4 ms·

I wish there were more definite sources detailing what the actual conflict is about. People are giving all sorts of accounts online and it seems to be divided i

I wish there were more definite sources detailing what the actual conflict is about. People are giving all sorts of accounts online and it seems to be divided into a few camps: 1) western and sunni middle eastern press: it's all Assad's (government's) fault. People want democracy. Specifically this is supposed to be a response to violent repression of pro-democracy protests from March 2011. Problem: very hard to believe. The attitude of the government against the people of Syria has not changed, and the "protesters" do not seem very pro-democracy at all. Second problem: the middle eastern press (al Jazeera) is owned by a government that would stand to benefit substantially from the pipeline issue. Even aside from the pipeline, that government is involved in funding the exremists in Syria. 2) shi'a middle eastern press Coordinated Sunni attack against one of the two last multicultural/tolerant middle eastern Countries (the other one being Iran, and while Israel is multicultural/tolerant Iran doesn't see it that way). It's an attack to massacre the last vestiges of tolerance in the middle east. Problem: obviously this is state propaganda. That doesn't mean it's not true, of course, but there are military interests at stake by the same people who own these press. 3) Russian press (there were/are hundreds of thousands of Russians from the Soviet union who lived in Syria) This is a coordinated assault against the last Russian ally on the mediterranean. They note the same as the Shi'a press does (attack on tolerance for non-Sunnis), and also note the pipeline project that would deliver oil from. Problem: of course this too is state propaganda. 4) Catholic information sources (there is/was no shortage of Monasteries in Syria) Well-funded Sunni extremists attacking (and killing) everyone in sight, with no identifiable cause. Ethnic cleansing, including even of Sunni's that don't want to fight for them. They seem to disagree with the notions that the fighters care about either Russian interests, or the pipeline (though the funding parties might think differently) Problem: They're not very willing to come forward with information, and the few times they do they say they really fear retaliation. The ones that come forward are refugees.

