« A Few Heresies in Honor of the Ramadan Season! | Main | A Heretical Release! »

October 16, 2006

Comments

Alex

Since I am one of those who keep criticizing you, both privately and in the comments section, for your inability to communicate your thoughts in a neutral, trustworthy way, I will explain, again, why despite your impressive attempts to explain the reasoning behind your one-sided analysis, there is still a problem

1) As you correctly pointed out: this is your perception of reality, not reality itself. You always admit that it is only your perception, but on the other hand you talk with absolute conviction and you mention sometimes your sixth sense.

Sometime you will be right and the rest of us would be wrong, but I don't hear you ever admitting being wrong about anything specific that you wrote in the past (when it comes to the Assads). When you discuss anything else you are the most reasonable, pleasant, and open minded intellectual.

2) The Assads are as good or as bad as the other collection of leaders now in the Middle East. When you have a practical formula for changing all of them, then we can all look at it. But since for now, and as we found out lately, teh US practically dropped "democracy" in the Middle East, we have to live with the Assads (and the king of Saudi Arabia, and Mubarak, and the King of Bahrain ...), and we have to stop wasting all our energy criticizing them. And NO, it will not lead to another 9/11 if the Americans and Israelis make peace with Syria .. it will turn into more corruption mixed with economic prosperity that will make young Syrians move away from excessive religious attachments. If teh US and its Arab allies can not get rid of the Assads, then they (the Americans) are the first to blame for driving young Syrians to extremism. And you are ignoring this reality. The Assads can indeed provide an excellent boost to efforts to make the region more secular... but it will require that the US and its friends stop trying to over throw and corner the Assads!.. when they are not threatened they will not need the fundamentalist allies they now tolerate.

3) Your claim that you do not criticize this administration because you can not make a tangible difference, applies also to the case of Syria ... you will also not help overthrow the Assads or make them change their policies. So why is 90% of your energy (in this blog at least) spent on the Assads?

4) You are the only opposition figure who is worth debating with. The others are either not democratic enough to accept harsh criticism (like here) or not impressive at all ... not honest, not any better than the Assads. So why should we be so excited for total change?

5) You can gain many more people to help in the Tharwa project if you did not push them away with your extreme way of seeing things. I know and you know a few good people who would have otherwise been very happy to help in Tharwa if they were not put off with the right wing politics here.

Of course this is my perception .. I might be wrong.

Ammar

Alex, my extremism in degrading the Assads on their basis of their record of oppression and corruption has been more than matched by your extremist defense of them as champions of secularism, no matter how illusory, and stability, no matter how tenuous and fragile. A corrupt minoritarian regime can only lead to an increase of sectarian consciousness and religious extremism in a country like ours. Moreover, the corruption of the Assads will ensure that no real economic reforms are produced to improve the living conditions of Syria’s youths, even after the return of the Golan Heights. The dividends of peace will only serve to enrich the Assads, but will do nothing to the rest of the country, and just like in Egypt after Camp David, extremism will continue to grow and will eventually blow up in our face.

I know I have given more space to the Assads than I should have and than they do deserve, but, this was in part a necessary response to the constant attempt at defending them by others and as portraying as reforms, when I had a difference perception all together born out of practical experience. In other part, this is was also a necessary response to months of interrogation (indeed the blog came into being as a result of the interrogation and to allow me to continue to voice my criticism of the Assads to a larger audience), which I blogged about while still in Syria, followed by exile, with which I, and my family here and there, are still trying to come to terms. But of course, my exile is my fault, I guess, and can in no way be blamed on the corruption and authoritarianism of the Assads.

Still, you want to hear me admit that I am wrong about the Assads in particular, fine, there it is: the Assads will survive longer than I have anticipated, and there is a strong possibility that I may not see Syria again anytime soon. But then, that possibility could hold true even in the aftermath of the Assads eventual collapse. And collapse they will, I predicted it even before I was politicized, so it must be true.

As for Tharwa, don’t worry, we are slowly but surely moving forward.

howie

Ammar and Alex-

Ammar mentions something that constantly comes up "Moreover, the corruption of the Assads will ensure that no real economic reforms are produced to improve the living conditions of Syria’s youths, even after the return of the Golan Heights."

This kind of reminds me of Ammar's comments about the "Win-Win" when attacking Israel in general...you win if you lose and you win if you win.

I've been to the Golan...there really is not all that much there...no oil, no gold, not a whole lot of people...yes it is strategically important, both militarily and water-wise.

But is Syria got the Golan back tomorrow...what would change in Syria...except maybe a short burst of pride that y'all finally got one over on the Israeli's"?

I have to agree with Ammar...I don't think Assad has anything much good to offer to anybody. Why doesn't he say...offer open elections in Syria if he cares about the Syria people. Is it easier to fire them up with "Golan" and "America" and "Israel"? I think so...I think the Golan is the best thing Assad has going for him...a bone he can toss to the unthinking masses.

And the JEWS invented algebra!

Alex

"Alex, my extremism in degrading the Assads on their basis of their record of oppression and corruption has been more than matched by your extremist defense of them as champions of secularism"

Fine, but at least I limit my "praise" of the Assads to two things only:

1) I believe they would indeed be a big plus to secularism in the Middle East when the rest of the players (US and allies) are not challenging Syria

2) I believe they are much more interested in a strong Syria than you think. Not because they are pure revolutionaries, but because of a number of reasons which I can discuss with you later if you want to.

It so happens that to me, a secular, stable and strong Syria that made peace with Israel is the best thing that can happen to the Middle East. If Syria and Israel can reach an understanding to respect each other's well defined role in the Middle East, then things can be much better for everyone.

But unlike you, I do not praise everything about "the Assads" I am capable of saying man bad things about their corruption and mismanagement and their lack of P.R. skills ... al I am saying: they are better than the other options.

And by the way, if you remember, we discussed the points you raised about wat happens after the return of the Golan .. gradually delivered, well audited and outside controlled economic aid and investments, and the return of the golan itself can be made contingent on the Syrian authorities meeting clearly set goals of economic and political reforms... if they don't live up to teh expectations, I am confident the Syrian people will not disappoint you Ammar. You will have a repeat of Beirut's demonstrations and the Assads will not be tolerated anymore by the Syrian people.

Or they might deliver on economic reforms, and semi-deliver on political reforms .. I am OK with that.

And I have no doubt Tharwa is doing well, I did not mean to imply that it is in trouble .. I just hoped more and more talented people (Zenobia?) could feel comfortable working with you.

Alex

Howie!

First, I did not find a Haaretz article admitting that the Arabs invented Algebra, but there is Wikipedia

But again, we'll give you the rights to Houmous and Algebra for the Golan... although of those three, Houmous is probably the one with the greatest potential economic value to Syria.

As for the second point you made, most of the Syrian people would not allow their government to sign on anything less than the full return of the Golan heights. Bahsar knows it, otherwise if his regime was as corrupt as many people claim, then he should have been happy to be very well bribed by the Saudis to sign on anything .. and then the Americans would love him, and no one would stop him from stealing all the money .. right?

So I agree that the golan is not a "need" ... I do not care much for it to be honest. But it is the right thing to do in a peaceful settlement if you want the Syrian people to not continue to hate or dislike dealing with Israel.

As for not trusting the Assads and therefore not dealing with them .. who do you trust? Olmert? Mubarak? Khaddam? the Muslim brotherhood?

Ammar is not the type who makes it to the leadership of a country .. politics in not that clean and those like Ammar can not survive long there.

Jimmy Carter was clean, he failed. Rabin was assassinated, Dukakis was clean and lost badly before he started, Colin Powell was clean and he was forced out ... so let's not wait forever because "I don't trust the Assads"

Reem

I believe one of our region's biggest problem is our insistence on pointing the finger at the west and zionism every time we have a problem...

we will never solve our own problems if we do not a) admit that we have problems and b)identify them. It is in our interest to do so after all! Why should discussion of our own problems translate into a pro-zionist or western agenda as people all too often claim?

it's simpler than that. before focusing attention on other people's problems, you have to fix your own. start from within and then work your way out. unfortunately, we haven't come close to solving our problems within. `

howie

Alex and Reem-

I am confused...because I tend to agree with both of you.

And if it wasn't algebra we invented...they it must have been the wheel...or was it the pyrimands???

howie

Alex-

You are correct about Ammar "not being the type" to get into or, at least, last in a political party.

I have always been of the opinion that the reason we end up with so many nasty leaders is because it is only that type of people who seek that level of power. And typically nastier types that hold on to it.

