Christians: Sunni protesters, not Assad are the problem

[phk]

http://harpers.org/archive/2011/06/hbc-90008111

“Terrorists, Sunni Muslims. It’s them creating all this trouble,” says Orhan, a fifty-year-old Assyriac, as he drives past a line of soldiers. “They do it because they are fanatics, they hate the president because he’s not a Sunni like them, he’s an Alawite. What does ‘Alawite’ mean? It means good with Christians. That’s what president Bashar is. He is defending us Christians against these fundamentalists trying to take power in Syria and turn it into a caliphate, may God protect him.” After a protest was violently suppressed in the nearby town of Talkalakh, hundreds of Christian families cheered the soldiers as they returned on the highway to Homs.

[dead0man]

From what I've read, this because of two things:
1.Assad "protected" the Christians and didn't sh**t on them as much as he did the Sunnis
B.The Christians are scared of what the Sunnis might do if/when they get in power

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Minorities like Christians or Druzes are generally more supportive toward regime, because of it's secular nature and, yes, considerable tolerance on religious issues.

I'm far from praising Assad regime, but before anyone start to criticize Syrian Christians for this, please remember that situation of religious minorities is much worse in many other Arab countries and those people are simply concerned. There is disturbing wave of violence against Christians in the region.

[Yelnoc]

The Syrian Christians' fear are real; a round of ethnic cleansing after Bashar al-Assad's fall is a real possibility.  However, that does not excuse Assad's systematic slaughter of the largely Sunni Muslim opposition, which, I must add, is not in any way driven by some need to protect the Syrian christian community.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The Syrian Christians' fear are real; a round of ethnic cleansing after Bashar al-Assad's fall is a real possibility.  However, that does not excuse Assad's systematic slaughter of the largely Sunni Muslim opposition, which, I must add, is not in any way driven by some need to protect the Syrian christian community.

Indeed. This is a classical no-win situation, since Christians, while their fears are justified, are getting more and more associated with Assad's regime and it's atrocities, which can provoke even greater reaction against them, if regime fails.

[dead0man]

Agreed on all counts.

[Beet]

I wonder if Turkey should not just roll its tanks through the country and install a provisional government to move to elections. Kurdish jokes aside, the minorities could be protected by the Turks while things cool down. At this point, the people might welcome the Ottomans Turks as liberators, and Assad's forces can't be any match for them.

[republicanism]

We should give up the idea that these conflicts are black/white in general.
Neither in Syria, nor in Egypt or Libya it is/was: "Glorious freedom fighters vs. evil devilish dictator."

[dead0man]

I wonder if Turkey should not just roll its tanks through the country and install a provisional government to move to elections. Kurdish jokes aside, the minorities could be protected by the Turks while things cool down. At this point, the people might welcome the Ottomans Turks as liberators, and Assad's forces can't be any match for them.

Of all possible events, that would probably be the least disagreeable for most parties involved.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I wonder if Turkey should not just roll its tanks through the country and install a provisional government to move to elections. Kurdish jokes aside, the minorities could be protected by the Turks while things cool down. At this point, the people might welcome the Ottomans Turks as liberators, and Assad's forces can't be any match for them.

I don't think so, Beet. Syrian opposition is feeling very strongly about any notion of foreign military intervention and these feelings are hardly positive.

Oh, there are Kurds in Syria too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, who cares if he is a mass murderer ?

[Хahar 🤔]

We should give up the idea that these conflicts are black/white in general.
Neither in Syria, nor in Egypt or Libya it is/was: "Glorious freedom fighters vs. evil devilish dictator."

Yes, it is.

[ingemann]

We should give up the idea that these conflicts are black/white in general.
Neither in Syria, nor in Egypt or Libya it is/was: "Glorious freedom fighters vs. evil devilish dictator."

Yes, it is.

Wow do we really have a former president on this board? I have to say I disagree mister Bush, it was that kind of singlehanded dedication which ended with a million people dead in Iraq, and several religeous minorities more or less erased from existence.

[dead0man]

oh boy

[Beet]

We should give up the idea that these conflicts are black/white in general.
Neither in Syria, nor in Egypt or Libya it is/was: "Glorious freedom fighters vs. evil devilish dictator."

Yes, it is.

Wow do we really have a former president on this board? I have to say I disagree mister Bush, it was that kind of singlehanded dedication which ended with a million people dead in Iraq, and several religeous minorities more or less erased from existence.

