6 ms·

I was in Syria before the war(~2006) and there was no patriarch-dominance or extreme unemployment in Aleppo or Damascus. These cities had religious freedom and

I was in Syria before the war(~2006) and there was no patriarch-dominance or extreme unemployment in Aleppo or Damascus. These cities had religious freedom and many Syrians were Catholic. I was fortunate enough to live with locals in both cities for two weeks. The poverty there is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the poverty here in the US or many other parts of the world. There was some dissatisfaction with Al-Assad[1], but most Syrians supported him and continue to do so. This is not the first time extremist muslims have tried to overthrow him. I remember my hosts telling me he crushed a muslim rebellion in what I can only assume was the 80s or 90s [1] I believe this had to do with his greedy brother or cousin who taxed businesses for personal profit

enupten 12y ago
You must've realized by now that American foreign policy (& ergo media biases) is distinctly Saudi-centered. The current debacle with ISIS is likely the result of covert Saudi-CIA funding of "secular" rebels before things went bad (ala Afghanistan): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isi... That's not to say I like Abbas, of course, but criticism in the US is always the classic manichean "good" vs "evil", which ends up doing more harm than good. The other case, being Iran -whose Muslims are far less radical than those in Saudi- is made to appear as some raving mad state (their Govt. is awful no doubt). Until the propaganda machine changes its mind, you'll keep seeing the violent philosophy of Wahabism spread like a cancer; and being politically correct doesn't particularly help.
- dragontamer 12y ago
  People need to learn that it's the extremist violent Wahhabism that is the core of these attacks and Al Qaeda. The mainstream Islam / Muslims do not agree with what one sect has to say. It'd be like calling all Christians terrorists because of what the Irish Catholics / IRA did in the 90s. Wahhabist Islam regularly attack and kill Shia Muslims by the dozens. Even then, Wahhabism is a growing philosophy amongst Saudi princes, who have remained good allies to the US. Explicit denunciation of this particular philosophy would run counter to US Foreign Policy. Besides, its not like all Wahhabists are violent. Going back to the IRA example, some Catholics were violent in the 90s... but certainly not all of them.
randomsearch 12y ago
"I was in Syria before the war(~2006) and there was no patriarch-dominance" I was in Syria in 2010, also before the war. I travelled around for a fortnight. I completely disagree. It was an almost entirely patriarchal society. I can't even begin to comprehend how you came to any other conclusion. The dominance of men in positions of authority and in the social life of all the cities I visited, including Damascus and Aleppo, was overwhelming and blindingly obvious. For example, how many women did you see in cafes without male escorts? How many officials did you interact with who were female? How many times did you see women shopping alone in Souks? I think my answer to that is "pretty much zero". Damascus was definitely much more liberal than other places. I don't recall the same being true of Aleppo. I agree, however, that the poverty wasn't too bad, compared to other countries. Popular support for Al-Assad was complicated. It's hard to assess people's true feelings about a situation when they live partly in fear of the consequences of their criticism.
- PublicEnemy111 12y ago
  Men certainly dominated the govt and positions in high society; however, this was really where the partiarchal dominance ends. The mother of the friends I stayed with in Aleppo actually played for Syria's national basketball team. The woman I stayed with in Damascus was widowed yet she was able to continue with her life as her husbands brother took great care of her. I must admit that all of the families I stayed with were Catholic, but there was no difference in these families than the average American family in terms of respect between husband and wife. I was trying to dispel the image that the culture of Saudi Arabia represents the entire middle east.

enupten 12y ago

You must've realized by now that American foreign policy (& ergo media biases) is distinctly Saudi-centered. The current debacle with ISIS is likely the result of covert Saudi-CIA funding of "secular" rebels before things went bad (ala Afghanistan): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isi... That's not to say I like Abbas, of course, but criticism in the US is always the classic manichean "good" vs "evil", which ends up doing more harm than good. The other case, being Iran -whose Muslims are far less radical than those in Saudi- is made to appear as some raving mad state (their Govt. is awful no doubt). Until the propaganda machine changes its mind, you'll keep seeing the violent philosophy of Wahabism spread like a cancer; and being politically correct doesn't particularly help.

dragontamer 12y ago
People need to learn that it's the extremist violent Wahhabism that is the core of these attacks and Al Qaeda. The mainstream Islam / Muslims do not agree with what one sect has to say. It'd be like calling all Christians terrorists because of what the Irish Catholics / IRA did in the 90s. Wahhabist Islam regularly attack and kill Shia Muslims by the dozens. Even then, Wahhabism is a growing philosophy amongst Saudi princes, who have remained good allies to the US. Explicit denunciation of this particular philosophy would run counter to US Foreign Policy. Besides, its not like all Wahhabists are violent. Going back to the IRA example, some Catholics were violent in the 90s... but certainly not all of them.

randomsearch 12y ago

"I was in Syria before the war(~2006) and there was no patriarch-dominance" I was in Syria in 2010, also before the war. I travelled around for a fortnight. I completely disagree. It was an almost entirely patriarchal society. I can't even begin to comprehend how you came to any other conclusion. The dominance of men in positions of authority and in the social life of all the cities I visited, including Damascus and Aleppo, was overwhelming and blindingly obvious. For example, how many women did you see in cafes without male escorts? How many officials did you interact with who were female? How many times did you see women shopping alone in Souks? I think my answer to that is "pretty much zero". Damascus was definitely much more liberal than other places. I don't recall the same being true of Aleppo. I agree, however, that the poverty wasn't too bad, compared to other countries. Popular support for Al-Assad was complicated. It's hard to assess people's true feelings about a situation when they live partly in fear of the consequences of their criticism.

PublicEnemy111 12y ago
Men certainly dominated the govt and positions in high society; however, this was really where the partiarchal dominance ends. The mother of the friends I stayed with in Aleppo actually played for Syria's national basketball team. The woman I stayed with in Damascus was widowed yet she was able to continue with her life as her husbands brother took great care of her. I must admit that all of the families I stayed with were Catholic, but there was no difference in these families than the average American family in terms of respect between husband and wife. I was trying to dispel the image that the culture of Saudi Arabia represents the entire middle east.