I think this is an enormous tragedy for all mankind, the wrong folks seek, obtain and maintain power...nice guys finish last.

Your points about the Golan are well taken. Look...you can freak'in have it, wineries and all, if you just don't shut off the water or start blasting us again...that is all I would ask...but that is an enormous, even exestential "if". That will be an enormous divide of trust and convincing a whole lot of very suspicious people, most with very long memories.

Fares

5 months of Kilo in Jail

Alex

Howie,

"I think this is an enormous tragedy for all mankind, the wrong folks seek, obtain and maintain power"

So true.

And I see another serious challenge to mankind: This understanding that each leader is supposed to be doing the best he can for his country even if it means hurting other countries, is becoming not doable ... there is much more interaction between nations now ... For example, the United States is so involved in what happens in the Middle East today that most Arab freinds I know felt frustrated during the last U.S. elections that they can not actually vote for their choice of U.S. president! ... The fact is, the president of the United States's policies and values now affect the whole world, but only the American people have the right to vote on him.

Same applies on a smaller scale for some Lebanese who would love to vote Bashar out of office because they feel his (and Syria's) role is instrumental to their country's future.

So, as long as there will be countries interfering heavily in the affairs of other countries without caring much about those other countries' well being, "Democracy" will not prevent those leaders from doing terrible things.

Hopefully one day those same western democratic secular values that work relatively well internally, can be modified to govern and set limitations on foreign policies as well.

Actually, it is not that bad .. there is Canada, Sweden, and Italy ... they are "good" most of the time.

Kevin

What I like about Ammar's posts and comments is that he is not afraid to call a spade a spade. Too many people today are afraid to do so. They are afraid to tell the truth because it might be used by "the otherside" to promote their agenda. You see this in the U.S. media and their reporting on Iran. Reporters and pundits on the Left publicly discussing whether or not they should report on Iran and the possiblity that those reports will be used by those who "want war" with Iran.

If the Assads are "good" because they keep Syria in the secular camp, then one could make the argument that Stalin was also "good" for keeping Russia in the secular camp. It seems to me that Alex wants a strong and prosperous Syria regardless of the type of government. Ammar on the other hand wants a "democratic" form of government that will produce a strong and prosperous Syria. I have to side with Ammar; less government interference creates a prosperous and strong country. A dictatorship, regardless of how benign, is based on extensive government intrusion into the private sector. It may be able to create a boom period or short term prosperity, but eventually, a dictatorship will succomb to its own inherent need to control.

My question to Alex, Ammar or anyone else: Why is it in Syria (and I suspect in the rest of the Middle East) that one must be extremist or fundamentalist in order to "stand up" to the U.S.? Why can't an young Syrian become secular and still remain opposed to the U.S.? Why must one in the Arab world become self-destructive in order to "stand up" to the U.S.?

Alex

But Kevin ... if we had the option to have democracy in Syria sometime soon, I will also agree with Ammar. The option is simply not there, so I am trying to find the next best thing, instead of just boycotting everything.

So, I don't think using Stalin's name proves that my proposal that could leade to economic reforms and to some political reforms is a vote for a Stalin-like leadership in Syria.

Your second question: Not all those who oppose the U.S. are extremists and fundamentalists ... most Syrian people dislike the U.S. today... and most of them would love to be friends with the United States if few things change.

EHSANI2

Ammar and Alex,

While you two can differ on reality versus perceptions of reality, the facts on the ground remain indisputable. Mr. Dardari was interviewd by Bloomberg news and if you read between the lines, what he finally admitted is not good. I posted the story and my comments on Syria comment. The forgotten story is the Syrian economy and its significant future challenges. When it comes to this, reality ought to take hold

Anonymous

I don't know why people act surprised. An article by Marwan Kabalan (who's no "dissident") said it plainly: "Syria's reform project has reached a dead end."

Of course, some would say there was never a "reform project."

Anonymous

Ammar,
If I were you I wouldn't argue with Alex. His head is completely screwed up - the result of his occupation as computer technician.

Alex

:)

Ammar

Alex: “:1) I believe they would indeed be a big plus to secularism in the Middle East when the rest of the players (US and allies) are not challenging Syria

2) I believe they are much more interested in a strong Syria than you think. Not because they are pure revolutionaries, but because of a number of reasons which I can discuss with you later if you want to.”

