Do you support a regime change in Syria?

[Salome]

Originally Posted by erzallubnan

Do you support a regime change in Syria?

ps: The Second most popular secular non dictatorship party in Sham is SSNP.

This is what I support:

1- A secular nation (Lebanon, Sham, Jordan, Iraq, Palestine). Were the qualified and intellect has the best opportunity to govern not based on sect or religion nor minority but based on a party programs which serves the best interest of the people and through democratic voting means.

2- A Nation (Lebanon, sham, Jordan, Iraq, Palestine) were we don't need passports to travel, no tariff's no barriers. Free trade and economical relationship between these rich in oil and natural resources states. Just like GCC and EU
ps: I call it LCC (Levant cooperation council)

3- A Nation, strong enough to block any enemy or forbid any ambassador from interfering in our internal affairs.

4- A Nation were all minorities are equal citizens of the nation, no preference over the other and no difference in their rights.

5- A Nation were religious clergies are banned from talking politics with a clear seperation btw state and religion. Keeping our beliefs for one's self.

These are the goal and aim of Antoun Saadahs party, 100 years ago and persisting.

Sorry but this theory can not stand. The above mentioned countries can not form a nation state, it would be good already if Lebanon could agree to form a nation on its territory.

Even when the theory was born it was wrong already, as aside the language (if we want to pressure ourself so much to find a common ground) there is nothing to unite these countries into one nation. These are various people with various background with various heritage etc...

With time there could be though an economic cooperation area between these countries, but not a political union.

ps: am not that expert in it, but as far as I know it was Lebanon only where the people expressed their wish for a separate nation state, separate from the surrounding arab territories. While in the other present arab countries such wish from the people's side never existed, their state was created artificially (ie no loyalty existed before of belonging to Syria, Iraq etc...they were part of an arab/muslim community - consisting of various people and tribes - and without exact borders)

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Salome

Sorry but this theory can not stand. The above mentioned countries can not form a nation state, it would be good already if Lebanon could agree to form a nation on its territory.

Even when the theory was born it was wrong already, as aside the language (if we want to pressure ourself so much to find a common ground) there is nothing to unite these countries into one nation. These are various people with various background with various heritage etc...

With time there could be though an economic cooperation area between these countries, but not a political union.

ps: am not that expert in it, but as far as I know it was Lebanon only where the people expressed their wish for a separate nation state, separate from the surrounding arab territories. While in the other present arab countries such wish from the people's side never existed, their state was created artificially (ie no loyalty existed before of belonging to Syria, Iraq etc...they were part of an arab/muslim community - consisting of various people and tribes - and without exact borders)

The above mentioned countires were united for the past 1400 years you know.

[dodzi]

Originally Posted by Saladin

Yes I'm all for toppling the Alawite regime in Syria, however not by foreign forces. I don't want to see another Iraq or Afghanistan. Should a change happen, it should come from the people of Syria only.

I don't know who would pick up the leadership in case such a scenario happens, the Muslim Brotherhood is a highly probable candidate. However, should we witness such event, the power balance in the area will be tipped in favor of the Arabs.

I'm not going to deny Syria being an Alawite regime. However, your post seems to suggest that you have no problem (or even encourage) replacing an Alawite regime by a Sunni dictatorship!

I am totally against replacing one dictatorship by another! And if I had to chose between these two dictatorships, than I'd rather having a stabilizing dictatorship where a minority is in power, rather than having a majority ruling over a disorganized and unstable country!

It's amazing how some people cannot see a regime or a conflict but through the prism of sectarianism...

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by dodzi

I'm not going to deny Syria being an Alawite regime. However, your post seems to suggest that you have no problem (or even encourage) replacing an Alawite regime by a Sunni dictatorship!

I am totally against replacing one dictatorship by another! And if I had to chose between these two dictatorships, than I'd rather having a stabilizing dictatorship where a minority is in power, rather than having a majority ruling over a disorganized and unstable country!

