No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

Obama’s Born-Again Missile Envy Over Syria: Wrong on All Counts

| September 6, 2013

He's not alone on this one by coincidence. (White House)

He’s not alone on this one by coincidence. (White House)

Here we go again. The United States is about to attack yet another Arab country over flimsy evidence that the regime used chemical weapons, with no clear strategy, no idea what to do next if the attack escalates a conflict that’s never been America’s to worry about, and no viable plan if Syria’s maggoty but lethal allies—Iran, across the gulf from the Arab Peninsula, and Hezbollah in Lebanon—decide to slosh after their share of blood.

pierre tristam column flaglerlive A chemical attack did take place in Syria. That we know. Several such attacks have taken place. But we also know that more than 100,000 people have been killed since that civil war began, more than the combined totals of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Those atrocities are not less deplorable because they were the result of conventional weapons. There’s no such thing as the conventional murder of innocents, as the majority of those deaths are, except in the distorted conventions of war rules: you may shoot a child with a .50-caliber weapon that could bring down an F-16, you may massacre a family of 10 with a single 220-mm shell, you may slit the throat of a girl’s parents in front of her, rape her, slit her throat, then execute her unarmed relatives one after the other, you may level entire neighborhoods with your air force and go back and strafe the rescuers for good measure. None of that will get a peep from the press or the morality police at the White House. But drop sarin gas on a neighborhood, and all of a sudden a red line is crossed in Obama’s weird calculus.

That red line was crossed two and a half years ago when the insurgency quickly turned into a civil war, which is the definition of a war crime by any measure, whatever the weaponry. The word civil gives it away. It is against every convention under the sun to target civilians in a war. But if we were to apply that standard the American military, its mercenary contractors and the joy-stuck men behind the CIA’s drone warfare would have had to be brought up on war-crimes charges every week since the earliest days of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now the rogue bombings of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia.

That’s why we have words to die for like “collateral damage.” The word collateral is a disinfectant. Used in that context it means the opposite of what it describes: a coincidence, a secondary consequence. War’s shruggable shit happens. And the word damage? It’s what you fill out on an accident report, a nick in your trousers, the broken window from the neighbors’ overzealous baseball throw. Bring the two words together, use them blandly during your press conferences about the war of the moment, and there you have it: the systematic obliteration of civilians is reduced to the acceptable, unremarkable footnote of collateral damage. You’ll have to do better, much better, to catch our attention.

Cue the Crayola version of Obama’s moralism, and a red line is drawn. And this is the guy I voted for thinking he’d help America finally grow up from the Strangelove juvenalia of the Bush years.

Firing a few dozen cruise missiles is not going to cripple Assad’s regime. It is going to have the same effect as President Clinton’s missile attack on Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 after the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa. That attack demolished a medicine factory and drew ridicule for its symbolic stupidity. Barack Obama turning Syria into another American front is a grave mistake that has unintended consequences written all over it (talk about collateral damage). It would be as reckless as attacking Iran over nuclear weapons, even if Iran possessed them. (Pakistan does, and it’s a more dangerous country than Iran has been: keep in mind that Osama bin laden lived for years unmolested within a few miles of the trigger bank of Pakistan’s nukes.)

And where’s the proof that the Syrian regime launched the attack? We were told that Obama was going to make a clear and irrefutable case that the Assad regime was responsible for the attacks that killed hundreds of civilians on Aug. 21. We have yet to see that proof. Maybe Colin Powell wasn’t available to make the case. What we do have is even flimsier than what George W. Bush had when he claimed Saddam Hussein stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. We have one intercepted phone call from an alleged Syrian military official who thinks the attack turned out to be larger than planned. Who that official is, how do we know that he is tied to the regime, what proof do we have that the administration isn’t making all this up? Don’t ask. Obama won’t tell. Curveball must have relatives.

There’s also the not-so minor matter of those Syrian rebels. These aren’t your garden variety freedom fighters. Not even the merely rape-and-pillage kind Reagan loved so much. Most aren’t interested in democracy or lap-dancing with the Statue of Liberty. Many rebels are a rebranded version of the insurgency in Iraq. They’re Sunni fanatics. The most powerful segment among them is backed by al-Qaeda. Another powerful segment may not have al-Qaeda’s backing but is just as radical, just as ruthless, the sort of people who gave us beheadings, suicide bombings and the bloodletting of innocent, all in the name of their cause. So it would not at all be surprising if one of these factions staged chemical attacks to provoke the sort of reaction it has from Obama. If that’s the case, we would essentially be attacking Syria in reaction to an atrocity perpetrated by the regime’s enemies.

