BREAKING NEWS Syria Updates: The Fall of Bashar al-Assad
- Thread starter Webb
- Start date
Watch from minute 48:19
Look at Scott Ritter, downplaying the suffering and pain the syrian people have endured under Assad, all while saying in a mocking voice, "they just need their rights." I listen to Scott on certain topics, but his biases are hard to miss, especially when it comes to Syria or Russia.
I don't support HTS or their ideology, especially since they were once aligned with AQ. But there are many Syrian rebels who are simply tired of oppression, watching their family members get killed, tortured, or raped by the regime. To say that everyone fighting is just a bunch of terrorists working with Israel and the U.S. to further their own interests is misleading.
The situation is much more complicated than that. Simplifying the conflict in this way is axmaqnimo. If Assad is truly the preferred option compared to all the groups fighting now, why are we seeing so many Syrians celebrating as they return to their homes and cities, reuniting with family members they haven't seen in years? Why are we also seeing minorities turn on Assad and join the revolution? Why are so many defecting in numbers never seen before?
For those who say, "Look, Syria will be worse off," the question is: would you really have accepted that for yourself if you were in their situation, watching your family members get erased, tortured, or imprisoned for no reason? The answer is no. To some people, politics is like religion. What happened to saying no to oppression? Why are your political views so much more important than your moral values?
What I've learned is that in politics, religion often takes a backseat, and religious values are set aside. If you try to discuss politics while holding onto your religious beliefs, you'll often be labeled an extremist for mentioning the basics of the deen. You can see how angrily Scott reacted in defense of Assad
he's simply loyal to his political ideologies, much like people are loyal to their religion. Many people listen to him and take his word as the truth impressionable people who can't form their own opinions and instead adopt the views of those with more experience in the field, but who also have their own biases.
Look at Scott Ritter, downplaying the suffering and pain the syrian people have endured under Assad, all while saying in a mocking voice, "they just need their rights." I listen to Scott on certain topics, but his biases are hard to miss, especially when it comes to Syria or Russia.
I don't support HTS or their ideology, especially since they were once aligned with AQ. But there are many Syrian rebels who are simply tired of oppression, watching their family members get killed, tortured, or raped by the regime. To say that everyone fighting is just a bunch of terrorists working with Israel and the U.S. to further their own interests is misleading.
The situation is much more complicated than that. Simplifying the conflict in this way is axmaqnimo. If Assad is truly the preferred option compared to all the groups fighting now, why are we seeing so many Syrians celebrating as they return to their homes and cities, reuniting with family members they haven't seen in years? Why are we also seeing minorities turn on Assad and join the revolution? Why are so many defecting in numbers never seen before?
For those who say, "Look, Syria will be worse off," the question is: would you really have accepted that for yourself if you were in their situation, watching your family members get erased, tortured, or imprisoned for no reason? The answer is no. To some people, politics is like religion. What happened to saying no to oppression? Why are your political views so much more important than your moral values?
What I've learned is that in politics, religion often takes a backseat, and religious values are set aside. If you try to discuss politics while holding onto your religious beliefs, you'll often be labeled an extremist for mentioning the basics of the deen. You can see how angrily Scott reacted in defense of Assad
he's simply loyal to his political ideologies, much like people are loyal to their religion. Many people listen to him and take his word as the truth impressionable people who can't form their own opinions and instead adopt the views of those with more experience in the field, but who also have their own biases.
Assadists are no longer posting morale-boosting fake news propaganda; they've finally accepted that it is over.
Garaad Awal
Former African
Turkish dogs…
Galool
VIP
With so many propagandists and paid journalists rushing to chime in about the revolution in Syria, they lead people into complex interpretations of the events that ultimately serve only the normalizing Arab regimes, Iran, and Israel.
First and foremost, the Syrians do not deny coordinating with the Turks when their interests align.
About a month ago, the U.S. decided to arm the Kurds, which brought this alignment closer. The Americans made a massive mistake when they did this.
At that time, Erdogan was trying to convince Bashar to resolve the issues between them. Meanwhile, Bashar believed that the Gulf countries would support him against Turkey and attempted to leverage his relations with them as a counterbalance.
Therefore, he used the Kurds as a bargaining chip in exchange for concessions regarding the Syrians under the Turkish sphere of influence.
Erdogan stated a month ago that a war was being prepared against Turkey, and he was not lying.
The factions in Idlib had been preparing for an offensive for over a year. This is why I vaguely hinted numerous times at such an offensive back in May, June, and July.
The interests of the Syrians and the Turks aligned during a very specific timeframe: the transition period of the U.S. presidency.
The Turks wanted the Syrians to launch their operation three months ago, around the time the split between the regime and Turkey occurred. However, the rebels rejected this.
They refused to launch an offensive until Hezbollah was weakened in Lebanon. They also wanted to gauge how willing Iran was to support Bashar—a stress test to reveal the maximum potential support Iran could offer, if any at all.
The goal for the Syrians was to expose the entire Axis of Resistance militarily, make the situation clearer in the media, and prevent any accusations of collaboration with the Americans.
This delay greatly annoyed Turkey.
However, as soon as Hezbollah signed a one-sided ceasefire agreement and it became clear Iran was not willing to engage, the Syrians moved forward.
The Syrian factions informed the Turks of their plans and began executing a plan that they had been preparing for over a year.
The Americans, on the ground, lack the tools needed to intervene to stop these advances. Their presence in the region is designed for maintaining interests and balances, not for waging wars.
The Americans targeted militias to prevent the conflict zone from expanding and possibly threatening their most treasured political asset: the political process in Iraq.
