is this: the opposition on the ground in Syria are not the romanticized pro-democracy revolutionaries. They are no better than the thugs that have terrorized the citizenries of Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and now Syria. And the first victims, as always, will be the most vulnerable in any society: women, children, and minorities. Be careful what you wish for.
pampango
(24,692 posts)which makes our discussion more difficult. If you are correct and Assad is simply the victim of violence imposed on Syria from the beginning and it was not his intention to use the military to preserve his own power then we fundamentally disagree.
As you posted earlier, the majority of Syrians would have preferred to see Assad leave which makes it unsurprising that so many people would take to the streets when they saw the chance. Every account I have read of the beginning of the uprising - from Juan Cole to Amnesty International - is that large peaceful protests were met with repression from the government. You seem convinced that was not the case. Do you have a source for your version that the violence was imposed on the government not by the government?
The vast majority of war crimes and human rights abuses have been committed by the government. The 'we had to bomb your village in order to save you from the terrorists' has no more validity now than it did when we were bombing Vietnamese villages to save them from the communists.
I do not wish for jihadists to win. We all know that would be a disaster for Syrians. I suppose that means that I have to support Assad, but I cannot bring myself to support a dictator who benefits from the descent of the country into civil war. If I thought he was temporarily protecting people from terrorists with a promise to permit a more representative and open government to succeed him, I would feel much differently about him.
"Syria has so much potential, and it deserves so much better than its current government." - I could not agree more. The saddest part of this to me is that there was a chance in early 2011 for that potential to become more than just potential. They do not have to live under a dictatorship just because they have a Sunni majority and a Shia minority anymore than the people in Turkey do.
"Unlike their counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt -- whose protestors were predominantly the young and educated urban dwellers -- the ones in Syria were the opposite: radicalized villagers." - Your source for the idea that Syrian protesters were motivated by more sinister ideas than those in Tunisia and Egypt?
"It would be like a mass of elderly and armed teabaggers storming Washington and demanding that Obama step down or face the consequences." - Large numbers of peaceful protesters with the courage to confront a dictator is not the same as 'masses of armed teabaggers storming Washington' and demanding that a democratically elected president step down. And a dictator has no 'right to rule' that trumps the wishes of his people.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Amir Rosen in the New Yorker spent several weeks traveling all over Syria. He wrote that about one-third supported Assad, one-third supported the nascent rebellion, and about one-third wanted political reform, but not at the price of civil war.
"Ifs" are fun. If the Saudis and the Qataris hadn't poured billions into trying to overthrow Assad, there would be no civil war.
The Gulf Arabs and the West thought they could pull another Libya, and that the Assad regime would crumble. They were wrong. How many dead Syrians will we accept to make them right?
pampango
(24,692 posts)So 2/3 of Syrians wanted either Assad gone or a "political reform" (more representative government, less repression?) which Assad could expect would endanger his continued rule or at a minimum reduce his absolute power.
If Assad accepted and his security services accepted that analysis, I can see the wisdom (from Assad's perspective) of the policy pursued. "Political reform" leading to a more representative government and less repression could easily be viewed as dangerous to Assad who is from a minority group in a majority-Sunni country. (Similarly 'political reform' was a dangerous concept to many whites in apartheid South Africa because a more representative government and less repression would likely lead to a non-white majority government.
OTOH, Assad could assess that repressing the rebellion violently, while it might generate outside support for the 1/3 who supported the rebellion, was a better strategy than 'political reform'. The best-case scenario was that his well-armed military would win a quick victory over civilians and defecting soldiers. If the military could not pull that off, but remained loyal to him, and the conflict turned into a protracted civil war, the 1/3 who wanted 'political reform' but not at the expense of a civil war might, reluctantly perhaps, come back and support him.
No one ever accused Assad of not being a smart guy.
"If the Saudis and the Qataris hadn't poured billions into trying to overthrow Assad, there would be no civil war."
