4 ms·

I mean either scenario is possible but yeah I don't know for sure. I'm not sure how to think about the legitimacy of the Syrian government though. Is any gover

I mean either scenario is possible but yeah I don't know for sure. I'm not sure how to think about the legitimacy of the Syrian government though. Is any government legitimate? I know a lot of people don't like Stephen Harper or Obama, but they deal with it until the next election. Presumably the Syrian government was elected at some point too so they must have some kind of support in the country. Indiscriminately killing peaceful protesters would certainly destroy that legitimacy, but the images I mentioned make me wonder if the army's response is totally unwarranted.

hnhg 15y ago
It doesn't take long to look up that the Syrian government was formed as a result of a coup decades ago, especially if you're going to make a comment about it. EDIT: Actually I think there is a good point in your post, but I still think that familiarising yourself with the history of the country is necessary to understand where they are now.
- mladenkovacevic 15y ago
  I knew about the coup and I realize how ridiculous and meaningless a 1-party regime can seem (I've lived under one myself) but that doesn't exclude elections and political process from taking place. I did actually look up "Elections in Syria" on Google and read through the Wikipedia entry here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Syria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Syria and also this article came up where the opposition was apparently boycotting the elections (which is understandable if you think the system is corrupt and don't want to participate in the farce - hey it's how I feel about the Canadian elections sometimes but I still go) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16135298 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16135298 Also when I lived under said 1-party regime I have never seen people more politically and socially engaged - and not just in a rebellious way. I live in Canada now and most people are totally indifferent as to what happens in their own community, let alone further afield. I hope no one is reading my posts thinking "This guy is defending Hitler! Stone him!" For all I know Syria could be far worse then anything I've ever experienced. And in the end we kicked out our president too! (Although no bazookas or AK-47s were involved) So this could just be a natural progression of any authoritative regime.
  - CodeMage 15y ago
    Also when I lived under said 1-party regime I have never seen people more politically and socially engaged - and not just in a rebellious way. I live in Canada now and most people are totally indifferent as to what happens in their own community, let alone further afield. I hope no one is reading my posts thinking "This guy is defending Hitler! Stone him!" For all I know Syria could be far worse then anything I've ever experienced. And in the end we kicked out our president too! (Although no bazookas or AK-47s were involved) So this could just be a natural progression of any authoritative regime. Okay, I just don't get the reference. From your name, I'm guessing you originally come from ex-Yugoslavia, just like me. Now, the only time I remember the country was truly under 1-party regime was when the Communist Party was in power. However, that didn't end in "kicking out our president". If you're referring to Slobodan Milošević, by that time Yugoslavia (or what was left of it) had multiple parties. True, Slobodan seized the power, but there were other parties opposing him. And the only reason why "no bazookas or AK-47s were involved" was because things didn't have the chance to get there, because the army decided not to support him any more. The whole point -- and I'm not the first one to point this out in this thread -- is that resistance to dictatorship (or any deprivation of liberty) gradually evolves from peaceful protests to violence.
    - mladenkovacevic 15y ago
      Under Milosevic there were opposition parties but they had no real chance of assuming power in elections (whether because of election fraud, or because Milosevic had real support, or a little bit of both). All official media channels were controlled by the government and the only choices for opposition at that time had was to either get in bed with the Milosevic and reap some benefits or to organize rallies and protests. Protests were largely peaceful and lasted a long time. The main surge of protests that resulted in Milosevic's downfall was in the fall of 2000 but I can assure you we were in the streets for YEARS leading up to that. It wasn't swift by any means.
      - CodeMage 15y ago
        That's precisely the point I was making. Resistance starts with peaceful protests and gets gradually more violent. The "main surge of protests" you're talking about was a lot less peaceful than the initial peaceful protests. It never got to the point of armed resistance, for two reasons: 1) Milošević didn't go around killing ordinary people indiscriminately and 2) the army decided to withdraw its support when he ordered them to disperse the protesters. What do you think would have happened if general populace started getting slaughtered left and right? Sure, the vast majority of the people would've shut up and bent down their heads, because shutting the hell up is a lot better than having your kids shot or growing up as orphans. But some sort of armed resistance would have surely sprung into existence. I don't want to be unfair or rude here, but to me it seems that you are either deliberately ignoring what people are trying to say in this thread or you're having reading comprehension problems. It has been pointed out several times that things in Syria started out as protests and turned into armed resistance due to use of lethal force to suppress protests. By now it should be clear what we're all trying to say. Using Milošević and his regime as a counter-argument doesn't hold up, precisely because Milošević's dictatorship was quite "benign" compared to extremes such as Syria.
afterburner 15y ago
That you assumed Assad was elected reveals a gross lack of knowledge of the situation. Everyone remotely familiar with the region knows exactly what the deal is with Syria.
rehem 15y ago
Either you are a sock puppet or live under a rock. The syrian regime was installed in a coup and passed down to Bashar al-Assad by his father. Additionally it is well documented that Assad regime attacked its own citizens from the very beginning of the protests in syria.
- mladenkovacevic 15y ago
  I obviously didn't post to get the upvotes and was sort of expecting an unpopular interpretation of events to get some down-votes. But I wasn't expecting anyone to create a new account just so they could tell me I live under a rock and call me a "sock puppet?" (huh?) I do watch the news on a regular basis have a general understanding of the narrative in Syria. I realize the nature of the regime and I never suggested that Assad was elected - but merely that political elections did take place in Syria. I was merely offering a possible viewpoint but thank you for coming out and contributing to the discussion.
namdnay 15y ago
The Al-Assad family have been ruling Syria for the past 40 years, so I think it's fair to say that the government is not the most legitimate there is.
- mladenkovacevic 15y ago
  I'm sorry I can't find the source now as I heard this on the radio a few days ago, but there was a recent independent poll where over 50% of the polled Syrian citizens were in favour of Assad remaining in power. In fact the poll was specific enough to indicate that this did not mean that these people were strong Assad supporters. But that they merely feared the instability that would arise if Assad the the government surrounding him was dismantled. Clearly he's not the most popular guy in school and his methods of staying in power are very manipulative and unfair, but any support he might have is real. And if we're counting years-in-power, the Queen just celebrated her 60th jubilee yesterday. Is her power legitimate? How popular is she in the commonwealth?
  - noarchy 15y ago
    You've said elsewhere that you live in Canada. Then you should know that this is far from an apples-to-apples comparison. The Queen has little real power in Canada. Where I happen to live (Québec), she is quite unpopular, but at the same time, she is not the head of government, merely the head of state. The distinction is vital, and is why people rightly focus on the Prime Minister and the Parliament when talking about policy and governance in this country.
  - pooriaazimi 15y ago
    > ...a recent independent poll where over 50% of the polled Syrian citizens were in favour of Assad remaining in power. My dear friend... When you're living in a country that the leaders use frickin' TANKS to kill the opposition, if someone called you at home and asked you whether you're in favor of the government, unless you're a very brave man who is ready for the consequences, you say 'Yes sir, I am' - not because you like the ruling regime, but you think that this might be a trap set by the government to catch more rebels. I think you've had the luxury of living in a free country and can't imagine the fear that people feel under totalitarian regimes. Please, understand the fact that things are different in free countries that what they are in Syria, North Korea and Iran (where I live). You can start by reading '1984', by George Orwell to get a feeling of how dictatorships work.
pooriaazimi 15y ago
> I mean either scenario is possible... We're not talking about a movie with an open ending, we're talking about something that has been happening for the past 11 months right in front of our eyes (maybe not literally, but there is at least a couple million YouTube videos about it). When you're talking about current events, don't assume. Do some research and then post a comment. He has killed 6000 Syrian to date, it's not like they were in a school fight and we can l forget about it in a week or two.

