Syria's President Bashar Al Assad: IS DEAD

[Nictoshek]

9/11/1965 - 8/6/2012

From:
V. Kolokoltsev ‏@miniinterrussia

RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT CONFIRMS: BASHAR AL ASSAD, PRESIDENT OF SYRIA, HAS BEEN KILLED TODAY IN LATAKYJA WITH HIS WIFE AND TWO PEOPLE.

twitter.com/MiniInterRussia

[RabiaMuweis]

There is also news that some hackers have published such a rumor !!

[Jaga]

This would be really a good news, but lets wait.

[pieter]

I agree with you Jaga. There is no official source or serious media platform which confirms this news.

I really think that Assad is in a safe place and that he is surrounded bu loyalists, his Allawite innercircle and Baath party militants and followers. It's like in the final days of Ghadaffi and Hitler, it takes some time for dictators to fall. Especially when they have had power for so long and built their powerbase in decades. The Assad family has more than 40 years or rule.

[Nictoshek]

Overview

When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad came to power upon his father's death in 2000, many in- and outside Syria held high hopes that the popular young doctor would bring long-awaited reform, that he would be a new kind of Middle East leader capable of guiding his country toward genuine democracy. David Lesch was one of those who saw this promise in Assad. A widely respected Middle East scholar and consultant, Lesch came to know the president better than anyone in the West, in part through a remarkable series of meetings with Assad between 2004 and 2009. Yet for Lesch, like millions of others, Assad was destined to disappoint. In this timely book, the author explores Assad's failed leadership, his transformation from bearer of hope to reactionary tyrant, and his regime's violent response to the uprising of his people in the wake of the Arab Spring.

Lesch charts Assad's turn toward repression and the inexorable steps toward the violence of 2011 and 2012. The book recounts the causes of the Syrian uprising, the regime's tactics to remain in power, the responses of other nations to the bloodshed, and the determined efforts of regime opponents. In a thoughtful conclusion, the author suggests scenarios that could unfold in Syria's uncertain future.

[Eric]

Aug 6, 2012 7:58:21 GMT -7 Nictoshek said:

9/11/1965 - 8/6/2012

From:
V. Kolokoltsev ‏@miniinterrussia

RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT CONFIRMS: BASHAR AL ASSAD, PRESIDENT OF SYRIA, HAS BEEN KILLED TODAY IN LATAKYJA WITH HIS WIFE AND TWO PEOPLE.

twitter.com/MiniInterRussia

I haven't been able to find any news about this on any major news outlets, including Russian. As Jaga said, we'll have to wait and see whether this is a rumor or fact.

[RabiaMuweis]

Believe me, no one was optimistic the arrival of Bashar Al-Assad to the Presidency,How will bring democracy, if he not elected democratically.

[karl]

Nictoe

As a person, almost am I reluctant to address this subject. For it as to face all of opposition and to be spit upon by my dear friends and then to ask for a cloth to wipe off my brow by.

But, there is the truism, for where is a state of middle east, that is democratic? Well, other then Israel....But then, Israel is not Arabic in as well as Syria is not Arabic. Israel is a bit as of Europe that was transplanted into no mans land by the plans of God.

Syria is as similar of the Family Assad, for they are spit upon by most all western powers. But, from which sacred mount do they pray from that is so removed??

We are people of the earth, we are born of women, and we die into dust. For what then?

The time of our life is counted, then to death. We are then judged by the merits we have lived by and then it is to the judgment we will receive for the life we have lived.

What now, in justice shall the Roman sword shall give??? For of the gifts we give, so of the gifts we receive.

Karl

[pieter]

Aug 7, 2012 7:39:46 GMT -7 RabiaMuweis said:

Believe me, no one was optimistic the arrival of Bashar Al-Assad to the Presidency,How will bring democracy, if he not elected democratically.

Rabia,

How do you establish democracy in a region that never has had democracy, except Lebanon and maybe partly Jordan.

