Mr Assad out and about ?

If that's Assad, it's an old video. The person behind the wheel is too young and lacks a mustache. Aside from that, it looks that's a Honda he"s driving (look at steering wheel logo). I doubt he would drive anything less than a Benz. Not to mention, the surroundings outside of the car look too nice.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Umm, you know that they have hair clippers, make up, and hair dyes over there, right? Politicians and business leaders all over the world care about their appearances and typically have prep work done before public appearances. It's the same for our political leaders.

As for the mustache part, here's Assad in an interview from just 5 months ago. No mustache here, either.


ETA: Ah! No, I think that interview is from 2015. But here's one from 2017:

If you notice, he doesn't have a mustache in either of them.

originally posted by: skywatcher44
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well in my humble opinion his Syrian Army should have been footing it some to take out these rebels taking away the need to indiscriminately bomb innocents trying to live among the mayhem .

I hate war in general so I'm not arguing against that point. However, I also recognize that there's no way we can credibly look at that without context.

He's been fighting against ISIS, Al Nusra front, the Free Syrian Army, and hundreds of minor mercenary groups that are backed by various GCC nations. He's also had to deal with multiple bombings from Israel, 2 limited invasions by NATO member Turkey, and a massive invasion by a coalition of Western countries (HERE). Yet you seem to be ignoring all of the civilian deaths caused by them.

When we invaded in 2014 (a few months after the Syrian elections that I posted before), the biggest pretext was that we were fighting against ISIS. The CIA even claimed that ISIS could muster up to 31,500 troops if need be, which was supposed to be an alarmingly high figure (HERE). Now think about it, why would it take the US, UK, Germany, Australia, France, and Jordan to beat a measly 31,000 ISIS fighters?

And even though we had surveillance to show where ISIS'was concentrated and where ISIS's oil supplies were going (into Turkey), we refused to stop them. Not only was it revealed that ISIS was selling Syrian oil to Turkey but ISIS was also selling Syrian people (as slaves) and Syrian antiquities overseas. And not one of these "good guy" groups acknowledged that the Syrian people voted in a referendum for their new constitution and voted for Assad to be their President in the next round of voting.

So what exactly are you expecting here? The majority of Syrians support him against the uninvited foreign mercenaries; the uninvited foreign armies; the large scale theft of Syrian energy supplies; the indiscriminate attacks against the neighborhoods, facilities, and communities in govt controlled lands; etc. They also support their new constitution and their right to finally be able to vote out their head of state if they don't approve of his work, which is conveniently missing in the GCC countries that are backing the "rebels" in Syria (like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc).

Yeah, his forces have probably killed civilians. And that sucks. But so have our forces and the forces of our allies. In fact, our forces also did it in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and are helping the Saudi's coalition do it in Yemen right now. So you'll have to excuse me if the "but he's hurting civilians" argument doesn't work on me anymore. Because if we really cared about that, most of our political and military leadership would be facing the same or worse justice that Assad should face. Because unlike him who's at least defending his own borders, we've been doing it all over the world in other sovereign nations with no consequence. It's far too late to be preaching from a moral high ground now.

originally posted by: purplemer
Making stuff up.. Wish we had a fake news emote for you.

How tedious when dealing with the blinkered. I'll think you'll find Syria's human rights before the civil war were atrocious if you actually researched. The Civil War has seen extremes which are well documented. But happy for you to demonstrate the contrary.

a reply to: paraphi

How tedious when dealing with the blinkered. I'll think you'll find Syria's human rights before the civil war were atrocious if you actually researched. The Civil War has seen extremes which are well documented. But happy for you to demonstrate the contrary.

Whos cvivil rights are better China, the US whos occupation of Iraq killed nearly a million woman and children. Trot on!

a reply to: purplemer

The discussion is about Syria, not China, or the US. At least try to keep to topic. Syria, the country where human rights abuses and repression were a feature of the Assad regime long before the civil war started. Assad can drive about as he wishes because he's probably being followed by truckloads of psychos to sweep up anyone who bats an eyelid.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

We are often on opposite sides of the discussion but in this I am right there with you, this entire thing in Syria has been a rotten mess since the word go. (I think the very beginning of the FSA was an actual Syria people rebelling, but within a year that changed)

As far as I am concerned anyone that thinks Syria is in a better place today (or Libya for that matter) than they were before the "intervention" has got to stop drinking the MSM koolaid.