You believe Alex? Are these assertions elements of faith for you? I hope not, otherwise, I wouldn’t feel comfortable refuting them.

1) You should ask our friend Joshua Landis about his study on the erosion of secularism in Syrian schools under the Assads. This aside, bear in mind that Hafiz al-Assad encouraged financed the establishment of over 400 Qur’an learning centers all over rural Syria that now function more or less as traditional Madrassas responsible for churning up thousands of messianic nitwits that preach the most wonderful mixture of salafi doctrine and unenlightened sufism, just what secular Syria really needs at this stage. In addition to this, the Assads have been tolerating and encouraging the flourishing of all different varieties of Islamic circles all through the late 80s and 90s, up to this very moment, in an idiotic attempt to channel Sunni
passions in a more politically quietist, yet socially unenlightened, direction, so, you end up controlling the Sunnis and degrading them at the same time, what fun! But enough about that. I mean, you should know all this already, or you can research it for yourself. Point is: no, the Assads are not good for secularizing Syria.

2) I have no doubt that the Assads are interested in a stronger Syria. But they re also interested in maintaining their grip indefinitely on the reins of power there, and have no clue or desire to move away from the existing sectarian arrangements because they make their money by mani0pulating it. Establishing a strong Syria and keeping it under control are mutually exclusive dreams. Guess what side they are willing to err on?

No, my friend, dictators will not opt out. They have to be kicked out. I don’t the Americans to do it for us, but I also don’t want them to make things harder for us by empowering the Assads through some idiotic and cynical policy of engagement, based on cutting perceived losses, regardless of the costs involved for us.

We never asked the American to come and save us. Hell, we have been advising against such intervention since 9/11. But ever since their dabbling became a reality, ever since the invasion of Iraq, my position had to be modified. The Americans (and the Europeans) will not be allowed to leave without working out a clear realistic mechanism for setting everything in order after they leave and for pushing forward. They will not be allowed to leave us with a mess that none of us (liberals, democrats) can clean up and that will allow the region to fall more and more under the sway of all sorts of atavistic forces and greedy cliques.

I said it before that I would support a regional process meant to address all outstanding problems. Arrangements that can accommodate only the interests of the Assads will leave us at their mercy and will entangle Syria in a web alliances and arrangements that are bound to backfire.

If the Americans and Europeans cannot see the wisdom of this now, then let’s them be dragged further and further in until they do.

For in this global world, where many of our regimes have been propped up and imposed on us with outside support, and where much of our rebelliousness and ire is aimed externally anyway, change cannot come only at the hands of local actors, neither could it come through the aegis of external actors acting out on the basis of their culturist assumptions and particular socioeconomic and security concerns, it has to be a cooperative efforts, and it has to involve all players, and a lot of carrots and a lot of sticks and a lot of political will to use both, over a reasonable period of time. Nothing less would work.

If this sounds like an unreasonable all for nothing approach, well, I am not at the negotiations table yet, so I have to be unreasonable. Put something realistic on the table, and let me then reassess my level of reasonableness.

On the other hand, I have to say that, while flattered with your remarks about me, I am definitely not a lonely figure in the wilderness when it comes to my oppositional activities. There are quite a few people in Syria that have much longer histories in this work and have made many sacrifices for the cause of freedom and democracy. Many of them opted to join the Damascus Declaration, a spokesman of which just reiterated a short while ago that the Assads regime is “irreformable.”

So, I am definitely not the only touting this line, I am in a good company at this stage. For almost every known and respected opposition figure in the country says very much the same thing. Indeed, we might not represent a force that can appeal to the street at this stage and oppose the regime in a serious manner, but we have come to agree, it’s been a couple of years now, that reforms are illusory and change is a must.

If the international community chose to ignore us and side with the Assads, in the name of real politick and engagement, it will be the end of us, in every which way you can imagine: exile, death, imprisonment travel bans, constant security harassments and irrelevance. Once we are gone, I don’t think anyone will be allowed to fill our shoes. And no, the world is not going to follow your nice and reasonable engagement plan, everybody that has written on engagement so far was more busy thinking about the “high politics” involved, to think about such trivial issues as human rights, democracy and political reforms. Human rights will come as an afterthought, just as they did in the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement. Can you name a single case when Article 2 was seriously enforced?