Are there demcratic bases in the Arab world, grass roots movements, structures, democratic institutions and etc. I read an exellent book from the Dutch Middle East news correspondent Joris Luyendijk, who spend years in the Arab world (Egypt, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories) and who described the mechanisms of the totalitarian Arab state, with absolutist rulers, police state systems, and fear amongs the populations and terror of the state against it's citizens. It was a few years back before the Arab Spring, and he wrote about Iraq, Egypt and Syria. The book was translated in English and is called: "People like us: Misrepresenting the Middle East (2009)"




Joris Luyendijk

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joris_Luyendijk

P.S.- Joris Luyendijk speaks Arabic and lived in Cairo, Palestine and Lebanon. He had Arab contacts (in Egypt) who wanted to stay anonymous, because they feared the Egyptian dictatorship of Mubarak.

[RabiaMuweis]

True there is no democracy, not even in Lebanon, and I remember my family and many didn't want to vote in any election. The candidate goes to Damascus and offers loyalty and obedience to the President and his entourage, thus ensuring his seat in Parliament.

However, all these Presidents( Bin Ali or Mubarak or ...) who was relieved Or who will be forced to disqualification, all were allies and followers for the Western powers .

[karl]

Aug 8, 2012 6:49:16 GMT -7 RabiaMuweis said:

True there is no democracy, not even in Lebanon, and I remember my family and many didn't want to vote in any election. The candidate goes to Damascus and offers loyalty and obedience to the President and his entourage, thus ensuring his seat in Parliament.

However, all these Presidents( Bin Ali or Mubarak or ...) who was relieved Or who will be forced to disqualification, all were allies and followers for the Western powers .

Rabia

I do agree with you, for you have spoken truth. There is nothing wrong with a dictatorship and or family owned country if the person/people in power are true to the people they administer to.

Democracy is only a word, but to some, it will mean one thing, whilst to another, it will mean some thing different. For some, freedom is some thing for them to do what ever they wish to do, and not be punished.

But for others, freedom is not just a word, but a life of choice. With this, the responsibility to them selves and to others.

For us in the west, we do not have a democracy, but in this stead, we have a Republic with democratic proceedings. If this makes any sense.

Karl

[pieter]

Karl and Rabia,

The mistake Western powers make is that they look at the Middle East and thus the Arab world with European and American eyes. They think from their own continental, cultural, political, social, financial, economical and maybe ideological perspective (even if that means in a Western sense a technocratic pragmatic approach). Geopolitical there is the heritage of the British, French and Ottoman (Turkish) colonial empires that ruled the region in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. Today again we see the influence of these powers (The USA has become one of these powers). The Global powerballance is determined in this region in the sense of the importance of oil politics (petrol, gas), arms trade (Militairy Industrial Complex - the arms industries of the USA, Russia, Israel, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and other countries), influence zones of alliances (The Western-Arab alliance of the USA, Great Britain, France, Turkey, Saoudi Arabia and Qatar on one side and the Syrian Baath regime, Russia, China, Iran, Hezbollah and North-Korea on the other side - the North Koreans supplied the Syrian regime with Scud rockets-), and the religious, ethnic and cultural divides. The Sunni majority against the Shia minority, secularist Pan arab Arab socialists and Arab nationalists vs "moderate" and radical fundamentalist Islamists -the Salafist and Wahhabist Jihadists-, and the Western interests vs the Iranian interests in the Gulf region and the Middle east. In my opinion due to the changing situation in the Arab world the Arab states might become more important in the near future if reforms might lead to more sensable, realistic, pragmatic and stabile regimes in the middle east. Maybe not entirely democratic, but hopefully more efficient, more aware of the needs of their populations and the necessity of good relations with their neighbours and minorities.

