[annatar1914]

@annatar1914
My opinion is irrelevant in Syria, neither I, nor my people, want to interfere with them. We'll protect our borders and they'll handle their country.

Will the replacement be better? Highly unlikely, revolutions never go smooth and will always require a significant sacrifice over a period of decades.
Once the people of Syria defeat the fascists occupying them, they'll have to deal with Islamists as well, both Sunnis and Shias.

Furthermore, we must not forget that Syria is a forced union by France, and the various conflicts tend to happen along the same national lines of pre-French mandate borders.
Syrians will have to choose to either establish a Federal system where each former capital and national group rule over themselves, potentially even a confederate union, or partition.

The same challenge is happening in Lebanon between the ancient well known Lebanese union of city states and Mount A'amel in the south east, and the debate over federalism or outright partition is almost a daily debate in Lebanese media and political circles.

-Mount A'amel, the eastern half of the south, is the only non-Lebanese area that was only included after patriarch Hoayek made an agreement with the leaders of the mountain to join Lebanon before his negotiations with the French and the proceeding establishment of a proto-national pact

For Syria, those lines are Al-Sham, Aleppo, Latakia, and the Iron desert, along with the Kurds of course.

Tribes, not ''nations'' in the Western sense of the word. And here is the interesting thing; once you get past all the artificial word games and rationalizations and self-delusion of urban cosmopolitans, we're almost all part of tribes, wherever you go around the world. It's not a bad thing, either.

[anasawad]

@annatar1914

Tribes, not ''nations'' in the Western sense of the word.

Sure, But we're not talking only about tribes, nor are we talking about the western social structure here.

When it comes to Syria, Aleppo and Latakia weren't tribes, they were full on nations that were conquered and forced into a union, same as with Damascus (Al-Sham).
The Kurds, likewise, are their own nation, and the Iron desert is where a tribal confederacy exists acting as its own nation with its own laws.

And here is the interesting thing; once you get past all the artificial word games and rationalizations and self-delusion of urban cosmopolitans, we're almost all part of tribes, wherever you go around the world. It's not a bad thing, either.

I know it's not a bad thing, although many westerners seem to believe so.

The only major difference between tribes in the middle eastern sense and western sense is that when it comes to the middle east, the tribes are ancient and have remained nearly fully autonomous and self-governing due to various factors, acting as their own entities for many many centuries to the point where they developed their own national identity.
Basically, they became nations; And we can clearly see that whenever we look at old pre-French and pre-British maps of the regions where tribal confederacies and occasionally single tribes had their own governments ruling over their perspective lands with their own laws and customs being enforced.

Many seem to think that just because there were empires there, that means that suddenly the nations within these empires ceased to exist, they did not, and more often that not, empires in the region are made up of several tribes and non-tribal nations joining in a union to achieve a common interest. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are good examples.


Now that colonial rule is over, and those nations and tribes were forced into a union that doesn't serve their interests, conflict constantly abounds, and a key subject of discussion in political spheres around the region is whether to break up these unions and go back to the old borders.
That decision of whether to break up these unions or figure out a way to serve everyone's interests within it is solely up to the people in them and how they see things.

The only faction that is staunchly against this are Arab supremacists and nationalists, who pretty much adopted a fascist ideology (The Baath), where they see a more fitting construction of society is to purge out or subdue non-Arabs in the region and wage war against these old national and tribal structures in order to destroy them and bring forth a new single united Arab nation.

If you want a western example, just look at White- Nationalists who want an ethnostate for white people.

[ingliz]

draw whatever conclusions you want.

What caused the explosion?

"The bottom line is we still don't know"

Mark Esper, US secretary of defense

[skinster]

The Politics of War: What is Israel’s Endgame in Lebanon and Syria?

Your skewed, unsupported historical bullshit aside

This is the story of anasawad's position. He's like the Random Guado gusanos of Venezeuala, the wealthy lot trying to amass more wealth by killing off powerful opposition, like Hezbollah, which is mainly a defensive force who have kept Lebanon intact. If it were not for Hezbollah, the Israelis would've kept the occupation of South Lebanon and it'd probably be known as occupied Israeli territory today. But anasawad would be ok with that since he's ok with Israel despite the massacres and occupation over the last 4 decades by the Israelis.

a fascist ideology (The Baath),

If it was fascist, the Americans wouldn't be trying to destroy it here or in Iraq, Syria etc. You keep using language incorrectly. You tried to claim the Syrians were fascist too, they are not. You also claimed again ITT they used chemical weapons on their people despite the recent reports of the OPCW whistleblowers. The lying is relentless, but I suppose there's little else to justify your position.

