Syrian Civil War

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Guys. As youve probably heard in the news there has been a civil war in Syria for something like 2 years. Anyway, I was just curious how you all think it would end.

Personally I think it'd end with Syrian president Assad captured or assassinated by the rebels. Ive heard in news recently that they have located his presidential palace and are about to fire rockets on it. Also Ive heard he was invited for delivering a speech somewhere and that rebels are planning to assasinate him with a sniper rifle during that speech.

Im kinda wondering why he isnt dead yet, or at least resigned from presidency. He's basically a dictator with zero impact on the country he rules and did not deserve to become a president in the first place.....

there is a wildcard in the whole situation and thats the russian federation. despite them calling for both sides to negotiate the russians have an extensive naval base in syria and it is in fact the only naval base they have outside russian territory. also as its situated in the med its very strategic for them so i see them doing what ever the hell they can behind the scene to make sure assad remains in control. also the syrian regime has been a good client for their arms industry as well.

the next few weeks will be important as the rebels are laying siege to airbases in the north of the country around aleppo which if they fall would significantly reduce syrian airpower in the region.

at best im hoping he leaves and they form a government the syrian people want, at worse it turns into a warzone even worse than it is with warlords. its even possible for it to turn into a stalemate with the country divided

I wonder if people view it in the same or similar way that I do, that president Assad is going to be assassinated eventually by the rebels at some point.

Yeah the guy who said that the Russians are propping them (and Iran) up is correct. With their recent drive back into despotism, and right wing politics, the Russian Federation has increasingly fewer friends in the west. Trade links with Russia are being suspended in favour of India and China, and the more diplomatically isolated the Russians find themselves the more they will do to try and keep (and build) their network of existing alliances with right wing powers.

We are headed into a new cold war folks, with Russia this time heading up a Nazi version of the Warsaw Pact this time around.

As was said once, freedom is the natural state of the human race and we always march towards it. No man, no president, and no dictator can long prevent the inexorable march to democracy for long (See:Arab Spring); as we move into this new century and approach the centenary of the first great battle for democracy that engulfed our world (Read: World War 1 and the struggle between the Autocractic CP and the Democratic Entente) it becomes clear that we are still, after so long, engaged in our march towards freedom as a species.

With that in mind it seems clear that eventually the Assad regime in Syria will fall, and other remaining autocratic powers will democratise or die. And the forces seeking to roll back that process, to gather all power unto themselves (Read:President Vladimir Putin) too will eventually lose.

The question isn't will Syria and it's people be free. They will, because humanity in our hearts yearn for freedom, the question is instead is how much damage will the ever more desperate and extremist forces of autocracy do before that freedom is achieved?

Presuming of course that those forces don't burn our world down to deny it to everyone else, first.

You might wanna move this to the religion & politics section. Anyway...

As the situation stands now, I'd say the country is totally, royally fucked. Even if the war will finish, they won't be getting their shit together in years. Just look at Egypt. Add to that the colossal amount of infrasctructural damage and the amount of grudges this war has spawned, and we have a country that's facing even more serious problems in the future.

FitScotGaymer:
The question isn't will Syria and it's people be free. They will, because humanity in our hearts yearn for freedom,

Er, I don't think that's a given. Could just as easily result in some other dictator taking control. When has Russia ever been free, for example?

Speaking of which, they have their only Mediterranean naval base in Syria, don't they?

Of course they will thaluikhain.

Another dictator might come to power. An islamist demagogue might seize control in Syria. But eventually Syria will be free because humanity yearns to be free in our hearts. Always. There is no drive greater in the human race than that, than the wish to be free.

It might take a year, it might take a decade, it might take 100 years. But eventually democracy will triumph and the people will be free, as it always has done.

Bamba:
I wonder if people view it in the same or similar way that I do, that president Assad is going to be assassinated eventually by the rebels at some point.

That or go into permanent exile, though I doubt there will be many countries willing to take in a such a high profile dictator and someone who has approved of such horrible human rights abuses.

I figure at this point the rebels will win, even if doesn't happen in 1 year or 10 years that country will never be the same.