This might lead to a less prominent role of Israel in the US relation to the Middle east. A new Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Tunesia, Libya and in the long term Saoudi Arabia and the other Gulf states could create new facts on the ground. More exchange with the West and the far East (China, Japan, Korea and etc.), more prosperity, more trade, more development, more openness, more Freedom, more democracy (but in an Arab form, reformed to a pluralistic political system and structure which is complementairy with Islam, the Muslim culture and the fact that in the Islamic world there is less seperation between church and state, because Islam is present in all facets of life)

Democracy in the Middle east (wikipedia)

Transformations to democracy seemed on the whole to pass by the Islamic Middle East at a time when such transformations were a central theme in other parts of the world, although she does note that, of late, the increasing number of elections being held in the region indicates some form of adoption of democratic traditions. There are several ideas on the relationship between Islam in the Middle East and democracy. There were four major obstacles to democracy in the region: (1) the Imperial legacy, (2) oil wealth, (3) the Arab–Israeli conflict and militant or (4) "backward-looking" Islam.
The imperial legacy includes the borders of the modern states themselves and the existence of significant minorities within the states. Acknowledgment of these differences is frequently suppressed usually in the cause of "national unity" and sometimes to obscure the fact that minority elite is controlling the country. This leads to the formation of political parties on ethnic, religious or regional divisions, rather than over policy differences. Voting therefore becomes an assertion of one's identity rather than a real choice.
The problem with oil and the wealth it generates is that the states' rulers have the wealth to remain in power, as they can pay off or repress most potential opponents. Because there is no need for taxation there is less pressure for representation. Furthermore, Western governments require a stable source of oil and are therefore more prone to maintain the status quo, rather than push for reforms which may lead to periods of instability. This can be linked into political economy explanations for the occurrence of authoritarian regimes and lack of democracy in the Middle East, particularly the prevalence of rentier states in the Middle East. A consequence of the lack of taxation in such rentier economies is an inactive civil society. As civil society is seen to be an integral part of democracy it raises doubts over the feasibility of democracy developing in the Middle East in such situations.
Third point is that the Arab–Israeli conflict serves as a unifying factor for the countries of the Arab League, and also serves as an excuse for repression by Middle Eastern governments. For example, in March 2004 Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon's leading Shia cleric, is reported as saying "We have emergency laws, we have control by the security agencies, we have stagnation of opposition parties, we have the appropriation of political rights - all this in the name of the Arab-Israeli conflict".


Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon's leading Shia cleric

The West, especially the USA, is also seen as a supporter of Israel, and so it and its institutions, including democracy, are seen by many Muslims as suspect. Khaled Abou El Fadl, a lecturer in Islamic law at the University of California comments "modernity, despite its much scientific advancement, reached Muslims packaged in the ugliness of disempowerment and alienation."


Khaled Abou El Fadl, a lecturer in Islamic law at the University of California

This repression by Arab rulers has led to the growth of radical Islamic movements, as they believe that the institution of an Islamic theocracy will lead to a more just society. However, these groups tend to be very intolerant of alternative views, including the ideas of democracy. Many Muslims who argue that Islam and democracy are compatible live in the West, and are therefore seen as "contaminated" by non-Islamic ideas.
Orientalist scholars offer another viewpoint on the relationship between Islam and democratisation in the Middle East. They argue that the compatibility is simply not there between secular democracy and Arab-Islamic culture in the Middle East which has a strong history of undemocratic beliefs and authoritarian power structures. Kedourie, a well known Orientalist scholar, said for example: "to hold simultaneously ideas which are not easily reconcilable argues, then, a deep confusion in the Arab public mind, at least about the meaning of democracy. The confusion is, however, understandable since the idea of democracy is quite alien to the mind-set of Islam."


Elie Kedourie (1926 – 1992), a British historian of the Middle East.

A view similar to this that understands Islam and democracy to be incompatible because of seemingly irreconcilable differences between Sharia and democratic ideals is also held by some Islamists. However, within Islam there are ideas held by some that believe Islam and democracy in some form are indeed compatible due to the existence of the concept of Shura (meaning consultation) in the Qur'an. Views such as this have been expressed by various thinkers and political activists in the Middle East. They continue to be the subject of controversy, e.g. at the second Dubai Debates, which debated the question "Can Arab and Islamic values be reconciled with democracy?"

Democracy in the Middle east
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_the_Middle_East

[karl]

Pieter

Your contribution is very well laid out in truth and validity. I am some what hesitant to answer with Rabia not in attendance. So, in this, perhaps to add a bit in as if she was here.

I do believe though, you have struck the nail on the head with your contribution, and it is ignorance of some of our leadership of the present situation as it presents in self in the Syrian question.