That is probably true. In Assad's best-case scenario (above) his military would have triumphed, as his father had done in Hama in 1982, and he could have gone back to being a dictator with no 'political reform'.
Of course, if Russia "hadn't poured billions into trying to ... support ... Assad, there would be no civil war." It has taken his military over 2 years to seemingly get the upper hand over the rebels even with massive military supplies from Moscow. Who knows how this would have played out without that.
"The Gulf Arabs and the West thought they could pull another Libya, and that the Assad regime would crumble."
Perhaps, but at the outset of the Arab Spring 2/3 of Syrians wanted Assad gone or political reforms that might have led to his departure. It sounds like Syrian Arabs thought they could pull another Tunisia or Egypt, as well.
How many dead Syrians will Assad accept to avoid giving up power or accepting political reforms that might lead to a more representative government with less repression (neither of which is conducive to continued Assad family rule of Syria)?
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)You can be against the brutal dictator/butcher and still not be in favor of a theocracy.
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)That sounds a bit like the Iraqis' pulling babies out of incubators and throwing them out of windows.
eissa
(4,238 posts)including here on DU. A rebel slices open the chest of a Syrian soldier, tears out his heart and bites into it. I won't post the link to the video as it's obviously quite gruesome, but feel free to google it.
pampango
(24,692 posts)The Shah was a ruthless and brutal dictator but a secular one and an anti-fundamentalist one - which is what is often given as a defense of Assad's dictatorship in Syria.
I was not around during the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup that put the Shah in power, but I do not remember any sentiment among American liberals during his last year in power that he should have plunged Iran into a civil war to preserve his secular dictatorship and protect Iranians from the fundamentalists. Perhaps their are modern liberals who wish he had done this so that his son or grandson could rule Iran today as a secular, anti-fundamentalist dictator rather than the current Iranian form of government. I doubt there are many modern liberals who would take this view, however.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)have the right to express your opinions just as I do. (His post is obviously problematic, while yours demands a response from those - like me- who hope that this can be resolved politically. That is a long shot, but necessary if you genuinely see war only as a last resort. You do realize that your arguments could also have been said about Iraq - though obviously Assad's atrocities are more recent than Saddam's were.)
Unlike you, I do not see not getting involved in the civil war equivalent to supporting the dictator. I resent your ascribing motives to me and others on DU. I also think supporting the position of our President and the Secretary of State is NOT supporting Assad -- and most certainly not supporting him because he is against the USA. I also do not think supporting the position I have says that Assad has done no wrong.
I think the Obama/Kerry effort to work with Russia to solve this politically - which can only work if all Syrians are willing to compromise, which is a long shot - is the ONLY good faith effort. I agreed that Assad is a terrible person, who has been likely the one most responsible for huge number of people killed. However, the US entering what is a civil war or supplying weapons to rebel groups when some of the rebels are KNOWN, self proclaimed members of Al Qaeda seems a recipe for making things worse. While there are people who are pacifists, who are against all wars, there are many who are not pacifists, who are still leery of this war.
I agree that the Syrian people should pick their own leaders, but I see that more likely occurring through a political solution that includes an election in the near future. The US entering into the war with the intent of removing Assad and everyone associated with him and putting in power the opposition forces we prefer is NOT letting the Syrian people pick their own leaders.
John2
(2,730 posts)This General Idris does not control all of those units either. A lot of them are committing atrocities also, which Idris has no control other. He is not the General of anything except his own unit. I wonder how much Turkey is paying him? What will his role be in this mythical new Government for Syria? They are losing and badly too. He will have to find a new home in another country by his benefactors. They will take good care of him. Heaven help us if they let this group take power over Syria. They can't even govern themselves.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)should one take place?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)jessie04
(1,528 posts)can anyone point to me who that is ??
eissa
(4,238 posts)An encore presentation will air on June 11th. It shows fighters on both sides of the conflict, and does an excellent job of showing exactly what each side stands for. If you wish to understand what this battle is about, please tune in.