Why Assad Must Go – Analysis

[Picaro]

I think the US, and it's allies must do whatever is necessary to form a coalition whose primary goal is to destroy ISIS. If that means some degree of accommodation so be it. The goals of various nations vary widely, for example:
The Saudis refuse to engage ISIS until, the other powers agree to remove Assad. Israel refuses to enter the fight until the US does something about their enemy Iran who is engaged in the fight against ISIS now. Although Iran is fighting ISIS, it is also a strong supporter of Assad who Turkey wants ousted because Syria Kurdish forces threaten their boarders. Now the Kurds want only to stop ISIS with little interest in what happens to Assad. Iraqi's main purpose is to link Iraqi Sunnis to ISIS by only using using Shiite fighters against ISIS. Their opposition to Assad goes only as far as required to placate the US. Syrian forces are deeply divided over their support for Assad. Those forces that support Assad are fighting ISIS but so are some of the forces that oppose Assad, who are being attacked by the Russians who support Assad but now are attacking ISIS.

To make this tangled mess into a coalition that's working together to destroy ISIS is going to take some real statesmanship and compromises.

It's not all that complicated really; just break up and/or weaken the Iranian allied coalition and things quieten down significantly. The rest fall into some sort of order after that is achieved, as they are little more than tribal and clan politics jockeying to be in favor with who-ever is winning at the moment. They can't really be considered to be as important as busting up Iran's meddling and destabilization strategy.

Putin's interests are his little naval base and destabilizing and baiting Turkey; whatever one feels towards Turkey there is no gain in allowing Putin any excuse to start bullying Turkey. Whatever issues the EU or the U.S. has with Turkey can be dealt with after the important problems are fairly well settled.

 

[montelatici]

I think the US, and it's allies must do whatever is necessary to form a coalition whose primary goal is to destroy ISIS. If that means some degree of accommodation so be it. The goals of various nations vary widely, for example:
The Saudis refuse to engage ISIS until, the other powers agree to remove Assad. Israel refuses to enter the fight until the US does something about their enemy Iran who is engaged in the fight against ISIS now. Although Iran is fighting ISIS, it is also a strong supporter of Assad who Turkey wants ousted because Syria Kurdish forces threaten their boarders. Now the Kurds want only to stop ISIS with little interest in what happens to Assad. Iraqi's main purpose is to link Iraqi Sunnis to ISIS by only using using Shiite fighters against ISIS. Their opposition to Assad goes only as far as required to placate the US. Syrian forces are deeply divided over their support for Assad. Those forces that support Assad are fighting ISIS but so are some of the forces that oppose Assad, who are being attacked by the Russians who support Assad but now are attacking ISIS.

To make this tangled mess into a coalition that's working together to destroy ISIS is going to take some real statesmanship and compromises.

It's not all that complicated really; just break up and/or weaken the Iranian allied coalition and things quieten down significantly. The rest fall into some sort of order after that is achieved, as they are little more than tribal and clan politics jockeying to be in favor with who-ever is winning at the moment. They can't really be considered to be as important as busting up Iran's meddling and destabilization strategy.

Putin's interests are his little naval base and destabilizing and baiting Turkey; whatever one feels towards Turkey there is no gain in allowing Putin any excuse to start bullying Turkey. Whatever issues the EU or the U.S. has with Turkey can be dealt with after the important problems are fairly well settled.

The Saudis are Wahabis and if they gain more control they will continue to fund Sunni terrorism in Europe and throughout the world. Anything that weakens the coalition that includes the Saudis will make the world safer. Turkey is becoming more and more Islamist by the day. Anything the Russians do to bully and weaken Turkey is a gain for Europe and the Kurds.

 

[irosie91]

I think the US, and it's allies must do whatever is necessary to form a coalition whose primary goal is to destroy ISIS. If that means some degree of accommodation so be it. The goals of various nations vary widely, for example:
The Saudis refuse to engage ISIS until, the other powers agree to remove Assad. Israel refuses to enter the fight until the US does something about their enemy Iran who is engaged in the fight against ISIS now. Although Iran is fighting ISIS, it is also a strong supporter of Assad who Turkey wants ousted because Syria Kurdish forces threaten their boarders. Now the Kurds want only to stop ISIS with little interest in what happens to Assad. Iraqi's main purpose is to link Iraqi Sunnis to ISIS by only using using Shiite fighters against ISIS. Their opposition to Assad goes only as far as required to placate the US. Syrian forces are deeply divided over their support for Assad. Those forces that support Assad are fighting ISIS but so are some of the forces that oppose Assad, who are being attacked by the Russians who support Assad but now are attacking ISIS.

To make this tangled mess into a coalition that's working together to destroy ISIS is going to take some real statesmanship and compromises.

It's not all that complicated really; just break up and/or weaken the Iranian allied coalition and things quieten down significantly. The rest fall into some sort of order after that is achieved, as they are little more than tribal and clan politics jockeying to be in favor with who-ever is winning at the moment. They can't really be considered to be as important as busting up Iran's meddling and destabilization strategy.

Putin's interests are his little naval base and destabilizing and baiting Turkey; whatever one feels towards Turkey there is no gain in allowing Putin any excuse to start bullying Turkey. Whatever issues the EU or the U.S. has with Turkey can be dealt with after the important problems are fairly well settled.

The Saudis are Wahabis and if they gain more control they will continue to fund Sunni terrorism in Europe and throughout the world. Anything that weakens the coalition that includes the Saudis will make the world safer. Turkey is becoming more and more Islamist by the day. Anything the Russians do to bully and weaken Turkey is a gain for Europe and the Kurds.[/QUOTE


our dear monte notes a GAIN for the kurds if our dear ally RUSSIA annoys ISLAMICIST Turkey. For some reason our dear monte has left out the FACT---
that Iran is busy committing genocide upon the KURDS in Iran. Monte seems to
HOPE that most people are not aware of the fact that there are kurds in Iran,
There are -----up in those hills-------but not for long----her friends ------the islamo shi-its are killng them

 

[irosie91]

I think the US, and it's allies must do whatever is necessary to form a coalition whose primary goal is to destroy ISIS. If that means some degree of accommodation so be it. The goals of various nations vary widely, for example:
The Saudis refuse to engage ISIS until, the other powers agree to remove Assad. Israel refuses to enter the fight until the US does something about their enemy Iran who is engaged in the fight against ISIS now. Although Iran is fighting ISIS, it is also a strong supporter of Assad who Turkey wants ousted because Syria Kurdish forces threaten their boarders. Now the Kurds want only to stop ISIS with little interest in what happens to Assad. Iraqi's main purpose is to link Iraqi Sunnis to ISIS by only using using Shiite fighters against ISIS. Their opposition to Assad goes only as far as required to placate the US. Syrian forces are deeply divided over their support for Assad. Those forces that support Assad are fighting ISIS but so are some of the forces that oppose Assad, who are being attacked by the Russians who support Assad but now are attacking ISIS.

To make this tangled mess into a coalition that's working together to destroy ISIS is going to take some real statesmanship and compromises.

It's not all that complicated really; just break up and/or weaken the Iranian allied coalition and things quieten down significantly. The rest fall into some sort of order after that is achieved, as they are little more than tribal and clan politics jockeying to be in favor with who-ever is winning at the moment. They can't really be considered to be as important as busting up Iran's meddling and destabilization strategy.

Putin's interests are his little naval base and destabilizing and baiting Turkey; whatever one feels towards Turkey there is no gain in allowing Putin any excuse to start bullying Turkey. Whatever issues the EU or the U.S. has with Turkey can be dealt with after the important problems are fairly well settled.

The Saudis are Wahabis and if they gain more control they will continue to fund Sunni terrorism in Europe and throughout the world. Anything that weakens the coalition that includes the Saudis will make the world safer. Turkey is becoming more and more Islamist by the day. Anything the Russians do to bully and weaken Turkey is a gain for Europe and the Kurds.

so true-----all 22 members of the arab league should be bombed out of existence

 

[irosie91]

Penelope supplies no information about jews killing other jews in Russia------she simply kinda desperately tries to claim that all of the BOLSHEVICS were jews----despite the fact that very very few jews were Bolsheviks-----just a few had a jewish grand parent. It is true that Stalin-----the eastern orthodox almost priest
(read that eastern orthodox sect of Catholicism ) did murder lots of jews------
based on the education of his youth in a "catholic" eastern orthodox seminary.
Eastern Orthodox slobs are just as antisemitc as are the disgusting French Canadian catholic bitches. (the French Canadian dogs ALSO murdered and
oppressed native americans in Canada)

Right from a Rabbi's mouth who wrote many books : and this site is his and he describes the history of the Jews, some of which is true, and you can bet the same thing will repeat itself.

When the Reds finally gained the upper hand they set about with a vengeance to make sure the surviving Jews were going to be Bolsheviks like them. To do so they established a bureau of the Communist Party devoted to Jewish affairs. This section became known as Yevsektsia (alternative spelling: Yevsektsiya — the acronym of the department name in Russian) and was run by Jews.

These Jewish communists were incredibly ruthless in stamping out any type of religious activity by fellow Jews. They killed rabbis, closed the yeshivos and synagogues, banned all religious practices, and enforced it by getting friends to turn in neighbors, children to turn in parents and send them to Siberia for observing the religion. It was the Yevsektsia more than anything else that destroyed the Jewish community in Russia.

At the same time, the Jewish socialists in Russia, especially those members of the Bund, came to a sad and appropriate end. The Yevsektsia said they did not need a second organization to help them in their “sacred” task and forced the Bund into the communist party. Then, to insure that it would not continue, they killed its leaders, thereby guaranteeing the subservience of the Jewish people to the Soviet regime.

Jewish Europe Between the Wars

Some "rabbi said so....' I am so impressed---in fact the "rabbi" provides no
sources for his declarations----It is clear that he despises jews who got involved
with communism---------nothing new

Hit the links, read and weep.

Weep about what? That Jews with a solid Jewish education who's lives are made miserable by non-Jews drop their religiosity and use their education and genius for all things anti-religion.
If there's any lesson to be learned by Jew-Haters, it's the lesson, "Leave the Jews to their Judaism and they won't destroy the world."
But Jew-Haters are too thick to absorb this lesson.

They killed the religious jews in Russia, you don't read links either do you. The head of the Israel regieme are secular and have been, communist Jewish atheist. They want world domination, and it looks like the commies are getting it. They are the killers in Russia, nothing new. Assad does not worship Zionist , he must go.

Penelope supplies no information about jews killing other jews in Russia------she simply kinda desperately tries to claim that all of the BOLSHEVICS were jews----despite the fact that very very few jews were Bolsheviks-----just a few had a jewish grand parent. It is true that Stalin-----the eastern orthodox almost priest
(read that eastern orthodox sect of Catholicism ) did murder lots of jews------
based on the education of his youth in a "catholic" eastern orthodox seminary.
Eastern Orthodox slobs are just as antisemitc as are the disgusting French Canadian catholic bitches. (the French Canadian dogs ALSO murdered and
oppressed native americans in Canada)

Right from a Rabbi's mouth who wrote many books : and this site is his and he describes the history of the Jews, some of which is true, and you can bet the same thing will repeat itself.

When the Reds finally gained the upper hand they set about with a vengeance to make sure the surviving Jews were going to be Bolsheviks like them. To do so they established a bureau of the Communist Party devoted to Jewish affairs. This section became known as Yevsektsia (alternative spelling: Yevsektsiya — the acronym of the department name in Russian) and was run by Jews.

These Jewish communists were incredibly ruthless in stamping out any type of religious activity by fellow Jews. They killed rabbis, closed the yeshivos and synagogues, banned all religious practices, and enforced it by getting friends to turn in neighbors, children to turn in parents and send them to Siberia for observing the religion. It was the Yevsektsia more than anything else that destroyed the Jewish community in Russia.

At the same time, the Jewish socialists in Russia, especially those members of the Bund, came to a sad and appropriate end. The Yevsektsia said they did not need a second organization to help them in their “sacred” task and forced the Bund into the communist party. Then, to insure that it would not continue, they killed its leaders, thereby guaranteeing the subservience of the Jewish people to the Soviet regime.

Jewish Europe Between the Wars

Some "rabbi said so....' I am so impressed---in fact the "rabbi" provides no
sources for his declarations----It is clear that he despises jews who got involved
with communism---------nothing new

Hit the links, read and weep.

Weep about what? That Jews with a solid Jewish education who's lives are made miserable by non-Jews drop their religiosity and use their education and genius for all things anti-religion.
If there's any lesson to be learned by Jew-Haters, it's the lesson, "Leave the Jews to their Judaism and they won't destroy the world."
But Jew-Haters are too thick to absorb this lesson.

They killed the religious jews in Russia, you don't read links either do you. The head of the Israel regieme are secular and have been, communist Jewish atheist. They want world domination, and it looks like the commies are getting it. They are the killers in Russia, nothing new. Assad does not worship Zionist , he must go.

who is "they"? for that matter-----who is berel wein? how do you know what
this or that person wants? Did some jewish politicians tell you------or did some
stone saint whisper in your ear. Why have DA JOOOOOS not yet killed Assad----
"AFRAID"?? like they were supposedly AFRAID to kill jesus so they had to
force poor unwilling SAINT PONTIUS PILATE TO DO THE DIRTY DEED?

 

[Picaro]

The Saudis are Wahabis and if they gain more control they will continue to fund Sunni terrorism in Europe and throughout the world.

Have anything most people don't know already? They have an interest in weakening Iran as do most other countries in the region, even other Shi'a tribes.

Anything that weakens the coalition that includes the Saudis will make the world safer.

Weakening Turkey doesn't do a thing towards that. Neither does wetting our pants over some leader of a failed state like Putin's bloviating.

Turkey is becoming more and more Islamist by the day.

Lol it's always been an Islamist state. Were you under the delusion it wasn't? Maybe read the history of Turkey and how Kemal 'secularized' Turkey, and see if there is any reason for people to have thought otherwise.

[ Anything the Russians do to bully and weaken Turkey is a gain for Europe and the Kurds.

Wrong. Whatever weakens Putin and Russia weakens Turkey's leverage all across the board. With a weak Russia, nobody cares about Turkey and its sniveling and extortions. They won't have any 'middle' with which to play both sides off on one another like they have for over 500 years now.

 

[Flopper]

I think the US, and it's allies must do whatever is necessary to form a coalition whose primary goal is to destroy ISIS. If that means some degree of accommodation so be it. The goals of various nations vary widely, for example:
The Saudis refuse to engage ISIS until, the other powers agree to remove Assad. Israel refuses to enter the fight until the US does something about their enemy Iran who is engaged in the fight against ISIS now. Although Iran is fighting ISIS, it is also a strong supporter of Assad who Turkey wants ousted because Syria Kurdish forces threaten their boarders. Now the Kurds want only to stop ISIS with little interest in what happens to Assad. Iraqi's main purpose is to link Iraqi Sunnis to ISIS by only using using Shiite fighters against ISIS. Their opposition to Assad goes only as far as required to placate the US. Syrian forces are deeply divided over their support for Assad. Those forces that support Assad are fighting ISIS but so are some of the forces that oppose Assad, who are being attacked by the Russians who support Assad but now are attacking ISIS.

To make this tangled mess into a coalition that's working together to destroy ISIS is going to take some real statesmanship and compromises.

It's not all that complicated really; just break up and/or weaken the Iranian allied coalition and things quieten down significantly. The rest fall into some sort of order after that is achieved, as they are little more than tribal and clan politics jockeying to be in favor with who-ever is winning at the moment. They can't really be considered to be as important as busting up Iran's meddling and destabilization strategy.

Putin's interests are his little naval base and destabilizing and baiting Turkey; whatever one feels towards Turkey there is no gain in allowing Putin any excuse to start bullying Turkey. Whatever issues the EU or the U.S. has with Turkey can be dealt with after the important problems are fairly well settled.

If we want to actually defeat ISIS, we're going to have to get more boots on the ground, hopefully they will be from the Middle East and not from the US.

Putin wants to make Russia a major player in region.

 

[aris2chat]

The Saudis are Wahabis and if they gain more control they will continue to fund Sunni terrorism in Europe and throughout the world.

Have anything most people don't know already? They have an interest in weakening Iran as do most other countries in the region, even other Shi'a tribes.

Anything that weakens the coalition that includes the Saudis will make the world safer.

Weakening Turkey doesn't do a thing towards that. Neither does wetting our pants over some leader of a failed state like Putin's bloviating.

Turkey is becoming more and more Islamist by the day.

Lol it's always been an Islamist state. Were you under the delusion it wasn't? Maybe read the history of Turkey and how Kemal 'secularized' Turkey, and see if there is any reason for people to have thought otherwise.

[ Anything the Russians do to bully and weaken Turkey is a gain for Europe and the Kurds.

Wrong. Whatever weakens Putin and Russia weakens Turkey's leverage all across the board. With a weak Russia, nobody cares about Turkey and its sniveling and extortions. They won't have any 'middle' with which to play both sides off on one another like they have for over 500 years now.

seems most people are not happy under an iranian theocracy, a taliban sharia or an ISIS caliphate. Why are so many young people who don't understand Islam seeing these are some type of ideal?

There is no utopia but we can make the present better by working at helping others.

Hate and violence or forcing others to submit is defiantly not the answer.

 

[montelatici]

But they are so happy with a Saudi theocracy. There are churches in Iran, no churches in Saudi Arabia.

 

[ChrisL]

Assad is bad, but the people who want to take over have the potential of being even worse . . . obviously. We should not be involved in any of these ME wars because we aren't familiar with the actors or their roles. It's a dangerous game.

 

[Sally]

It's this guy's opinion. He's not Syrian. So....

Any enemy of the US's "must go", isn't that just what people say?

So anyone who is not Syrian should not have an opinion? Tell you what. Since obviously you are not Middle Eastern, how about you stop giving us your opinion on this forun. .

No, I didn't say that at all.

What I said was the guy isn't Syrian. Assad is in charge of (parts of) Syria and mostly countries like to choose their own leaders.

What would the US say to Syria saying it would prefer it if Robert Mugabe were in power in the US? You'd say, well, Assad isn't American so he doesn't get to decide.
He can have his opinion, fine, but deciding he shouldn't be able to do.

For one thing, we really don't know what goes on with regard to voting in the Middle East. Don't forget that Syria is mainly Sunni. Many of these people writing articles have studied these matters much more than you or I; and regardless of what you and others think about their opinions,l they have a right to express them without people going so ballistics about what was written.

I really doubt it Sally, and I'm not bias. I have nothing to gain. He can express his Zionist views, but that is his job, to spread Iran and Islam phobia. Its not my job. He gets paid for what he writes.

The best joke of the year -- The Skinhead says she is not biased. Since you appear to spend your life on forums dissing Israel and the Jews, how much are you being paid?

 

[Sally]

But they are so happy with a Saudi theocracy. There are churches in Iran, no churches in Saudi Arabia.

So Iran has churches. Big deal. Can you tell us how Iran treats the Baha'is and the other minorities? While you are at it, can you tell us why Iranians of all religions (including Muslims) fled the country when the crazy Ayatollahs came into power. Some went across the mountains so it shows you how desperate they were to get away. Surely you must have Iranians in your town the same as I have in mine so you can get the skinny directly from them.

 

[Sally]

So anyone who is not Syrian should not have an opinion? Tell you what. Since obviously you are not Middle Eastern, how about you stop giving us your opinion on this forun. .

No, I didn't say that at all.

What I said was the guy isn't Syrian. Assad is in charge of (parts of) Syria and mostly countries like to choose their own leaders.

What would the US say to Syria saying it would prefer it if Robert Mugabe were in power in the US? You'd say, well, Assad isn't American so he doesn't get to decide.
He can have his opinion, fine, but deciding he shouldn't be able to do.

For one thing, we really don't know what goes on with regard to voting in the Middle East. Don't forget that Syria is mainly Sunni. Many of these people writing articles have studied these matters much more than you or I; and regardless of what you and others think about their opinions,l they have a right to express them without people going so ballistics about what was written.

You said in your OP that you wanted people to no go ballistic. I haven't gone ballistic. What I've said is that people can have opinions, however it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter.

What they write may be informative, it may present a picture, probably a picture from the US interests side of thing, which is important as a source, but at the same time you have to know what you're actually reading.

The question here is "Must Assad go?" Must in itself implies there really isn't any other choice. But for an American, there shouldn't be such language, as they shouldn't play a part in the choice in the first place.

It's clearly about US interests and NOT about Syrian interests.

Many of the people writing articles which appear on other sites have delved into the subject for long periods of time, and they come up with what in their opinion they think is right. I have no problem if someone from one country (let's say Russua( writes about another country such as Brazil and says a leader must go. I realize that this is their opinion, the same way I might not like an editorial in my local newspaper but realize it is someone's opinion.. As you can see, many here seem to have a problem with what is basically someone's opinion even though this is just a forum that is not going to light any fires in this world.

By the way, is anyone who is so opposed to this man's opinion going to comment on it in the "comment" section below the article. There are times when I have read an article there and made some comments so why aren't those whining about it here go to the site and give their point of view?

I also don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion.

However, again, you can express your opinion, but you can't put your toe in the pie.

Often the problem is when people are talking about regime change, is that they're essentially trying to tell the govt to intervene. For me opinion would be things like: this is what Assad has done in the past, this is why he's not a good leader. Talking about why Assad has to go, well, he doesn't have to go, he could stay until he dies when he's 100 years old, it may not be what I want or what others want, but I'm not from Syria. I don't have a say in the matter.

Who is Samuel Helfont? What are his reasons for posting something which is extremely provocative? He seems to have written a lot

Jewish Review of Books

Here in the Jewish Review, is he Jewish and wanting the US to literally wipe out all of Israel's enemies?

"
About the Author
Samuel Helfont is a doctoral student at Princeton University, and the author of Yusuf al-Qaradawi: Islam and Modernity (Moshe Dayan Center)."

So he's a student, or was in 2011. With opinions that could perhaps be better expressed.

"About the author:
* Samuel Helfont is a Fox Fellow in FPRI’s Program on the Middle East, and holds a post-doctoral lectureship in the University of Pennsylvania’s interdisciplinary International Relations Program. In May 2015, he completed a PhD in Princeton University’s Near Eastern Studies Department, where he wrote his dissertation on Saddam Hussein’s use of religion to entrench his authoritarian regime, based on captured Ba’th Party and Iraqi state records. Helfont is the author of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi: Islam and Modernity (The Moshe Dayan Center/Tel Aviv University Press, 2009) and the FPRI monograph, The Sunni Divide: Understanding Politics and Terrorism in the Arab Middle East. He has written widely in publications such as The Middle East Journal, Orbis, The New Republic, The American Interest, and The Jewish Review of Book, among others and is proficient at various levels in Hebrew, Arabic, and Turkish."

Let me tell you something, Once in a while I will go to this site to read the articles. I happened to go the day I posted that article. This site in the main is very anti-Semitic (check out Eurasion Review for a couple of weeks to see what I mean), and there is usually one article and some times up to three to five which are derogatory toward Israel. Occasionally they will have one on the order as that I posted, but with regard to different countries. Does it really matter what religion the person is who wrote that article, especially since there have been plenty of articles against Assad written by people of other religions? If an Arab had written that article, would you have called him a secret Jew, even though there are Arabs who are not crazy about Assad. I have no problem with people voicing their opinions in their articles. If a person in Poland wanted to say that Huge Chavez had to go, that to me is just his opinion. However, I am curious. Have you ever made any comments on any of these forums when there are articles about the Prime Minister of Israel and that he has to go?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I didn't say that at all.

What I said was the guy isn't Syrian. Assad is in charge of (parts of) Syria and mostly countries like to choose their own leaders.

What would the US say to Syria saying it would prefer it if Robert Mugabe were in power in the US? You'd say, well, Assad isn't American so he doesn't get to decide.
He can have his opinion, fine, but deciding he shouldn't be able to do.

For one thing, we really don't know what goes on with regard to voting in the Middle East. Don't forget that Syria is mainly Sunni. Many of these people writing articles have studied these matters much more than you or I; and regardless of what you and others think about their opinions,l they have a right to express them without people going so ballistics about what was written.

You said in your OP that you wanted people to no go ballistic. I haven't gone ballistic. What I've said is that people can have opinions, however it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter.

What they write may be informative, it may present a picture, probably a picture from the US interests side of thing, which is important as a source, but at the same time you have to know what you're actually reading.

The question here is "Must Assad go?" Must in itself implies there really isn't any other choice. But for an American, there shouldn't be such language, as they shouldn't play a part in the choice in the first place.

It's clearly about US interests and NOT about Syrian interests.

Many of the people writing articles which appear on other sites have delved into the subject for long periods of time, and they come up with what in their opinion they think is right. I have no problem if someone from one country (let's say Russua( writes about another country such as Brazil and says a leader must go. I realize that this is their opinion, the same way I might not like an editorial in my local newspaper but realize it is someone's opinion.. As you can see, many here seem to have a problem with what is basically someone's opinion even though this is just a forum that is not going to light any fires in this world.

By the way, is anyone who is so opposed to this man's opinion going to comment on it in the "comment" section below the article. There are times when I have read an article there and made some comments so why aren't those whining about it here go to the site and give their point of view?

I also don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion.

However, again, you can express your opinion, but you can't put your toe in the pie.

Often the problem is when people are talking about regime change, is that they're essentially trying to tell the govt to intervene. For me opinion would be things like: this is what Assad has done in the past, this is why he's not a good leader. Talking about why Assad has to go, well, he doesn't have to go, he could stay until he dies when he's 100 years old, it may not be what I want or what others want, but I'm not from Syria. I don't have a say in the matter.

Who is Samuel Helfont? What are his reasons for posting something which is extremely provocative? He seems to have written a lot

Jewish Review of Books

Here in the Jewish Review, is he Jewish and wanting the US to literally wipe out all of Israel's enemies?

"
About the Author
Samuel Helfont is a doctoral student at Princeton University, and the author of Yusuf al-Qaradawi: Islam and Modernity (Moshe Dayan Center)."

So he's a student, or was in 2011. With opinions that could perhaps be better expressed.

"About the author:
* Samuel Helfont is a Fox Fellow in FPRI’s Program on the Middle East, and holds a post-doctoral lectureship in the University of Pennsylvania’s interdisciplinary International Relations Program. In May 2015, he completed a PhD in Princeton University’s Near Eastern Studies Department, where he wrote his dissertation on Saddam Hussein’s use of religion to entrench his authoritarian regime, based on captured Ba’th Party and Iraqi state records. Helfont is the author of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi: Islam and Modernity (The Moshe Dayan Center/Tel Aviv University Press, 2009) and the FPRI monograph, The Sunni Divide: Understanding Politics and Terrorism in the Arab Middle East. He has written widely in publications such as The Middle East Journal, Orbis, The New Republic, The American Interest, and The Jewish Review of Book, among others and is proficient at various levels in Hebrew, Arabic, and Turkish."

Let me tell you something, Once in a while I will go to this site to read the articles. I happened to go the day I posted that article. This site in the main is very anti-Semitic (check out Eurasion Review for a couple of weeks to see what I mean), and there is usually one article and some times up to three to five which are derogatory toward Israel. Occasionally they will have one on the order as that I posted, but with regard to different countries. Does it really matter what religion the person is who wrote that article, especially since there have been plenty of articles against Assad written by people of other religions? If an Arab had written that article, would you have called him a secret Jew, even though there are Arabs who are not crazy about Assad. I have no problem with people voicing their opinions in their articles. If a person in Poland wanted to say that Huge Chavez had to go, that to me is just his opinion. However, I am curious. Have you ever made any comments on any of these forums when there are articles about the Prime Minister of Israel and that he has to go?

You posted an article, you asked that people didn't go ballistic, and now you're going ballistic because people have views on the article.

Does the religion of the person have anything to do with it? Yes.

If you have an article, you must ask yourself questions. Who wrote it? Why did they write it? When did they write it?

Why do you ask these questions? To understand the context. If Hitler wrote an article on Jewish people, you'd read it differently than if A Jewish person wrote an article on Jewish people, for obvious reasons.

Most Jewish people are pro-Israel. That's an important thing to know when reading an article about Muslim countries in the Middle East. Do the Israelis like Assad? No they don't. Do the Israelis want Assad to go? Yes they do.

Oh, look, context. Reading articles without one's head up one's butt.

If a Polish person said that Hugo Chavez had to go, then yes, it'd be different than if an American wrote this article, depending on WHY the Polish person wanted to write the article. Poland isn't going to invade Venezuela, it doesn't have influence in the region (well except my Polish friend who lives in Columbia), it doesn't have history in the region. It isn't seen as a threatening article.

CONTEXT means a lot.

 

[skye]

I don't agree with what the OP posted at all

nothing new there LOL

if not Assad who then????

who???

more Arab Spring garbage?????

no way

Assad stays.....We are with Putin in this... not ISIS ,,,like Silly Sally is.

 

[Sally]

For one thing, we really don't know what goes on with regard to voting in the Middle East. Don't forget that Syria is mainly Sunni. Many of these people writing articles have studied these matters much more than you or I; and regardless of what you and others think about their opinions,l they have a right to express them without people going so ballistics about what was written.

You said in your OP that you wanted people to no go ballistic. I haven't gone ballistic. What I've said is that people can have opinions, however it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter.

What they write may be informative, it may present a picture, probably a picture from the US interests side of thing, which is important as a source, but at the same time you have to know what you're actually reading.

The question here is "Must Assad go?" Must in itself implies there really isn't any other choice. But for an American, there shouldn't be such language, as they shouldn't play a part in the choice in the first place.

It's clearly about US interests and NOT about Syrian interests.

Many of the people writing articles which appear on other sites have delved into the subject for long periods of time, and they come up with what in their opinion they think is right. I have no problem if someone from one country (let's say Russua( writes about another country such as Brazil and says a leader must go. I realize that this is their opinion, the same way I might not like an editorial in my local newspaper but realize it is someone's opinion.. As you can see, many here seem to have a problem with what is basically someone's opinion even though this is just a forum that is not going to light any fires in this world.

By the way, is anyone who is so opposed to this man's opinion going to comment on it in the "comment" section below the article. There are times when I have read an article there and made some comments so why aren't those whining about it here go to the site and give their point of view?

I also don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion.

However, again, you can express your opinion, but you can't put your toe in the pie.

Often the problem is when people are talking about regime change, is that they're essentially trying to tell the govt to intervene. For me opinion would be things like: this is what Assad has done in the past, this is why he's not a good leader. Talking about why Assad has to go, well, he doesn't have to go, he could stay until he dies when he's 100 years old, it may not be what I want or what others want, but I'm not from Syria. I don't have a say in the matter.

Who is Samuel Helfont? What are his reasons for posting something which is extremely provocative? He seems to have written a lot

Jewish Review of Books

Here in the Jewish Review, is he Jewish and wanting the US to literally wipe out all of Israel's enemies?

"
About the Author
Samuel Helfont is a doctoral student at Princeton University, and the author of Yusuf al-Qaradawi: Islam and Modernity (Moshe Dayan Center)."

So he's a student, or was in 2011. With opinions that could perhaps be better expressed.

"About the author:
* Samuel Helfont is a Fox Fellow in FPRI’s Program on the Middle East, and holds a post-doctoral lectureship in the University of Pennsylvania’s interdisciplinary International Relations Program. In May 2015, he completed a PhD in Princeton University’s Near Eastern Studies Department, where he wrote his dissertation on Saddam Hussein’s use of religion to entrench his authoritarian regime, based on captured Ba’th Party and Iraqi state records. Helfont is the author of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi: Islam and Modernity (The Moshe Dayan Center/Tel Aviv University Press, 2009) and the FPRI monograph, The Sunni Divide: Understanding Politics and Terrorism in the Arab Middle East. He has written widely in publications such as The Middle East Journal, Orbis, The New Republic, The American Interest, and The Jewish Review of Book, among others and is proficient at various levels in Hebrew, Arabic, and Turkish."

Let me tell you something, Once in a while I will go to this site to read the articles. I happened to go the day I posted that article. This site in the main is very anti-Semitic (check out Eurasion Review for a couple of weeks to see what I mean), and there is usually one article and some times up to three to five which are derogatory toward Israel. Occasionally they will have one on the order as that I posted, but with regard to different countries. Does it really matter what religion the person is who wrote that article, especially since there have been plenty of articles against Assad written by people of other religions? If an Arab had written that article, would you have called him a secret Jew, even though there are Arabs who are not crazy about Assad. I have no problem with people voicing their opinions in their articles. If a person in Poland wanted to say that Huge Chavez had to go, that to me is just his opinion. However, I am curious. Have you ever made any comments on any of these forums when there are articles about the Prime Minister of Israel and that he has to go?

You posted an article, you asked that people didn't go ballistic, and now you're going ballistic because people have views on the article.

Does the religion of the person have anything to do with it? Yes.

If you have an article, you must ask yourself questions. Who wrote it? Why did they write it? When did they write it?

Why do you ask these questions? To understand the context. If Hitler wrote an article on Jewish people, you'd read it differently than if A Jewish person wrote an article on Jewish people, for obvious reasons.

Most Jewish people are pro-Israel. That's an important thing to know when reading an article about Muslim countries in the Middle East. Do the Israelis like Assad? No they don't. Do the Israelis want Assad to go? Yes they do.

Oh, look, context. Reading articles without one's head up one's butt.

If a Polish person said that Hugo Chavez had to go, then yes, it'd be different than if an American wrote this article, depending on WHY the Polish person wanted to write the article. Poland isn't going to invade Venezuela, it doesn't have influence in the region (well except my Polish friend who lives in Columbia), it doesn't have history in the region. It isn't seen as a threatening article.

CONTEXT means a lot.

Oh goodie, you must have been waiting for me. Now here is another article you can pick apart. Maybe you can find the religion of this writer. It might be a little difficult, but I know you can do it.

 

[Sally]

I don't agree with what the OP posted at all

nothing new there LOL

if not Assad who then????

who???

more Arab Spring garbage?????

no way



Assad stays.....We are with Putin in this... not ISIS ,,,like Silly Sally is.

Did you have your therapy session today? Meanwhile, in all of Syria, once ISIS has been gotten rid of, are you trying to tell us that there is not one person around who is capable of running a country. The Syrians are not stupid people, so there are probably several around who can do the job. However, I get you. You like to see brutal tyrants hanging around.

 

[skye]

Assad stays.

Period

Then people can choose another one similar to him ...........

no problem there ...go Russia

 

[Flopper]

Assad is bad, but the people who want to take over have the potential of being even worse . . . obviously. We should not be involved in any of these ME wars because we aren't familiar with the actors or their roles. It's a dangerous game.

The main reason for getting rid of Assad, is all attention can be directed at ISIS. There are dozens of rebel groups fighting the regime of President Assad, some of whom have also fought each other. ISIS is fighting all Rebel groups except for a few rebel group allies. With Assad out of the picture, most rebel groups will turn their full attention to ISIS. Turkey and Saudi Arabia will join in with Iraq forces and the Kurds. Iran would take their que from Russia.

 

[Sally]

Assad stays.

Period

Then people can choose another one similar to him ...........

no problem there ...go Russia

Well let's hope his successor doesn't have people tortured horribly in prisons.