For my self, it is un-explainable and unreasonable for the vast numbers of mis-information and faulted assumptions based upon a foundation of ignorance, that is prevailing at present.

Even our leadership is following this trend of nonsensical ignorance as if it was fact.

We are viewing today, what has taken centuries to build as we view the modern nations within the Middle East. Much as advanced from the early days of tribal warfare to consolidations of tribes to a central power leadership, to then form an identity as a people.

What we are viewing today, is little of what was of the past in the play for power. Not much has changed, it is still for power and as you have brought forward, resources, resources in energy as represented by petroleum supplies.

But, what do these various desert family nations see as their future? What of them? What direction is there to turn once the abundance of petroleum supplies begin to wane? Then to what industries are there to take this place?

The past then returns in a different manner, the people have changed and will no longer tolerate the past as their rule. It is now a new dawn to build upon, but first the past must be dealt with,and that is the present.

In speaking of Syria as this is the subject, we have the beginning of change, and possibly the end of a long family rule of family Assad. Rather for better or worse, it is change and once the music begins, it is best to dance to the tune. For then it becomes time for business to begin once again, for commerce never stops.

The following is a url of history of Middle East as from the time of Sumerians/Akkadian to the various epochs of time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East

Karl

[pieter]

Karl,

Thanks for your reply. When I think about the conflicts in the middle east I often realise that all these peoples are followers of Abrahamic faiths (Abraham in the Christian context, Avraham in Judaism and Ibrāhīm in Islam). And all these abrahamic faiths are divided in their own monotheist direction. Not only does Islam has a theological and territorial conflict with Judaism and Christianity, Islam has an innerconflict with itself, between Sunni and Shia Islam, but also within Sunni Islam between general Sunni Islam and the puritinical sects Salafism and Wahhabism, and within Shia islam (in Iraq different Shia sects or movements are infighting, in conflict with eachother, like the Shia Lebanese Hezbollah was in conflict with the Shia Lebanese Amal militia during the Lebanese civil war 1975/1989).
In Israel and America there is a Kullturkampf between the (Ultra-) Orthodox people on one side and the secular and liberal (progressive) religious and Reform jews on the other side. Political there is an infighting or conflict witrhin Judaism between religious and secular Zionists (Jewish nationalists. Supporters of Israel as the eternal jewish state and the "G'd given right to own the land" on one side and anti-Zionist jews on the other side. The anti-zionist jews consist of the hundred thousands Yiddish speaking Ultra-Orthodox Hassidic sects in Israel and the USA (New York), liberal, socialist and communist jews who believe in equal rights for Palestinians and are against and exclusive, ethnic, religious, political and social-cultural jewish homeland (like some rightwing hardliners want in Israel). On the other hand you have also some radical, fanatical, extremist arabs (Muslims and christians) who want an Arab Palestine exclusive for Arabs (mainly Muslims, but also Arab christians and jews under Muslim rule). Some ultra-orthodox jews prefer such and Arab Muslim rule over the in the their eyes Godless, and un-jewish Israeli state with it's Zionist principles. Ofcourse there are also some selfhating, anti-semitic jews who hate Israel and Judaism, but they are a minority fringe.

So the main problem in the middle east is a lack of coexistance, tolerance (accepting the other like he or she is), goodwill (for peace negociations a truce in civil wars like Syria and Yemen), acceptance of other faiths, ethnicities, political ideological views and cultural differences. Add this to the huge geopolitical importance of the region in the economical, political, militairy, diplomatic sense due to the oil, trade, transport routes (Suez Canal, Gulf of Suez, Gulf of Aqaba, the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and next to that the ancient and present trade routes over land from Turkey to Persia via Syria, Jordan and Iraq) and the influence of Saoudi Arabia on the Sunni Muslim world in the Caucacus, Europe (Muslim minorities coming from the Middle east and North Africa) and the huge influence of Iran in Shia Arab regions (Shia minorities in Sunni Arab countries and in Iraq where the Shia Mulism are the majority) Great Britain and America have old geopolitical interests in the Arab world and commerical trade ties. They are dependent on Saoudi and Iraqi oil, because other countries and regions in the world produce to little petrol to satisfy the US demand for petrol.