If Hezbollah are pushed out of Lebanon then Lebanon will no longer be able to resist any invasions. But hopefully this won't happen. The Lebanese, despite the awful sectarianism in the country, should get together at least with regards to their common enemy.

Claiming Hezbllah had the weapons or control of the hangers in the port is also straight up lies:

[ingliz]

draw whatever conclusions you want.

Note the blown out top decking.

Does this lend credence to initial reports that a ship was involved in the incident?

[anasawad]

@skinster

the wealthy lot trying to amass more wealth by killing off powerful opposition, like Hezbollah,

which is mainly a defensive force who have kept Lebanon intact.

If it were not for Hezbollah, the Israelis would've kept the occupation of South Lebanon and it'd probably be known as occupied Israeli territory today.

LMAO.
You do realize that the majority of the soldiers who were in Hezbollah during the 90s and 2000s were from the Baalbek tribes right?

But anasawad would be ok with that since he's ok with Israel despite the massacres and occupation over the last 4 decades by the Israelis.

1- Hezbollah is no longer a resistance movement, we are the resistance and we left Hezbollah.
2- We've been at near-constant war for the past 5 decades, whether it's against Israel, Syria, Palestinians, etc. Now everyone wants peace, and neither your ilk nor your fascist and Islamist friends have a say in it.

If it was fascist, the Americans wouldn't be trying to destroy it here or in Iraq, Syria etc. You keep using language incorrectly. You tried to claim the Syrians were fascist too, they are not

You don't understand geo-politics, don't embarrass yourself.

Their ideology is called Socialist Nationalism, i.e. Fascism. They were even supported by literally NAZI Germany during their early rise.

If Hezbollah are pushed out of Lebanon then Lebanon will no longer be able to resist any invasions.

God you western leftists are a bunch of smug idiots.

Dear, Hezbollah was created in Baalbek and it sent soldiers to fight Israel in the south, and the people who created it and fought in it are still there, simply not in Hezbollah anymore. At least try reading its history before you spew your bullshit.

Claiming Hezbllah had the weapons or control of the hangers in the port is also straight up lies

Why did it have tunnels into the port then?
That's out now, it's useless to try to deny their existence.

Note: When you want to show protests, atleast try not to show ones that are against the party you're defending. You know, to be a competent propagandist at the very least.



@ingliz

What caused the explosion?

Still unclear, but the point still stands.
If I stored heavy ammo right next to your house in times of war, I hold full responsibility if it blew up or blown up and killed you because I put it there.

Does this lend credence to initial reports that a ship was involved in the incident?

I honestly don't know.
There are several theories going around right now that multiple explosions happened with one massive one as there seem to be multiple epicenters, but it's still unclear and almost no one is being allowed in to confirm or deny anything yet.
They closed the area entirely for the first couple of days, and now only giving limited access, so the only way we will know how it started and how many smaller explosions were triggered is now up to the info released by investigators, mostly the French ones.

[ingliz]

If I stored heavy ammo right next to your house in times of war

I have already agreed with you elsewhere that whatever Israel may have done it doesn't absolve Hezbollah of responsibility for whatever sins it may have committed.

But to say they must "hold full responsibility" when the impounded missiles and sundry other munitions stored in warehouse 9 that appear to have set off the main blast were allegedly under the control of the army, and that despite it being standard policy to store all armaments in barracks, seems harsh. Also, notwithstanding whatever nefarious reasons you assign to them, you do not deny that Hezbollah had removed most of the ammonium nitrate from warehouse 12.

The way I see it there is easily enough blame to go around. From an unforgivable failure on the part of the Israeli intelligence services if it was sabotage, to government corruption, the judiciary, to the army ignoring protocol, to Hezbollah being Hezbollah.

[Rich]

Their ideology is called Socialist Nationalism, i.e. Fascism. They were even supported by literally NAZI Germany during their early rise.