netsharc 9y ago
Not that I have followed it that closely, but of course it's not a black vs white conflict, more like several factions wanting to win power/suppress their enemies. I think it started as a demonstration against the corrupt Assad that turned violent when his army started shooting. The "rebels" picked up arms and probably brutally kills pro-government soldiers/citizens, so they are not saints either. Meanwhile ISIS takes advantage of the chaos to try to win control of regions. The Kurds are fighting them because there's probably a Kurdish area in Syria? But Erdogan doesn't like a Kurdish rise, so he's probably quietly looking the other way as European ISIS sympathisers travel via Turkey in and out of Syria. Russia wants Assad to stay in power because he's a puppet, so he's bombing "rebels" and ISIS. We haven't even mentioned Iran and the USA. As this report https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/16/world/middleeast/untangling-the-overlapping-conflicts-in-the-syrian-war.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/16/world/middlee... says, in one side of the conflict USA (at least Obama's USA) is working with Russia, in another side they're backing opposing sides.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Excellent summary. One addition: The Kurdish vs. ISIS conflicts are, or at least were, mostly in northern Iraq, where ISIS started back when Syria was still a stable Dicktatorship, but the Iraqi government was (and still is) weak and hated.
- mafribe 9y ago
  started as a demonstration against the corrupt Assad It's unlikely that this was spontaneous, and most likely the first public result of a planned and well-funded regime-change operation.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Yeah, never in the history of mankind has anyone protested without being paid by George Soros, right?
    - mafribe 9y ago
      I'm not sure in what sense your answer is a constructive contribution. There is a long history of engineering 'grassroots movements' toward overthrowing governments. All powers have been engaging in this practise, and you can find how-to manuals -- I recommend reading some, it's highly enlightening. For example many of the de-colonialisation movements in the second part of the 20th century were actively run by the Soviet Union, leading to such absurdities as Cabo Verde becoming an independent state. Clearly various powers had strategic interests in destabilisation of Assad. [1] is an interesting document in this direction. [1] https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
      - shaki-dora 9y ago
        That document doesn't prove anything. It's clearly an email send to Clinton, so it doesn't reflect her views any more than whatever spam she got. Plus there's actually nothing nefarious in there. Nobody is disputing that the US government's position is and has always been that Assad needs to go. If it were written with more than public knowledge, it would actually proof that the US and Clinton did not organise any sorts of fake-grassroots protests, considering the document is arguing for US engagement against Assad a full year after the war started,
theparanoid 9y ago
Ethnic cleansing is most likely. Some Syrian protesters chanted "Christians to Beirut; Alawites to the coffin" [0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_...
matt4077 9y ago
Stuff like this doesn't happen for some pipeline. In this case, the theory has the following problems: - The supposed Qatar->Europe would have to cross Saudi Arabia, which is a much larger obstacle to any pipeline project. - Same for Turkey - Dependence on Russian gas isn't so much a "European" problem, as a Eastern-European problem, from Germany to Greece. These are countries that aren't really known for 007-style false flag operations in the middle east - There doesn't seem to be a pipeline being build anywhere near Syria. This outcome wasn't that surprising, considering almost every other conflict in the region also turned into a decades-long quagmire - The further destabilisation of the middle east creates risks that dominate any supposed gains from lower energy dependence: the migrant crisis was among the worst in the European Union's history, at least in terms of its potential to unravel the union. The power vacuum that was created gave rise to ISIS, which the west will have to grapple with for decades in some form or other - The supposed perpetrators in the west are democratically elected politicians, not actually psychopaths trying to amass natural resources. - Even if they were so inclined, they'd have a really hard time profiting from it because (a) elected politicians think in much shorter timeframes than what would be required for this pipeline to start making money, (b) they would never be able to actually do anything with any money they made, being constantly in the public eye even after their terms are up, (c) they'd be dead by then anyway, (d) most politicians have actually proven that they have below-average interest in monetary riches compared to public admiration, and (e) they could never get that, either, because they'd be prosecuted and ostracised if it ever came to light. It's really very simple: Assad is and always was a brutal asshole. At some point, hatred of him turned violent, and everything escalated. There are two dozen different foreign and domestic powers with a stake in the outcome, and each of them funds this group or that, securing a continuing source of violence, just add angry young men. Some of the opposition may have democratic ideas, some may be communists, or fascists, or islamists, or hairdressers. There's no easy way to label the opposition because Assad really managed to get a lot of people rather angry, for all sorts of different reasons (but mostly for killing people other people liked) As another point: if you take a really good look at Iran, you'll find they are a lot less bad than one might think. They are without any doubt the second-best democracy in the region–behind Israel, but quite certainly ahead of today's Turkey. And while that democracy is incredibly flawed, Iran is so much better than Saudi Arabia, it isn't even funny. With the added knowledge that all the islamic terror against the west since 2001 has been Sunni, it's really strange to see who's an ally and who is in line to get bombed when the US President next has a bad day.
pjc50 9y ago
Another theory I've seen is that the Iraq war left a huge amount of weapons lying around, plus a large number of Islamists driven out of Iraq into Syria. This aligns with your (2) or (4).
omurphy27 9y ago
One can argue over what's driving the conflict today, but how it started back in 2011 is very well documented by every current news source at the time. It began when Assad's security forces tortured children for spray painting anti government graffiti in Deraa. Protests, in the spirit of the Arab Spring which had spontaneously consumed the region, then followed. Assad met these protests with total violence, including shooting unarmed civilians. Assad's security service continued to kill and torture unarmed civilians until eventually people started shooting back. Thus began the civil war. Had Assad merely stepped down, as Mubarak did in Egypt, then Syria today would likely be as peaceful as Egypt is. Here's an excellent documentary, filled with primary sources and not made by some conspiracy nut in their basement, on how the conflict started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njKuK3tw8PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njKuK3tw8PQ
- mythrwy 9y ago
  There is a lot more to it than that. A lot. "tortured children for spray painting graffiti" (which resulted in the sudden sprouting somehow of heavily armed and trained jihadists, many of whom were foreign). You don't have to be much of a cynic to see the deep influences of foreign powers in this conflict. It's so deep that media takes (such as the view you present) don't do much to cover it up.

netsharc 9y ago

Not that I have followed it that closely, but of course it's not a black vs white conflict, more like several factions wanting to win power/suppress their enemies. I think it started as a demonstration against the corrupt Assad that turned violent when his army started shooting. The "rebels" picked up arms and probably brutally kills pro-government soldiers/citizens, so they are not saints either. Meanwhile ISIS takes advantage of the chaos to try to win control of regions. The Kurds are fighting them because there's probably a Kurdish area in Syria? But Erdogan doesn't like a Kurdish rise, so he's probably quietly looking the other way as European ISIS sympathisers travel via Turkey in and out of Syria. Russia wants Assad to stay in power because he's a puppet, so he's bombing "rebels" and ISIS. We haven't even mentioned Iran and the USA. As this report https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/16/world/middleeast/untangling-the-overlapping-conflicts-in-the-syrian-war.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/16/world/middlee... says, in one side of the conflict USA (at least Obama's USA) is working with Russia, in another side they're backing opposing sides.