It's pretty obvious that Syria as we know it today is done for. Whether Assad's regime falls or not, the coming years will be a mess. I'm just afraid about them currently getting the same problems as Egypt and Tunisia; radical islamists grabbing power.

FitScotGaymer:
It might take a year, it might take a decade, it might take 100 years. But eventually democracy will triumph and the people will be free, as it always has done.

I think you're overestimating people's will to freedom there. Many peoples don't want freedom. Yes, pretty much everybody wants it for himself, but realising that that also means you must want the same freedom for others is far from a universal idea.

In fact, it's an idea mostly restricted to western and northern Europe only. I mean... even in the US there's large political movements that want personal freedom, but restrict the freedom of others. The libertarians seeking to impose Christianity in the form of a contraceptives or an abortion ban is a good example.

Which isn't to say no liberals exist in Syria, but the chance of them gaining momentum amidst religious zealotry is very very small. Secular revolutions were powered because the liberal forces had more power than the religious and extremly religious forces. In Syria the opposite is true, and some of the most coherent rebel forces are extremist islamist groups.

And when they win, people will be quite okay with them imposing whatever they wish, after all they'd be the liberators then.

Blablahb:
It's pretty obvious that Syria as we know it today is done for. Whether Assad's regime falls or not, the coming years will be a mess. I'm just afraid about them currently getting the same problems as Egypt and Tunisia; radical islamists grabbing power.

FitScotGaymer:
It might take a year, it might take a decade, it might take 100 years. But eventually democracy will triumph and the people will be free, as it always has done.

I think you're overestimating people's will to freedom there. Many peoples don't want freedom. Yes, pretty much everybody wants it for himself, but realising that that also means you must want the same freedom for others is far from a universal idea.

In fact, it's an idea mostly restricted to western and northern Europe only. I mean... even in the US there's large political movements that want personal freedom, but restrict the freedom of others. The libertarians seeking to impose Christianity in the form of a contraceptives or an abortion ban is a good example.

Which isn't to say no liberals exist in Syria, but the chance of them gaining momentum amidst religious zealotry is very very small. Secular revolutions were powered because the liberal forces had more power than the religious and extremly religious forces. In Syria the opposite is true, and some of the most coherent rebel forces are extremist islamist groups.

And when they win, people will be quite okay with them imposing whatever they wish, after all they'd be the liberators then.

Must be snowing in Hell because I agree with Blablahb. I do hope though that this gets all of their agression out so Israel is a little safer.

It's just like the Russian revolution a bunch of uneducated mass being control by this core of radicals. If it's not islamist rebelling it's Islamist is power. I say we forget about the Middle east, and focus more on other means of powering our cars, before it's too late, and we end up having it explode in our faces.

Bamba:
Guys. As youve probably heard in the news there has been a civil war in Syria for something like 2 years. Anyway, I was just curious how you all think it would end.
.....

If memory serves he is a member of a religious or ethnic minority, who tend to have positions inside that government. So assuming he dies, you can expect the rebels to start some ethnic cleansing. Once they are done with that, likely they will start murdering each other on the form of the new government.

Unless you think all those hardcore Islamist militias that have joined up with the free Syria army are going to be happy with anything short of total control.

Worst case scenario, Assad dies, and that group realizes they face at best a fast/slow death. Or at worst a fast/slow death of their entire families. Given that kind of situation, it would be awfully tempting to use every last weapon you could to win the war. (Use chemical weapons on every rebel controlled city).

Sure eventually a world court or an assassin might get you, but your family would likely be alive.

Gergar12:
It's just like the Russian revolution a bunch of uneducated mass being control by this core of radicals. If it's not islamist rebelling it's Islamist is power. I say we forget about the Middle east, and focus more on other means of powering our cars, before it's too late, and we end up having it explode in our faces.

It's not so much a mass-core movement as you might think. Religion binds such militias together and it's the devoutness of every individual member which causes that. They reinforce eachother in that of course, and attract foreign zealots too, making it even worse, but it is a pretty uniform movement.

If it was people being manipulated by religious zealots than the members wouldn't be very devout, but be controlled by a devout leader, and that's not what the scarce information on the subject is suggesting.

