Assad's cousin: West is right to back Syrian opposition, but it is backing the wrong one

[tabatha]

The 36 year-old cousin of Syria's president Bashar Assad, son of the former vice-president and security chief, attempts, to clear the family's name.

"Only two members of the Assad family are in the regime," he insists. "The rest of the 99 percent of them are sitting at home without jobs" and he tells how the stooges of his cousin the president have persecuted his father, siblings and assorted cousins. He never calls the government in Damascus – the Assad regime. "It is a corrupt regime, a regime of killers, the worst dictatorship, but don't call them the Assad regime, or the Baathist or Allawite regime. There are two million members in the Ba'ath party, most of them are members because that is the only way they can get a job, not because they are killers."

He also believes that the only solution to the current situation within Syria has to be peaceful. "International intervention means a tug of war between Iran on one side and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the other side. Iran will do everything in its power to support the regime and will use the Quds Force and Hezbollah and their militias in Iraq, they will never let the regime fall? They know that if the regime goes they are finished. The superpowers, Russia and China are already preparing to make Syria their proxy-playground.

The Saudis are financing the Islamist elements because they don't want to see a democracy emerge in Syria. Military intervention will be a disaster and hundreds of thousands will be killed."

He believes that the only solution is for the western countries to back the democratic opposition groups and insist on negotiations with the regime. He insists that if free elections are held in Syria, the Islamists will not take control as in Egypt and Tunisia. "Democracy is possible in Syria because 45 or fifty percent of the country are classified minorities. The Curds are twenty percent and the Alawis and Christians are each 17 or 18 percent. And the rest who are Sunni are not mainly Islamists either."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/assad-s-cousin-west-is-right-to-back-syrian-opposition-but-it-is-backing-the-wrong-one-1.421582

[leveymg]

1. I agree with most of that. But, as usual, foreign intervention just leads to annihilation of the

legitimate internal opposition, a horrible civil war, and the imposition of another dictatorship which will probably be worse that one it replaced. And, yes, it destroys the country in the process and opens it to further, long-term foreign exploitation.

That's the primary reason I've opposed this regime change effort in Syria from the start, and why you should too.

[tabatha]

2. I have NEVER supported foreign intervention. Ever.

And as for telling me who/what to support - which country do you think you are in.

Very authoritarian. I wonder why.

[leveymg]

3. Oh, please. You've been the primary cheerleader for just that for months now.

You repost all sorts of unfiltered propaganda for the Saudi-backed opposition on this board, and some valuable information. That's why I'm glad you're here, but wish you exercised better judgment in what you put up.

I'm not acting as the conduit for anyone's authoritarian propaganda. I'm just expressing my own opinion of what you put up. Sometimes the stuff you repost here is very wrong, and I've often called you on it. Sometimes my criticism is even proven right. That's the right I continue to exercise as an American, even if that right has largely become an illusion - I'll continue to exercise it as long as I can, despite efforts to hide my comments. I have never done the same to you.

[tabatha]

4. I have been a cheerleader for the opposition.

That is NOT the same as supporting foreign intervention.

On another blog where I spend most of my time, I have posted at least 10 posts that state that foreign intervention is impossible and a bad idea.

You have made a false charge. No wonder you have a problem.

Most of the stuff I post here comes from a variety of sources - I did not write it. I am just the messenger. In a democracy one has to listen to all sides, because the truth is found somewhere in between - you know, "there are two sides to a story".

The whole world knows enough to know that the Syrian regime is barbaric.

There are people watching from all sides outside, from within and from above.

And the authoritarian remark was about your telling me who to support. I would never tell anyone who to support. That is up to them to decide.

[leveymg]

5. The opposition since last March has been primarily from the outside. It's the Syrians who have died

And it's the fault of those from the outside who misled them to believe that the cavalry was right over the hill. It never was going to descend that slope. I never once saw you criticize the Jihadists who flocked in to fight the latest of 1,000 holy wars - it's not a false charge. You trumpeted their every pronouncement and meeting, like the 109 Muslim Brotherhood Imans who declared fatwa earlier this year.

Being the messenger is being the author when you convey the message uncritically. They are all barbarians, the regime and the foreign Jihadi. The people watching from above are snipers, and both sides seem to employ them. By messaging without criticism, you are suggesting what people should think, and you allowed others to tell you what to say. That was not something that I did.

You need to reconsider what you have done here. In that, I have been trying to help you. Do with that support what you want.

[tabatha]

6. Please provide facts for the following claims:

"The opposition since last March has been primarily from the outside. It's the Syrians who have died"

"And it's the fault of those from the outside who misled them to believe that the cavalry was right over the hill."

From all I have read - and I read daily, both of those statements are not only false, but preposterous.

I would like to read more than one source to support those claims. Please provide them.

[joshcryer]

7. That's nonsense. tabatha has repeatedly claimed that she wouldn't back a unilateral invasion.

And anyone with common sense knows that any Syrian intervention would need be unilateral outside of the confines of the UN.

[tabatha]

8. Yep, and these two claims are contradictory

"The opposition since last March has been primarily from the outside. It's the Syrians who have died"

"And it's the fault of those from the outside who misled them to believe that the cavalry was right over the hill."

I wonder if he ever understood.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. It should be read with Ribal's own position in mind

MPs are wrong to welcome the son of a hated Syrian

To Ribal, as he told Channel 4 News, Rifaat is a democrat and has been calling for democracy since the 1970s. Perhaps nobody heard him over the sound of tank fire. As a "democrat" he played a very curious role as head of the ruthless internal security services. Human Rights Watch reported that he was responsible for the massacre of more than 1,000 prisoners in the notorious Tadmur jail in 1980.

But the city with which Rifaat will always be associated is Hama. In February 1982, Hama was besieged and shelled for 27 days, following an uprising in the city. Estimates of numbers killed vary from 10,000 to 40,000. The year before, in another massacre, 350 men and boys were simply rounded up and shot.
...
Back in the UK, not only should there be questions in parliament about why Rifaat is allowed into Britain, but Syrians want to know why British parliamentarians see fit to choose his son and chief apologist, Ribal, to address them. The timing, whilst Hama is under attack, is especially galling. As someone tweeted to me, "How would the west feel if the son of Bin Laden was invited to address the Arab League", especially if he was an apologist for his father? Syrians on the streets of Hama, Homs and London are rightly disgusted at news of the invite.

The office of the MP hosting the event, Andrew Rosindell, told me that Ribal does not share his father's politics. Yet Ribal and Rifaat's entourage are about the only living souls claiming his father is innocent. BBC researchers could not find anyone who believed Rifaat was not responsible for the Hama massacre and when asked on BBC Hardtalk if his father had ever condemned the massacre, Ribal merely quoted his father's claim that he had never been to Hama and had nothing to do with the city.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/07/rifaat-assad-syria-parliament

Exiles with desires to recapture family power and wealth should always be examined closely, and not just taken at face value. From 2000:

Since his failed bid for power in 1983, Mr Assad has lived a luxurious life between France and southern Spain, funded by a business empire which until recently still thrived in Syria.

However, in October 1999, there were reports of clashes at a port facility near the Mediterranean town of Latakia which the authorities said the president's brother was using for illegal commerce.

Part of Rifaat's fortune has been poured into a flagging satellite TV channel, Arabic News Network, which is run by his son Sumar.
...
An exception occurred during the October 1999, when ANN reported that tanks backed by air and navy forces attacked a complex owned by Rifaat, killing hundreds of people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/788021.stm