Syrian President Assad’s regime has been winning the fight. It would seem outlandish that he would perpetrate an act that could turn the tide against him. But let’s assume that the regime had, in fact, bombed its own with chemical weapons. Like father, like son: Bashar el Assad’s father Hafez leveled the city of Hama in 1982 to silence the Muslim Brotherhood, killing 20,000 of his own citizens. Bashar learned well. Chemical attacks would be a change of clothes for him, not a change in strategy.

For all that, moral outrage isn’t enough to risk an equally immoral response that will unquestionably murder civilians, inflame all sides of the insurgency, even those ostensibly on the side of reason, embolden and possibly strengthen Assad, stop no one from using chemical weapons again, and muddy what has been an internal war about Syrian identity.

I should clarify here that I would like nothing better than to see this man erased from the face of the earth. His father demolished my native Lebanon. If I have terrorized nights to this day, it’s from the memory of Syrian guns aimed and firing regularly at our neighborhoods: I owe my knowledge of the sound and smell of 220-mm shells to the Assad family. A 220 would be too good for the son, too quick, too merciful. But revenge is reason’s undoing, and not just at a personal level.

In the Middle East, the United States has perfected the klutz of intervening where it shouldn’t in the name of supposedly higher callings no one there gives a damn about, because they’re too busy answering callings of their own. We’re about to do it again, as if the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan are as distant as the lessons Britain never wanted to learned from those two countries when they bled Britain a century ago. But it’s not our fight. It’s not our business.

And what business there is, is neither original nor worth a drop of American blood. It’s an overdue Reformation with stale slabs of Arab Spring thrown in for western consumption, to keep the munitions flowing. Majority Sunnis are sick of Assad’s minority Alawite regime (a cultish strain of Shiitism), in power since 1969. Hezbollah’s Shiites are terrified of losing their principal sponsor. And neither Iran nor Israel, in an unspeakably ironic but silent alliance, want to see Sunnis’ more extremist strain win the upper hand. Assad was a good buffer for both of them. The sectarian battle is part of Islam’s larger crisis of identity, but it’s a very long way from being resolved. American missiles won’t help. They’d just be the latest crusade, and we know how that keeps turning out.

The Pentagon isn’t interested in attacking Syria. The British Parliament rejected an attack despite its conservative majority. The United Nations Security Council isn’t endorsing the attack. And our own Congress, despite Obama’s clever shove—a dilution of hubris disguised as broadening democratic engagement—is properly weary of granting a drive-by blessing. But Obama appears intent on launching missiles, evidence, legitimacy, consequences and bloodshed be damned. This born-again hawk is no reluctant warrior. He wants his imprint. He wants to color in his red line, because he can.

If this is audacity, Mr. President, you can shove it.

Pierre Tristam is FlaglerLive’s editor. Reach him by email here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

34 Responses for “Obama’s Born-Again Missile Envy Over Syria: Wrong on All Counts”

  1. tbird says:

    Wow, I finally agree with you on something!!!

  2. Robert says:

    I am not a Republican nor Tea Party.

    However, if you removed the faces and just listened to the rhetoric it would sound very similar to the last time justification was given to go to war. And yes, when bombs are dropped on a country that is war.

    John McCain let the cat out of the bag when he said the bombing can be used to remove Assad. That is the end game remove Assad. If the US was able to use a proxy such as the UN it would have been done long ago. The US can bomb Syria and some wouldn’t call it a war, but if Syria shoots back then it would no doubt be called aggression.

  3. Liana G says:

    This is not the audacity of hope, this is the audacity of a foolish emperor without a clue. The emperor has no clothes!

  4. Freddy says:

    You can thank all the voters who voted for this useless president.

  5. Jon Hardison says:

    Great, great piece! You cover so many of the frustrations I voice as I pace around the house talking to people about this on the phone. I’m so angry. I’m not sure if it’s the fact that Obama basically stole Chaney’s move, or that the American people are expected to hear “chemical weapons” and just go along for the ride… 75 thousand troops on the ground to guard chemical plants and stores. 75K!!!

