A Non-Western Perspective of Syria.

Sheikh Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun was invited to address the Irish Parliament on Syria this month, he is an Independent member of Syrian Parliament who was appointed Grand Mufti in 2005. It's very interesting to hear a Syrian Politician talk about the country from before the conflict and in to it.

He talks about how things actually are in Syria, as opposed to the Western media point of view. In particular he calls out Al Jazeera for dishonest reporting, although I think a lot of media outlets have been complicit in selling the lie about Syria. I guess the main point to it all, as made by the Sheikh, how is it right for other countries to decide who is in charge of Syria? Either through direct military action or the arming of terrorist groups.

It should be for Syrians to decide who governs Syria.

Very interesting interview:



And in case anybody is going to start the Press TV is nothing but an Iranian mouthpiece etc, I don't recall any Western outlets interviewing Syrian politicians, I mean they couldn't even refer to the Syrian government correctly.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I think a lot of us know the media is lying through their rear about Syria.

Good stuff! I like this guy! People need to see this!

You should hear German News about Aleppo:
* The rebels control only about 2-4% of the previous are they controlled some days ago.
* The civilians are suffering, a lot.

Thats about it. Only with more words, and emotions (about the civilians).

What I find missing:
* who are the rebels? Are they with IS? Al-Nusra? Why should they then be the "good guys", as it is interpreted by MSM?
* How could the suffering of the civilians be stopped in the best (and possible fastest) way? Why not by helping Syria's military forces to win - because Mr. Assad is a "bad guy"?

If there are two bad groups fighting, which party should we support? Given that the final result may have differing, but bad consequences for the public, as far as I have understood. (Assad wins = public will be punished for supporting the wrong guys; Al-Nusra wins = public will be punished for supporting the wrong type of religion).

I will look into the youtube-video later. Maybe that will give new clues on how to solve this riddle... *doubts, at lot of them*

We need to disengage from Syria completely...until the following happens:

1. A large and meaningful segment of people within Syria need to stand up and ask for (western) help defeating a tyrannical power/attacker.

2. These same people need to define EXACTLY WHO this enemy is, and it can't be some shadowy, non-descript, band of mercinary "rebels" without a cause (and just in it for blood).

3. These same people need to state EXACTLY WHAT their objective is, what their end-game is. AND, this end-game needs to align with the principles of a free society. They don't need to align with western religious beliefs necessarily, but they can't align with radical/extremist religious beliefs which fly in the face of a free society.

4. These same people need to state EXACTLY HOW they intend to implement a governmental structure which will be sufficient to support their end-game. This needs to include a time-line.

5. And there need to be CONDITIONS agreed upon (in advance) if they fail, or deviate, from ANY of the above items.

Yes, I recognize this is a tall order, especially for middle eastern cultures, but so too is the life of an American soldier, or the cost of an American missile or drone strike.

Failing any of the above...you're on your own.

I think you gave the perfect answer in your first paragraph but a lot of people wont pick up on it. An independent member of their parliament but he's also the grand Mufti. Keep all religions out of politics, that's what the ME problem is and he's part of it.

originally posted by: crayzeed
I think you gave the perfect answer in your first paragraph but a lot of people wont pick up on it. An independent member of their parliament but he's also the grand Mufti. Keep all religions out of politics, that's what the ME problem is and he's part of it.

You're missing the point(s), religion in politics isn't strictly a Middle Eastern problem, there are Christian lunatics all over Western politics, who undoubtedly and worryingly are in control of a more destructive power on a global scale.

Furthermore, in an ideal world, there wouldn't be any money in politics, but that idea got sold to the dogs years ago also.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

So you find non-western propaganda more convincing?

LMAO

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

So you find non-western propaganda more convincing?

LMAO

I don't find any propaganda convincing

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Great thread.
Here is another interesting perspective on Syria (from the 'western' side but consistent with the statement in the OP), by Father Frans van der Lugt

An Eyewitness to the Syrian Rebellion: Father Frans in His Own Words

From the start, the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.

...

Moreover, from the start there has been the problem of the armed groups, which are also part of the opposition….The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government. Many representatives of the government have been tortured and shot dead by them.

...

