Another Bad Day for Assad

Zionist Occupied Al-Jazeera ran an Associated Press story that a mass grave has been found in Lebanon.

“Troops have exhumed the remains of 25 bodies from a mass grave near a former Syrian military base in eastern Lebanon.
An official on Saturday said 12 more buried bodies, most thought to be Lebanese soldiers, were removed from a grave near Beirut recently for DNA testing.
The identities of the bodies were not immediately known, but one security official said some appeared to be Lebanese soldiers killed during an October 1990 Syrian military offensive that defeated Christian-commanded Lebanese Army units of then-interim Lebanese prime minister Michael Aoun[…]Aad [the director of Support of Lebanese in Detention and Exile] called for an international investigation into the mass graves.”

This story demonstrates Al-Jazeera’s independence from militant Islamic interests.
Or does it?
We currently have Assad right where we want him. He is under intense international pressure, but his accusers are from the Christian world, not the Zionist Jewish one. So before we celebrate another nail in the coffin in the House of Assad with a double Manischevetini, we ought to ask ourselves who we expect to take Assad’s place if he falls. Do we really think it will be some Sufi hippy? Or will it be someone even worse than Assad? Someone who won’t be held accountable for the sins of Assad’s father, either legally, or for long standing grudges accumulated over the decades. He will probably be a (much) more capable leader possessing a greater mandate both in Syria and the greater Muslim world, with none of this watered down secular Allawite brand of Islam, but rather, a normative Sunni frummie.
Assad is awful. Long live Assad.
Full story.

8 thoughts on “Another Bad Day for Assad

  1. Israel: We prefer Assad
    Israel told the United States it fears the outcome of regime change in Syria.
    At a strategic-dialogue meeting this week among senior officials, Israel laid out for the United States three scenarios if Bashar Assad is toppled: chaos, an Islamist regime or another strongman from Assad’s minority Alawite sect. Israel fears all those options, saying Assad provides a measure of stability.
    U.S. officials told their Israeli counterparts that toppling Assad could be “transformative” and dismissed concerns about an Islamist regime taking his place. Israel and the United States favor pressure on Syria to force it to stop hosting Palestinian terrorist groups and supporting Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist organization.


  2. How many mass graves did Israel produce in that war? Why must every Arab leader be habitually demonized by Israel? As for those graves being Christians. Well the Christian falangists have a lock on the Presidency even thought they are a minority, which means Lebanon isn’t all that democratic even without Syria. Israel invaded so the Christians could remain a dominant minority. What right have they to complain about the minority Alawites in Syria? In return the minority Christian oligarchy would give them the Litani valley and its water supply for settlement.
    Having said that I am not surprised the Israelis finally conceded he is better than the alternative.
    Hezbollah hasn’t bothered Israel since Israel pulled out of Lebanon, which it had no cause to invade to begin with.

  3. Dameocrat,
    These graves were not created by Israel, and the pressure of reaction to these graves is not being mounted by Israel, but by Lebanese Christians.
    Not every Arab leader is demonized by Israel.
    Hezbollah not bothering Israel is a bit of an exaggeration, however, though there are certainly fewer public incidents.
    John Brown, when the administration is dismissive of even Israeli’s resistence to regime change, we know the powers that be are completely out to lunch. Perhaps the fact that this has been made public shows how serious the schism is. Seems like the Israelis leaked it.

  4. More jumping to conclusions based on no evidence. You’re reading strategic goals into this when there’s no indication that they are there or that Al-Jazeera would be any less critical of an equally (or more) disastrous replacement to the Assad regime.

  5. You know, Al Jazeera is not a single person. It is an Arabic-language television channel, and then again it is a new English-language channel yet to be launched, and then again it is a Web site which can survive only by repurposing content from wires. More, there is no necessarily single line within any of those organizations.
    So I don’t think it is a good idea to try and infer something about what Al Jazeera “thinks” based on an English-language AP wire story which they chose to edit and publish on their English-language Web site. A pattern of editorial choices, maybe, but this is just one item, and not a particularly significant one in my opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.