    We’re tired Mr. President. We’re tired of being ignorant insurgents and missionaries for democracy. We’re tired of being helpless enablers in the spreading of the hypocrisy that is our actively failing political system. If Syria is in need of invading for atrocities committed against its people they are, at best, at the end of a very long line that includes North Korea, Somalia, Sudan/Darfur and by some standards the United States.

    Or we could be honest and tell our troops that we bomb not for the betterment of our brothers but to clear a living obstacle to our true interest which lies beneath their feet. If given the choice, do you think they would fight for such a thing?

    Socrates said, “The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.” Today we are a farce but all we need is to choose to live by words we have already spoken – to follow the path we have already laid.

    Man the F*$K up Mr. President!

  6. m&m says:

    This guy is adding to his legacy as being the WORST president is this great country’s history.. He is inept and clueless..

  7. fruitcake says:

    And I thought Jimmy Carter was our worst President…boy was I wrong!

  8. confidential says:

    I beg to all; our President, Senators and Congressmen, please lets not get ourselves involved in Syria. If we do, it should be at a table of conversations for peace. Invite to a neutral Arab League summit President Assad, representatives of the rebels, our western world allied, Russia and China prime ministers and presidents and a delegation of all those Arab countries indirectly affected by this sad civil war and please work out a truce conducive to general elections ASAP in Syria. All until now killings attacking or defending forgiven for the sake of a new Syrian Democracy based on free and monitoring elections. If Assad is defeated should be secured a safe undisclosed location to permanently retire if needed out of Syria. Please lets work for peace.

  9. Outsider says:

    Hell has frozen over! I couldn’t even wait to get through the whole article to write this comment. As I’ve posted on other blogs, why is it okay to kill innocent people with guns, bombs, RPG’s, etc. but not with human Raid? I agree with you 100% on this point. I do believe, based on the president’s logic, that there IS a plan, and we will be able to measure success if we bomb Libya. Won’t we all rest easier at night knowing they are killing children with guns and knives, and not poison gas?

  10. Jim R. says:

    The idea that it would be immoral to not take action against Syria for it’s supposed ( not proven) use of chemical weapons is hypocrisy . The U.S. use of white phosphorous gas, depleted uranium and cluster bombs in Iraq and other places makes us the biggest user of chemical weapons in the world
    We are as MLK said the greatest purveyor of violence in the world and we have become like the schoolyard bully, pushing everyone around just because we can.

  11. BW says:

    I couldn’t agree more, Pierre.

    First of all, we are NOT the police force of the world. This is a UN issue. Yes, it’s horrible and horrendous and action should be taken. BUT it is not the sole responsibility of the USA nor our right to just bomb other countries that we feel have done wrong.

    Secondly, there is a key element of these rebellions that is sadly getting overlooked . . . the extremists filling in the new governments. Yes, these dictatorships are horrible but why is the world so blind as to what is coming in afterwards? Are we blind to what went on in Egpyt and even Iraq? In fact, what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation was the exact same thing and why the Taliban took hold. These terrorist extremist have learned to use this so-called “Arab Spring” that we applaud as a means to take over countries. They aren’t providing more freedom. They are occupying and we are assisting them. From that perspective and taking into account the extreme hate of these groups, could we put it past an extremist group backing the rebels to have actually carried out that attack and pointing the finger at Assad in order to gain more international support?

    Lastly, the people of Syria have endured a great deal of violence and inflicting more violence on them is not going to solve the issues. It is not our fight. It is our responsibility along with the UN to encourage discussions, and end to the violence, and peace. And it is time we opened our eyes to what is really going on and the occupation that is spreading across that region.

  12. karma says:

    This country can afford shooting a Tomahawk missile at $1.5 million each into Syria ? yet we are to broke to allow tours of the White House. This whole Syria campaign is nothing more than Obama trying to save face. He said himself this was a Red line and he has been called out, yet he and many others will be blaming Republicans should this vote fail.
    Pierre, You speak of your home country of Lebanon and yet Iran backed Hezbollah plays such a major role in this country and backs the Syrian army. Much of the death and destruction to your country is directly linked to that of Hezbollah. A bombing in Lebanon the other day is believed to be against Hezbollah by Syrian Rebels. It is very obvious the middle east has many more problems than just Syria.

  13. ken says:

    Obama did not feel the need to consult congress before issuing his red line comments.
    Now that he has boxed himself and the United States into a corner, he goes to congress.
    His are the actions of a clueless coward.
    We should not attack Syria, we should not give one penny’s worth of aid or training to either side.
    We do have allies in the world. If we are to help anyone, it should be them.
    The idiotic policy of giving money to enemies and potential enemies must stop.

