Syria conflict: 'Suicide bomb' kills defence minister

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18882149

Thanks for the link, I've been trying to keep up with what's happening in Syria and now will be listening to news reports at 1pm (local time).

The bbc are also running live updates on their website here:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18887190

I read last week the Red Cross / Red Crescent were officially saying they considered Syria to be in a state of civil war. Sadly this news suggests there is now absolutely no doubt this is the case.

I watch these events unfold with a sense of profound sadness, the number of civilian deaths there since protests began have been horrific.

I really think there should be some kind of intervention here to protect civilians, but I lack a deep enough understand of the local politics and politics of the region, to suggest exactly what this should be, who should do it, or how it could be done without making the situation worse.

So, can we please stop talking about the defenceless civilians up against the evil Assad? Is this incident not proof that this is a false way to look at things?

This is a complex conflict with multiple sides, but in the middle there are defenceless civilians who are suffering.

See further here:-
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/07/20127178247539495.html

Good. Though the rebels say it was a planted bomb.

Arab states (Qatar, Saudis) have been shipping them small arms and ammo for months. They are not unarmed, just outmatched.

What I've found most regrettable until now was that all media coverage in this country is in favour of the rebels. There are very few journalists who contradict stories they hear from a self-appointed rebel leader, especially if there is gunfire in the background. It's exceedingly difficult to tell what exactly is happening, but traditional media in the western world seem to know the truth better than Syrians themselves. It's Libya all over again - the image of a tyrant trying to keep his people from overthrowing him and introducing liberal and secular democracy while the country burns. If the rebels win, I wonder if we will assume a cordon sanitaire against reports of sectarian violence and genocide in Syria, too.

There seem to be only three main types of government in the Middle East.

1. States that rank on a scale between mildly-undemocratic and led by a bloodthirsty but competent dictator;
2. States that are in a state of chaos or sectarian violence at this very moment;
3. Israel, Jordan and Lebanon, although they could fall into the first category at times.

At the moment, I think Assad is the lesser of two evils for Syria.

The 'rebels' are Arab Sunni backed Al-Qaeda terrorists. Syria is a relatively secular multiethnic state, the defense minister they killed was the highest ranking Christian in the country I believe. All that lies ahead for Syria is sectarian bloodshed and possibly worse . The MIC knows exactly what it's doing when it gets involved in these conflicts, it's perpetuating war to justify it's continued existence.

Imagine Egypt post-Mubarak, only ten times worse. That's Syria at the moment. It's not so much a political conflict as it is a sectarian one. Christians aren't going to get out of there unharmed regardless of the outcome, but the rebels are several magnitudes worse. These rebels are portrayed as champions of the people, fighting for democracy against a brutal tyrant. However, similar to those in Libya, they seem to have other motives for fighting, and will not hand over power to a peaceful central government when Assad is dead. In Libya, those were tribal; in Syria, they're also sectarian. I'm glad Russia has seen some sense in enforcing foreign non-intervention.

Look at all the dictator lovers. Assad has killed thousands up thousands and they say nothing.

Both sides have killed thousands and we're perpetrating more violence with in the country. These aren't organic internal movements for democracy.

It's not a matter of morality by now. It's a matter of damage control. Assad is bad, but the rebels are worse. You're taking the bull out of the china shop and replacing it with a rabid elephant. The damage done by letting the conflict unravel internally, in the long term, is much more shallow than the damage you'd cause by helping a rebel group backed by Saudi Arabia.

You can patch up the wound so you don't have to face it, but it could very well become an infected mess in the long term. Just look at Libya. 'Peaceful protesters' were shot at by Gaddafi's security forces, very much in line with local customs and local law, and a civil war started from the east. When the rebels were at a point where they were facing imminent defeat, the western world stepped in and bombed Gaddafi, effectively waging a destructive war on Libya. Nowadays, Libya is divided among tribal lines, but many at least agree on treating non-muslims and black Africans as second-class citizens. Democracy doesn't mean much now. After some fighting and large-scale fraud, islamist parties weren't even able to win the elections, and they went to a former minister under Gaddafi so far. Those things, however, aren't nearly as well-reported as the uprising itself, which was on television every day for weeks surrounding Gaddafi's death.

Like those in Libya, it doesn't look like these rebels are after a united, tolerant government.

I see we have a lot of Seymour Hersh-type of leftists on WP.

Cry me a river all of you, Assad will die soon.

Ahh the false "The Arab Spring will Islamize the middle east" argument again.

Why Egypt post-Mubarak is ten times worse? Just because the Islamists won? Have you ever thought it's their democratic right?

Morsi only won by 51.7% which means you have the other half of Egyptians + the secular army are all anti-islamists, meaning, the Islamists won't be able to rule alone, the Sharia rule will never happen in Egypt in our era (nor in Libya and in Tunisia), meaning that the Islamist ruling party have to play it safe too. And oh, what Mubarak ever did for the Christians? At least Morsi has assigned a Christian woman as his vice-president, something that the proclaimed liberal dictator never did.

Same for the current ruling isalmist party in Tunisia, they just represent the biggest minority, there is about ~60% of their population anti-Islamist.

And as you know, the liberals won in Libya.

This balance of representing parties is the best recipe for a healthy democracy later on.

It seems you were asking for those countries to rise fully democratic/developed/liberal in overnight after decades of dictatorship, otherwise it's a backward step. Well, it can't happens like this, just check the history of post-revolution France.

The_Face_of_Boo, I was reading something where people were speculating how sectarian violence could return to Lebanon the more Syria is destabilized. Do you think that is true?

The sectarian violence was already happening in the north and other areas.

Well, one theory says that Hezbollah would have to turn more inward after the fall of Assad.

Nah. Just the 'the revolt in Syria will just cause more unrest the way it did in Libya, where we now have confirmed racist and sectarian massacres, tribal warfare and large-scale theft of weapons by militias who are the de facto controllers of most of the country.' Libya after Gaddafi is dangerous, like Somalia post-Barre, or Mali, or the area between North and South Sudan at the moment, with several groups vying for power while committing massacres and rigging elections to that end. Remember: I'm ahead of most people here in terms of credit. I predicted Libya's current situation when the rebels first took up arms, and I'm predicting a similar situation for Syria.



Not because they won, no. But because Coptic Christians now have to fear for their lives as their churches are attacked, police turn a blind eye to their increasingly-poor treatment, and because the people who are in power now are still in a very unclear situation. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if fighting in Egypt resumed before the end of the year.



As you may also know, the national government is certainly not in control over most of the country. Last time I checked, they still had not received Saif al-Islam, because they're refusing to hand over more than a million dollars to the Zintan-based militia that is said to be keeping him. That's right - the government isn't even able to agree on bribing a militia situated near the capital. Zintan is only 80 miles from Tripoli.