So we need be careful here. National socialism is totally compatible with democracy, in fact national socialism is the only social ideological grouping that has been found to be compatible with universal male suffrage democracy. National Socialism covers a huge range both in the level of its socialism and the intensity of its nationalism. Of course any dividing line must be to be some extent arbitrary but I place the Marion reforms as the dividing line between Capitalists' Nationalism and Socialist Nationalism or National Socialism.

However clearly the late Roman Republic was a lot less socialist than say Thomas Jefferson who supported State funded universal education, and Thomas Jefferson was clearly a lot less socialist than say the 2016 Republican party programme. Britain was already moderately Nationalist Socialist before the First World War, but WWI saw a massive increase in socialism and nationalism and a massive increase in restrictions on individual liberties, some of which were retained after the war. The dictatorships of Germany, Italy Japan, Hungary etc allowed for greater mobilisation of resources for the national cause, at least in the short and medium term, but they restricted the protections and individual liberties of members of all social classes.

The Soviet Union was extremely fascist. It was extremely Socialist. But it was not nationalist. It was mobilised not around a Nationalist cause but around the Marxist Religion and its Communist Party Church and its Marxist Priesthood.

[anasawad]

@ingliz

I have already agreed with you elsewhere that whatever Israel may have done it doesn't absolve Hezbollah of responsibility for whatever sins it may have committed.

I am aware.

But to say they must "hold full responsibility" when the impounded missiles and sundry other munitions stored in warehouse 9 that appear to have set off the main blast were allegedly under the control of the army, and that despite it being standard policy to store all armaments in barracks, seems harsh.

The difference between my perspective and yours is that you consider there to be a functional independent state in the country, while I along with most people in the country consider that Hezbollah has effictively taken control of the state with its allies in the FPM and AMAL movement after the Doha agreement in 2008.

Also, notwithstanding whatever nefarious reasons you assign to them, you do not deny that Hezbollah had removed most of the ammonium nitrate from warehouse 12.

True, if the whole amount was there, the explosion would have had far more casualties.
We want Hezbollah to remove all weapon storages from civilian territories as it was forced to remove the missiles it used to store in the Baalbek tunnel network.

I am aware that it's not only Hezbollah, but both the FPM and AMAL, as well as potentially the Future movement (in case a compromise) and Israel (in case of an attack) (minimal for negligence), hold responsibility.

But the main responsibility is put on Hezbollah due to the fact that not only it's the most powerful politically and militarily on the coast, but also because this is not the only cache, and if Israel was really attacking it, then 10s of thousands would die just from those caches, especially the ones underneath Dahieh along with others across the south.

Just a couple of days ago, Lebanon24 reported that people in Jeyyeh are starting to panic and some starting to move out because they know that there are explosives and ammunition stored in the power station in their area that if blown up would wreck the whole area.

In general in this case, Hezbollah is guilty of using human shields, the FPM and AMAL are guilty of corruption and conspiracy, the army is guilty of criminal negligence and corruption.

Does Israel carry responsibility if it was an Israeli attack? In my opinion, no, because Israel is an enemy, we're officially at war, and that's a military target. It'd be stupid of anyone to expect Israel not to attack a weapons storage when we're literally at war with them.
If we had signed a peace agreement or atleast put an end to the official declaration of war instead of simply a cease fire, then yes, they'd be considered reponsible.


EDIT:
A quick note: Expecting sympathy or compassion from your enemies in times of war is, in my view, naive and potentially harmful.

[ingliz]

if it was an Israeli attack

Customary rules of international humanitarian law.

Rule 14 Proportionality in Attack

Treaties

Additional Protocol I

Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I prohibits an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Additional Protocol I

Under Article 85(3)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 a) iii) is a grave breach".

blah, blah, blah,

ICC Statute

Pursuant to Article 20(b)(ii) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects” constitutes a war crime.

etc, etc, etc.

[anasawad]

@ingliz
How does it make sense for us to assign responsibility based on a set of laws that we both know have never applied or enforced in wars in the region or elsewhere really rather than base our assestment on the realities on the ground?

If you have a large storage of explosive materials, it doesn't matter where it is or who's near it, it'll be bombed anyways, those laws have never been applied, atleast not in conflicts I'm aware of; Thus, it is the just duty of the people in control, knowing this fact, to ensure that they keep their citizens safe and maintain a safe distance between civilian and military facilities and locations.

Right now, as we speak, the US, Russia, Israel, Iran, Syria, various Iranian militias, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are violating all the quoted laws.