The U.S. accuses the Idlib factions of terrorism, and its attempt to negotiate a political settlement with Bashar is not an indication of support for the rebels. On the contrary, it is an attempt to sideline the rebels and create a new political reality to prevent them from achieving a comprehensive victory by toppling Bashar's regime—something Israel considers a threat to its security.
Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine, and its current forces in Syria are not militarily capable of providing any real support for Bashar. Russia cannot conduct effective combat operations at the needed pace in Syria.
The Gulf states are also currently not funding operations to kill Syrians, as they understand such efforts would ultimately be futile at the moment.
If Russia truly believed Bashar's regime could be saved, Gulf money would flow into Russia, as it did in 2015–2016.
However, the rebels' strategy has made this impossible. They rely on speed, accurate intelligence, and their total infiltration of Bashar's fragile regime.
This is a regime that cannot even maintain a single defensive front line to fight from, which is why it constantly withdraws to Syria's coastal areas and Damascus. It has no other choice.
Claims that the Syrian factions' military plan is somehow approved by the U.S. reflect a defeatist mindset—one that refuses to believe the people of the Middle East are capable of competence without Western backing.
Such individuals struggle to understand that the conflicts and events in the Middle East create contradictions that can be exploited into golden opportunities by those who are well-prepared.
The victory of the Syrian factions proves there are people in Syria who are politically savvy and possess real strategic patience. They refuse to buy into the delusions peddled by Iran or the defeatist Gulf media.
They have built strong power that they unleashed at the right time, exposing the weakness of all regional powers while imposing a new reality.
The Syrians exploited contradictions created by the martyr Yahya Sinwar.
Simply put, the Americans seek to safeguard their interests and will not join a conflict on behalf of any party. This is particularly true under Trump, who, in most of his interventions, prefers to play chess with Arab regimes rather than engage in direct conflict— before eventually taking credit for all the achievements.
The U.S. and it's allies in the region refuse to acknowledge that the current state of affairs is neither in their favor nor under their control.
These states pretend to be powerful and omniscient, but they are merely buying time and attempting indirect political influence to prevent a major collapse and escalating hostilities in the region.
For this reason, they have instructed the Iraqi government to remain silent for the time being.
This will remain the reality until the inauguration.
Even if they wish to alter it, they lack the means to do so.
The only tools left are Gulf funds, Iranian and Kurdish militias. These could be deployed under the pretext of counterterrorism, which would be justified after any significant incidents. Which they then would blame the rebels for.
But this is not easy in Syria, where the conditions change every hour in favor of the rebels.
According to those inside Syrian goverment and Bashar's inner circle, he refuses all dealings with Turkey and especially Erdoğan for no other reason than the fact he is upset with Erdoğan. If u knew they use to be good friends, hell their families use to go on vacation together to turkish beachside resorts and they enjoyed many private dinners together and amicable state visits. However after Erdoğan ended up going all in with the rebels and terrorists Bashar was reportedly highly upset and felt betrayed on a personal level. Imagine the only reason HTS aka Rebranded Al Nusra Front successfully takes over Syria is because Bashar couldn't pull up his big boy pants and put his feelings aside to negotiate.
I dont get how people can still support Bashar and not feel sorry for the suffering the Syrian people have suffered under the Alwaites and Iran. They even have the audacity to call us who are happy for the Syrian people, terrorists or Al shabaab sympathisers...
The reality is that for 53 years Syrians were ruled by the minority alwaites, they were oppressed by Bashaar and his father.
The Syrian people are finally getting justice, and yet instead of feeling happy for an oppressed people fighting for their own freedom in their own homeland we should instead support Iran and Bashar because Iran will eventually defeat Israel?
Whatever happens in Syria let it happen, either a strong Islamic state will emerge from it that will be a threat to Israel or Israel will get what they want and Syria will be a fragmented balkanized state divided along sectarian lines.
وَقَدْ مَكَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ فَلِلَّهِ ٱلْمَكْرُ جَمِيعًۭا ۖ يَعْلَمُ مَا تَكْسِبُ كُلُّ نَفْسٍۢ ۗ وَسَيَعْلَمُ ٱلْكُفَّـٰرُ لِمَنْ عُقْبَى ٱلدَّارِ ٤٢
And verily, those before them did devise plots, but all planning is Allah's. He knows what every person earns, and the disbelievers will know who gets the good end (final destination).
The reality is that for 53 years Syrians were ruled by the minority alwaites, they were oppressed by Bashaar and his father.
The Syrian people are finally getting justice, and yet instead of feeling happy for an oppressed people fighting for their own freedom in their own homeland we should instead support Iran and Bashar because Iran will eventually defeat Israel?
Whatever happens in Syria let it happen, either a strong Islamic state will emerge from it that will be a threat to Israel or Israel will get what they want and Syria will be a fragmented balkanized state divided along sectarian lines.
وَقَدْ مَكَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ فَلِلَّهِ ٱلْمَكْرُ جَمِيعًۭا ۖ يَعْلَمُ مَا تَكْسِبُ كُلُّ نَفْسٍۢ ۗ وَسَيَعْلَمُ ٱلْكُفَّـٰرُ لِمَنْ عُقْبَى ٱلدَّارِ ٤٢
And verily, those before them did devise plots, but all planning is Allah's. He knows what every person earns, and the disbelievers will know who gets the good end (final destination).
Villainous power flex
The rebels in Syria are on the outskirts of Damascus, preparing a major move to overthrow Assad. Russia, due to heavy losses in Ukraine, cannot stop this. Both the Russians and Assad may be expelled from Syria — which might actually be the best thing for them. Russia has never gained anything from its presence in Syria. Syria is a mess, but it’s not our ally. The U.S. should not get involved at all in what’s happening there. This is not our war. Let events unfold. Don’t interfere.
