"Why Assad's army hasn't defected"

[MicroBrew]

Are you serious?

He is a dictator and it is anti-Christian and anti-Democratic against liberal progressive and modern western values to support a guy like Assad.

Also, moderate Syrians and rebels aren't killing Christians or minority groups. It is a defeatist attitude to act like a determined people just because they face a large foe cannot win.

The West has long supported some of the worst tryants this century and the last. From Chile to Argentina to Saudi to Indonesia to Apartheid South Africa.

Evangelical Christians support Israel and Israel isn't a democrasy, but then evengelicals are far from Christ like.

Assad is better for the minorties than a bunch of Salafi thugs . The moderate rebels are small, the biggest block amongst the rebels are Salafists or similar Islamists.

 

[whougonnacall]

So apparently Assad is not that bad of a guy.
1)But the Free Syrian Army did mutinee against Assad. What religion are they?
2)Were they also paid to mutinee?
3)Is Israel involved in any bribing?

Hes our generations hitler or pol pot and so far his crimes in syria have made isis look like small fry by conparison
Heres a few more accurate articles on why what remains of assads forces have remained loyal
http://carnegie-mec.org/2015/09/30/assad-s-officer-ghetto-why-syrian-army-remains-loyal/iigr
this one pretty much sums it up nicely

https://mkaradjis.wordpress.com/201...e-cause-of-sectarianism-among-the-opposition/
this one adds a little more to the overall picture , note there ARE sunnis involved at the very highest levels of the regime but many are old money(like his wife) .....powerful before assads came to power and prob will be long after hes gone but they remain a minority in the inner circle
In short the closest parallel is the old south african apartheid structure

to awnser your questons
1)mainly sunni but also with many minority units too....most famously recently the turkmen who the russians targeted specifialy to secure the guerilla war friendly hills and mountains around their main base.(yes they were being heavily targetted long before the turkish russian dick measuring over aircraft shootdown)
2) Paid to risk torture/rape and tourture/rape of their friends and family to join a fight to the death which seemed massively agaisnt the odds at the beggining? That would have to have been some bribe!!
The most common story is they simply refused to fire on civillains , the regime knew this would be an issue and generaly prefer to use loyal and ruthless forces within the military such as the 4th armoured and rep guard and paramilitary forces like the intel agencies and shabhia to massacre the unarmed etc but due to the scale of the arab spring protests the regime was forced to use more of its larger conscript forces and many simply refused..
3) israel has largely not given a fuck , they treat both sides wounded on the borders, have reportedly said to both sides the small golan heights druze communites are ''off limits'' and have at times struck hezbollah targets in israel, unless iranian and hezbollah presence on their borders increas they prob wont do much more than the odd oppertunistic bombing

edite heres a few other nice links for info
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assads-indispensable-foreign-legions
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/documents/Doubling_Down_on_Damascus.p
df

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/shia-jihad-and-death-syria-s-army-1508759016
and for general syria resources
/https://louisproyect.org/2015/10/14/a-resource-guide-for-understanding-syria/

 

[whougonnacall]

Enough of it has defected, killed off or just demoralized to the point of not fighting that Assad is not capable of holding current territory let alone go on the offensive without the manpower Hezbollah, PMUs from Iraq and Iranian provided cannon fodder.

Dont foget afghans.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...an-refugees-fight-save-syrias-bashar-al-assad
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/29/iran-sending-thousands-afghans-fight-syria

 

[KILL KILL]

I wish I could post the pictures of dead men, women, and children that Assad has killed.

Its almost as if some of you forget that his snipers were indiscriminately gunning people down in the streets of Homs, or that there's verifiable proof that he's been using barrel bombs, or that he has been accused of killing over a thousand civilians via chemical weapons.

 

[Bloodworth]

Assad has a legit military and air force backed by russia. They are very western thinking, they were the first to abolish terror groups like the Muslim brotherhood...great history read of Syria vs the brotherhood.
Most are supporting his government over rebels.

 

[Rod1]

I wish I could post the pictures of dead men, women, and children that Assad has killed.

Its almost as if some of you forget that his snipers were indiscriminately gunning people down in the streets of Homs, or that there's verifiable proof that he's been using barrel bombs, or that he has been accused of killing over a thousand civilians via chemical weapons.

You could say the same thing about literally any war.

Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, im pretty sure these all had pretty gruesome photos of dead civilians.

Its not like Assad has a future in Syria though, he is going to step down after the war ends.

 

[KILL KILL]

You could say the same thing about literally any war.

Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, im pretty sure these all had pretty gruesome photos of dead civilians.

Its not like Assad has a future in Syria though, he is going to step down after the war ends.

 

[KILL KILL]

You could say the same thing about literally any war.

Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, im pretty sure these all had pretty gruesome photos of dead civilians.

Its not like Assad has a future in Syria though, he is going to step down after the war ends.

In those three cases you mentioned, none of the people were killed by their own government.