[Atlantis]

@ingliz, @anasawad, maybe Hezbollah isn't that innocent after all?

According a former high security source who spoke to Al Arabiya English on condition of anonymity, the ammonium nitrate remained at the port for years because “it was being siphoned off for military purposes by a third party.”

This statement was also later confirmed by a source close to Hezbollah commanders who specified that the product was being used for missiles and rockets war heads, which were sent by Iran to Lebanon and assembled locally in the Hermel Region by Hezbollah. Back in 2017, the French Intelligence Online magazine had already reported that Hezbollah was constructing two underground facilities in Lebanon for manufacturing missiles.

[...]
“Certain sections of the Port and the airport are used for smuggling military shipments to Hezbollah,” a source close to Hezbollah fighters told Al Arabiya English on condition of anonymity. The former security source pointed out that terminal 5 was a transit point for the party in the Beirut port. The port remains also a lucrative business for all of Lebanon’s corrupt elite.

Hezbollah was taking Beirut ammonium nitrate to produce weapons

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu

The protests since 17th october are against the entire political class. Hezbollah and the FPM (Aoun's party) are the ones in control for the most part with most corruption being by them, so they hold more blame than the others.

Okay.

For clarification I'll go by the following reportage:

---

@ckaihatsu

The protests started in 17th of October, this passage talks about the ones just in the past couple of days.

The point I meant to make with that excerpt is that the protests are, and have been, *cross-class*, in nature -- some protestors want a "technocracy", while others are pro-Hezbollah. I can't discern what the *proportions* are, but it's definitely cross-class and heterogeneous.

The "unsupported" historical bullshit is called history of Syria's civil wars and uprisings since its founding and the constant in-fighting.
Try reading it before talking.

You're vaguely pointing to some factionalism in Syria's past, but you're not making any point of your own.

The Ba'ath platform is proclaimed succinctly in the party's slogan: "Unity, freedom, and socialism." The party is both socialist, advocating state ownership of the means of industrial production and the redistribution of agricultural land (in practice, Syria's nominally socialist economy is effectively a mixed economy, composed of large state enterprises and private small businesses), and revolutionary, dedicated to carrying a pan-Arab revolution to every part of the Arab world. Founded by Michel Aflaq, a Syrian Christian, Salah al-Din al-Bitar, a Syrian Sunni, and Zaki al-Arsuzi, an alawite, the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, which was dissolved in 1966 following the 1966 Syrian coup d'état which led to the establishment of one Iraqi-dominated ba'ath movement and one Syrian-led ba'ath movement. The party embraces secularism and has attracted supporters of all faiths in many Arab countries, especially Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon.

Since August 1990, however, the party has tended to downplay its socialism and to stress pan-Arab unity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_ ... -Ba'athism

---


Also, more broadly:

So India, China, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Algeria all had powerful state-owned sectors and long term plans. But this was not a trend confined to states which called themselves socialist. Much of industry had been state-owned in Kuomintang China, and the pattern continued in Kuomintang Taiwan—while the South Korean general, Park, who seized power in a coup in 1961, saw state planning and control (although not necessarily ownership) of industry as the only way to overtake North Korea, which was then more advanced.

The flipside of economic growth under Stalinist ‘planning’, as with that during the industrial revolutions of the West, was the appalling conditions workers had to endure. But those who ran the growing apparatuses of industry and the state were not workers, even if some had been once.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 562

---

Considering that NATO's interference is minor in the whole conflict while the main body of the conflict is regional, as well as the fact that the leading movements have also fought the Baath party in the past, all the way back to the 50s, then it is internal.

It wasn't NATO -- it was Obama:

US suspends military aid to its Syrian proxies

By Keith Jones

13 December 2013

The United States and Britain have suspended military aid to the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army—the proxy force through which they have been arming the imperialist-sponsored insurgency to overthrow the Syrian government of Bashir al-Assad.

The suspension came after the Free Syrian Army (FSA) lost control of an enclave along the Turkish border to Saudi-backed Islamist insurgents with whom the FSA had hitherto been closely allied.

On December 6, fighters from the Islamic Front—a newly formed alliance of Salafist and other Sunni fundamentalist militia—overran FSA installations in the border town of Atmeh, including its military headquarters for northern Syria and several warehouses of military equipment. The equipment is said to have included tanks and US- and British-supplied weapons, pick-up trucks and communications equipment.

