Do you Support Assad

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

In what way, Shape, or form are they better than assad? What future do you forsee for syria? Will it be better than the assad run regime(before the whole revolution)? Will these supposed freedom fighters bring back stability and prosperty to the country?

P.s I apoligise for the grammer and spelling im using my phone -_-

the FSA are from the population and they side with the population, while the forces of Assad are extremely on the left, they get a very painfull process to make them like this it resample the mafia, first the soldirs don't get payed, they live of other people it's extremely corrupt organization, and it's only possible to exist in it's form if its corrupted like that

i think the Assad side have hit the bottom, and they are the ones creating the chaos by targeting/killing/steelin/torturing innocent civilians,

on the other side there is the FSA and opposition which is a new movment that we don't know it last form how it would be like, but it's the only hope, and the only one who is capable to remove assad party from the roots, because this is the only solution to his corruption, his party hold a world position ahead in the list of the most corrupt goverments

Edited January 6, 2013 by the-Unexpected-Soul

[+and-then]

In what way, Shape, or form are they better than assad? What future do you forsee for syria? Will it be better than the assad run regime(before the whole revolution)? Will these supposed freedom fighters bring back stability and prosperty to the country?

P.s I apoligise for the grammer and spelling im using my phone -_-

As to whether the FSA, if they eventually defeat him, will make things better for Syrians - I have no idea but I doubt it. That isn't really the point though. The SYRIANS went into the streets demanding change in their daily lives and they were shot down, imprisoned and tortured for it. Assad's forces escalated at every turn and left no choice but where we find ourselves today. For me THAT is the major difference here....he COULD have stayed in power by bending some to the will of the people and he chose to brutalize them instead.

[Professor T]

Oh dear, I've backed an unpopular team according to the Poll, lol..

Oh well, without reading everyone elses Rant's, heres the reason why I would support Assad over the FSA..

1. Assad is the lesser of two evils.. Better the Devil you know imo..
   
2. FSA or Oposition, are far more dangerous because they are far from united themselves..
   
3. The conflict & oposition is being supported, backed & financed by two world nations that I do not support because of their disgracefull world conduct and foreign policies..
   

[Mr.United_Nations]

Oh dear, I've backed an unpopular team according to the Poll, lol..

Oh well, without reading everyone elses Rant's, heres the reason why I would support Assad over the FSA..

1. Assad is the lesser of two evils.. Better the Devil you know imo..
   
2. FSA or Oposition, are far more dangerous because they are far from united themselves..
   
3. The conflict & oposition is being supported, backed & financed by two world nations that I do not support because of their disgracefull world conduct and foreign policies..
   

1) He is bombing gas stations and bread lines for no reason

2) 50/50 but they are smarter

3) Assad is supported by Hamas, Hezbollouh, Iran who want death

[+and-then]

Oh dear, I've backed an unpopular team according to the Poll, lol..

Oh well, without reading everyone elses Rant's, heres the reason why I would support Assad over the FSA..

1. Assad is the lesser of two evils.. Better the Devil you know imo..
   
2. FSA or Oposition, are far more dangerous because they are far from united themselves..
   
3. The conflict & oposition is being supported, backed & financed by two world nations that I do not support because of their disgracefull world conduct and foreign policies..
   

That's like being against a couple of guys who are trying to help a defenseless woman who's being beaten - only because they might have some obscure ulterior motive. Rather than allow them to gain anything you let the woman continue to be brutalized. As I said above, the biggest takeaway for me is that the SYRIAN PEOPLE were the ones who started the revolt. Assad wasn't even being asked to leave initially, just to change his iron grip. He went to brutality immediately. Whatever groups came in afterward is his fault.

[Yamato]

That's like being against a couple of guys who are trying to help a defenseless woman who's being beaten - only because they might have some obscure ulterior motive. Rather than allow them to gain anything you let the woman continue to be brutalized. As I said above, the biggest takeaway for me is that the SYRIAN PEOPLE were the ones who started the revolt. Assad wasn't even being asked to leave initially, just to change his iron grip. He went to brutality immediately. Whatever groups came in afterward is his fault.

Well when the woman happens to be Palestinian, you never let that stop you.

[Stellar]

I don't support nor trust either. How could I? On the one hand, we hear how bad Assad is and all the atrocities he commits, and on the other hand, we see the FSA making false accusations and false videos blaming Assad for committing certain atrocities. Over the course of this civil war, I'm being very cautious as to which claims I believe from either side.

Assad has a history before the civil war by which we can judge his beliefs and actions. The FSA, as an organization, has no such extended history. Its like politics. I have no way of knowing how they will behave after they have the peoples support and are in power. They may end up becoming worse than Assad. This, coupled with their shady short history makes me wary of them. So, I will not chose sides, I will simply say that I hope the people do not exchange one dictator for another.

