Syrian civil war foes meet for first time, focus on aid

Comments (10)
kenradke11 wrote:

Yes I fully agree that the Government must make an immediate and unfettered transition WITHOUT Assad the Terrorist Governor! How can one stay in office that divided his own country. A house divided cannot stand!

Jan 25, 2014 6:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
UrDrighten wrote:

@kenradke11

It’s interesting that you quoted Abraham Lincoln in reference to Bashar Assad.

Lincoln was responsible for the Civil War. It was his choice, not the Confederacy’s. He racked up terrible numbers of casualties, now estimated at over 750,000 military deaths and an unknown number of civilians.

Lincoln stayed in office and fought for what he thought was right. He had the “mandate of the people”.

Bashar Assad, who has the mandate of his people, has created fewer casualties than Lincoln did and is also fighting for what he thinks is right.

Perhaps Israel would prefer to turn Syria into a Saudi puppet state, but the Syrians disagree. That is why Assad needs to stay in office until he frees the Syrian people from the grips of Saudi-US Big Oil terrorists.

Jan 25, 2014 9:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dron wrote:

The USA stood and survived as a House Divided in the Civil War. Of course the Union troops had to genocide a big portion of the Confederate civilians.
As for Syria, the government has already agreed to give major concessions for the sake of ending the war and suffering, while the rebels keep demanding the whole country for Al-Qaeda control. If the rebels want that then they will have to take it, which they keep failing at for 3 years. In any case, in order to make such demands you have to have something to bargain with. What do the rebels have? Absolutely nothing now since the Americans backed down from going in to rescue those terrorist shmucks. The rebels are in retreat and losing territory, while in the rear they fight among themselves. The only realistic concession they can hope for now is to be spared the death penalty if they surrender now.

Jan 25, 2014 9:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dron wrote:

Being spared the death penalty is the most the rebels can ask from Assad now if they surrender now. What other hope do they have now? The Americans are not coming to help them anymore, and they keep losing ground. So a negotiated surrender of rebels is the only thing that can be discussed in these peace talks.

Jan 25, 2014 9:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
Tiu wrote:

It looks like an election in June would be a very good proposition to promote. If you really need to get involved.

Jan 25, 2014 9:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
JMDlive wrote:

Nothing is going to stop this Bashar al-Assad.
Read your history and revaluate the facts: This is not political, this as nothing to do with economics; this is religious and only death will stop him!
JMD

Jan 25, 2014 10:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

@UrDrighten

Your knowledge of history is extremely poor at best. The South declared war on the north because Lincoln was elected not from anything Lincoln did. Also the casualties really started to increase when Lee took over the southern command.

Your revisionist history is pathetic. Read a real book.

Jan 25, 2014 11:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
Fromkin wrote:

The truth about the three years of conflict and the US behavior and insistence that it create a transitional governing body(or “provisional authority” as in the case of Irak) and take power away from Bashar el Assad is imbeded in the words of the syrian information minister below:

“We have complete reservations regarding it,” Information Minister Omran Zoabi said, comparing the proposal to the transitional government set up in Iraq by U.S. occupation forces after they toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.

“Syria is a state with institutions,” he added. “A transitional governing body … happens where the state is in disintegration, or has no institutions.” End of quote.

The Syrian state is still strong. The government is still providing basic services and salaries for workers. The army is defending the country against foreign aggression by super powers and reginal powers. There is no need for a transitional body which is a euphemism for regime change.

The US needs to be honest and logical with itself. If it wants to install what it called in Irak “PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY” in Syria, it’s going to go to war with Syria, topple its governing institutions and occupy it for years. Using militants, ISIL, Al Qaida, Al Nusra,Jihadists from Saud Arabia, Chechen, etc…won’t cut it. Hiding behind Turkey, Qatar, Saud Arabia and useless conferences won’t cut it either.

As it stands now the US has been check mated at its own regime change game.

Jan 25, 2014 11:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dron wrote:

@BioStudies, actually wrong, the Southern Confederacy never declared war on the USA. All the south did is declare its decision of leaving the Union and forming a new independent state CSA. In response Lincoln refused to recognize the CSA and declared war with the intention of forcing it to drop its separatism. Also numerous atrocities were committed against Southerners for years after the war ended. The South never asked for anything other than just independence and to be left alone. Of course the modern US history will never tell the truth about the Civil War, and instead it spreads lies such as that the war was fought only to end slavery, which is a big lie.

Jan 25, 2014 11:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
f00 wrote:

Some good revisionist history being posted here. “Revisionism,” literally meaning “re-viewing” in the light of honest evidence, is sorely needed nowadays.

The Confederacy had every right to leave a freely constituted union of states, contrary to courtier historians.

Assad is in the right, contrary to semitically correct (and owned) courtier media.

Jan 25, 2014 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.