Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

The hot issue for months now has been the widespread killing of innocent muslims in Syria by both Government, and the rebels.

The contradiction that I see which I find disturbing is that some honorable people are cheering for U.S. to take part in, and actively get involved in Syria. Whereas, in all other places where U.S. is involved for the same reasons, it is condemned right, left and center.

How can it be consciously right to curse it on one hand, and cheer it on the other hand? Isn’t that hypocrisy? It would be more suitable for the Middle Eastern nations to resolve the issue, and for once show a unified approach to a regional problem instead of hoping to outsource it. When will muslims learn to be masters of their own destiny?

What Assad is doing is barbaric, what the rebels are doing is equally heinous. But what’s most treacherous is that no muslim nation has the will to formulate a plan, and use that military prowess they all possess to set up a Peace Force comprising of different muslim nations so no one nation gets singled out as being the “bad guy” for going into Syria.

It’s just very frustrating that we can, with a straight face, having a conscience, say that it is okay for U.S. to bomb Syria. But it is not okay when it’s Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, or other muslim nations. Moral integrity requires that you don’t become the people you despise whose motto is “Interests change”, or are we starting to adopt the same mindset when it suits our own motifs and needs? The point is not to ignore the issue, but rather to start asking Muslim Governments to take action.

Or perhaps I am deluded, and lack the information that is required to come to the same conclusion as others. So, please enlighten me. JazakAllah.

2

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Its okay to take US side because Assad is brutal and only US can bring peace in Syria or since Arab leaders have done nothing to resolve issue - those who want to see military strikes this is what their logic is. I mean you see same folks condemning drone strikes by US on Pakistan soil, but on the other hand want to see US bomb Syria. amazing!

I have said it earlier and will say it again, military action is not the solution, would only make things worse and will engulf the entire region in chaos. We should be looking at the repercussions of such attack before showing our support for military strikes.

3

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Even for argument sake, if we agree ( and I do!) that Assad's iron grip must be loosened. Outsourcing that and hoping that a few missles would be the solution, is NOT the solution. It will only act as a catalyst. Get rid of Assad, but do it using local resources, so the blame is not to be with the infamous character that always gets a bad rep for doing something good or bad.

I am actually for U.S. to let Regional countries sort this one out. One day we're badmouthing the U.S., the very next day we're asking it to do the very same thing elsewhere. That's not befitting a people who pride themselves on being muslim.

4

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Islam's clear directive is to to appoint the trustworthy Muslim leaders to bring the warring parties together and try to find a solution and, in case of non-agreement and/or non-compliance, if there is a need, use of force is ordained to bring the erring party/parties to compliance.

alas, we have no such unity among Muslims and also the lack of sense of justice among our leaders.

5

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

May I ask what country in Muslim world US is invading right now? (Don't confuse aerial bombing of Syria with invasion)

And yes, US does have an agenda behind supporting Syrian rebels which is to protect Israel from Russia and Iran. How does that harm interests of Syrian people?

6

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

There are so many reasons to oppose drone attacks. I don't see any reason to oppose military action against Assad.

Drone attacks are done with Pakistani army's permission and contribution without the approval of UN. Or perhaps PAkinstani army has requested US to drone the region....so go and protest against your own army and government before trying to blame US.

7

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

When was your last optometrist appointment?

Not long ago, the same regime was ‘allied’ with US and Saudi against Iraq. The same regime had killed many more Syrians under daddy Assad. The Arabs were basing in black gold glory then and were not concerned about it at all.

Also remember…

‘Building momentum for regime change’: Rumsfeld’s secret memos]('Building momentum for regime change': Rumsfeld's secret memos)

8

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Just the day after you were prescribed for ADD.

Point is, you and I, don't have a right to decide Syrian people's fate based on our own biases and prejudices!

9

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Let USA decide?

10

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

If the US jumps into this war they'd have their own motive, and they'd install a puppet government as a result. You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but every thing happening in the Middle East seems to be part of a script. The countries are falling like ninepin. I dont know what shape of the region including Pakistan would have at the end. All countries having stronger armies are being neutralized. Iraq gone, Libya gone, Egypt almost there and Syria? Which country would be next? Pakistan still has nuclear weapons, Balochistan issue is there and we dont know where FATA/KPK would go after the US forces withdrawal from Afghanistan (and the ensuing civil war).

11

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

It's usually possible to gauge the ethical value of an action by looking at who's advocating for it. Right now, as I see it (personally), half of the people wanting U.S. to take action in Syria are those who are genuinely concerned for the innocent civilians and want the internal killing to just stop. Then you have the bandwagoneers who are in it for the ride because their mindset is such that muslims can easily become collateral damage sometimes in the guise of all sorts of 'isms and 'ists. You would see them seething at the thought of anything Islam in public life, whether it's Governance, or laws in accordance with Quran/Sunnah.

So, when the balance tips, and those who consider U.S. to be their demi-god, the only one able to tackle problems, exceed the other genuine folks, it is time to abandon the call and call for peace through other means.

I may be very wrong, but that's just my perception as of right now. Don't let the bandwagoneers become the voice of struggle. They will hijack any genuine cause, and sour the result while they'll rejoice at others' blood being spilled just so they can fit in with their respective crowds, and pose to be the civilized ones.

A muslim should always strive for peace, and call for all warring parties to cease fighting. If it comes to using force, it should be from within, not through the assistance of those that general public curses 20 hours of the day for all the ills in their societies. This double-standard has got to stop.

U.S. should not be responsible for being the one with the stick everytime. It's wrong to say that U.S. is source of evil, and then turn around and get upset because U.S. isn't taking action. American tax payers work hard for their money, some barely making a decent living, and do not have the expenditure to fund anymore wars. There are domestic issues that require urgent attention like Economy, Housing, Jobs, and Industry.

Qatar, Kuwait and U.A.E are said to be hotspots for the most millionaire households, they along with other muslim countries should urge their leaders to put boots on the ground to ensure peace. This will strengthen muslim nations' resolve to handle matters internally, and it will also give their armies something constructive to do instead of crowd control, and quelling unrest which is a job best left to Police.

12

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

My first post on Syria and the ensuing conflict and to be honest it’s such a tough situation.

I hate Assad with a passion. BUT I also hate Al-Qaeda and other militant outfits.

:confused:

13

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Brother teggy...let me also add that we should never let "chronic USA haters" hijack any dicussion as well...this is equally important...these chronic USA haters will design gazallion conspiracy theories to fit their agenda. and yes we have a lot of them on this forum as well. For them USA wants to finish islam, finish muslim countries and strengthen israel...they are blindfolded with hatred...they forget that USA also fought against Korea, fought against Vietnam for 10 years, fought against half of europe in 2 world wars...were all these countries muslim countries? they forget that USA saved million of muslims in bosnia when the whole Europe gave buthcher milosovich license to kill muslims...

Time has come for muslims to start think rationally and make sane decisions on every Geo-political issue..let us not allow chronic US haters emotionalize every discussion that involve USA...USA is an imperial power and makes decision based on its national interest, which is perfectly fine. We need to have mature not emotional discussion on such issues.

14

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Jammia Al Azhar the largest Sunni education institute has come out condemning the intents of attacking Syria.

State Information Services Egypt’s Al-Azhar opposed to attack on Syria

15

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

teggy....sometime i really feel you are new muslim....if so welcome to our religion and to our internal politics!

brother which world do you live in? even the most chronic US haters will find it hard to support your suggetsion because it is not practical...

brother what muslim countries? what muslim army? what muslim boots?

you want Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Turks, Indonesians, Malaysians, Pakistanis, and any one else that has a functioning army should take the bull by the horns and set it straight?

and how would muslim army handle bashar? dont you think innocent will be killed? and what muslim army? egyptian army, which is busy killing its own people..

saudi army? which is supporting to take action against bashar?

pakistani army? it cannot handle talibans.....

turkish army? are you aware of turkish army history of last 80 years? it is so liberal plus turkish army wants to finish asad

iranian army? well it needs to fight saudi and turkish army first....

you see the problem with your solution

OIC is a comedy club...comedy club my friend ... ask any guppy here

you are the only one who is tryin to answer my question by giving an alternative solution which is totally unpractical...rest have no solution...this syria war has been going on for over 2 years...how will it end? if the world does not react to chemical weapons, do you really see an end to the violence? asaad will stop? thousand of kids have already died......and asad will keep on fighting...and you blame me for being OK for kids to be killed?

do you have any idea how twisted your approach is? you can sleep with that? you want "msulim army" to act? muslim army? whatever that means.....and till then you are OK with kids being killed? what is this logic.....there is already so much violence...someone needs to stop it and muslim countries cannot stop it..they are jokers.

16

azhar is not to be taken seriously on any issue. sellout to thr army.

17

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Well, I see people pointing at US hypocrisy for not getting involved, but even though that's a self defeating argument, it's not quite hoping that they want the US to get involved. If we look at the case of Libya, I think the clerical establishment was near unanimous that the issue should have been resolved internally, and not through a foreign bombing campaign. The same opinion is emerging on Syria, even though this time it's sectarian violence.

[quote]

What Assad is doing is barbaric, what the rebels are doing is equally heinous.

[/quote]

With all due respect, I think we can fault the rebels for their own crimes on their own merit. Nothing the rebels have done is equal to slaughtering 1000 civilians in a day. We can pretend like it's still ambiguous as to who launched the nerve gas attack, but that's just being a willing idiot. The Syrians have a stock pile. The Syrians have conducted mass slaughter in the past. It was a pro-rebel territory that was gassed. I mean let's get a grip here....Assad is a monster. The rebels are in the right to want to cut this tumor out of their nation. This conflict has been raging for over 2 years now, with the atrocities being mostly on Assad. There's nearly 2 million refugees. Guess what sect? So I do object to your use of "equal" there. It's not equal. Far from it.

[quote]

But what's most treacherous is that no muslim nation has the will to formulate a plan, and use that military prowess they all possess to set up a Peace Force comprising of different muslim nations so no one nation gets singled out as being the "bad guy" for going into Syria.

[/quote]

This is depressing, to be sure. The sad fact is, no Muslim nation has the ability to project it's military force a tad bit beyond it's borders. I may be wrong, and will like to be proven so...but even the Iran and Iraq which waged on for a decade was fought within the border region. Largely in part because neither nation had the logistical capability to carry the fight further than that. But that point is actually secondary. The first thing to realize is that the primary duty of the armed forces of any nation in the region is to subdue it's own population. When it comes to conventional fights, these nations need to rely on irregular forces. These are very weak and incapable armies. This is why the Syrian army needed Hezbollah to bail it out.

I do agree though, it's the height of hypocrisy for one to expect America to take action on Syria when their actions elsewhere have been condemned...

18

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

The lack of military action by Muslim countries is simply quite logical.

Syria has never denied having chemical weapons. In 2012 it stated that its chemicals weapons existed for the purpose of deterring external aggression (and it vowed to never use them against its own population, a vow that it broke).

But this means that Syria promised that any country that attacked it would be hit with chemical weapons (of which Syria has plenty). All of the militarily powerful Muslim countries are within easy reach of Syria's missiles and planes; any neighbouring Muslim country that allowed its territory to be used to host an invasion of Syria would find its armies and population under chemical attack.

The USA and Western European countries are the only ones that can do what the Muslim countries cannot - hit Syria, while remaining out of reach of Syrian retaliation.

If you demand that Muslim countries take action instead of the US, then you are demanding the deaths of hundred of thousands, if not millions, of Muslims from Syrian chemical attacks.

19

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Similar was argued with the onset of the first Persian Gulf War, but that did not deter Arab involvement in an invasion of Iraq. C. Powell infamously remarked that the use of nuclear weapons was not ruled out, the hint being none too subtle if chemical weapons were used. Hypothetically, if Pakistan was a part of such a coalition, the same threat could be applied. Though these are tactical nukes, and not city-busters, I do believe the result would be the same.

But the point is moot. As I've argued above, there's just no capability of these states to get involved with their conventional forces. The best Pakistan can do is send over a bunch of Taliban. Saudi is doing effectively the same thing. Turkey is perhaps the only nation capable of mounting a proper military offensive.

Further, Turkish, Saudi, other Gulf states...their interests are simply not the same. Without a cohesive political ideology that would allow such nations to look beyond myopic self interest, cooperation is not possible.

20

Re: Why the contraditions in dealing with Syria?

Okay. That's a fair point. I take that back. I admit I may lack full spectrum of information. I'm learning new facts everyday. Did you see how jubilus John McCain looked in the midst of what some described as alleged AlQaida member?! Crazy right? IIRC, Iraq and Afghanistan wars were all about AQ. Changing interests I suppose....

I'm asking for the minimal loss of life. If anyone is to take action, it should be Muslim countries, not outsiders. This time it's the excuse that only Europeans and American can do it because they're far away. Next time it'll be that, only American and Europeans can do it because they have the capability, and instructions on how to use weapons properly. Where does it stop? Not having a choice is one thing, but to invite is totally another. Right now it's about extending invitation to bomb Syria.

Point being, when will Muslim nations learn to sort out problems without the need for non-muslim countries interfering? Syria poses no risk to Europe or U.S., so it is illogical and hypocritical for others to ask U.S. to do anything about Syria. Even worse, when people turn around and curse them for being involved everywhere in the world.