If any country, including the U.S., had armed terrorists embedded in neighborhoods, and holding civilians hostage for years, and targeting unarmed civilians constantly, it too would be using its own military and security forces to fight the terrorists in order to liberate the captive civilians.
by Steven Sahiounie
Juliette Harkin, Associate Lecturer on Politics and International Relations at Anglia Ruskin University, wrote an article dated May 1, 2018, titled: “‘Assadism’ is destroying Syria – here’s where it came from.”
Political scientists from around the world have written on the subject of the Syrian conflict, which began in March 2011 and is ongoing. In order to understand the subject well, it is necessary to visit Syria, speak to the people, and not depend on mainstream media to supply you with the media-mantra chanted over and over again.
There is a vast difference between reading a news article, and actually being in Damascus, Aleppo and Homs during this period of conflict. As a Syrian-American, my years of living in Syria have given me a front-row seat to the tragedy, and allow me to see to the core of the conflict.
Ruskin’s article is based on the premise that President Bashar al-Assad is the core problem, and Syria would be better off without him. However, he is not the core problem.
The beginning of the conflict was not about the president ordering a brutal military crackdown on peaceful protesters. The fact that dozens of Syrian security forces were killed in Deraa on the very first night of ‘protests’ reveals the fact the protesters were armed and willing to kill to advance their political aims. It was an armed uprising from the first moment, and it was not grass-roots in composition: it was the Libyan mercenaries in the employ of the CIA who were in Deraa prior to the beginning of the ‘revolt,’ as they stockpiled weapons in the Omri Mosque. Libyan mercenaries, armed with weapons brought over the border at the Jordan-Deraa crossing, can never be considered ‘grass-roots.’