hnhg 15y ago

It doesn't take long to look up that the Syrian government was formed as a result of a coup decades ago, especially if you're going to make a comment about it. EDIT: Actually I think there is a good point in your post, but I still think that familiarising yourself with the history of the country is necessary to understand where they are now.

mladenkovacevic 15y ago
I knew about the coup and I realize how ridiculous and meaningless a 1-party regime can seem (I've lived under one myself) but that doesn't exclude elections and political process from taking place. I did actually look up "Elections in Syria" on Google and read through the Wikipedia entry here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Syria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Syria and also this article came up where the opposition was apparently boycotting the elections (which is understandable if you think the system is corrupt and don't want to participate in the farce - hey it's how I feel about the Canadian elections sometimes but I still go) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16135298 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16135298 Also when I lived under said 1-party regime I have never seen people more politically and socially engaged - and not just in a rebellious way. I live in Canada now and most people are totally indifferent as to what happens in their own community, let alone further afield. I hope no one is reading my posts thinking "This guy is defending Hitler! Stone him!" For all I know Syria could be far worse then anything I've ever experienced. And in the end we kicked out our president too! (Although no bazookas or AK-47s were involved) So this could just be a natural progression of any authoritative regime.
- CodeMage 15y ago
  Also when I lived under said 1-party regime I have never seen people more politically and socially engaged - and not just in a rebellious way. I live in Canada now and most people are totally indifferent as to what happens in their own community, let alone further afield. I hope no one is reading my posts thinking "This guy is defending Hitler! Stone him!" For all I know Syria could be far worse then anything I've ever experienced. And in the end we kicked out our president too! (Although no bazookas or AK-47s were involved) So this could just be a natural progression of any authoritative regime. Okay, I just don't get the reference. From your name, I'm guessing you originally come from ex-Yugoslavia, just like me. Now, the only time I remember the country was truly under 1-party regime was when the Communist Party was in power. However, that didn't end in "kicking out our president". If you're referring to Slobodan Milošević, by that time Yugoslavia (or what was left of it) had multiple parties. True, Slobodan seized the power, but there were other parties opposing him. And the only reason why "no bazookas or AK-47s were involved" was because things didn't have the chance to get there, because the army decided not to support him any more. The whole point -- and I'm not the first one to point this out in this thread -- is that resistance to dictatorship (or any deprivation of liberty) gradually evolves from peaceful protests to violence.
  - mladenkovacevic 15y ago
    Under Milosevic there were opposition parties but they had no real chance of assuming power in elections (whether because of election fraud, or because Milosevic had real support, or a little bit of both). All official media channels were controlled by the government and the only choices for opposition at that time had was to either get in bed with the Milosevic and reap some benefits or to organize rallies and protests. Protests were largely peaceful and lasted a long time. The main surge of protests that resulted in Milosevic's downfall was in the fall of 2000 but I can assure you we were in the streets for YEARS leading up to that. It wasn't swift by any means.
    - CodeMage 15y ago
      That's precisely the point I was making. Resistance starts with peaceful protests and gets gradually more violent. The "main surge of protests" you're talking about was a lot less peaceful than the initial peaceful protests. It never got to the point of armed resistance, for two reasons: 1) Milošević didn't go around killing ordinary people indiscriminately and 2) the army decided to withdraw its support when he ordered them to disperse the protesters. What do you think would have happened if general populace started getting slaughtered left and right? Sure, the vast majority of the people would've shut up and bent down their heads, because shutting the hell up is a lot better than having your kids shot or growing up as orphans. But some sort of armed resistance would have surely sprung into existence. I don't want to be unfair or rude here, but to me it seems that you are either deliberately ignoring what people are trying to say in this thread or you're having reading comprehension problems. It has been pointed out several times that things in Syria started out as protests and turned into armed resistance due to use of lethal force to suppress protests. By now it should be clear what we're all trying to say. Using Milošević and his regime as a counter-argument doesn't hold up, precisely because Milošević's dictatorship was quite "benign" compared to extremes such as Syria.

