The uprising in Algiers in 2010, in Tunesia, and also in Lybia, and in Egypt in 2011 can be considered as genuine actions of people having enough of their leaders and their politics. These protests were very genuine in their spontaneity.

People of all classes - in the East and in the West - were eagerly watching how developments were going on hoping for the best. The West watched because history shows that every revolution has its atrocities and has many victims, thousands, and in several cases even millions of victims. Revolutions go hand in hand with each country's military actions, and often actions of foreign powers.

 

The Arab Spring seemed to bear a positive future. In most of these countries developments were going in a positive direction, though very fragile, and were also in certain cases not leading to fundamental change as one dictator was replaced by the next one.

The enthousiasm lingered on and there seemed to be a period of relative calm and each and every country was dealing with new developments. However there was an intervention by the West. It was in Libya, a country with high grade oil. So the West sought to get a firm foot in the door by attacking Libya and ousting Muammar Gaddafi. Lybia was attacked by a NATO led coalition.

However, after the youth of Egypt gathered on the Tahir square, there was a pause, a period of silence, of consolidation so it seemed.

Yet all of a sudden there was a group in Syria trying to get a revolution off the ground and ignite a war against the Bashar al-Assad regime. But this was not a group strictly made up of students, merchants, shop owners and intellectuals who wanted more freedom and a more modern state. No, many sensed immediately that a certain group of people was forcing this uproar in Syria and several were aware of the fact that it was not for freedom and progressiveness, for liberation and for creating a better society.

Right away, from the beginning, many Syrians were against this rebel movement and feared the worst.

 

In the early days of the uproar in Syria, there were pro Bashar al-Assad demonstrations in the centre of Damascus. People were interviewed and they were asked why they demonstrated in favor of al-Assad and against the revolution-fighters. One man said that in the past 10 years Bashar al-Assad had brought so much progress to Syria and its people and that they were living in relative freedom and prosperity.

Seemingly suppression was going on by the Assad regime. But who were suppressed? Not the people that believed in freedom and prosperity. In fact those who feel that they are suppressed want to use the democratic system as a lawful tool to establish an even stronger restrictive rule by founding a society based on the views of Islamists, of fundamentalists. The danger of democracy lies in the people who want to use it to abolish freedom, to destroy democracy.

 

Why were the demonstrators positive about the Syrian leader? As you can read in the Wikipedia entry about Syria, it is allowed in Syria to start a political party as long as it is not based on ethnicity (color, race), nor should it be based on a specific religion or a sect (shiite, sunni, alevi or christian faith), nor should it be financed by a foreign power (Saoudi-Arabia, Qatar, Iran, and many other countries).

But that is just what the opposition acused Assad of, not allowing them to have a movement financed from abroad, not allowing them to create a political strength on the basis of a specific religious belief (Islam) and its law (Sharia), which does not allow even a relative freedom for those who do think differently.

 

There is another important fact. There are about 2 million Christians living in Syria and during many years they have enjoyed complete freedom to read the bible and worship the God they believe in. Their churches are richly ornamented and do remind us of churches in Austria and Eastern Europe, in Southern Germany and the North of Italy, and many other countres in Europe. These Christians live a peaceful life because their religion tells them so. But since the uprising, they are no longer safe and have to fear for their existence, like the Copts in Egypt during the short reign of former president Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood before el-Sisi was elected president of Egypt. And then even now.

When the uprising in Syria started and many saw what was happening, Russia and China backed Assad and stated they were on his side. They sensed what could be the outcome of the Syrian uprising. It would be destruction, restricted freedom, condemning other religions.

 

However the United States of America and Europe could not say that they were on Assad's side. First of all because they do not want to be in the same camp of China and Russia. America - with the help of Britain and a few European countries - had destroyed Iraq under the pretense of bringing freedom for everyone. In fact they destabilized the region by eleminating a regime for which there was no successor, the regime of a dictator, Sadam Hussein. Now they could not support another ruler who is considered to be a dictator by many.

This fixed pattern of US foreign policy - and Europe easily going along with it - has brought about the existence of IS, the Islamic State (ISIL). So the US and Europe certainly would not counteract the Syrian uprising.

The question has been all along: "Should the West have chosen the side of Bashar al-Assad?" The answer is Yes! Western nations should have supported Assad to a certain degree and under strict conditions of course.

Was it wise for the West to demand that al-Assad should step down unequivocally? No! If there should have been a transition of power in Syria, than it should have been slow and calculated. We all know what happened in Iran when the Shah suddenly left and made place for the Iranian Revolution, and we all know what happened in Iraq.

But taking a firm stand against fundamentalists is not what the West wanted to do. If the US (and also Europe) had clearly seen what was going on in Syria and had acted accordingly, the country and the region would not be in such a mess. So, who do we have to thank for the emerging of the IS, Islamic State, the Califath? Not Russia, nor China, neither Syria itself, but the Western powers with their rusty doctrines.

10-09-2014

Next: 'Is Hillary Clinton the Sarah Palin of the Democrats?'

 

Added on September 15, 2016:

Gaddafi's Prophecy, 2011 - "Europe will turn black"

 

Added on December 18, 2016:

EVA BARTLETT destroys mainstream media lies. What's really going on in Syria.

GeorgeGreekTrucker YouTube account

 

Watch this video which was added on January 18, 2017

The liberation of Aleppo.