So, you see, Alex, unlike your friends who wish they can vote in the American presidential elections, I am doing the next best thing, I am lobbying, that still give some influence over the decision-making process hereabouts. Some is better than none. And my some, for what it’s worth, is against engagement.

Anonymous

Re: Panel to Seek Change on Iraq (LA Times Oct 16)

The conclusion of the panel is false and does not pay enough attention to the natures of the Syrian and Iranian regimes. Mr. Baker is perhaps out of date and does not recognize that the present Assad of Syria is not the same Assad he dealt with a decade ago. The current Assad is a novice untalented and quite rightly a failed politician. You cannot deal with such a person and expect the kind of outcome that Mr. Baker received from the deceased Assad. Moreover, a critical examination of Mr. Baker’s dealing with the late Assad is needed in order to assess the exact nature of the outcome of his dealings relating to the perceived ‘successes’. It may turn out in retrospect that Mr. Baker did not achieve much by talking to the late Assad. It may well be that the current Middle East problems are the result of dealing with a despot which laid down the foundation for the current debacle.

Iran and Syria were and still are involved in an existential conflict with the US ever since it invaded Iraq. The US had failed to recognize the nature of this conflict and fell into the trap of taking poisoned carrots presented to it by both Syria and Iran on the eve of the Iraq invasion. These carrots were a false promise by the Syrians for an imaginary assistance in the war against terror. As it turned out the Syrians were using zealot opposition groups in a war against the US and at the same time providing the US with information about these groups. The US foolishly accepted the Syrian carrot. The result was a 'free ride' to the Syrian regime by unwittingly aiding it to diminish its opposition at the hand of the US while the US suffered tremendous losses in the process. Iran on the other hand offered the poisoned carrot of ostensibly aiding the US occupation of Iraq by maneuvering the Iraqi Shia into a position of neutrality regarding occupation with the aim of overthrowing their archenemy Saddam Hussein. The end result was the emergence of an Iraqi radical Shia political bloc allied with Iran and with little sympathy if any to the US and its policies.

So what does Mr. Baker hope to achieve in this quagmire by talking to Iran and Syria? Such talk means one thing and one thing only to these two regimes: surrender Iraq to us and by extension the Gulf or continue to suffer losses and credibility as you continue Iraqi occupation. Besides why would Iran and/or Syria want to talk to the US now that they know full well that the US effort in Iraq is on the brink of collapse? There are no penalties suffered by either regime as a result of the status quo.

A better approach would be for the US to go on the offensive and to seek to destabilize and eventually overthrow one regime at a time. The Syrian regime is the weaker of the two and is ripe for toppling and getting replaced by a more representative government. Once gone, the Middle East will enter into a new era which would be more positively responsive to US policies with regards to secular democratic governance leading to the achievement of a lasting peace. Iran will become totally isolated and if it does not fall from within it will face one of two alternatives: It may fall with the help of outside opposition supported by the US or the regime may have to come to terms and deal positively with US demands.

Alex

Ammar,

I don't know why apparently I am giving you the impression that I meant to say that you are not effetive or not successful at all...not being able to single handedly overthrow the Syrian regime does not mean that your efforts are useless.

All I said was that most Syrian opposition figures (not all) are not as respectable as you are (or: you are alone in being driven by the right moral values in your opposition, as opposed to the others who are driven by their lust for power for example), so I am not very motivated to tolerate chaos so that a Khaddam or some Ikhwan figure pretending to be moderate for now, can get to power.

As for joshua's "islamic Education In Syria" I did read it and I even linked it on his profile page on my site. You are right to remind me of the religious schools that Hafez Al-Assad tolerated or encouraged after Hama. But that is exactly my point ... as I said earlier: if the Americans and their Arab allies stop trying to corner the secular Syrian regime, they will not need to be extra nice to the fundamentalists. Instead, the way things are now, the Syrians have to be sure they don't add another enemy to their existing enemies and competitors (the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel ...) so they they made the conservatives and fundamentalists their allies.

But Ammar, you know that Bahsar is not in love with those conservative teachings and he would be the first to restrict them if he feels he has long-term reliable support from outside.

Your proposals for a bicameral assembly will be resisted by both the Alawites and the Sunnis at the beggining, but it is the only compromise that can work, and I am sure there is a way to eventually sell it to most Syrians.

And finally, I share your concern that if the west decided to abandon its previous policies in the Middle East, they might forget completely about democracy and human rights.