It's amazing how some people cannot see a regime or a conflict but through the prism of sectarianism...

I didnt say I want Sunni dictorship, I said I want the Sunna of Syria to rule.

[dodzi]

Originally Posted by Saladin

I didnt say I want Sunni dictorship, I said I want the Sunna of Syria to rule.

Why the Sunna? I want the Christians or the Zulu to rule over Syria... What's the difference?

The goal must be BY whom and FOR whom the Government works, not what sect the government is composed of!

Listen Saladin, I never understood where you came from and I don't know what your intentions are, but I suggest you keep your sectarian ideas at home or on another forum, and try to work on them a bit so that they can pass as moderate!

Most countries with dictators coming from the largest community have a tendency to discriminate against the minorities, and this is why I'm happy Syria isn't ruled by "the Sunna"!

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by dodzi

Why the Sunna? I want the Christians or the Zulu to rule over Syria... What's the difference?

The goal must be BY whom and FOR whom the Government works, not what sect the government is composed of!

Listen Saladin, I never understood where you came from and I don't know what your intentions are, but I suggest you keep your sectarian ideas at home or on another forum, and try to work on them a bit so that they can pass as moderate!

Most countries with dictators coming from the largest community have a tendency to discriminate against the minorities, and this is why I'm happy Syria isn't ruled by "the Sunna"!

Aha so in order not to allow anyone to discriminate the minorities you let the majority get discriminated and prosecuted?

Listen, the Sunna are the crushing Majority of Syria. Syria is an Islamic country, Sunnite in particular. Damascus was the capital of the Islamic caliphate. This is Syrias identity, similar to Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, KSA etc.. And nothing could change this identity.

Here are my intentions, they are loud and clear. I don't feel I have the need to justify them to anybody. And if they are not moderate then so be it.

[dodzi]

Originally Posted by Saladin

Aha so in order not to allow anyone to discriminate the minorities you let the majority get discriminated and prosecuted?

As far as I'm concerned, Sunnis aren't discriminated against in Syria. The political opposition, including the Muslim brotherhood are, and the people is politically oppressed.

It is very common to have a minority rule over a majority. In most cases, the ruling minority agrees to give the majority the rights it seeks as part of its ethnicity... The other way around is more seldom...

Listen, the Sunna are the crushing Majority of Syria. Syria is an Islamic country, Sunnite in particular. Damascus was the capital of the Islamic caliphate. This is Syrias identity, similar to Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, KSA etc.. And nothing could change this identity.

Why do you use words like these? You sound like Hitler, or even worst... Stalin!

As for Syria being an Islamic country, what will happen to the Christians, Alawites and Druze? Will they be Dhimmis?

Are you Syrian anyways, for you to allow yourself to decide what other countries should have as government and policies?

Syria is an Arab country where many minorities live side by side with a majority of Sunnis. This does not make it an Islamic country!

The only way I can agree that a country is Islamic, is if at least 99.9% of the people are part of one sect (Sunnite, Shiite, Alawite or other, but not a mixture of them), and that 99% of that sect agrees religiously and politically with their country being "Islamic"!

What you say is the equivalent of Israel calling itself a Jewish country! What about the Muslim, Druze and Christian Arabs? Are they not supposed to have rights?

Imagine I tell you that France, the US, Russia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany are Christian countries? Worse, what if I said that India is a Hindu country, or that Iraq is a Shiite country, or that Bosnia is a Christian country?

All these countries have a significant ratio of Muslim citizens in them! How would you feel if those were discriminated against, treated like second-class citizens and forbidden to exercise their religious freedoms?

Here are my intentions, they are loud and clear. I don't feel I have the need to justify them to anybody. And if they are not moderate then so be it.

Yeah... no they're not moderate...

And we're in a public forum: we express ourselves in the purpose of justifying ourselves. If you don't want to justify yourself then what are you doing here?