Isn't he President Asad or Mr. President?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: enlightenedservant

We are often on opposite sides of the discussion but in this I am right there with you, this entire thing in Syria has been a rotten mess since the word go.

(I think the very beginning of the FSA was an actual Syria people rebelling, but within a year that changed)

Actually, the original protests were part of the now-forgotten Arab Spring. The FSA was started afterwards. Here's some info from a 2013 article (HERE):

The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was formed in August 2011 by army deserters based in Turkey, led by Col Riad al-Asaad. Its banner was soon adopted by armed groups that began appearing across the country. Despite this, the FSA's leaders had little or no operational control over what was happening on the ground in Syria. The opposition's Western and Gulf Arab backers sought to encourage a centralised rebel leadership and in December 2012 a number of brigades affiliated themselves to a newly-created Supreme Military Council (SMC). The SMC's chief-of-staff, Gen Idris, wants it to be a more moderate and stronger alternative to the jihadist rebel groups in Syria.

As far as I am concerned anyone that thinks Syria is in a better place today (or Libya for that matter) than they were before the "intervention" has got to stop drinking the MSM koolaid.

I agree completely. I rarely see anyone talking about the opinions, wants, and needs of the actual citizens in those countries. The main arguments usually come down to "We think their leaders suck, therefore we should invade their country, kill their leaders and soldiers who fight for their govt, and destroy their infrastructure in the process". People don't really care about making things better over there; they just seem to want an excuse for more military action.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yea was working on memory, Just remember that army unit kind of started things in a dispute over how to handle protestors. then they quickly got outnumbered and pushed aside by some very bad groups.

Either way, at this stage I am pulling for Assad and hopefully stronger ties between him and the kurds at least against turkey and that should lead to a more stable Syria.

which should help calm the region, a mess like Libya in that area would be a disaster.

In my ignorant opinion..

a reply to: Irishhaf

No worries, man.

I'm also hoping for a return to peace in the region. But that will never happen as long as Saudi Arabia and Iran refuse to sit down and work out their differences. It's their competition for regional dominance & global energy deals that's keeping these proxy wars going. I wouldn't even have a problem with both countries and their allies being able to share influence in the region, but that would require both sides to compromise.

No lie, I'd probably cry if the Saudis and Iranians announced and actually implemented a truly mutually beneficial peace plan. Same for the Israelis and Palestinians. And I legit can't remember the last time I cried. But I'd happily give up my "man card" for that. lol Oh well.

a reply to: enlightenedservant


I'm half afraid that the peace will never actually be there till those two get into an actual shooting war, rather than the proxy wars we have now.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: enlightenedservant


I'm half afraid that the peace will never actually be there till those two get into an actual shooting war, rather than the proxy wars we have now.

They just need to defang the ultra conservatives in both countries. Because to my knowledge, they weren't in a cold war like this before 1979. That year saw both the ultra-conservative Shiite Mullahs gain control in Iran by overthrowing the Shah and the Grand Mosque in Mecca get temporarily seized by ultra conservative Wahhabi fanatics in Saudi Arabia (HERE).

Before the Mullahs' revolution, Iran was much more "liberal" and it was one of the biggest Western allies in the region (particularly as a US ally). They were still Shiite majority, but they weren't ultra conservative "women must wear veils in public"-types (to be fair, the Shah sucked & was probably worse than Saddam). And the Grand Mosque seizure was such a huge crisis in the Islamic world that the Saudi govt started adopting far more hardline Wahhabi policies in order to appease their citizens who agreed with the reasons behind the seizure. For context, Saudi Arabia was Wahhabi controlled before the seizure, but the leader of the extremists who took over the Grand Mosque was a self proclaimed Mahdi/Messiah who followed an extreme, apocalyptic version of Wahhabism.

In other words, both countries had ultra strict reform movements change their policies in 1979. And even though Wahhabis and Shiites have had a feud since the decades following the Prophet Muhammad's death, they weren't in this kind of Cold War before. But now, those 2 factions have access to enormous sums of money and weapons, as well as allies all over the world. Then add in the fact that Israel & the West have backed the Wahhabi's side and our Middle Eastern policy since then makes a lot more sense.

