BEIRUT (AP) — The fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government Sunday brought to a dramatic close his nearly 14-year struggle to hold onto power as his country fragmented amid a brutal civil war that became a proxy battlefield for regional and international powers.
Assad’s downfall came as a stark contrast to his first months as Syria’s unlikely president in 2000, when many hoped he would be a young reformer after three decades of his father’s iron grip. Only 34 years old, the Western-educated ophthalmologist was a rather geeky tech-savvy fan of computers with a gentle demeanor.
But when faced with protests against his rule that erupted in March 2011, Assad turned to the brutal tactics of his father in an attempt to crush them. As the uprising hemorrhaged into an outright civil war, he unleashed his military to blast opposition-held cities, with support from allies Iran and Russia.
International rights groups and prosecutors alleged widespread use of torture and extrajudicial executions in Syria’s government-run detention centers.
The Syrian war has killed nearly half a million people and displaced half the country’s pre-war population of 23 million. As the uprising spiraled into a civil war, millions of Syrians fled across the borders into Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon and on to Europe.
And he now being replaced by a group with ties to al Qaida, isis and Saudi Arabia. Of course being assholes themselves. They try really hard rebranding in name, not Ideas. Asad is bad, the people trying to get in power now are not better.
Do you have any specifics on this? Reports, analysis with reference to facts and data. Something along the lines of this article:
How Syria’s ‘Diversity-Friendly’ Jihadists Plan on Building a State
Not saying you are wrong, HTS and the rebels may well fracture. I guess we’ll find out.
First of all a link to a pro-Israël think tank is of no use for any discussion. Think-tanks in general are bad. Wikipedia washington institute
On DuckDuckGo the second link is to the BBC on how the hack are hts and the current situation of you search for it. No think tank slop needed. BBC article
To be honest they only want a “fundamentalist Islamic rule” state. Totally not a problem of course
Conduct a thought experiment and imagine the article wasn’t written by that think tank.
What part of the article is wrong and why? I will note, it doesn’t exactly embrace HTS. Please be specific. Happy to agree it is a bad source if you provide reasoned arguments and alternative data/analysis.
The BBC article doesn’t provide any context beyond the following two sentences:
The BBC article does not discuss public policy in rebel controlled areas or address HTS’s recent statements.
I am not claiming to know the right answer. I don’t speak Arabic, I’ve never been to Syria and my in-person knowledge is largely limited to Syrian friends and acquaintances with whom I’ve lost contact with.
I am genuinely curious about more in-depth information.
I suggest setting this piece aside and researching Idlib, a region in NW Syria where the rebels have had control for years. Whatever PR makeover they’ve attempted, we should be looking g what they’ve actually done with power to date. There’s not a ton of easily found, recognizably-sourced information out there about how a rebel group is governing a contested region. But the word from my family in Syria is that they’ve instituted a Taliban-like atmosphere based on Islam, requiring women to cover and all the rest.
That’s not good. I was hoping they would move towards more open, inclusive governance.
I guess we’ll see how things develop, but this is not good sign.
The entire history of this region, the regime, and the civil war are a parade of bad signs. I don’t know of any credible reason to look at this optimistically at this moment except ignorance or momentary intoxication from the fall of a longstanding regime. The Middle East is a playground for the imperial ambitions of the US, Turkey, Iran, China, Israel and Russia. Any spark of real, altruistic democratic spirit will be immediately snuffed out.
Today it’s called think tank, yesterday it was propaganda. You don’t read propaganda and think it’s good and fine, do you?
The article claims many things and, being propaganda, doesn’t give any proof. Ah… These events published in social media that everyone seems to know, described in such a fascinating writing style, but somehow are never linked to, embedded, ripped… At the beginning of the article. First two sentences. Bullshit from the start.
Not just a think tank, a think tank that is an unofficial representative of a foreign nation, deceptively sounding like something American.
There is not just one group and they all have their own shtick. I bet the Kurds will want theirs, one group is backed by Turkey, they have their own agenda, then there rate the real islamists… There is 0 chance this just becomes a normal country somehow.
The Washington Institute? Really?
Did you even bother to look up who they are?