Wit the toppling of the Sha regime (which was Pro Western) the USA and other Western powers lost power and connection to the part of the Arab world which was under Persian (Iranian) influence. The Arab regimes in the Gulf feared the expansion of Iranian influence and thus territorial grip on the Persian Gulf region. The American militaire presence there is therefor huge. The USS navy and army is present with naval bases in Gulf states and militairy bases.

To go back to the Abrahamic roots of the Arabs and the Hebrew people of the Middle east and in the same time the Arab Coptic, Chaldean, Assyrian and other christians in the region.

Abraham was Israel's founding patriarch (founding father); his story is told in chapters 11-25 of the Book of Genesis, and he plays a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Abram and Sarai were trying to make sense of how he would become a progenitor of nations since it had already been 10 years of living in Canaan, and still no child had been born from Abram's seed. Sarai then offered her Egyptian handmaid, Hagar, for Abram to consort with so that she may have a child by her, as a wife. Abram consented and had sexual intercourse with Hagar. The result of these actions created a fiery relationship between Hagar and Sarai. (Genesis 16:1–6)

After a harsh encounter with Sarai, Hagar fled toward Shur. En route, an angel of the Lord appeared to Hagar at the well of a spring. He instructed her to return to Sarai for she will bear a son who “shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.” She was told to call her son: Ishmael. Hagar then referred to God as “El-roi”, meaning that she had gone on seeing after God saw her. From that day, the well was called Beer-lahai-roi. She then did as she was instructed by returning to Abram in order to have her child. Abram was eighty-six years of age when Ishmael was born. (Genesis 16:7–16)

Abraham and Ishmael

Abraham was fond of his son Ishmael who had grown up to be fourteen years old when his son Isaac was born. However, with Sarah, things were never the same with Ishmael's mother Hagar, back in her life. Now that Sarah had finally borne her own child, she could no longer stand the sight of either Hagar or Ishmael. When the teenager was jesting around, Sarah told Abraham to send the two of them away. She declared that Ishmael would not share in Isaac's inheritance. Abraham was greatly distressed by his wife's words and sought the advice of his God. The Lord told Abraham not to be distressed but to do as his wife commanded. God reassured Abraham that "in Isaac shall seed be called to thee." (Genesis 21:12) He also said that Ishmael would make a nation, "because he is thy seed", too. (Genesis 21:9–13)

Early the next morning, Abraham brought Hagar and Ishmael out together. He gave her bread and water and sent them away. The two wandered the wilderness of Beersheba until her bottle of water was completely consumed. In a moment of despair, she burst in tears. The boy then called to God and upon hearing him, an angel of God confirmed to Hagar that he would become a great nation. A well of water then appeared so that it saved their lives. As the boy grew, he became a skilled archer living in the wilderness of Paran. Eventually his mother found a wife for Ishmael from her native country, the land of Egypt. (Genesis 21:14–21)

Narrative in the Qur'an

There are numerous references to Abraham in the Qur'an, including, twice, to the Scrolls of Abraham (87: 18–19; 53: 36–37); in the latter passage, it is mentioned that Abraham "fulfilled his commandments" (53: 37), a reference to all the trials that Abraham had succeeded in. In a whole series of chapters, the Qur'an relates how Abraham preached to his community as a youth and how he specifically told his father, named Azar in 6:74, to leave idol-worship and come to the worship of God (37: 83–98; 26: 69–89). Some passages of the Qur'an, meanwhile, deal with the story of how God sent angels to Abraham with the announcement of the punishment to be imposed upon Lot's people in Sodom and Gomorrah (51: 24–34; 25: 51–60). Other verses mention the near-sacrifice of Abraham's son (37: 100–111), whose name is not given but is presumed to be Ishmael as the following verses mention the birth of Isaac. The Qur'an also repeatedly establishes Abraham's role as patriarch and mentions numerous important descendants who came through his lineage, including Isaac (25: 53), Jacob (29: 49) and Ishmael (2: 132–133). In the later chapters of the Qur'an, Abraham's role becomes yet more prominent. The Qur'an mentions that Abraham and Ishmael were the reformers who set up the Kaaba in Mecca as a center of pilgrimage for monotheism (2: 124–141; 3: 65–68, 95–97). The Qur'an consistently refers to Islam as the "religion of Abraham" (millat Ibrahim) (2: 135) and Abraham is given a title as Hanif (The Pure; 3: 67). The Qur'an also mentions Abraham as one whom God took as a friend (Khalil; 4: 125), hence Abraham's title in Islam, Khalil-Allah (Friend of God). The term is considered by some to be a derivation of the Patriarch's Hebrew title, Kal El (קל-אל), which means "voice of God". Other instances in the Qur'an which are described in a concise manner are the rescue of Abraham from the fire into which he was thrown by his people (37: 97; 21: 68–70); his pleading for his father (28: 47); his quarrel with an unrighteous and powerful king (2: 58) and the miracle of the dead birds (2: 260).