The protesters of the Arab Spring haven't killed "a million people". It's quite invalid to compare largely peaceful, indigenous protests by people taking control of their own destiny, with a war of aggression by a foreign power. Even if the stated ends were the same, the means were very different. The only reason I brought up the possibility of Turkish intervention was on the assumption that there is already a civil war going on in Syria. But it's true that if the opposition would not welcome intervention by Turkey, it would be a very bad idea.

[ingemann]

We should give up the idea that these conflicts are black/white in general.
Neither in Syria, nor in Egypt or Libya it is/was: "Glorious freedom fighters vs. evil devilish dictator."

Yes, it is.

Wow do we really have a former president on this board? I have to say I disagree mister Bush, it was that kind of singlehanded dedication which ended with a million people dead in Iraq, and several religeous minorities more or less erased from existence.

The protesters of the Arab Spring haven't killed "a million people". It's quite invalid to compare largely peaceful, indigenous protests by people taking control of their own destiny, with a war of aggression by a foreign power. Even if the stated ends were the same, the means were very different. The only reason I brought up the possibility of Turkish intervention was on the assumption that there is already a civil war going on in Syria. But it's true that if the opposition would not welcome intervention by Turkey, it would be a very bad idea.

I didn't reply to the Arab spring, I replied to the naive black-white thinking which is a disaster when messing around in such a complex conflict. We don't know anything about the rebels, it's more or less given that they aren't the best case scenario of liberal demonstrants. They are a mess of different fractions. In Libya that wasn't a problem, because Ghaddafy was worse than almost any alternative, in Egypt and Tunisia things ended relative peacefully, and while I don't like the Islamic Brotherhood, they are preferable to the former regime and so are the mild Islamist in Tunisia.
Syria are a complex mix of religious groups, and a civil war there would in the best case end up with large scale ethnic cleansing and the establishment of two or several different splinter states. That's the best case, worst case are the complete collapse of the Syrian state and large scale mass murders of the different ethnic and religious groups. Turkey messing in it would likely push things toward the later. I understand why every religious minority in Syria prefer the regime they know. The only Syrian minority which would benefit from the collapse of the regime are the Kurds, and they too are unlikely to join the rebels
 

[Beet]

You originally said, "neither Syria, nor in Egypt or Libya", now you claim you didn't reply to the Arab spring? Come on, now.

[ingemann]

You originally said, "neither Syria, nor in Egypt or Libya", now you claim you didn't reply to the Arab spring? Come on, now.

Try read the name of the guy who wrote it, and if you don't get it, try look at his picture and mine. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Off topic (?) but I'm increasingly finding the term 'war of aggression' to be bleakly hilarious.

[Beet]

You originally said, "neither Syria, nor in Egypt or Libya", now you claim you didn't reply to the Arab spring? Come on, now.

Try read the name of the guy who wrote it, and if you don't get it, try look at his picture and mine.  

Ok, apologies about confusing you with republicanism. If you're just replying to the Syrian situation, then yes, there is some gray area now. Of course, that wasn't initially apparent. In any case, none of these conflicts are comparable with Bush doctrine. Even if you support the Syrian rebels in a black-white, 100% naive way, there's still a fundamental difference between that and the Iraq war, because in the former it's at least the domestic majority taking control of its own destiny, versus an attack by a foreign power.

[Beet]

Off topic (?) but I'm increasingly finding the term 'war of aggression' to be bleakly hilarious.

How is that? The Iraq war was a war of aggression.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Off topic (?) but I'm increasingly finding the term 'war of aggression' to be bleakly hilarious.

How is that? The Iraq war was a war of aggression.

Re-read the post

[Beet]

Off topic (?) but I'm increasingly finding the term 'war of aggression' to be bleakly hilarious.

How is that? The Iraq war was a war of aggression.

Re-read the post

I did but I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Off topic (?) but I'm increasingly finding the term 'war of aggression' to be bleakly hilarious.

How is that? The Iraq war was a war of aggression.

Re-read the post

I did but I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

How can you say 'war of aggression' out loud without laughing? Essentially.

[Beet]

Off topic (?) but I'm increasingly finding the term 'war of aggression' to be bleakly hilarious.

How is that? The Iraq war was a war of aggression.

Re-read the post

I did but I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

How can you say 'war of aggression' out loud without laughing? Essentially.

It's easy. You just say one word at a time. Many people have done it before.