Also the way they gain support also works bottom-up, and not top-down. Syrians first watch Assad's troops opress them and commit crimes against them, then radical islamists come and drive those troops away. So they're liberators. They must be doing something right. What is it they do? Radical islamism. Gosh, maybe I should support radical islamism, because I've seen myself what good it can do. And then someone supports the radical islamist miliatias and their agenda.

If anything that dynamic makes the radical islamists more destructive to Syrian society though, because they wouldn't need to impose on a lot of society. Most victims of that oppression would be 'others' in the form of women, criminals, non-Muslims and intellectuals, allowing their supporters to support islamism without feeling oppressed.

Xan Krieger:
Must be snowing in Hell because I agree with Blablahb. I do hope though that this gets all of their agression out so Israel is a little safer.

Actually hell has a rather arctic climate, so it'll snow a lot there. ;-)

Bamba:
Guys. As youve probably heard in the news there has been a civil war in Syria for something like 2 years. Anyway, I was just curious how you all think it would end.

Personally I think it'd end with Syrian president Assad captured or assassinated by the rebels. Ive heard in news recently that they have located his presidential palace and are about to fire rockets on it. Also Ive heard he was invited for delivering a speech somewhere and that rebels are planning to assasinate him with a sniper rifle during that speech.

Im kinda wondering why he isnt dead yet, or at least resigned from presidency. He's basically a dictator with zero impact on the country he rules and did not deserve to become a president in the first place.....

This isn't just a civil war with two sides, the Syrian government and the rebels. It became a much wider conflict. It's like the Spanish civil war.

wombat_of_war:
there is a wildcard in the whole situation and thats the russian federation. despite them calling for both sides to negotiate the russians have an extensive naval base in syria and it is in fact the only naval base they have outside russian territory. also as its situated in the med its very strategic for them so i see them doing what ever the hell they can behind the scene to make sure assad remains in control. also the syrian regime has been a good client for their arms industry as well.

the next few weeks will be important as the rebels are laying siege to airbases in the north of the country around aleppo which if they fall would significantly reduce syrian airpower in the region.

at best im hoping he leaves and they form a government the syrian people want, at worse it turns into a warzone even worse than it is with warlords. its even possible for it to turn into a stalemate with the country divided

Russians aren't a wildcard. They're pretty predictable. They don't want the USA and NATO to butt in and take over Syria on the pretense of saving itself from its own destruction.

They recently had to wipe Syria's debt that came all the way from the 60s which was amounted to several billion dollars because the administration couldn't really return it. Yes, they're a decent market because Assad is both afraid of Israel and arming Hezbollah in Lebanon, but not that lucrative. It's the Med port and the oil pipelines that matter.

It will end up a massive cluster-fuck because both Iran and Hezbollah have units fighting against the Rebels, while there are Muslim zealous volunteers supported by certain organizations and governments (financially, mind you) that are fighting for the liberation of Syria. Lebanon and Iran could be dragged into this mess, but as long as Russia stands to stop Israel the USA won't be able to intervene.

FitScotGaymer:
Yeah the guy who said that the Russians are propping them (and Iran) up is correct. With their recent drive back into despotism, and right wing politics, the Russian Federation has increasingly fewer friends in the west. Trade links with Russia are being suspended in favour of India and China, and the more diplomatically isolated the Russians find themselves the more they will do to try and keep (and build) their network of existing alliances with right wing powers.

We are headed into a new cold war folks, with Russia this time heading up a Nazi version of the Warsaw Pact this time around.

As was said once, freedom is the natural state of the human race and we always march towards it. No man, no president, and no dictator can long prevent the inexorable march to democracy for long (See:Arab Spring); as we move into this new century and approach the centenary of the first great battle for democracy that engulfed our world (Read: World War 1 and the struggle between the Autocractic CP and the Democratic Entente) it becomes clear that we are still, after so long, engaged in our march towards freedom as a species.

With that in mind it seems clear that eventually the Assad regime in Syria will fall, and other remaining autocratic powers will democratise or die. And the forces seeking to roll back that process, to gather all power unto themselves (Read:President Vladimir Putin) too will eventually lose.

The question isn't will Syria and it's people be free. They will, because humanity in our hearts yearn for freedom, the question is instead is how much damage will the ever more desperate and extremist forces of autocracy do before that freedom is achieved?