All these events and more have been discussed with more details in Muslim tradition, and especially in the Stories of the Prophets and works of universal Islamic theology. Certain episodes from the life of Abraham have been more heavily detailed in Islamic text, such as the arguments between Abraham and the evil king Nimrod, the near-sacrifice of his son, and the story of Hagar and Ishmael, which Muslims commemorate when performing pilgrimage in Mecca. An important Islamic religious holiday, Eid al-Adha, commemorates Abraham's willingness (Ibrahim) to sacrifice his son Ishmael (Isma'il) as an act of obedience to God, before God intervened to provide him with a sheep to sacrifice instead. In some cases, some believe these legends in Islamic text may have influenced later Jewish tradition.

Abraham in religious traditions

In Islamic and Jewish traditions, Abraham is referred to as "our Father" (Hebrew: Avraham Avinu, Arabic: abeena Ibraheem).

In Jewish and Christian tradition, Abraham is the father of the Israelites through his son Isaac, whose mother was Sarah. His oldest son is Ishmael, whose mother is Hagar, Sarah's Egyptian handmaiden.

In Islamic tradition, Abraham is considered a prophet of Islam, the ancestor of Muhammad, through his son Ishmael, whose mother is Hagar (هاجر).

Islam

Abraham sacrificicing his son, Ishmael Abraham cast into fire by Nimrod

Abraham ("Ibrahim") is an important figure in the Quran, mentioned in 25 chapters, briefly or in detail. Muslims regard him as a prophet and patriarch, the archetype of the perfect Muslim, and the revered reformer of the Kaaba in Mecca.

Islamic traditions consider Abraham the father of Islam (which is also called millat Ibrahim, the "religion of Abraham"), and that his purpose and mission throughout his life was to proclaim the Oneness of God. When Ibrahim (Abraham) was asked for sacrifice and took Ismael to the place when he was about to use the knife, God placed a sheep under his hand. From that day onward, every Eid (Eid Al Adha) once a year Muslims around the world slaughter a sheep to follow the path of Ibrahim that is called Qurbani sacrifice.

[karl]

Pieter

It is most amazing of the work you have committed to in amassing the material for complete provision for presentations you have provided,,,very commendable I must say....

It is most distressing, this with such a void between Islam/Judaism and Christianity. For each in self, should compliment the other in a logical sense, but, not so.

The Bible as you have accessed, is best historical document of Gods word. For so long past, was I to access for maps of the old testament into the new, whilst with my studies in Anthropology as assistant to Archeology {two different aspects of the studies of man}. For where else to access for information to base a paper upon with accuracy?

I feel some what guilty for as not to present to you a proper response to that of what you have presented..Please do not become offended....

What I have to as respondents, is a matter of street conversations with friends in Syria in this matter.

When as the moment meet, for the most part, the response was this: Islamic view point as presented to my self as a Christian.

Islam is the true religion, for: The Israels {Jewisch} and Christians as being the children of God. Were to turn away from their true God, to idols and worldly concerns.

The following url, is the known places of patriarch burial locations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burial_places_of_biblical_figures

Then, with following url, the Holy City Hebron:

woodymarx.hubpages.com/hub/Israels-Holy-City-of-Hebron

Karl