afterburner 15y ago

That you assumed Assad was elected reveals a gross lack of knowledge of the situation. Everyone remotely familiar with the region knows exactly what the deal is with Syria.

rehem 15y ago

Either you are a sock puppet or live under a rock. The syrian regime was installed in a coup and passed down to Bashar al-Assad by his father. Additionally it is well documented that Assad regime attacked its own citizens from the very beginning of the protests in syria.

mladenkovacevic 15y ago
I obviously didn't post to get the upvotes and was sort of expecting an unpopular interpretation of events to get some down-votes. But I wasn't expecting anyone to create a new account just so they could tell me I live under a rock and call me a "sock puppet?" (huh?) I do watch the news on a regular basis have a general understanding of the narrative in Syria. I realize the nature of the regime and I never suggested that Assad was elected - but merely that political elections did take place in Syria. I was merely offering a possible viewpoint but thank you for coming out and contributing to the discussion.

namdnay 15y ago

The Al-Assad family have been ruling Syria for the past 40 years, so I think it's fair to say that the government is not the most legitimate there is.

mladenkovacevic 15y ago
I'm sorry I can't find the source now as I heard this on the radio a few days ago, but there was a recent independent poll where over 50% of the polled Syrian citizens were in favour of Assad remaining in power. In fact the poll was specific enough to indicate that this did not mean that these people were strong Assad supporters. But that they merely feared the instability that would arise if Assad the the government surrounding him was dismantled. Clearly he's not the most popular guy in school and his methods of staying in power are very manipulative and unfair, but any support he might have is real. And if we're counting years-in-power, the Queen just celebrated her 60th jubilee yesterday. Is her power legitimate? How popular is she in the commonwealth?
- noarchy 15y ago
  You've said elsewhere that you live in Canada. Then you should know that this is far from an apples-to-apples comparison. The Queen has little real power in Canada. Where I happen to live (Québec), she is quite unpopular, but at the same time, she is not the head of government, merely the head of state. The distinction is vital, and is why people rightly focus on the Prime Minister and the Parliament when talking about policy and governance in this country.
- pooriaazimi 15y ago
  > ...a recent independent poll where over 50% of the polled Syrian citizens were in favour of Assad remaining in power. My dear friend... When you're living in a country that the leaders use frickin' TANKS to kill the opposition, if someone called you at home and asked you whether you're in favor of the government, unless you're a very brave man who is ready for the consequences, you say 'Yes sir, I am' - not because you like the ruling regime, but you think that this might be a trap set by the government to catch more rebels. I think you've had the luxury of living in a free country and can't imagine the fear that people feel under totalitarian regimes. Please, understand the fact that things are different in free countries that what they are in Syria, North Korea and Iran (where I live). You can start by reading '1984', by George Orwell to get a feeling of how dictatorships work.

pooriaazimi 15y ago

> I mean either scenario is possible... We're not talking about a movie with an open ending, we're talking about something that has been happening for the past 11 months right in front of our eyes (maybe not literally, but there is at least a couple million YouTube videos about it). When you're talking about current events, don't assume. Do some research and then post a comment. He has killed 6000 Syrian to date, it's not like they were in a school fight and we can l forget about it in a week or two.