  14. Sherry Epley says:

    While I voted for President Obama, twice. . . and I certainly am a humanitarian, but I feel we need to stay out of Syria. The USA needs to stop trying to be the policemen of the planet. We are currently having great difficulty maintaining true “justice” here in our own country. Jumping into another war does not make any sense. Please Mr. President, use sanctions, use diplomacy, let the CIA create regime change. . . but just make sure we have a solid concrete “end game” as part of the plan.

  15. Genie says:

    It is a terrible thing to see a President I do not support now finally grappling with the moral decisions which have faced his predecessors. And oddly enough, because of that, I find him more likable. Maybe that is because he is finally focusing on the enormity of what it means to be President, instead of heading for the golf course or his next vacation. This is where he begins to fill the shoes of those who have walked before him. He is understanding the great burdens which the office imposes now. He too will have sleepless nights. Hopefully, he will understand that not lashing out at Syria will not make him weak. Hopefully he knows he must not think for himself, but for a nation and a world community. A legacy of peace would be something to be proud of.

    • Ben Dover says:

      Sorry Genie but the idiot that walked before him was George Bush, he ruined our economy lying his way into the Iraqi war, most people that voted for Obama voted cause we thought he`d be smart enough to stay out of wars over there , get us out of the ones Bush started, were out of one, the economy is slowly coming back , it took Bushes wars 12 yrs to destroy the economy , he goes into Syria, and the rest of the world looks at it as an act of aggression, he`s going to do exactly what the war mongers like Bush , Boehner, and the rest of the republicans want him to do , they like when the war machine is running , it may suck the cash out of the economy , but all the 10%`s who have stock in munition companies get richer , these wars are what keep making the gap between the rich and the poor bigger , it eliminates the middle class , they start having to live off their retirement funds to make ends meet , this would be a big big mistake

      • Genie says:

        @ Ben Dover:

        Sorry Ben, but Obama has been in office 5 years now. He doesn’t get a pass on this one. And now we’re right back to those weapons of mass destruction, right where we started, still with no plan. But OOPS, we’re still involved in a war in the middle east. We don’t have the money, the men or the equipment to take on another war right now. So unless you don’t want to see the draft come back or have plans to “re-up”, we can’t possibly go to war over this. These two men have already cost me half of my retirement funds.

  16. gino says:

    A most insightful article. The military. industrial complex, which owns this third rate country, sees a dormant arms forces with dormant weapons. It needs to put them to use in order to replentish their armaments as well as those of the “enemy”.. Follow the money.

    • palm coaster 12 says:

      Gino is absolutely correct. It is the industrial military complex that owns U.S. politicians that I would bet is pushing for this. Time to start a new war and start building those rockets at how many millions of dollars each? Follow the money for sure!

  17. orphan says:

    Since WW2 our country has steadily gone down the tubes!
    I was born the year that war ended and have thanked the stars ever since!
    When Vietnam happened, I was intelligent enough to screw the government before it could screw me!
    All of those THOUSANDS of young people who were losing their lives just because someone decided to invade/conquer another country went by me as the wind blows-each one of them ripping out a piece of my heart as I read of them.
    What uselessness!
    And then here comes all of the wars (OH YES, These ARE wars) after Nam. We haven’t learned a DAMN thing, apparently.
    There are so many people that could use a boost from US. Why can’t we help them instead of wreaking havoc on the rest of the world?

  18. Sgt Saber says:

    This Syrian issue is all about natural gas and oil. Qatar and Saudi Arabia vs. Syria and Russia/Gazprom – just follow the money trail. Qatar has spent $3 billion supporting the rebels. Qatar wants a pipeline from the gulf to Turkey, but Syria (Assad) has blocked it. This is essentially due to Russia’s interest in keeping natural gas coming out of the Middle East from flowing into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom, the Russian-owned oil interest. Qatar is a big player in the LNG market. Iran would also like a pipeline to flow gas from its fields, through Iraq, through Syria and onto Europe. This has placed Syria and the Assad regime into good favor with the Iranians, but not with Qatar and the Saudis. If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. John Kerry said in the Senate hearings that the Saudi Arabia would pay for our attack. Follow the money trail.