In the first place, it has to be said that it is very difficult to provide a nuanced and objective account of what is happening. Many journalists fall into describing matters in black and white. For them, good and evil are not interwoven, but are clearly separated. They demonize the one side and glorify the other. Thus, for example, it is not true that the Syrian government has only bad sides and the opposition only good ones. But because the US, Europe and certain Arab countries support the opposition, they endeavour, whether consciously or unconsciously, to idealize it as much as possible, without engaging in any careful analysis of the real situation. Certain interests are obscuring our view of the real situation and contaminating the description of it.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

He said that Western media blamed the Syrian government “for things that it had not done”.

Ain't that the truth

I noticed the execution story all over the BBC and Sky News networks today, not one word on who it is actually carrying them out, if indeed they are happening at all, but obviously, as per usual, it was subtly implied that it was the Russian and Syrian armies.

Additionally, I watched the UN Security Council meeting a short while ago, again there's the usual anti-Russian/Syrian countries criticizing the events, and not one word about how this conflict came about.

EDIT: Just as I have posted this, there's this story:

The videos of alleged ‘Russia's shelling and executions’ as well as other similar footage are fake and were shot by the militants themselves, said Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman.

www.rt.com...

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Just watch theses videos when you have time :

I'm a conservative of the MacArthurian vein...

America is the light of the High west and it is our duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves from the darkness of radicalism and despotism in whatever form it takes…

We have the means and only lack the will to export our American exceptionalism to every corner of the globe...

In today's age we are no longer allowed to admit that we have the best type of society but the fact remains that we split the atom and walked on the moon…

America's egalitarian sensibilities can serve to prop up the entire globe even if force is necessary to impose those values then so be it if it means saving the oppressed...

-Chris

a reply to: Christosterone

Egalitarian sensibilities never require military force, if they are dominant ideologies than they will win purely by the force of their underlying value alone over time.

The fact you think America should march around the globe blowing things up calling it Freedom or whatever, killing random civilians and destroying cities, etc, is a travesty and it horrifies me that my own security is safety is jeopardized by militaristic ideologues such as yourself permeating society worldwide. Every nation has it's own version of this insanity...

Think about it...
"Egalitarian" means :

of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
"a fairer, more egalitarian society"

How is it "more fair" to "impose" "fairness" on others by military force? Wouldn't they be "oppressed" by us? How can someone have "equal rights" when you blow up their block, shatter their offices and homes, and rip their body to shreds spilling guts and blood everywhere?

And when did "America" become "more fair"? We have so many insane problems in this country right now we should focus on fixing our own nation before we even consider thinking we are perfect examples of what others should be doing (or else we blow them up).

Your political ideology is what is wrong with America, and why isolationism is making a comeback to counter the 'world police' concept you just espoused so eloquently.

a reply to: Christosterone

I'm quite sure you probably believe all that and that's the scary thing.

U.S. society is effectively a police state, built on racism which was initiated against the Native Indians, nowadays you'll find that racism firmly rooted in certain elements of your police force, where they discriminate against blacks, Hispanics etc. Outwith that, your criminal justice system is flawed, where in most cases it only serves as a tool for the rich & powerful, as well as your media. Your politicians are owned by corporations and would rather serve them than the actual will of the people. Your society is far from being 'the best type'.

America is the light of the High west and it is our duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves from the darkness of radicalism and despotism in whatever form it takes…

You'd have to be high to believe that one and in the words of George Carlin:

"It's the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it".

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Already seen them but thanks for adding to the thread

a reply to: Zcustosmorum
I don't know who's good and who's bad in all this. I've given up completely on morally understand what's going on. Unless I suddenly have superpowers and can tour the world freely and invisibly, I'll never trust the news. We humans are too flawed. There's too much self-deception. And in saying this, I also know I can't even trust myself. I'm equally flawed.

I think the ultimate judgement who's rihgt and who's wrong falls to fate. I don't wnat to personify it. It's in nature's jurisdiction. The future is the hammer coming down on the pulpit. Past, present and future are like a court room.

But I will say something else. Those who have a cause and live their convictions, wrongly or rightly, are the best humanity has to offer. Because inaction or indecision is not an option. We don't have the luxury to guarantee our choices. So on the one hand my feelings on this matter are petty and impotent. This is just how the world is and always has been.

Syria will be fully liberated from EU/UK terrorists before Trump's inauguration! Damascus liberation is imminent! Probably before new year.