International Relations Omnibus

[Nintii]

The Latest News on the Syrian Conflict

 

Assad has "won" his referendum ... this FACT gives him legitimacy in the eyes of his main supporters China, Russia and Iran.

He is without doubt going to stay in power ... and his use of force will not abate ... and I quote:

 

"The US and its allies have dismissed the Syrian regime's referendum on a new constitution as a “farce” meant to justify the bloody crackdown on dissent.

 

But voters in government strongholds suggested why some Syrians have not joined the uprising against President Bashar Assad:

 

loyalty, distrust of the opposition and fear his fall will ignite a civil war". ...... IOL News report.

 

Please note that in my next quote further down, the use of the term "civil war" occurs again, this IS one of my main thrusts as to why

I prefer Assad to remain in office.

 

The fact that many opposition parties did not participate in the referendum is really to their disadvantage ... perhaps if they did join and together won, then

Assad's stay in office would be questioned by even his own supporters ... so their lack of participation only contributed to his stay in power.

He never was planning to go quietly into the night and now he definitely will not go quietly into it either.

A reminder as to why I would rather support him ... I'm not too in love with the crowd who will replace him ... more likely than not the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

A note here, memebership of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is a Capital Offence in that country since 1980.

Yes, for one I am quite pleased with Assad's stay ... now I don't know which box I fall into, perhaps "crazy", but that's my choice at any rate.

Again, I state, that I'm not anti-Islam because Assad is a Muslim ... but rather anti-radical.

Also, the impact that a change in government in Syria would have on Jordan is a very serious concern to the Jordanian's.

 

This is a small portion from the International Center for Conflict Engagement, and I quote:

 

"In summary, the Syrian’s uprising has more serious regional implications that Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian uprisings didn’t have on the region. The dynamic nature of the Syrian rebellion has direct implications to some of its neighbors. For this reason, states like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are caught up in a political dilemma that Egypt, Libya and Tunisia neighbors did not experience. For Egypt, Libya and Tunisia neighbors, the challenge was how to deal with refugee crises and there was no imminent fear of a war breaking out between different countries. The Syrian uprising and prospect of Syrian civil war as discussed above has the potential of turning into a regional civil war. Thus, the regional best hope at this time is to see Assad’s regime survives otherwise short of this; there is a risk that instability in Syria would spread beyond Syrian’s borders". ... end quote.

 

This is definitely not something anyone wants to see.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Nintii

[HeyYou]

The Latest News on the Syrian Conflict

 

Assad has "won" his referendum ... this FACT gives him legitimacy in the eyes of his main supporters China, Russia and Iran.

He is without doubt going to stay in power ... and his use of force will not abate ... and I quote:

 

"The US and its allies have dismissed the Syrian regime's referendum on a new constitution as a “farce” meant to justify the bloody crackdown on dissent.

 

But voters in government strongholds suggested why some Syrians have not joined the uprising against President Bashar Assad:

 

loyalty, distrust of the opposition and fear his fall will ignite a civil war". ...... IOL News report.

 

Please note that in my next quote further down, the use of the term "civil war" occurs again, this IS one of my main thrusts as to why

I prefer Assad to remain in office.

 

The fact that many opposition parties did not participate in the referendum is really to their disadvantage ... perhaps if they did join and together won, then

Assad's stay in office would be questioned by even his own supporters ... so their lack of participation only contributed to his stay in power.

He never was planning to go quietly into the night and now he definitely will not go quietly into it either.

A reminder as to why I would rather support him ... I'm not too in love with the crowd who will replace him ... more likely than not the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

A note here, memebership of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is a Capital Offence in that country since 1980.

Yes, for one I am quite pleased with Assad's stay ... now I don't know which box I fall into, perhaps "crazy", but that's my choice at any rate.

Again, I state, that I'm not anti-Islam because Assad is a Muslim ... but rather anti-radical.

Also, the impact that a change in government in Syria would have on Jordan is a very serious concern to the Jordanian's.

 

This is a small portion from the International Center for Conflict Engagement, and I quote:

 

"In summary, the Syrian’s uprising has more serious regional implications that Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian uprisings didn’t have on the region. The dynamic nature of the Syrian rebellion has direct implications to some of its neighbors. For this reason, states like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are caught up in a political dilemma that Egypt, Libya and Tunisia neighbors did not experience. For Egypt, Libya and Tunisia neighbors, the challenge was how to deal with refugee crises and there was no imminent fear of a war breaking out between different countries. The Syrian uprising and prospect of Syrian civil war as discussed above has the potential of turning into a regional civil war. Thus, the regional best hope at this time is to see Assad’s regime survives otherwise short of this; there is a risk that instability in Syria would spread beyond Syrian’s borders". ... end quote.

 

This is definitely not something anyone wants to see.

 

Better the devil you know....... I would agree with you. A predominately muslim brotherhood controlled middle east would not be good for anyone.