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by dodzi

As far as I'm concerned, Sunnis aren't discriminated against in Syria. The political opposition, including the Muslim brotherhood are, and the people is politically oppressed.

It is very common to have a minority rule over a majority. In most cases, the ruling minority agrees to give the majority the rights it seeks as part of its ethnicity... The other way around is more seldom...



Why do you use words like these? You sound like Hitler, or even worst... Stalin!

As for Syria being an Islamic country, what will happen to the Christians, Alawites and Druze? Will they be Dhimmis?

Are you Syrian anyways, for you to allow yourself to decide what other countries should have as government and policies?

Syria is an Arab country where many minorities live side by side with a majority of Sunnis. This does not make it an Islamic country!

The only way I can agree that a country is Islamic, is if at least 99.9% of the people are part of one sect (Sunnite, Shiite, Alawite or other, but not a mixture of them), and that 99% of that sect agrees religiously and politically with their country being "Islamic"!

What you say is the equivalent of Israel calling itself a Jewish country! What about the Muslim, Druze and Christian Arabs? Are they not supposed to have rights?

Imagine I tell you that France, the US, Russia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany are Christian countries? Worse, what if I said that India is a Hindu country, or that Iraq is a Shiite country, or that Bosnia is a Christian country?

All these countries have a significant ratio of Muslim citizens in them! How would you feel if those were discriminated against, treated like second-class citizens and forbidden to exercise their religious freedoms?



Yeah... no they're not moderate...

And we're in a public forum: we express ourselves in the purpose of justifying ourselves. If you don't want to justify yourself then what are you doing here?

The Syrian regime is taking policies that are completely against the interests of the Sunna in Syria and in the Middle east. I'm not willing to discuss them now.

And when I call for a Sunnite rule or when I classify Syria as an Islamic state this doesnt mean I intend on discriminating other religious minorities. They have their rights and they must be preserved, no doubt about that.

And these ideas may not seem moderate to you, however when I hear somebody calling for preventing the Sunna from taking charge of Syria, I feel as if there is an attempt to extract or change Syrias Identity. And to me this is the peak of extremism and anti-moderation. And it's also against democracy which you support (I presume).

[Souss]

Originally Posted by Saladin

The Syrian regime is taking policies that are completely against the interests of the Sunna in Syria and in the Middle east. I'm not willing to discuss them now.

And when I call for a Sunnite rule or when I classify Syria as an Islamic state this doesnt mean I intend on discriminating other religious minorities. They have their rights and they must be preserved, no doubt about that.

And these ideas may not seem moderate to you, however when I hear somebody calling for preventing the Sunna from taking charge of Syria, I feel as if there is an attempt to extract or change Syrias Identity. And to me this is the peak of extremism and anti-moderation. And it's also against democracy which you support (I presume).

Any rule that has religious coloration to it is by definition discriminatory. Whether for the non-Jewish minority in Israel, the non-Shia in Iran or the non-Sunni in KSA, any system that is based on one religion is by design discriminatory towards people from other religions. Even in self-proclaimed secular states like Egypt, non-Sunni minorities are discriminated against.

So if you are truly a supporter of moderation, tolerance and democracy, you cannot ask but for a state that has a non-religious relationship with its citizens and that guarantees certain basic freedoms, including freedom of worship.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Souss

Any rule that has religious coloration to it is by definition discriminatory. Whether for the non-Jewish minority in Israel, the non-Shia in Iran or the non-Sunni in KSA, any system that is based on one religion is by design discriminatory towards people from other religions. Even in self-proclaimed secular states like Egypt, non-Sunni minorities are discriminated against.

So if you are truly a supporter of moderation, tolerance and democracy, you cannot ask but for a state that has a non-religious relationship with its citizens and that guarantees certain basic freedoms.

Ok, How do you define tolerance and moderation? If 90% of a countrys' demography is of a single sect, doesnt this give the sect a right to rule and form a regime, kingdom or a state of his preferences?