Presuming of course that those forces don't burn our world down to deny it to everyone else, first.

*reads the message*
The propoganda, it hurts my eyes! AHHHH!
You're adapted History into something very neat and tidy but it's completely wrong. It was the powder keg of Europe, not the noble struggle for democracy in Europe. The great war started when Austria saw an opportunity to annex Serbia over the assassination of its prince by a Serbian national, Russia responded by preparing for war since it saw the Balkans as its own little protectorate, Germany was called into action by its friend and ally Austria, and so it attacked France first because France was allied with Russia. They used Belgium to move past the massive line of defense France built in the German border, at which point the Brits pulled an age old treaty out of their ass (but in fact it was internal politics that pushed them into the war). Had there been any shred of advocating democracy they wouldn't have cut up the spoils in the colonies but instead gave them independence. Same goes with the central powers - Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia... they turned up mostly autocratic or with a restrictive elected governing body.

It's wrong! I believe in these values myself but I'm not blind to reality and what happens around me. People prefer stability and safety, not bloody freedom.

FitScotGaymer:
Of course they will thaluikhain.

Another dictator might come to power. An islamist demagogue might seize control in Syria. But eventually Syria will be free because humanity yearns to be free in our hearts. Always. There is no drive greater in the human race than that, than the wish to be free.

It might take a year, it might take a decade, it might take 100 years. But eventually democracy will triumph and the people will be free, as it always has done.

I can't believe somebody actually wrote this and believes this.

FitScotGaymer:
Another dictator might come to power. An islamist demagogue might seize control in Syria. But eventually Syria will be free because humanity yearns to be free in our hearts. Always. There is no drive greater in the human race than that, than the wish to be free.

It might take a year, it might take a decade, it might take 100 years. But eventually democracy will triumph and the people will be free, as it always has done.

No...that's completely and utterly wrong.

Democracy and freedom, as we understand the terms have only been around for a very short time.

A mere 200 years ago, slavery had yet to be abolished.

For thousands of years, freedom did not exist in any sense we'd recognise, barring the odd anomalous exception that might look something like it if you squinted.

To address the above point by Glasgow, it's rather hilarious that he/she refers to the Entente as democratic, as only the French were what one might call 'truly' democratic (and even then, women weren't allowed to vote, and there were massive waves of government anti-Semitism), with the other two being empires.

It's easy to look back at history and create some sort of narrative of humanity 'civilizing' itself through democracy in a steady progressive growth, if one only looks at Europe, and ignores the big period where democracy was well and truly buried (roughly from the 2nd century to the 18th). And even then, democracy had pretty much a 50% rate of tyranny, with the First French Republic soon devolving into the First French Empire.

... sorry, history nerds can never let things like that go.

Hukari:
To address the above point by Glasgow, it's rather hilarious that he/she refers to the Entente as democratic, as only the French were what one might call 'truly' democratic (and even then, women weren't allowed to vote, and there were massive waves of government anti-Semitism), with the other two being empires.

It's easy to look back at history and create some sort of narrative of humanity 'civilizing' itself through democracy in a steady progressive growth, if one only looks at Europe, and ignores the big period where democracy was well and truly buried (roughly from the 2nd century to the 18th). And even then, democracy had pretty much a 50% rate of tyranny, with the First French Republic soon devolving into the First French Empire.

... sorry, history nerds can never let things like that go.

I think you're having some trouble with your reading comprehension because I never refereed to the Entente as democratic, the person I replied to did.

That's the thing. I was adding on to your prior post, going beyond what you were saying. Because his propaganda incensed me, as well.

Hukari:
That's the thing. I was adding on to your prior post, going beyond what you were saying. Because his propaganda incensed me, as well.

You were unclear earlier. I apologize.

After they get rid of Assad, prepare for another few years of civil war between the various rebel groups.

Even from my limited knowledge of this situation, I can already identify 3 large groups in the rebels: deserters from the army, the 'normal' people (= students, shopowners, factory workers,... same as the people who carried the Libyan revolt), and the jihadists.

I'm sure there are several ethnic or tribal differences in here as well, as there mostly always are in these countries...

And yes, all things considered, freedom and democracy are rather low on the "Primary needs" scale of mankind.
Only in Hollywood and videogames would people prefer bloody freedom over prosperity without giving further thought.

Hukari:
Snip

I agree. It's some sort of chest-thumping, self-centric vision of history with us starting from stupid and evil authoritarian cave dwellers and naturally ending in freedom-loving 'Muricans or something.

Which is funny, considering pretty much every society in history thought itself the pinnacle of human evolution.

TheBelgianGuy:
After they get rid of Assad, prepare for another few years of civil war between the various rebel groups.

Even from my limited knowledge of this situation, I can already identify 3 large groups in the rebels: deserters from the army, the 'normal' people (= students, shopowners, factory workers,... same as the people who carried the Libyan revolt), and the jihadists.

I'm sure there are several ethnic or tribal differences in here as well, as there mostly always are in these countries...

And yes, all things considered, freedom and democracy are rather low on the "Primary needs" scale of mankind.
Only in Hollywood and videogames would people prefer bloody freedom over prosperity without giving further thought.

Hukari:
Snip

I agree. It's some sort of chest-thumping, self-centric vision of history with us starting from stupid and evil authoritarian cave dwellers and naturally ending in freedom-loving 'Muricans or something.

Which is funny, considering pretty much every society in history thought itself the pinnacle of human evolution.

I pity the Christians after the fall of Assad. The jihadists are already doing their thing and the poor believers in Christ are suffering for having their leadership stand up in favor of Assad. Why? Because he was pretty nice to them while in power, and shariah law doesn't work well with non-Muslims.

Glasgow:

Hukari:
That's the thing. I was adding on to your prior post, going beyond what you were saying. Because his propaganda incensed me, as well.

You were unclear earlier. I apologize.

No, if anything, I should be the one to apologize. After all, I was the one that was unclear. Glad we resolved that, however.

To tie it back to Syria, it really has gotten to the point where it would almost be better for the country to keep Al-Assad in power than have him removed. Ultimately, it probably would've been best for our governments to ignore what was going on in Syria, and let Russia, China, and Syria deal with the rebels.

Hukari:

Glasgow:

Hukari:
That's the thing. I was adding on to your prior post, going beyond what you were saying. Because his propaganda incensed me, as well.

You were unclear earlier. I apologize.

No, if anything, I should be the one to apologize. After all, I was the one that was unclear. Glad we resolved that, however.

To tie it back to Syria, it really has gotten to the point where it would almost be better for the country to keep Al-Assad in power than have him removed. Ultimately, it probably would've been best for our governments to ignore what was going on in Syria, and let Russia, China, and Syria deal with the rebels.

They had gone past the point of no-return a year and a half ago. It's when outside intervention in the form of the global johadist movement (Which is basically motherfucking religious mercenaries, something that I can't believe actually exists yet it's so awesome and would be a great base for a video game) got up to aid the resistance against Assad - when the rebels started arming themselves and the desertions - and subsequent purges of the military happened... that was the point of no-return. Al Assad is gone. He's was pretty neat fascist dictator, but now everybody and their sister is funding both sides of the war.

Pretty much, Glasgow, though I wouldn't be so sure of Al Assad's removal. He still has his chemical weapon stores, as well as ties with Hezbollah (which, when you think about it, is absolutely insane; since it'll mean there are religious fanatics supporting both sides of the war).

I expect the conflict to drag on for quite some time now, since Russia can't let Assad fall, and the West (coupled with aforementioned global jihadists, such strange bedfellows they are) won't let him 'win'. My guess? Stalemate and bloodshed going on for another few years, at the least, barring something like the assassination of Assad.

Hukari:
Pretty much, Glasgow, though I wouldn't be so sure of Al Assad's removal. He still has his chemical weapon stores, as well as ties with Hezbollah (which, when you think about it, is absolutely insane; since it'll mean there are religious fanatics supporting both sides of the war).

I expect the conflict to drag on for quite some time now, since Russia can't let Assad fall, and the West (coupled with aforementioned global jihadists, such strange bedfellows they are) won't let him 'win'. My guess? Stalemate and bloodshed going on for another few years, at the least, barring something like the assassination of Assad.