[marharth]

If NATO gets involved I doubt the Muslim Brotherhood will have any control anyways. I have said this before but the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't support violent means. In comparison with other Islamic leaders and groups they are not radical at all. It would be bad for them to have a large portion of control in the middle east yes, but that is not going to happen ever imo.

[HeyYou]

If NATO gets involved I doubt the Muslim Brotherhood will have any control anyways. I have said this before but the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't support violent means. In comparison with other Islamic leaders and groups they are not radical at all. It would be bad for them to have a large portion of control in the middle east yes, but that is not going to happen ever imo.

 

Tell that to the folks in Libya.......

[marharth]

If NATO gets involved I doubt the Muslim Brotherhood will have any control anyways. I have said this before but the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't support violent means. In comparison with other Islamic leaders and groups they are not radical at all. It would be bad for them to have a large portion of control in the middle east yes, but that is not going to happen ever imo.

 

Tell that to the folks in Libya.......

Tell them what? Not seeing what you mean here.

[HeyYou]

If NATO gets involved I doubt the Muslim Brotherhood will have any control anyways. I have said this before but the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't support violent means. In comparison with other Islamic leaders and groups they are not radical at all. It would be bad for them to have a large portion of control in the middle east yes, but that is not going to happen ever imo.

 

Tell that to the folks in Libya.......

Tell them what? Not seeing what you mean here.

 

In Libya, NATO was indeed involved, and the muslim brotherhood are the guys that are, for the most part, the ones in power..... not that anyone has really consolidated things there... still mostly warlords controlling their bit of territory.

 

Are we having fun yet?

 

And let's not forget Egypt, where the muslim brotherhood was VOTED into power.......

[marharth]

If NATO gets involved I doubt the Muslim Brotherhood will have any control anyways. I have said this before but the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't support violent means. In comparison with other Islamic leaders and groups they are not radical at all. It would be bad for them to have a large portion of control in the middle east yes, but that is not going to happen ever imo.

 

Tell that to the folks in Libya.......

Tell them what? Not seeing what you mean here.

 

In Libya, NATO was indeed involved, and the muslim brotherhood are the guys that are, for the most part, the ones in power..... not that anyone has really consolidated things there... still mostly warlords controlling their bit of territory.

 

Are we having fun yet?

 

And let's not forget Egypt, where the muslim brotherhood was VOTED into power.......

I don't think that the Muslim Brotherhood is much a threat, but I have no clue why I said that about NATO and Libya.

 

Somehow I completely lost it there. You are right about Libya and Egypt of course.

 

It is just that compared to other Islamic governments and groups in the middle east they don't seem so bad.

[ginnyfizz]

You doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat?

Then try reading this;-

 

Fear The Muslim Brotherhood

 

Of coursethey want you to believe that they are peaceful. A rose (or rather an Al Qaeda) by any other name....

[Aurielius]

You doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat?

Then try reading this;-

 

Fear The Muslim Brotherhood

 

Of coursethey want you to believe that they are peaceful. A rose (or rather an Al Qaeda) by any other name....

@Ginney

We have covered this ground with a certain unread 'Nameless'. You present evidence, he will say not good enough, you will present more convincing evidence he will say 'logical fallacy', you will get frustrated and post the most devastating proof you can find and will get a one liner in return. Why don't we just cut to the chase instead....he won't accept any evidence no matter how factual or convincing that you present and you will get frustrated banging your head against that wall. As far as the Muslim Brotherhood goes.... you see them as the threat they are and 'Nameless' does not.

 

That MIGHT save six or seven posts..or not. :confused:

[marharth]

You doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat?

Then try reading this;-

 

Fear The Muslim Brotherhood

 

Of coursethey want you to believe that they are peaceful. A rose (or rather an Al Qaeda) by any other name....

@Ginney

We have covered this ground with a certain unread 'Nameless'. You present evidence, he will say not good enough, you will present more convincing evidence he will say 'logical fallacy', you will get frustrated and post the most devastating proof you can find and will get a one liner in return. Why don't we just cut to the chase instead....he won't accept any evidence no matter how factual or convincing that you present and you will get frustrated banging your head against that wall. As far as the Muslim Brotherhood goes.... you see them as the threat they are and 'Nameless' does not.

 

That MIGHT save six or seven posts..or not. :confused:

If you are going to ignore me then ignore me.

 

@Ginny A conservative biased news article and a unsourced PDF file is not really valid evidence.

 

This is a essay from the council on foreign relations, which is non partisan and not a completely right wing biased news source.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62453/robert-s-leiken-and-steven-brooke/the-moderate-muslim-brotherhood

 

"The Brotherhood is a collection of national groups with differing outlooks, and the various factions disagree about how best to advance its mission. But all reject global jihad while embracing elections and other features of democracy."

 

Also how about a look at their official site. http://www.ikhwanweb.com/ Note that government intelligence agencies take down radical Islamist sites such as Al Qaedas site. I am sure the site is just a big conspiracy cover up though :whistling:

Edited February 29, 2012 by marharth