  19. Surf Swami says:

    The time to act was when peaceful Syrian protesters were being continually murdered by Syrian Army, police and militia. The opposition to Assad was peaceful in the beginning. The opposition movement eventually resorted to violence only after battalions of Assad’s snipers kept shooting and killing droves of peaceful marchers. Soon, Assad’s militia were killing non-violent opposition activists in home-invasion murders. Before the situation turned into full scale civil war, there was a window of opportunity for the world to act stridently and assertively, beginning with the use of economic and political measures. Now it seems out of control. Any government that murders peaceful protestors to stifle dissent must be held accountable by the nations of the world.

  20. Ben Dover says:

    I agree whole heartedly , I voted for Obama to get us out of the wars we were in and to prevent the republicans from starting another in Iran. We are not the world police , the rest of the middle east will view it as a terrorist attack , it will certainly delay us getting what troops were have over in that region home , cause they will go bat shit crazy and start bombing embassies and killing our troops, get all of our troops out of there , they hate us and don t want us there, we all know its about oil, they are committing far more cruel attacks on humanity in Darfur then over in Syria , why aren`t we attacking them? If Boehner is agreeing with Obama on anything that should be a clear omen not to do it, you ask the devil for advise , you certainly do the opposite , him and his ilk would love for Obama to attack Syria without UN sanctions, they`ve been sabotaging his Presidency from day one , why would he even ask for their advise , does he think they`ll pass one of his budgets or stop trying to kill Obamacare for the umpteenth time , I was truly hoping that if they agreed with him on this one and only think he ever asked for approval for and got it , he`d say Oh Hell No , Now I Know It`s A Mistake!!

  21. karma says:

    The 10 Senate Foreign Relations Committee members that voted yes received 83% more money from the defense industry than the members that voted no. Follow the money.

  22. Geezer says:

    Mr. President whom I voted for:

    Is it roomy being in Israel’s pocket?

  23. RHWeir says:

    It’s too close to Iran and Israel. The situation is too confusing. Leave it up to they Syrians. If we do anything, arrange a hit on Assad, blame it on the opposition and move on. However, the power vacuum created might even cause more trouble than there this is now. Let’s see, how did that chant go? Oh, I recall now;
    Hey Obama! 1-2-3-4 we don’t want your ****ing war! I had to get in the way back machine to 1970-71 with my boy Sherman’s assistance for that one.

  24. Anonymous says:

    I think it would be foolish to intervene without other countries partnering with us, without clear-cut strategies to get in and get out and without understanding who, exactly, we will be enabling to fill in the power vacuum after Assad is out. We don’t want to create another Iraq. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Arab world, who supposedly cares so much about the injustices allegedly suffered by their people at the hands of the United States and Israel, are so resoundingly silent about the pitiful plight of men, women and children in their own back yard! It’s not like they don’t have the money and manpower to do something to help their own, if they so choose! Folks, this is why Israel continues to exist, despite hostility on all sides…because, in order to survive, Israel has learned that you have to help yourself, and, in order to do that, you must help your own. I don’t think we should should proceed with any serious military action that does not include assurances AND participation–SOME level of responsibility–from Syria’s Arab neighbors. It is truly heart-breaking to see the images we are witnessing now, coming out of Syria. It is like looking at Holocaust images. But we need partners in this and the ARAB WORLD NEEDS TO START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY! The world (including us) needs to stop pandering to them because of their oil resources.

  25. Reaganomicon says:

    Hey Barack, when using hundreds of schoolchildren that have been gassed as your justification for action in Syria did you bother to look at the thousands that had been killed in Syria by the Assad regime during the last year or so that you’ve been pulling the “best interests of america” card? Or the hundreds killed during drone strikes that were collateral because of bad intelligence? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

  26. confidential says:

    Lets have some common sense and stay out of Syria. That is what at least 71% of Americans want Mr. President and Mr. Kerry.

  27. Johnny Taxpayer says:

    Johnny Taxpayer’s middle eastern foreign policy can be summed up in one statement. The dictator you know is always better than the one you don’t.

  28. confidential says:

    @Johnny ..You are so right!!

  29. John Adams says:

    Only the U.S. is lucky enough to have a president who leads from his behind.

  30. Ranzi says:

    Like father like son? Far from, because Bashar’s ambition was never to be in politics and studies show that most people who aspire to be high up in politics are sociopaths. He was an hesitant leader who was studying to be a doctor and I know people who know him and say he is gentle, down to earth and humble. Bashar Al-Assad has be demonized by the US government and most media, he is a victim in a big conspiracy and it is quite disturbing to watch. Why? because the US has been doing this for years, playing chess with the world and putting and replacing governments as they wish.

    When the Syrian protest began in March 2011, some Army officers did act independently and shoot against protesters. What the media failed to emphasize was that President Assad fired all those responsible. He then went out to the public, universities, schools, hospitals asking the people what they wanted. All their demands were met. What type of ruthless tyrant would do that? The muslim brotherhood has been trying to rise to power in Syria since the 80s, and the secular Syrian government had no tolerance for any type of extreme religion. Instead the Muslim brotherhood (it is suspected that obama is one of them, but im not too sure) the same muslim brotherhood who have been trying to overtake the government in Egypt used the protests in Syria as a perfect opportunity to hijack it and turned a protest into a civil war. The media was helping them and reporting false events, such as the army was murdering and killing people. A-jazeera was caught out for using fake actors and footage. So this thing which was meant to be a revolution turned into bloodshed, war and massacres. Pretty soon the Syrian people realised what was going on, that they were being invaded by foreign jihadists and extremists from places like Qatar, Saudi, yemen, turkey and the people of Syria began to unite and after they saw that their president was been victimised by the west, they also saw him go out into the streets and started to meet their demands of reform, they united and began to support him.

    What is so right about how he governs? I’m not going to say he was perfect, which government is? But he was so much better than his father and not ruthless. He was even opposed to his fathers advisers who tried to influence him to rule as his father did, but he was having non of that.
    He was educated in London as a doctor and was quite westernised in his ways.

    He moderniosed Syria and opened it up to the world
    He released many political prisoners
    His government had no tolerance for extreme religious parties
    withdrew troops from lebanon
    minority and religious tolerance in a secular society
    elected parliament and more democratic reforms coming (after protests)
    education free for everyone
    health care is free and for everyone
    He protects christians
    a growing economy
    he envisions to build railways that will connect the whole middle east

    Men and women are free to socialise freely
    Women have equal rights under constitution
    Women have equal pay under constitution
    Women will not get stoned for having pre marital sex
    Women can drive
    Women will not get stoned for wearing makeup and not covering up
    People will not get arrested for drinking alcohol
    People will not get killed for being atheists

    In 2003 US Secretary of State Collin Powell visited Bashar and handed him a list of demands including:

    1. Cutting all ties with the five main Palestinian factions in Syria,

    2. Severing Syria’s relations with Iran in exchange for a promise of better relations with some Arab states.

    3. Signing a peace treaty with Israel similar to one Syria had already refused.

    4. Removing books from schools with any enmity towards Israel.

    5. Allowing western banks and companies unhindered access to Syrian markets and resources along with other neo-liberal reforms.

    Bashar refused these demands in the face of the nearly 200,000 coalition troops across the Syrian border in Iraq. Instead Bashar sought to hinder the occupation of Iraq and demanded that the occupying forces withdraw.

    I respect him because he is the only president in the middle east that stands up to the US. He stands on principle and can’t be bought for a price. He has more integrity than most politicians of thr ME and he will not bow down to the bullies US and will not let Syria be overtaken by extreme Islamic who the US is trying to put in place of him. HE could have easily being bought by Saudi Arabia, he could have easily escaped to Russia and taken the money he was offered, instead he is fighting for his people. He is actually still in power because his people support him.

    You can watch him in an interview that the western media will never show us – you might be able to notice that unlike most dictators he does not bang his fist on the table, raise his voice and assert his presence to the person speaking to him … VRyA#t=277

  31. Ranzi says:

    Great article by the way. I think you’re an exceptional writer, although I disagree that Bashar is a tyrant.

Leave a Reply

FlaglerLive's forum, as noted in our comment policy, is for debate and conversation that adds light and perspective to articles. Please be courteous, don't attack fellow-commenters or make personal attacks against individuals in stories, and try to stick to the subject. All comments are moderated.

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive

FlaglerLive Email Alerts

Enter your email address to get alerts.


suppert flaglerlive flagler live palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam florida
fcir florida center for investigative reporting

Recent Comments

FlaglerLive is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization | P.O. Box 254263, Palm Coast, FL 32135 | Contact the Editor by email | (386) 586-0257 | Sitemap | Log in