[Professor T]

1) He is bombing gas stations and bread lines for no reason

2) 50/50 but they are smarter

3) Assad is supported by Hamas, Hezbollouh, Iran who want death

Yeah, I quess the reasoning or rational depends a lot on the media coverage.. In my country there's very little coverage of it in the MSM, and I rely a lot on foreign media sources.. Anyway, my rebuttal for the reasons you quoted are;

1) I've seen no evidence of this and it sounds like Propaganda.. let's not forget that the bombings and skirmishs and attacks only started a few years ago when the the Arab spring began. I assume he wasn't bombing breadlines & Gas stations then.

2) Im not sure it comes down to iteligence, perhaps more internal support.. Are the Iraqi people better off without Sadam?

3) True. He is also supported by Russia and China..

That's like being against a couple of guys who are trying to help a defenseless woman who's being beaten - only because they might have some obscure ulterior motive. Rather than allow them to gain anything you let the woman continue to be brutalized. As I said above, the biggest takeaway for me is that the SYRIAN PEOPLE were the ones who started the revolt. Assad wasn't even being asked to leave initially, just to change his iron grip. He went to brutality immediately. Whatever groups came in afterward is his fault.

You Analogy doesn't work..

These couple of guy's are funding and supporting a thug who's beating on the old woman and creating disscent and seeding conflict in her neighbourhood. imo, this has nothing to do with palestine, but everything to do with weakening a nation that borders Israel & Europe..

[+and-then]

Well when the woman happens to be Palestinian, you never let that stop you.

We have and always will disagree about that situation. THIS is about the Syrian people. Truth be told, Assad is probably a better place holder from Israel's pov. He represents stability of a sort. But he has a disturbing habit of slaughtering children.

[3.0]

If I'm not mistaken;. his "Secret Police" apparatus was built with the assistance of a former Nazi! He is a brutal dictator that will only go by force.

[Yamato]

"Stability" and "security" are the buzz-words of tyrants.

[+and-then]

"Stability" and "security" are the buzz-words of tyrants.

Yeah...can't have any of THAT going on now can we?

[Yamato]

Yeah...can't have any of THAT going on now can we?

From King Obama? No, it's completely unnecessary.

Did the Founders find security to be their first priority? Did they let instability stop them? Why should we? Tyranny always resists these efforts. Instability is always a threat to its power. It will always chide and mock revolutionary ideas and attitudes. It will encourage people to think in ways that would have made the United States impossible to begin with. Refreshing the liberty tree isn't just a one-shot deal. It requires maintenance. Which we can either discuss whether or not that includes blood. But I'll skip the blood and merely state that it might take some instability. And global security, one's favorite foreigners' security, national security, social security, and private security might not always be possible either. I know how troubling liberty lovers are to security experts.

[wittyusernamefailed]

In the interest of understanding this FSA group; are there any large factions that are of a decided humanist/secular bent? I'm just concerned (as i am sure many people int he world are) that is happening in Egypt will happen to Syria when Assad eventually does fall ( that is a heavily radicalized Islamic group all but seizing power) Maybe it's just me but the more someone says Allah ackbar/praise Jesus/ whatever jews say... it makes me uncomfortable. You can usually bet the house that legislated morality is not far behind.

[+and-then]

In the interest of understanding this FSA group; are there any large factions that are of a decided humanist/secular bent? I'm just concerned (as i am sure many people int he world are) that is happening in Egypt will happen to Syria when Assad eventually does fall ( that is a heavily radicalized Islamic group all but seizing power) Maybe it's just me but the more someone says Allah ackbar/praise Jesus/ whatever jews say... it makes me uncomfortable. You can usually bet the house that legislated morality is not far behind.

If so, we seem to be fighting off the tendency admirably in the west. But I agree that theocracies are a mistake.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

But I agree that theocracies are a mistake.

Because we live in that type of civilization.

Look Vatican.

Or perhaps look Ancient Egypt. They lasted very much longer then your state.

[+and-then]

Because we live in that type of civilization.

Look Vatican.

Or perhaps look Ancient Egypt. They lasted very much longer then your state.

True, but that doesn't mean they were good places for the human beings who lived there does it? If the citizens of a country are all of the same faith and WANT to be ruled by leaders who use the laws of the faith to govern then great, no problem. But I don't remember a single instance where that has been true. Look how the Afghans first reacted to being free from the Taliban. Yes, they came to hate US and coalition troops because of mistakes that were made and cultural insults and insensitivity but at first they were OVERJOYED to be rid of the oppressive rule of the mullahs. The same would be true in a Christian theocracy where extremists ruled - Puritan America is an example. My point is that men who claim to speak for God and want power for themselves is a very bad combination, IMO.