Syria - What should we do if anything?

[maturin]

On what facts do you base this statement? All I know is that there is Syria army fighting rebels. How is it religious and ethinc war?

Support for Assad breaks down on ethnic and religious lines in many cases. You could see it in to divided neighborhood of Holms.

Assad tells the Christian minority that the rebels will enforce Shariah law and that they are only safe under his rule. Works the same way with different sects. He says the same thing Mubarak said; that the country would fall apart without him. Unlike Mubarak, he's sowing seeds of division to prevent a unified movement against his dictatorship from forming. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Syria is probably too much of a basket-case for useful outside involvement.

[IceBreakr]

I wonder if Western media would also call a group of muslim citizens revolting in US a Free American Army or just plain & simple terrorists?

[Spooky Lynx]

I wonder if Western media would also call a group of muslim citizens revolting in US a Free American Army or just plain & simple terrorists?

IRA and ETA were not Muslims, but... You know the end.

[ProfTournesol]

IRA and ETA were not Muslims, but... You know the end.

But they were terrorist.

[Spooky Lynx]

But they were terrorist.

From the very beginning of their history?

[ProfTournesol]

From the very beginning of their history?

As terrorist as Chechen are.

[fleepee]

I didn't read all posts, but...
I hope I won't be misunderstood, I'm not really able to express clearly these kind of ideas in english...
Things are not that simple; from black to white, there are a lot of nuances of grey...

Terrorist are generally called so by occupying or illegitimate army forces...
It's not the only example, but french partisans were "brave freedom fighters" in WW2, except for german forces and the collaborationnist french government, who called them "terrorists", so...
Names depend on which side you're with.

Only actions can bu juged: there are of course blind useless terrorist actions, but I respect the bravery of under-armed civilians acting to defend their homeland against powerfull forces, and try to understand their actions: it's not nothing to decide to risk your life (and eventually those of your beloved and relatives because of repression) to regain freedom...
I despise actions against innocent civillians, no matter how terrorists, I should better call them criminals, justify them!

What would I have done in WW2 in occupied europe?
What would I have done if I was born in (north) vietnam in the 40-50's?
What would I have done if I was an algerian in the 50's?
What would I do if I was chechen, tibetan, etc...?

And you, what would you do?
Comfortabilly watch others dying for you or fight and risk to be tortured, to die for all the people to be free?

[Spooky Lynx]

As terrorist as Chechen are.

Chechens were separatists and hardcore nationalists at first. And only after 1996 they started to use terror methods such as massive hostage taking in hospitals and bombing the houses. Before the raid of Shamil 'Gynecologist' Basaev they weren't called terrorists even by those who hate them. Rebels, bandits, hitmans, boeviki, dukhi and whatever else but not terrorists.

[ProfTournesol]

Chechens were separatists and hardcore nationalists at first. And only after 1996 they started to use terror methods such as massive hostage taking in hospitals and bombing the houses. Before the raid of Shamil 'Gynecologist' Basaev they weren't called terrorists even by those who hate them. Rebels, bandits, hitmans, boeviki, dukhi and whatever else but not terrorists.

Then we agree. Those movements became terrorist ones after a while. And i fully agree with Fleepee.

[Dysta]

I didn't read all posts, but...
I hope I won't be misunderstood, I'm not really able to express clearly these kind of ideas in english...
Things are not that simple; from black to white, there are a lot of nuances of grey...

Terrorist are generally called so by occupying or illegitimate army forces...
It's not the only example, but french partisans were "brave freedom fighters" in WW2, except for german forces and the collaborationnist french government, who called them "terrorists", so...
Names depend on which side you're with.

Only actions can bu juged: there are of course blind useless terrorist actions, but I respect the bravery of under-armed civilians acting to defend their homeland against powerfull forces, and try to understand their actions: it's not nothing to decide to risk your life (and eventually those of your beloved and relatives because of repression) to regain freedom...
I despise actions against innocent civillians, no matter how terrorists, I should better call them criminals, justify them!

What would I have done in WW2 in occupied europe?
What would I have done if I was born in (north) vietnam in the 40-50's?
What would I have done if I was an algerian in the 50's?
What would I do if I was chechen, tibetan, etc...?

And you, what would you do?
Comfortabilly watch others dying for you or fight and risk to be tortured, to die for all the people to be free?

I don't think they're making any choice at all, because most of them didn't even have a choice.

What makes them no choice is their own will to keep against what they rejects for their own idealism. If it didn't ends, you could expect it will only a torment for humanity in both sides.