The point I was trying to make is that there are people that believe Assad Should stick around. His own people won't have that. He controls such little territory in Syria as is, PLUS, he's a total dickhole.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I wish I could post the pictures of dead men, women, and children that Assad has killed.

Its almost as if some of you forget that his snipers were indiscriminately gunning people down in the streets of Homs, or that there's verifiable proof that he's been using barrel bombs, or that he has been accused of killing over a thousand civilians via chemical weapons.

Saddam gassed the Kurds.
Which Middle East do you prefer, the one with or without Saddam?

 

[KILL KILL]

Saddam gassed the Kurds.
Which Middle East do you prefer, the one with or without Saddam?

Getting rid of Saddam wasn't the problem. Finding a suitable replacement was. Not to mention, Iraq was relatively safe and harmless until ISIS decided to cross the border.

Besides, those are two different situations. Saddam was ousted by the U.S. Assad is being opposed by his own people. They won't have him.

 

[Rod1]

Getting rid of Saddam wasn't the problem. Finding a suitable replacement was. Not to mention, Iraq was relatively safe and harmless until ISIS decided to cross the border.

Besides, those are two different situations. Saddam was ousted by the U.S. Assad is being opposed by his own people. They won't have him.

Suitable replacement = repressive dictator.

The problem with Iraq was that we needed a war without anyone involved so they could settle their political differences.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Getting rid of Saddam wasn't the problem. Finding a suitable replacement was. Not to mention, Iraq was relatively safe and harmless until ISIS decided to cross the border.

Besides, those are two different situations. Saddam was ousted by the U.S. Assad is being opposed by his own people. They won't have him.

Iraq was not as simple as just putting in a new leader and ISIS was born in Iraq.
Syria is more akin to a mix of Iraq and Libya; it's clearly related.

As for what happens to Assad AFTER IS is neutralized, I really don't care. The point is that until they are, Assad should be supported rather than targeted.
I think it's time America stopped experimenting in the Middle East.

 

[KILL KILL]

Iraq was not as simple as just putting in a new leader and ISIS was born in Iraq.
Syria is more akin to a mix of Iraq and Libya; it's clearly related.

As for what happens to Assad AFTER IS is neutralized, I really don't care. The point is that until they are, Assad should be supported rather than targeted.
I think it's time America stopped experimenting in the Middle East.

If the U.S. had not left Iraq so quickly, the place would be as violent as your average US city.

True, ISIS was born in Iraq, but we're small potatoes until they seized on the opportunity in Syria.

I somewhat agree with your last point. At least Assad is better than ISIS, but once ISIS is wiped out, Assad cannot and should not be allowed back in power.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

If the U.S. had not left Iraq so quickly, the place would be as violent as your average US city.

True, ISIS was born in Iraq, but we're small potatoes until they seized on the opportunity in Syria.

I somewhat agree with your last point. At least Assad is better than ISIS, but once ISIS is wiped out, Assad cannot and should not be allowed back in power.

We set the stage for ISIS, not just in leaving (which shouldn't have been an issue if Malakai's Goverment was more inclusive and), but in dismantling the Iraqi Army. Not only that, but years of fascist rule coupled with shock and awe made for a significantly radicalized element within Iraq. That same radicalized element will reside in Syria if/when the smoke clears and it's going to take another dictator to keep that contained. We may look back at this situation in 20 years and realize Assad wasn't such a bad guy....

 

[mrsenor]

Are you serious?

He is a dictator and it is anti-Christian and anti-Democratic against liberal progressive and modern western values to support a guy like Assad.

Also, moderate Syrians and rebels aren't killing Christians or minority groups. It is a defeatist attitude to act like a determined people just because they face a large foe cannot win.

translation assad doesnt want to play with israel he must be eliminated

 

[Zankou]

In those three cases you mentioned, none of the people were killed by their own government.

The point I was trying to make is that there are people that believe Assad Should stick around. His own people won't have that. He controls such little territory in Syria as is, PLUS, he's a total dickhole.

By definition, an insurgent rebellion fights against its own government. Whenever the government fights such an insurgency, it's killing its own people. That's what Civil War is. If one faction of society declares all-out war on the other factions, including the central government, I don't know what kind of response you would expect. These aren't peaceful protestors who are dancing around with flowers and such.

Those terrorist assholes in Jund-al-aqsa just cut the gov't supply route to Aleppo.

http://news.yahoo.com/jihadists-cut-regime-supply-route-syrias-aleppo-monitor-111554629.html

Nobody cares, of course, and these guys in Jund al-aqsa are foreign terrorists (not Islamic State, rather part of the 'moderate Sunni rebels') but a million crocodile tears will fall if the gov't in turn cuts the Turks' supply route to their combatants in Aleppo. That Al-Qaeda is fighting the regime, nobody cares, we're actively asked to support them.

There aren't many people who affirmatively like Assad, but there are many people who point out that the 'moderate opposition' is full of little but rabid Sunni jihadis, while the parts of Syria that are actually filled with diverse, non-rabid populations are all siding with the regime. It doesn't take much brainpower to see that making the one side (the worse side) bigger and the other side (the better side) smaller = badder. Asking us to believe that the worse side will suddenly *stop* being maniacal Sunni jihadis, if only they are allowed to win, beggars belief. If it didn't work 943743209 times before, it's not going to work this time either.

 

[MicroBrew]

I wish I could post the pictures of dead men, women, and children that Assad has killed.

Its almost as if some of you forget that his snipers were indiscriminately gunning people down in the streets of Homs, or that there's verifiable proof that he's been using barrel bombs, or that he has been accused of killing over a thousand civilians via chemical weapons.

Compared to what will replace him, he is better. His replacement is going to be Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda like groups that will start mass ethnic cleansing and genocide . ISIS isn't the only Sunni Salafi group there, they just garner the most attention.

None of this means the West should support Assad, rather they shouldn't support his overthrow unless they are committed to ensuring the safety of the minorities by having a credible international military force on the ground . Though even with Western manpower on the ground, Christians were cleansed out of Iraq, because the NeoCons don't care about MidEast Christians.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

The West has long supported some of the worst tryants this century and the last. From Chile to Argentina to Saudi to Indonesia to Apartheid South Africa.

Evangelical Christians support Israel and Israel isn't a democrasy, but then evengelicals are far from Christ like.

Assad is better for the minorties than a bunch of Salafi thugs . The moderate rebels are small, the biggest block amongst the rebels are Salafists or similar Islamists.

There is no need to go in the past. What we did before is old news and was often justifiable in the context of the Cold War and the evil that State ran communism possed.

Also, lol at you claiming Israel is not a Democracy. Israel is a Democracy and the only stable nation in the Middle East. Evangelical Christians are a odd bunch at times but I don't see any issue with their love for Israel so long as it is genuine.

Also, why do you want to give up on moderate rebels? We should embrace the chance for an oppressed people to be free of tyranny. I can't morally accept Assad.

 

[MicroBrew]

There is no need to go in the past. What we did before is old news and was often justifiable in the context of the Cold War and the evil that State ran communism possed.

Also, lol at you claiming Israel is not a Democracy. Israel is a Democracy and the only stable nation in the Middle East. Evangelical Christians are a odd bunch at times but I don't see any issue with their love for Israel so long as it is genuine.

Also, why do you want to give up on moderate rebels? We should embrace the chance for an oppressed people to be free of tyranny. I can't morally accept Assad.

Easy to dismiss the past when it paints a bad light on one's side. It wasn't that long ago; we are not talking manifest destiny America here but the past few decades . The West still supports dictators, like the Al Sauds .

Israel does not allow the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip to vote in Israeli elections even though Israel controls much of their lives.
The only reason Israel allows the PA to exert some local control is so that it can claim the West Bank Palestinains have their own government so Israel does not need to let them vote in Israeli elections.

Among other things: Israel controls their airspace, their borders, their ability to declare nationhood, certain taxes, control over West Bank territory . Israel builds/epands settlements inside the West Bank and the Palestinains have little recourse ; so essentially Israel controls the West Bank and the PA is subservient player who feels a little control is better than no control.

Israel does not want the Palestinians to vote because that would undermine a Jewish majority but at the same tiem Israel does not want to give them their own nation because Israel wants to keep expanding in the West Bank so Israel allows the PA to have some power because this limbo arragement allows Israel to have its cake and eat it too.

North Korea is also a stable nation. So is China , Iran and Russia. The West preaches about stability when it suits Western interests but supports destabilizing entities in nations that don't fall inline with Washington.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Easy to dismiss the past when it paints a bad light on one's side. It wasn't that long ago; we are not talking manifest destiny America here but the past few decades . The West still supports dictators, like the Al Sauds .

Israel does not allow the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip to vote in Israeli elections even though Israel controls much of their lives.
The only reason Israel allows the PA to exert some local control is so that it can claim the West Bank Palestinains have their own government so Israel does not need to let them vote in Israeli elections.

Among other things: Israel controls their airspace, their borders, their ability to declare nationhood, certain taxes, control over West Bank territory . Israel builds/epands settlements inside the West Bank and the Palestinains have little recourse ; so essentially Israel controls the West Bank and the PA is subservient player who feels a little control is better than no control.

Israel does not want the Palestinians to vote because that would undermine a Jewish majority but at the same tiem Israel does not want to give them their own nation because Israel wants to keep expanding in the West Bank so Israel allows the PA to have some power because this limbo arragement allows Israel to have its cake and eat it too.

North Korea is also a stable nation. So is China , Iran and Russia. The West preaches about stability when it suits Western interests but supports destabilizing entities in nations that don't fall inline with Washington.

Yeah its not so black and white and not really like that. In fact it's not.