The Islamic Front also took control of the FSA checkpoint at the Bab al-Hawa Border Crossing into Turkey.

If press reports are to be believed, there were only minimal casualties as the FSA fighters surrendered or fled in the face of the Islamic Front’s superior forces. The FSA’s supreme commander, General Salim Idris, himself fled across the border to Turkey and from there to Qatar.

The FSA had welcomed the Islamic Front fighters into their military installations to assist them in repelling a rumored attack by the Al Qaeda-aligned ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). Instead, the Front seized the installations.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/1 ... i-d13.html

---

You not understanding the conflict, history, and the dynamics of the region is your own responsibility.

Noted.

If one faction allied with a western country to further its own internal interest, then that's entirely in their right.

But Obama fucked it up -- the U.S. wanted to *indirectly* supply the anti-Assad Syrian opposition, the FSA, but the Western supply of weapons to the FSA were taken by the hardline *Islamist* combatants, ISIS.

Just like the Baathists brought in Russia, China, and the IRGC.

Regarding Hezbollah; We made it, we built it up, and we'll destroy it. You and your friends can keep crying.

By implication you're saying that you're with *Iran*, which I seriously *doubt*:

After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Israel occupied a strip of south Lebanon, which was controlled by the South Lebanon Army (SLA), a militia supported by Israel. Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to harass the Israeli occupation.[5] Its leaders were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government,[48] which was in occupation of Lebanon at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Foundation

[ckaihatsu]

Tribes, not ''nations'' in the Western sense of the word. And here is the interesting thing; once you get past all the artificial word games and rationalizations and self-delusion of urban cosmopolitans, we're almost all part of tribes, wherever you go around the world. It's not a bad thing, either.

Tribes are based on heredity, while nations are based on bureaucracy.

[ckaihatsu]

Now that colonial rule is over, and those nations and tribes were forced into a union that doesn't serve their interests, conflict constantly abounds, and a key subject of discussion in political spheres around the region is whether to break up these unions and go back to the old borders.
That decision of whether to break up these unions or figure out a way to serve everyone's interests within it is solely up to the people in them and how they see things.

The only faction that is staunchly against this are Arab supremacists and nationalists, who pretty much adopted a fascist ideology (The Baath),

The Ba'ath Party isn't fascist -- it was founded on social-democracy / 'socialist' principles:

The Ba'ath platform is proclaimed succinctly in the party's slogan: "Unity, freedom, and socialism." The party is both socialist, advocating state ownership of the means of industrial production and the redistribution of agricultural land (in practice, Syria's nominally socialist economy is effectively a mixed economy, composed of large state enterprises and private small businesses), and revolutionary, dedicated to carrying a pan-Arab revolution to every part of the Arab world. Founded by Michel Aflaq, a Syrian Christian, Salah al-Din al-Bitar, a Syrian Sunni, and Zaki al-Arsuzi, an alawite, the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, which was dissolved in 1966 following the 1966 Syrian coup d'état which led to the establishment of one Iraqi-dominated ba'ath movement and one Syrian-led ba'ath movement. The party embraces secularism and has attracted supporters of all faiths in many Arab countries, especially Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon.

Since August 1990, however, the party has tended to downplay its socialism and to stress pan-Arab unity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_ ... -Ba'athism

---

where they see a more fitting construction of society is to purge out or subdue non-Arabs in the region and wage war against these old national and tribal structures in order to destroy them and bring forth a new single united Arab nation.

You're sounding distinctly Zionist / pro-Israel, since you're effectively calling for divide-and-conquer of the Arab populations in the region, to the benefit of Israeli consolidation.

If you want a western example, just look at White- Nationalists who want an ethnostate for white people.

Pan-Arabism is *not* comparable to white supremacy (or Hindu supremacism, for that matter) because you've already acknowledged that Arab countries like Syria and Lebanon were former *colonies* of the West:

Many seem to think that just because there were empires there, that means that suddenly the nations within these empires ceased to exist, they did not, and more often that not, empires in the region are made up of several tribes and non-tribal nations joining in a union to achieve a common interest. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are good examples.

Now that colonial rule is over,

But, more to the point, there's no *ideology* of supremacism as there is with Zionism, white supremacy, or Hindu supremacism.

[wat0n]

Is @ckaihatsu now seriously denying the racist and fascist nature of Ba'athism like he denies Marx's antisemitism?

I bet the Kurds from Iraq who were gassed by Saddam Hussein and the Kurds from Syria who got their citizenship taken and faced persecution for merely speaking Kurdish would be interested to learn more details.

[anasawad]

@ckaihatsu

The Ba'ath Party isn't fascist -- it was founded on social-democracy / 'socialist' principles:

It's a mixture of Arab nationalism and socialism, and they call themselves socialist nationalists.

"Unity, freedom, and socialism."

unity:
All the minorities that suffered ethnic cleansing by the Baath party in Syria and Iraq want a word.

Freedom:
The 10s of thousands of political prisons in Sednaya and Tadmor prisons, as well as the 100s of thousands persecuted and killed in Iraq by the Baath regime want a word.

Socialism:
House Makhlouf, House Assad, and their relatives, sitting on their billions of dollars of corruption money, approve of this propaganda message.


Regarding the presence of the left streak in the Baath party, all of them were purged out during the internal conflicts of the 60s as the right wing military leaders took power of the party.

You're sounding distinctly Zionist / pro-Israel, since you're effectively calling for divide-and-conquer of the Arab populations in the region, to the benefit of Israeli consolidation.

Read up on the history of the middle east.
It was never united for it to be divided and conquered. Unions were forced on it by colonial powers and maintained by Arab nationalists and Supremacists.

Also, that's not what zionism is.

Pan-Arabism is *not* comparable to white supremacy (or Hindu supremacism, for that matter) because you've already acknowledged that Arab countries like Syria and Lebanon were former *colonies* of the West:

Pan arabism has sought to ethnic cleanse non-Arab minorities from the region, and has succeeded in most places.
Also, being former colonies is irrelevant to some being Arab supremacists.

But, more to the point, there's no *ideology* of supremacism as there is with Zionism, white supremacy, or Hindu supremacism.

Clearly then you haven't heard of the genocides committed in the middle east in the name of Arab Supremacy and an Arab ethnostate.

By implication you're saying that you're with *Iran*, which I seriously *doubt*:

The capital of Hezbollah was in Baalbek before the Doha agreement.
The foundation of Hezbollah started in Baalbek.
Baalbek tribes have been close allies to Iran for decades through the Iranian tribes as we share common blood (My family, for example, are duel citizens of Lebanon and Iran and much of my family used to live in Iran until very recently)
The first cracks started when Nasrallah decided to ally with the Syrian regime, and the full break up began with the Syrian war as the tribes sided with the rebels while Nasrallah and the clerics sided with the regime.

Also, we financed most of the institutions, not Iran, which is why it almost entirely went bankrupt and started cutting down activity and shutting down once we left.

It wasn't NATO -- it was Obama:

It was neither, the conflict started around the beginning of the cold war, with some conflicts going back to the mid 19th century (1800s)

You're vaguely pointing to some factionalism in Syria's past, but you're not making any point of your own.

Read my posts to @annatar1914 . I made the point.

The point I meant to make with that excerpt is that the protests are, and have been, *cross-class*, in nature -- some protestors want a "technocracy", while others are pro-Hezbollah. I can't discern what the *proportions* are, but it's definitely cross-class and heterogeneous.

Pro-Hezbollah protests are barely noticeable. The protestors were shouting Hezbollah is a terrorist and called for all the ruling class to be hanged including Nasrallah.

Tribes are based on heredity, while nations are based on bureaucracy.

Nope. Tribes in the region vary widely in governing systems, and not all are based on heredity.
Even blood connection is not that common within tribes since most of them are the result of 100s and 1000s of years of constant merging between smaller tribes and clans to make up bigger and bigger ones.

[wat0n]

@anasawad why did the Baalbek-area tribes decide to oppose Assad?

[anasawad]

@wat0n
Because it tried to ethnically cleanse us during the 80s and 90s in order to take hold of the fertile land and water sources, as well as remove a militarized force so close to its capital.

The resistance was against Syrian, Israeli, and Palestinian attempts at occupations.
Noting that the Syrian occupation and crimes were, by all means, many many times worse than that of the Israelis, which is why if you looked at Lebanon today, you'll see far more hostilities and racism towards Syrians than either Israelis or Palestinians.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis

maybe Hezbollah isn't that innocent after all?

Ya think.