An outright war between the 2 would be disastrous for both of them and the Islamic world as a whole, hence why it hasn't happened. So instead, they instigate fighting in each others' allies while teaming up with each others' enemies. The current conflict in Syria is a perfect example of Iran's ally (Syria) being targeted by Saudi Arabia & it's allies (the same goes for the Yemen war that's also going on right now).

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You are spot on on this.

Lets not forget the claims that Assad used chemical weopons, that was later proven to be the rebels.

The propaganda is so thick its obvious. We have the famed "white helmets" showing us just how evil assad is, so we need to arm al nursa and isis, whom supposedly are the gravest threat to the US, to taie out this guy who poses no threat to the US.

Just like with Gadafi in Libya. Gaddafi told everyone that the "rebels" that the US were backing were actually foriegn islamic terrorists, and of course he was right. But none of that matterd, cause the warmongers wanted him gonbe.

These are the same warmongers by the way, in both the republican and democratic party and in the left and right in other countries, that tell us how evil assad is, and how russia is backing him, and how evil russia is. They blatantly lie, they tell us we need to arm and side with the very people they say we need to be fighting just a few miles away, and we are supposed to believe them?

One of the high points for trump for me was in the second debate, where he went against pence and said we shoould be cooporating with russia to fight terrorism in syria. What a breath of fresh air.

Yet he has woefully did a 180.

But even today we see the drums beats of war, ironically being led by the same people that claim to be the party of peace in the US, encouraging the murder of assad and conflict with russia.

originally posted by: Grambler
Lets not forget the claims that Assad used chemical weopons, that was later proven to be the rebels.

That's incorrect. The Assad regime has been found to be responsible in most cases of chemical weapons use, mainly because the delivery system was via aircraft, or helicopters, or Syrian artillery.

This is a Gaurdian article

This covers the OPCW investigations which do not attribute blame

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: skywatcher44

Contrary to what you may believe, far more of the Syrian people support him than oppose him. And most of the "rebels" are foreigners and foreign backed mercenaries. The original protests called for a new constitution and contested elections, both of which Syria has adopted since the protests began.

ETA: I can't vouch for the authenticity of the video, but you should check the vote totals and voting percentages in Syria's 2014 presidential election to see his support levels. (HERE)

I wouldn't vouch for that video either, I think that guy may be a clone.

a reply to: Grambler

Your post made me go back & reread a thread about the Libyan catastrophe (HERE). The thread centers around the transcripts of Tony Blair's phone calls to Qaddafi before NATO jumped in and it still makes me mad.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Grambler
Lets not forget the claims that Assad used chemical weopons, that was later proven to be the rebels.

That's incorrect. The Assad regime has been found to be responsible in most cases of chemical weapons use, mainly because the delivery system was via aircraft, or helicopters, or Syrian artillery.

This is a Gaurdian article

This covers the OPCW investigations which do not attribute blame

But in recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’

www.lrb.co.uk...

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Oh those peaceful rebels we are backing, what are they up to today.

On Tuesday evening anti-government fighters in the embattled East Ghouta suburb of Damascus launched a major attack, firing several missiles and artillery shells into a crowded shopping district of government-held Jaramana area, resulting in a civilian massacre.

The Guardian has described the attack as "one of the deadliest rebel attacks on the Syrian capital" which according to early reports took the lives of 38 civilians, including women and children. Local reporters say that number may climb higher.

And according to Middle East based Al-Masdar News, which has a correspondent on the ground close to the scene, a near simultaneous attack on the Mezzeh District of Damascus resulted in the deaths of a woman and five children.

...

Though given scant attention in international media since the start of the now 7-year long war, Damascenes have had to endure living under the constant threat of mortar attack from al-Qaeda linked groups operating in the suburbs and Damascus countryside as "the new normal".

www.zerohedge.com...

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: purplemer

The discussion is about Syria, not China, or the US. At least try to keep to topic. Syria, the country where human rights abuses and repression were a feature of the Assad regime long before the civil war started. Assad can drive about as he wishes because he's probably being followed by truckloads of psychos to sweep up anyone who bats an eyelid.

I put the issue into context for you thats why I mentioned china and the USA. But if you want to circumnavigate i am happy to put it another way. Answer this. If he is committing so many human rights breaches why does he have so much support from his people..

turn off you msm..