matt4077 9y ago
Excellent summary. One addition: The Kurdish vs. ISIS conflicts are, or at least were, mostly in northern Iraq, where ISIS started back when Syria was still a stable Dicktatorship, but the Iraqi government was (and still is) weak and hated.
mafribe 9y ago
started as a demonstration against the corrupt Assad It's unlikely that this was spontaneous, and most likely the first public result of a planned and well-funded regime-change operation.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Yeah, never in the history of mankind has anyone protested without being paid by George Soros, right?
  - mafribe 9y ago
    I'm not sure in what sense your answer is a constructive contribution. There is a long history of engineering 'grassroots movements' toward overthrowing governments. All powers have been engaging in this practise, and you can find how-to manuals -- I recommend reading some, it's highly enlightening. For example many of the de-colonialisation movements in the second part of the 20th century were actively run by the Soviet Union, leading to such absurdities as Cabo Verde becoming an independent state. Clearly various powers had strategic interests in destabilisation of Assad. [1] is an interesting document in this direction. [1] https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
    - shaki-dora 9y ago
      That document doesn't prove anything. It's clearly an email send to Clinton, so it doesn't reflect her views any more than whatever spam she got. Plus there's actually nothing nefarious in there. Nobody is disputing that the US government's position is and has always been that Assad needs to go. If it were written with more than public knowledge, it would actually proof that the US and Clinton did not organise any sorts of fake-grassroots protests, considering the document is arguing for US engagement against Assad a full year after the war started,

theparanoid 9y ago

Ethnic cleansing is most likely. Some Syrian protesters chanted "Christians to Beirut; Alawites to the coffin" [0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_...

matt4077 9y ago

Stuff like this doesn't happen for some pipeline. In this case, the theory has the following problems: - The supposed Qatar->Europe would have to cross Saudi Arabia, which is a much larger obstacle to any pipeline project. - Same for Turkey - Dependence on Russian gas isn't so much a "European" problem, as a Eastern-European problem, from Germany to Greece. These are countries that aren't really known for 007-style false flag operations in the middle east - There doesn't seem to be a pipeline being build anywhere near Syria. This outcome wasn't that surprising, considering almost every other conflict in the region also turned into a decades-long quagmire - The further destabilisation of the middle east creates risks that dominate any supposed gains from lower energy dependence: the migrant crisis was among the worst in the European Union's history, at least in terms of its potential to unravel the union. The power vacuum that was created gave rise to ISIS, which the west will have to grapple with for decades in some form or other - The supposed perpetrators in the west are democratically elected politicians, not actually psychopaths trying to amass natural resources. - Even if they were so inclined, they'd have a really hard time profiting from it because (a) elected politicians think in much shorter timeframes than what would be required for this pipeline to start making money, (b) they would never be able to actually do anything with any money they made, being constantly in the public eye even after their terms are up, (c) they'd be dead by then anyway, (d) most politicians have actually proven that they have below-average interest in monetary riches compared to public admiration, and (e) they could never get that, either, because they'd be prosecuted and ostracised if it ever came to light. It's really very simple: Assad is and always was a brutal asshole. At some point, hatred of him turned violent, and everything escalated. There are two dozen different foreign and domestic powers with a stake in the outcome, and each of them funds this group or that, securing a continuing source of violence, just add angry young men. Some of the opposition may have democratic ideas, some may be communists, or fascists, or islamists, or hairdressers. There's no easy way to label the opposition because Assad really managed to get a lot of people rather angry, for all sorts of different reasons (but mostly for killing people other people liked) As another point: if you take a really good look at Iran, you'll find they are a lot less bad than one might think. They are without any doubt the second-best democracy in the region–behind Israel, but quite certainly ahead of today's Turkey. And while that democracy is incredibly flawed, Iran is so much better than Saudi Arabia, it isn't even funny. With the added knowledge that all the islamic terror against the west since 2001 has been Sunni, it's really strange to see who's an ally and who is in line to get bombed when the US President next has a bad day.

pjc50 9y ago

Another theory I've seen is that the Iraq war left a huge amount of weapons lying around, plus a large number of Islamists driven out of Iraq into Syria. This aligns with your (2) or (4).

omurphy27 9y ago

One can argue over what's driving the conflict today, but how it started back in 2011 is very well documented by every current news source at the time. It began when Assad's security forces tortured children for spray painting anti government graffiti in Deraa. Protests, in the spirit of the Arab Spring which had spontaneously consumed the region, then followed. Assad met these protests with total violence, including shooting unarmed civilians. Assad's security service continued to kill and torture unarmed civilians until eventually people started shooting back. Thus began the civil war. Had Assad merely stepped down, as Mubarak did in Egypt, then Syria today would likely be as peaceful as Egypt is. Here's an excellent documentary, filled with primary sources and not made by some conspiracy nut in their basement, on how the conflict started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njKuK3tw8PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njKuK3tw8PQ

mythrwy 9y ago
There is a lot more to it than that. A lot. "tortured children for spray painting graffiti" (which resulted in the sudden sprouting somehow of heavily armed and trained jihadists, many of whom were foreign). You don't have to be much of a cynic to see the deep influences of foreign powers in this conflict. It's so deep that media takes (such as the view you present) don't do much to cover it up.