My opinion on this: it is not too late for you to lobby for a partial shift in US policy .. not sticking to the current failed policies of isolating and punishing the Syrian regime, and on the other hand not totally abandoning democracy and human rights for the sake of any face-saving solution.

Why don't you lobby more for a middle East peace conference? ... it won't make the Syrians the stars of the show, there will also be Hosni and two King Abdallah's ..etc, and you can lobby for including human rights, economic reforms, and democratic reforms in the agenda. This administration would still value those components at least as a face-saving way out of their failure to impress the world with the democracy they tried and failed so far to introduce to the Arab world. The next administration will not care much for democratic reforms I agree with you. But it is not too late now as long as this administration is here. Read for example this article in Chronicles by our friend George Ajjan this week.

Alex

It may turn out in retrospect that Mr. Baker did not achieve much by talking to the late Assad. It may well be that the current Middle East problems are the result of dealing with a despot which laid down the foundation for the current debacle.


True .. and it may turn out in retrospect that if I did not pass my driver's test 20 years ago, I would not have had the accident I had last year.

Fares

Ammar, just to let you know you have my total support and don't worry about people criticizing you. It seems like people know only how to criticize people when they are right and weak.

They don't dare to critisize the authorities but compete to find them excuses!!! you hear me Alex.

Anyway here are some pictures which will show you the value of having an Assad ruling the country
Exotic Aleppo Flood Pictures

By independant Journalism....who needs media when we have digital cameras and critical eyes.

Innocent_Criminal

Wow Fares, you really showed him. As always you're arguments have are immature, unimpressive and backed by simple rage. You may have a point on many issues, but that doesn’t make you smart.

What Alex and Ammar are doing is something called DISCUSSION. While they often disagree, they still RESPECT each other’s opinion. Both of these matters seem alien to you. I personally pity Michel Kilo for two reasons. First, the man is in prison on bullshit charges. Second, he has you as a supporter.


Back to the topic

Ammar said

“1) You should ask our friend Joshua Landis about his study on the erosion of secularism in Syrian schools under the Assads. This aside, bear in mind that Hafiz al-Assad encouraged financed the establishment of over 400 Qur’an learning centers all over rural Syria that now function more or less as traditional Madrassas responsible for churning up thousands of messianic nitwits that preach the most wonderful mixture of salafi doctrine and unenlightened sufism, just what secular Syria really needs at this stage. In addition to this, the Assads have been tolerating and encouraging the flourishing of all different varieties of Islamic circles all through the late 80s and 90s, up to this very moment, in an idiotic attempt to channel Sunni”

Well this could all be perfectly valid but what would have been the alternative? Deny islamists (as ridiculous as they may be) their religious schools? I am sure critics would have called that a violation of religious freedoms/human rights. So I would rather have the state allow such Madrassas to run and control the crap they teach instead of banning it completely and force unmonitored underground ones to flourish. I think its also worth mentioning that Syria produces fewer international religious fanatics than most, if not all, Middle Eastern countries.


“2) I have no doubt that the Assads are interested in a stronger Syria. But they re also interested in maintaining their grip indefinitely on the reins of power there, and have no clue or desire to move away from the existing sectarian arrangements because they make their money by mani0pulating it. Establishing a strong Syria and keeping it under control are mutually exclusive dreams. Guess what side they are willing to err on?”

I couldn’t agree with you more. But I disagree with the notion that they are worse than their counter parts in the Middle East. Which many Assad critics, including yourself, make them out to be. And that is simply not the case IMHO. I am not trying to champion “Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?” mentality. But ALL people in power are interested in maintaining their grip indefinitely, not just dictators. But what the Arab public lack; are the basic judicial & civil institutions to enforce some sort of competition for their leadership. We simply “prefer” to remain sheep. And not a single Arab society can declare that they’re immured from this pathetic yet highly successful model.

Anonymous

I think its also worth mentioning that Syria produces fewer international religious fanatics than most, if not all, Middle Eastern countries.

Actually all the major theorists of salafism and jihadism are Syrians. Ever heard of Abu Mus'ab al-Suri?

Anonymous

It's known that most of the sheikhs killed and tortured by the asads were sufis and not salafis.

Anonymous

before asad,syria had never known sectarianism and mass graves this explain the 40 years long international cover on this regime...
Who hate the syrian people ,like the asads...

The comments to this entry are closed.