Do you support Bachar al-Assad (2)

I ask the question again to see if there is an evolution, since the last poll is almost one year old.

viewtopic.php?f=123&t=52711

I vote yes, once again.

OP-Bagration wrote:

I ask the question again to see if there is an evolution, since the last poll is almost one year old.

viewtopic.php?f=123&t=52711

I vote yes, once again.

I too voted yes. Apparently others have voted with wallets and given practical support:

Quote:

"Now Syria is also hit by EU and US sanctions with dreadful consequences for Syrians facing shortages of food, medicines, electricity, diesel and petrol. Sanctions are war by alternative means. But in solidarity with the Syrian people, Venezuela sends tankers of diesel and Iran sends medicines. The Northern Region of the TUC and London Unison have successfully donated diesel generators to Palestinian refugee camps in Homs and Dera’a. That’s one practical way to help the Syrian people."

http://www.workers.org.uk/features/feat ... deast.html

Yes I support Assad. Can't remember what I put last time. I think it might have been 'other' because I thought the Syrian rebels might have a chance of installing a genuine bourgeois democracy. But it seems the movement has become thoroughly dominated by Islamists so Assad is the better option. If the rebels do somehow look like they're going to install a secular bourgoies democracy then its back to them again, but I doubt this will happen.

About the war, now we have a clear view of the whole events:

1. The Ba'ath party is an Arab nationalist and "socialist" party. Both ideas, arab nationalism and arab "socialism" are progressive ideas. They are historically opposed to islamism, especially on the question of the separation of religion and politics. Salah Jadid's left wing was crushed, and there remained the right wing, but none of these ideas are dead. There remain many progressive policies such as state subsidies on consumption goods. Therefore, the Syrian governement is still an obstacle to western markets.

2. In the 2000's, the Ba'ath implemented many negative economic reforms, thus the socialist tendancy of the Ba'ath suffered a fallback. The Ba'ath concentrated most of its economic attention to the towns, and lose much of the support they had in the countryside. As a consequence, salafism developed rapidly in the sunni countryside.

3. The economic crisis, and the so-called "arab spring", caused the revolt of the countryside and urban peripheries (Homs and Deraa at first). The democratic left and democratic "national" opposition, mostly concentrated in Damascus, didn't had enough strenght to seriously threaten the rule of the Ba'ath as it was done in Tunisia. Thus the Salafi became the main force of the movement.

4. The first demonstrations were probably legitimate and peaceful. The government didn't repressed as much as Hafez did a few decades ago. But some "agents provocateurs" opened fire both on the protesters and government forces. Some disarmed policemen died. Then the revolt spred and imperialist propaganda blamed the Syrian government.

5. Some groups of armed men took control of the movement, at first saying that they were trying to defend the protesters against the "regime". Many of them were criminals who had nothing to lose anymore. The government was slow in implementing reforms, accelerating the shift towards civil war.

6. The rebellion obtained support from the Gulf monarchies and western countries (controlling the "foreign" opposition), France, Turkey, and the USA in particular. Nato countries established a base in Istanbul and created the FSA, trying to champion the less reactionary elements. But most of the money came from the very rich Saudi Arabia and Qatar and went directly to their islamist friends. There was no other solution since the islamists were the only organized force on the ground. It was the beginning of the end for French-backed Manar Tlass and his friends. The militarization also meant the end of the progressive forces in Syria.

7. In a few months, the government lost control of many regions, Homs, Idlib, Aleppo, and since it was forced to send troops to the frontline, the PYD (kurdish progressive party) took control peacefully of the kurdish regions in the north, thus covering a part of the border with Turkey.
The rebellion became more and more reactionary and undemocratic. The al-Nusra front declared its affiliation with al-Qaeda. The so-called "rebellion" became clearly an attempt of the salafists to overthrow a secular regime in the name of fanatism and capitalism. Fighters came from Tunisia, Chechnya, Libya, Egypt, and many other countries such as Belgium. They took control of rebel-held areas because of their better equipment and organization. Western propagand accentuated the religious aspect of the war, repeating continuously that this war opposed Sunni islam to Shiaa, and saying that the Syrian government represented the "minorities" against the Sunni "majority". Yet the majority of the population continued to back Assad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... propaganda

8. Russia, threatened by NATO's intervention and willing to defend its sole ally in the region sent weapons to Syria, including, a few days ago, the very efficient s-300 missiles. The USA sent troops on the Jordanian border to train the rebels. At the same moment, negociations started between imperialist countries, including Russia, to share the cake. The Syrian state might be willing to lift the subsidies on consumption goods and open the country to western and Gulf investments. Foreign companies are massed in Lebanon to have their share in the future reconstruction of the devasted country.

10. Terror and the amount of war crimes committed by the jihadists have clearly separated the population from the rebellion, who is said to have support from only 10% of the Syrian population. The important quantity of amateur videos on the internet, horrible war crimes such as the execution of a 15 yo teenager, a scene of cannibalism, the many beheadings and slaughtering of christian villages makes NATO's war more and more unpopular in the eyes of western populations. At the same time, a strong protest movement has started in Turkey, undermining Erdogan's intervention in Syria.

9. The powerfull Lebanese party, Hezbollah, also threatened by the aggression of many Syrian Lebanese villages on the border, and the aggression of its Syrian ally, sent a few men to help. Iran is said to have done the same. With the help of Hezbollah, the government took control of al Qusayr and started operation Northern Storm to free Aleppo. Imperialist countries answered with more propaganda about the use of sarin gas (although it'scertain that the rebels are is possession of such gases) and the delivery of more weapons.

10. The overthrow of Mursi in Egypt is a clear blow to the rebellion in Syria.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/af ... -1.1450612

Yes, I support Assad. Better to support him than to let Syria spew into chaos if the rebel groups gain victory. What do we really know about the rebels besides what the bourgeois media tells us? They are "freedom fighters", just as the mujahideen were fighting against the Soviets and we all know how that turned out. The West continually makes this mistake over and over again.

I support Assad against the reactionaries and imperialist funded islamists. The survival of the secular regime is top priority.

Also, is it true that a major reason for the West to support the islamists is because Syria apparently promised the rights to build a gas pipe going through Syria and Turkey to Iran? If so, that would mean it's logical for the West (and other reactionary Islamist states such as Saudi Arabia) to support the rebels. Does anyone have a source for this?

No I do not support Bashar Al-Assad. Why? Because he is known to arrest and sometimes kill members of the Syrian Communist Party. But of course you guys would support the "enemy of my enemy". But to clarify I do not support the rebels either, they are equally as bad as Assad.

No they are far worse. And I say this as a proud Muslim.

Also all real Syrian Communist Parties support Assad.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

No they are far worse. And I say this as a proud Muslim.

Also all real Syrian Communist Parties support Assad.

Both bomb schools, both bomb hospitals, both bomb civilian centers, and both execute people that don't follow them.

Those "real" Communist parties dont want to suffer the fate that the previous members have had.

Voted Yes in the last thread and still voted Yes in this thread.

I was curious to see what I said in the last thread and my post was pretty much quoting Loz and posting a link:

Loz in the Do you support Assad thread 1 wrote:

To me there's no question that the working class should be on the side of the Syrian government

We don't have many (any?) cruise missile socialists on this site so I won't argue that point. I will address Eire's point, which can be summed on by saying that the Syrian government and the rebels are not socialists working class movements. As socialists we should not be supporting either. We should be neutral. I'll post a Mao quote from on On Contradiction to demonstrate why this is an incorrect idea.

Mao in 1937 wrote:

For instance, in capitalist society the two forces in contradiction, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, form the principal contradiction. The other contradictions, such as those between the remnant feudal class and the bourgeoisie, [ect. ect.], are all determined or influenced by this principal contradiction.

In a semi-colonial country [...], the relationship between the principal contradiction and the non-principal contradictions presents a complicated picture.

When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes [...] can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all the contradictions among the various classes within the country (including what was the principal contradiction, [...] are temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position.

We side with the working class against the ruling class; however, in certain situations such as an imperialist intervention into a third world country, the primary contradiction is between the imperialist power and the oppressed nation. The class struggle between the working class and the ruling class becomes secondary during this time period. As socialists we side with the oppressed against the oppressor. In the case of Syria, the oppressor is US and Nato imperialism, their proxy states and their rebels. It is our duty as socialists to defend the Syrian state against imperialism as it tries to subjugate Syria.

@Eire, you might find this article worth reading: Syrian Communist explains responsibility to defend the homeland: Calls for resistance front against the imperialist attack

Quote:

We side with the working class against the ruling class; however, in certain situations such as an imperialist intervention into a third world country, the primary contradiction is between the imperialist power and the oppressed nation. The class struggle between the working class and the ruling class becomes secondary during this time period. As socialists we side with the oppressed against the oppressor. In the case of Syria, the oppressor is US and Nato imperialism, their proxy states and their rebels. It is our duty as socialists to defend the Syrian state against imperialism as it tries to subjugate Syria.

What a pathetic dichotomy

I'm changing my answer, I do support Bashar al-Assad. He seems like the only viable leader for Syria.

While that is certainly true it's important to note this a temporary status he has acquired. As long as he defends the Syrian people he'll keep ahold of this title. But more likely when stability is restored he'll fall back on bourgeoisie dictatorship entirely and will have to be removed by the workers.

There is no opposition between class struggle and the struggle against imperialism and reaction.
- Would the people trust a Communist party that was unable to oppose something as dangerous as takfiri islamism ? Probably not. Would it be easier to oppose Al-Qaeda's rule than Baath's goverment? It would be much harder. Would it be easier to make a revolution or at least progressive reforms if your goverment is connected to the most dangerous network of imperialist interests? Probably not. Would life be better in an Iraq-like country, divided between savage tribes while the soil is plundered by foreign companies or in a united Syrian state in which religion is separated from politics and the state, and with a few social principles such as state subsidies on consumption goods ? You see, that's quite simple actually.

Yes

Yes. I support Assad for several reasons.

1. In order to protect my co-religionists (I am a Christian) from mujahideen rebels.

2. In order to protect others from those same mujahideen rebels.

3. Because I suspect that Western corporations are probably backing the rebellion in the hopes that they will profit economically from the collapse of the Assad regime.

I support the heroic Syrian people and their steadfastness against imperialist aggression and their gang of mercenary soldiers.

The vast majority of the people rally behind the Syrian Arab Army and the President Bashar Al-Assad and they are united around one goal: to defeat the imperialist scheme of aggression and regime-change.

This as a prerequisite for any future advancement socially and economically for the Syrian working class and people; a prerequisite for reversing and ending the neoliberal policies introduced by the Baath, NPF and the government of Syria which are working against the interest of the people and are met by opposition of the two parties named "Communist" which forms part of the NPF.

The defeat of the imperialist scheme of aggression and war will open the gate for the organised, united, independent and antimperialist people of Syria and their organisations to instigate truly progressive changes towards Peoples Power and a real Socialist Revolution which can contribute to liberating the working class and people of Syria and other countries in the region and all over the world --and be the factor that can realise an independent Palestinian State of 1967 with Al-Quds as the capital; realise independence, peace and internationalist solidarity among the peoples of the world and be the starting point for the total liberation of proletariat and the oppressed exploited peoples of the world, for the whole mankind, building socialism-communism.

SYRIA WILL NOT KNEEL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKjsjEJDMUk

Aleppo is the only major city where the rebels have been able to control a sizable part of. Hezbollah and the Syrian military machine are now on the offensive to liberate the city and there is no doubt that they will eventually succeed. Still I wonder if it is at all possible to completely eradicate terrorist Islamism from these war torn Arab countries especially where there is a big presence of different sects. It has been ten years since the invasion of Iraq yet this month has been one of its bloodiest. I fear that only God may bring the Syrian people the same kind of peace and security they once knew that now seems like a long lost dream. These car bombs and constant terrorist attacks is a problem that will challenge even the most dedicated and intelligent of politicians. I personally see no stop to them for a very long time no matter the outcome of the Syrian war. Nevertheless even in the darkest hours the people must have faith, for it has always been in those bleakest moments that victories like the one at Stalingrad have been achieved and so the battle wages on. The only people who seem not to learn from past mistakes or past history are the FSA and their supporters. Where in all the Arab Spring has anything been achieved by supporting the opposition and their Islamist friends? This Arab spring has changed from something that could have been remembered as something great into the biggest blunder in Arab history. Still people are persistent in insisting that an Islamist revolution would achieve something different in Syria. FOOLS! I've noticed that a lot of Marxists argue that as communists we are to take a neutral stance on the Syrian conflict and not especially support the government. It is easy for people sitting behind computer screens to say that but the Syrian people on the ground do not have that privilege. Saying that you're neutral is saying that you don't care about what goes on in Syria. Proletarian revolution takes place when conditions are right and any person who thinks that it is a possibility within Syria does not understand the Syrian dilemma in all its aspects and complications. I also believe that any person who thinks a rebel victory is attainable is even a bigger fool. That is why I see no choice at the moment but to support Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian Army. FOR FREEDOM! FOR SECULARISM! FOR PEACE! HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

Another great post Yeqon, thanks.
Hurray for the Syrian Arab Army and all freedom-loving Syrians!

I think we all agree Yequon is a badass poster.

Also from what I understand Aleppo has been mostly liberated already. Homs is secure, city and province. The outskirts of Damascus seems to be a real problem still though as does most of the Turkish border.