I was subjected to a liberal rant about Assad gassing Syrian people, and it sounded like some BS (Just smells like propaganda), but the Internet is a fuck these days and I’m unable to find any informtion I trust, or develop the tools to debunk wikihasbara.
Did it happen?
total bullshit.
I don’t know either way but can anyone comment on whether or not he must go?
I don’t think this can be answered on here. There’s too much propaganda and psyops, and quite simply, I doubt anyone on here is from Syria!
I do not like authoritarianism, so that’s a no from me dawg, but if Assad’s rule is that big a threat to the Empire of America then maybe? But that’s about as deep an analysis as any non-expert forum (i.e. lemmy) can give you imo.
EDIT: some research - like the ideology of the coup, dislike hereditary regimes. It’s really not an easy one to balance out imo
What does authoritarianism mean in the Syrian context?
Syria won its independence from the Ottoman Empire, and then again from the French. They abandoned the monarchy that was put in place there, and Gulf State monarchies, with American assistance, have been trying to get footholds in the country with their proxies. These proxies are heavily fundamentalist, theocratic, and unfriendly to minorities, so it’s not surprising when they have a continuity with groups like Daesh.
“Suppresses dissent” is not a good definition, we see that in most countries. “Conducts mass surveillance of citizens” is not a good definition, we see that in almost all countries. “Dynastic” is also a poor definition for the same reasons, as is “sham elections/democracy”.
What we have is a remnant of the pan-Arab nationalist, social-democratic pole of the broader Arab conflict in the Cold War. It’s been revised and watered down, and it picks up a lot of neoliberal policies, but it remains the best guarantor of a pluralistic and independent society in Syrian nationwide politics (not counting the regional entity that is in a permanent truce with the federal government).
“It’s impossible to know one way or the other” is a weak stance. Recognize the dynamics of power in war and media, and decide which story you think is more compelling: the one that lines right up with the CIA and State Department, or some alternative to that.
To engage seriously, any ““serious”” opposition party or parties in Syria are going to be much worse (see: Mujahideen vs Socialist Afghanistan, the Shah vs Iranian nationalists, the Nicaraguan Contras vs Sandinistas, etc etc) and much like in the past, the more parties more friendly to the US are going to get boosted in the media and the sitting parties will get a magnifying glass to their misdeeds to the point of atrocities being outright fabricated. Assad is anti ISIS but also not exactly friendly towards the west, which is why the west pushes for his demise. Same as with Muamar Gaddafi. The current state of Libya speaks volumes. An authoritarian nation with guaranteed housing, healthcare and food vs a free one that has open slave markets in the capital? Gadaffi wasn’t a saint, no, but you can’t argue that the average Libyan is better off now than before he was ousted.
To the point that ISIS terror attacks against Syrian civilian populations being attributed to the Assad government?
Not even the US has any basis for thinking that he did:
https://apnews.com/united-states-government-bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5