If he fucks with the chemical weapons then Israel will strike nomatter the consequences. Their fear is of it moving to Hezbollah, which is a tie-breaker. They did take out a convoy carrying russian military hardware a while back, so they are willing to take the chance.

I'm saying Assad is gone - there is no way for him to retire from this and live out his life, unless he flees to Iran or some other crazy idea. I'm not even sure if he's alive right now, they've gone underground and now it's army deserters&global jihadists vs. iranian revolutionary guard&hezbollah&syrian loyalist forces (or what remains of it. The command structure is pretty fucked up now).

It's like the Spanish civil war all over again. Instead of Fascists Vs. Republicans you get... Fascists Vs. Republicans.

Wow. It haven't changed much in over sixty years.

whats worrying is that the regime is starting to resort to munitions you normally dont see on the battlefield like scud missiles. i noticed they have backed off from fighting near the golan heights once the israelis started shooting back too.

so weird im playing combat mission shockforce at the moment which depicts a nato invasion of syria and it was made before the civil war. never expected a war to break out there

On a side note, are there any legal ways of investing in Syria? In the U.S. that is.

As much as we like the story of the underdog rebels who kick out assholes in power who like nothing more than to oppress everyone for the lulz, real life is always more complicated than that.

Its impossible to say whether the rebels or Assad would be better for the nation, though I am certain that neither would be great.

it becomes clear that we are still, after so long, engaged in our march towards freedom as a species.image

Hukari:
Pretty much, Glasgow, though I wouldn't be so sure of Al Assad's removal. He still has his chemical weapon stores, as well as ties with Hezbollah (which, when you think about it, is absolutely insane; since it'll mean there are religious fanatics supporting both sides of the war).

Neither is a military asset however.
Hezbollah has been battered by Israel and never was much of an army to begin with. At best he can import a few of those militias and add a few dozen fighters to his cause, that won't change the balance.
The chemical weapons may be potent against a civilian population, but when used, will bring about military intervention by other countries, which Assad can't afford to cause because he'd end up like Khadaffi; airforced destroyed, army pinned down in the cities where they are at that moment.

mavkiel:
On a side note, are there any legal ways of investing in Syria? In the U.S. that is.

There are no trade regulations that I'm aware of, outside of weapons or fighting-related materials obviously. Getting an investment there would be the problem mostly, because the normal channels of finding and identifying firms to invest in are disrupted due to the fighting.

Still, nothing would stop just contacting someone and working on an individual level. Bakeries for instance have had a hard time because the army targeted them in rebel areas.

It's going to end just like Egypt and Tunisia did. They're going to elect a new president to much fanfare and then he'll be just as much of an asshole as the guy before him. Women's rights will still suck and civil rights will again be crushed under tank treads and rocket artillery in another two years.

Ok, I'm calling it - The US is officially trying to help one faction in the rebels win and later set up a pro-American country or even a puppet state in the region of Syria. They'll get their nation-building scheme even without actually invading Syria. Good work, CIA.

Doubt that. More like we will provide some ineffectual aid, the rebels will eventually "win". When said winners are unable to keep power or water on because everything is bombed, riots will happen.. Running around blowing shit up doesn't make for a good police force. So add in a few militia's having fun with the local populace...

A few governments later, likely it will be one of those religious groups we dislike running the joint.

How is it going to end? Assad will leave, the country will fall apart and more pain and misery will ensue. Please don't think that I want Assad to stay in power - he should clearly go and the Syrian people are right to fight against him. But if anyone thinks that Syria is going to be a nation of rainbows, smiles and happiness after this civil war is over, they haven't been paying attention to the news.

There isn't a "good outcome" anymore. The "good" outcome was only available years ago - if Assad had left early, Syria might have had a chance. Instead, he decided to drag Syria down in flames with his administration. Don't blame the Rebels, Don't blame the West, Don't even Blame Russia - the one who is responsible for all the pain that Syria is facing right now, is Assad and wholly Assad.

Korolev:
Don't blame the Rebels, Don't blame the West, Don't even Blame Russia - the one who is responsible for all the pain that Syria is facing right now, is Assad and wholly Assad.

You can't blame it solely on him. He may have run the show, but he's just one man. Without large numbers of people to follow him, he's nothing.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked