Wikipedia tells the story, many people believe, as the CIA wants to tell it (CIA spends much time editing the official record--Wikipedia).
But ignoring their adjectives, looking at the story, I don't see exactly what I'd call a Civil Uprising.
For one thing, it begins with extremist Jihadi grafitti in Arabic saying "The people want the fall of the regime."
This is not the same as, for example, the people want higher minimum wage, or any other such universally positive notion.
It's a direct attack on the legitimacy of the state. A vague verbal attack anyway.
True, it doesn't pass the Brandeburg test in the USA (Imminent Lawless Action) so, the prosecution of such grafitti as more than the breaking of a civil ordinance against grafitti would represent "police state action." (However, this is a standard of Free Speech rarely met even in US history, until 1969 at least.)
Allegedly one boy died as a result of torture afterwards. That allegation was made by Qatar. Syria claimed Qatar was responsible for the unrest in the first place--a not unreasonable claim.
Syria describes the situation quite differently. It claims there was a call for Jihad, an armed fight ensued, and the boy tragically was caught in the crossfire. He was taken directly to hospital but had already died. This is not unreasonable either.
Given the events afterwards, looking back, it's reasonable to believe that the "Civil Uprising" did not start as civil as described in the West. Syria was almost certainly framed by partly violent Color Revolution tactics. The Syrian version of the story should be presumed the truer one, for the purposes of international relations.
And therefore Syria is the secular democratic state of Syria, and Bashir al Assad is a popular elected President. If considered a Police State, most countries in the world would also be, making the term meaningless.
Demonization should be applied more liberally to one's own government than that of others. That is the one a person is most directly responsible for.
We ought be the least critical of national "enemies," both because we are least responsible for them in a positive sense, most in a negative sense, and we should seek to end hostilities. We should be the most critical of our national "friends," both because we enable their badness and should seek to end our favoratism that makes others suffer in comparison.
Curiously enough, Syria looks like what a secular United Arabia might look like, perhaps in a world where Greater Powers had not chopped up Arabia into small countries for better manipulation, and then, promoted Islamic Fundamentalism to drive out secular socialism.
But ignoring their adjectives, looking at the story, I don't see exactly what I'd call a Civil Uprising.
For one thing, it begins with extremist Jihadi grafitti in Arabic saying "The people want the fall of the regime."
This is not the same as, for example, the people want higher minimum wage, or any other such universally positive notion.
It's a direct attack on the legitimacy of the state. A vague verbal attack anyway.
True, it doesn't pass the Brandeburg test in the USA (Imminent Lawless Action) so, the prosecution of such grafitti as more than the breaking of a civil ordinance against grafitti would represent "police state action." (However, this is a standard of Free Speech rarely met even in US history, until 1969 at least.)
Allegedly one boy died as a result of torture afterwards. That allegation was made by Qatar. Syria claimed Qatar was responsible for the unrest in the first place--a not unreasonable claim.
Syria describes the situation quite differently. It claims there was a call for Jihad, an armed fight ensued, and the boy tragically was caught in the crossfire. He was taken directly to hospital but had already died. This is not unreasonable either.
Given the events afterwards, looking back, it's reasonable to believe that the "Civil Uprising" did not start as civil as described in the West. Syria was almost certainly framed by partly violent Color Revolution tactics. The Syrian version of the story should be presumed the truer one, for the purposes of international relations.
And therefore Syria is the secular democratic state of Syria, and Bashir al Assad is a popular elected President. If considered a Police State, most countries in the world would also be, making the term meaningless.
Demonization should be applied more liberally to one's own government than that of others. That is the one a person is most directly responsible for.
We ought be the least critical of national "enemies," both because we are least responsible for them in a positive sense, most in a negative sense, and we should seek to end hostilities. We should be the most critical of our national "friends," both because we enable their badness and should seek to end our favoratism that makes others suffer in comparison.
Curiously enough, Syria looks like what a secular United Arabia might look like, perhaps in a world where Greater Powers had not chopped up Arabia into small countries for better manipulation, and then, promoted Islamic Fundamentalism to drive out secular socialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment