Syrian Civil War and The future of Syria after liberation

[HAIDER]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Urgent now: The Israeli army sets up checkpoints and barriers in Syria after occupying it in agreement with the Al-Jolani terrorists

An Israeli army force sets up checkpoints and checkpoints in the streets of Saida, located between Daraa and Quneitra... Where are the descendants of the Umayyads, and where are the bulls and agents of freedom and the Israeli revolution?

Syrians can't stop Israeli occupation. In the coming days, Syria will lose more land. They already occupied a major chunk in the last few weeks.

 

[_Arabia_]

I will give it less than 15-20 years and the French creation that is Lebanon will once again be absorbed back into Syria. Just a question of time given past history and most importantly the future demographics of Syria. I think that most major Arab powers would support such a thing as tiny Lebanon has not given the region anything but conflict, being a failed state and now bankrupt with the highest inflation rate in the world.

It would also prevent regional enemies from permanently aiding minorities in said country and creating a parallel criminal puppet group.

The Sunni Arabs of Lebanon (almost 1/3 of the population and the quickest growing community) would surely welcome it. If you include the Palestinians living in Lebanon it is almost 40% of the population. If the Syrians are included it is the majority even.

 

[Foinikas]

I will give it less than 15-20 years and the French creation that is Lebanon will once again be absorbed back into Syria. Just a question of time given past history and most importantly the future demographics of Syria. I think that most major Arab powers would support such a thing as tiny Lebanon has not given the region anything but conflict, being a failed state and now bankrupt with the highest inflation rate in the world.

It would also prevent regional enemies from permanently aiding minorities in said country and creating a parallel criminal puppet group.

The Sunni Arabs of Lebanon (almost 1/3 of the population and the quickest growing community) would surely welcome it. If you include the Palestinians living in Lebanon it is almost 40% of the population. If the Syrians are included it is the majority even.

I thought you guys didn't like Lebanon under Syria when Hafez ruled,now it's ok to be annexed by Syria?

 

[_Arabia_]

I thought you guys didn't like Lebanon under Syria when Hafez ruled,now it's ok to be annexed by Syria?

Who are "you" guys? You do realize that nobody around here on this small tiny forum (compared to the ocean that is the internet) is part of any government, right?

No sane Arab or Muslim would support some non-Muslim cult (Alawites) ruling anything let alone an entire Arab country.

The thing is though that Lebanon is an artificial and recent creation that was created by France intended for local Christians who are no longer even the second largest group. The Christians (Maronites mostly - the same ones that started the Lebanese civil war back in 1975) want to create their own little failed state (doomed for failure as they are going extinct) and the Shias are puppets of a foreign enemy regime that is not going to be tolerated/is not tolerated by anyone but them in the region and the Levant. They have turned Lebanon into a shithole (those 2 parties) while historically that territory was always ruled by the wealthy and educated Sunni elites. Like also the case in Iraq.

The Shia lot have created a failed, impoverished narco-state in tiny Southern Lebanon constantly bombed by Israel.

Same situation in Yemen with the Houthis. Everywhere where they are present there is only failure, impoverishment, foreign/alien hostile/enemy interference etc., backwardness They are basically fifth columns.

They are in urgent need of a further dose of compulsory Arabization and conversion to Islam.

In an ideal world it should cease to exist.

 

[Foinikas]

Who are "you" guys? You do realize that nobody around here on this small tiny forum (compared to the ocean that is the internet) is part of any government, right?

You Saudis.

No sane Arab or Muslim would support some non-Muslim cult (Alawites) ruling anything let alone an entire Arab country.

The thing is though that Lebanon is an artificial and recent creation that was created by France intended for local Christians who are no longer even the second largest group. The Christians (Maronites mostly - the same ones that started the Lebanese civil war back in 1975) want to create their own little failed state (doomed for failure as they are going extinct) and the Shias are puppets of a foreign enemy regime that is not going to be tolerated/is not tolerated by anyone but them in the region and the Levant. They have turned Lebanon into a shithole (those 2 parties) while historically that territory was always ruled by the wealthy and educated Sunni elites. Like also the case in Iraq.

So you don't want Alawites to rule Lebanon,you don't want Maronites to rule Lebanon,you don't want Shia Muslims of a specific party to rule Lebanon...

Well let me guess! You only want Sunni Muslims to rule Lebanon! And since a lot of them are of the same hardcore ideology like the current rulers of Syria,even better?

They are in urgent need of a further dose of compulsory Arabization and conversion to Islam.

Who? Lebanon?

 

[_Arabia_]

You Saudis.


So you don't want Alawites to rule Lebanon,you don't want Maronites to rule Lebanon,you don't want Shia Muslims of a specific party to rule Lebanon...

Well let me guess! You only want Sunni Muslims to rule Lebanon! And since a lot of them are of the same hardcore ideology like the current rulers of Syria,even better?


Who? Lebanon?

KSA would probably prefer Lebanon to remain a sovereign and separate nation state. All leaders everywhere, Europe included, prefer creating new states rather than unity. There is a big fixation on this in the modern era.

One of the problems that we face as Arabs is being divided into 20 + nation states. I am simply in favour of unifying historical regions of the Arab world that have been jointly ruled for millennia. Syria and Lebanon is a good example of this.

Alawites should not be ruling either Syria nor Lebanon. They form what, 5% of Syria? Their presence in Lebanon is non-existent. The ones that ruled Syria turned it into a shithole and had almost 50 years to make something out of it. They had their chances and failed miserably. Also frankly, no such minority should be ruling any country.

I presume that you would never accept Turkish Greek (Turkish minority in Greece) ruling all of Greece for say the next 50 years.

No, it is very simple. Everywhere in the Arab world where there is not Sunni Arab majority rule (like throughout all the glory days of the Arab world and which remains the case in 90% + of all Arab countries) there are problems, divisions, horrible outside interference in particular from a certain enemy state etc. The Sunni Arab elite used to rule Iraq during its modern glory days (pre-Saddam and monarchy) and same story with Yemen and Lebanon. Syria as well obviously.

All areas of the Arab world that serve/are puppets of a certain Arabized regime. They need to be removed from power.

 

[battalion25]

KSA would probably prefer Lebanon to remain a sovereign and separate nation state. All leaders everywhere, Europe included, prefer creating new states rather than unity. There is a big fixation on this in the modern era.

One of the problems that we face as Arabs is being divided into 20 + nation states. I am simply in favour of unifying historical regions of the Arab world that have been jointly ruled for millennia. Syria and Lebanon is a good example of this.

Alawites should not be ruling either Syria nor Lebanon. They form what, 5% of Syria? Their presence in Lebanon is non-existent. The ones that ruled Syria turned it into a shithole and had almost 50 years to make something out of it. They had their chances and failed miserably. Also frankly, no such minority should be ruling any country.

I presume that you would never accept Turkish Greek (Turkish minority in Greece) ruling all of Greece for say the next 50 years.

No, it is very simple. Everywhere in the Arab world where there is not Sunni Arab majority rule (like throughout all the glory days of the Arab world and which remains the case in 90% + of all Arab countries) there are problems, divisions, horrible outside interference in particular from a certain enemy state etc. The Sunni Arab elite used to rule Iraq during its modern glory days (pre-Saddam and monarchy) and same story with Yemen and Lebanon. Syria as well obviously.

All areas of the Arab world that serve/are puppets of a certain Arabized regime. They need to be removed from power.

He did accept tho 400 years of turkish rule before so who knows

 

[_Arabia_]

He did accept tho 400 years of turkish rule before so who knows

Tell him to accept Jehovas's Witnesses rule in Greece or some Evangelicals and Protestants in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance" for the next 50 years with little say from the vast majority of Greek Orthodox (the ones that are still practicing, lol) and see how much in favour he will be of that.

Of course most Arabs (of which 90% + of us are ordinary Sunni Arabs from Morocco to Oman) don't really like the option of compromised minorities/outside puppets/proxies emerging in our lands and causing divisions/instabilities/wars/conflicts as has been the case. Acting on behalf of foreign powers, often enemy regimes/states.

Notice that outside of very tribal Libya (they are comparable to Yemen in this regard - the conflicts/wars in Yemen are more about South/North/tribal division than sect - has to be said), in every Sunni majority Arab country (Sudan is often racial divide) there are no such conflicts/wars/instability.

Imagine if the peaceful Coptic community in Egypt (which has a millennia old history with next door KSA - one of the wives of Prophet Muhammad (saws) was a Coptic woman and many Copts have been living in KSA for decades - same with Christian Lebanese - largest Christian Arab community in the region is found in KSA nowadays), who form around 10% of the population belonged to a certain other sect, you can be 1000% sure that this would be exploited by Iran to create trouble in Egypt since 1979. Just like they tried elsewhere.

No longer should this be tolerated. Your loyalty should be to your state. Simple. Should not be that hard to accept. If not you should move out and live in your beloved state x or y.

 

[Foinikas]

Alawites should not be ruling either Syria nor Lebanon. They form what, 5% of Syria? Their presence in Lebanon is non-existent. The ones that ruled Syria turned it into a shithole and had almost 50 years to make something out of it. They had their chances and failed miserably. Also frankly, no such minority should be ruling any country.

They didn't exactly turn Syria into a "shithole". That's Taliban Afghanistan.

Syria on the contrary,was an ok country. Imagine what Saudi Arabia would have been without the oil and Hajj income.

One of the problems that we face as Arabs is being divided into 20 + nation states. I am simply in favour of unifying historical regions of the Arab world that have been jointly ruled for millennia. Syria and Lebanon is a good example of this.

But when Lebanon was under Syrian rule,the jaziris nagged about it,am I wrong?

No, it is very simple. Everywhere in the Arab world where there is not Sunni Arab majority rule (like throughout all the glory days of the Arab world and which remains the case in 90% + of all Arab countries) there are problems, divisions, horrible outside interference in particular from a certain enemy state etc. The Sunni Arab elite used to rule Iraq during its modern glory days (pre-Saddam and monarchy) and same story with Yemen and Lebanon. Syria as well obviously.

Which is this "certain enemy State"? Is it Iran or Israel for you?

 

[_Arabia_]

They didn't exactly turn Syria into a "shithole". That's Taliban Afghanistan.

Syria on the contrary,was an ok country. Imagine what Saudi Arabia would have been without the oil and Hajj income.


But when Lebanon was under Syrian rule,the jaziris nagged about it,am I wrong?


Which is this "certain enemy State"? Is it Iran or Israel for you?

We had this dicussion before and it was proven wrong. Syria was a shithole under Al-Assad. It was the North Korea of the region and impoverished. They were 1-2 decades behind everyone else. When you visited it was like travelling back in time. I visited Syria back in 2010, less than 1 year before the Arab spring. Outside of Damascus and Aleppo it was like stepping back in time.

He was also responsible for not reforming his country and ultimately allowing it to be destroyed in 13 + years of civil war. Absolute nutcase that now has escaped to Russia with nothing to show for or say. Pathetic. As well as his cowardly cult family. Zero respect even among many of his former supporters.

I already told you that regimes everywhere do not prefer unity as they prefer keeping their thrones/power intact and that such policies are seen as a threat for them.

Besides this does not change the facts. Lebanon and Syria have been part of the same policies for millennia. Nobody can deny this. Your obsession about long-dead failed rulers (Hafez) and now cowards like Assad who escaped, are irrelevant here. As are the current Syrian rulers btw.

Both of them are hostile but tiny Israel is only causing trouble in a very limited Arab geography while the other Arabized/Arab-obsessed regime (Israel is essentially an Arab state - 2/3 of all Israeli Jews are Arab Jews PLUS the 20% of Israeli Arabs (Palestinians and Bedouins) and Iran is also a wannabe hardcore Arab state sine 1979 with the rulers claiming Arab heritage/engaging in Arabization since 1979/meddling/having a very unhealthy obsession about events in the Arab word/basically acting like some Arab Shia country) is doing it in a much larger geography albeit their failed project is slowly getting destroyed after the liberation of Syria and the death of their crescent and plans in the Levant.

I consider both enemy states/problematic and no friends of any Arabs. Outside of Shia proxies/terrorists that is and maybe compromised/pro-Zionists Arab regimes that for unknown reasons have normalized with them such as Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan and UAE. The Abraham Accords should be thrown in the dustbin if you ask me. Only revived if/when Israel accepts a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as the capital and pre-1967 borders. No other solution if you ask me but I am not in power obviously.

 

[Foinikas]

We had this dicussion before and it was proven wrong. Syria was a shithole under Al-Assad. It was the North Korea of the region and impoverished. They were 1-2 decades behind everyone else. When you visited it was like travelling back in time. I visited Syria back in 2010, less than 1 year before the Arab spring. Outside of Damascus and Aleppo it was like stepping back in time.

I think you're exaggerating WAY too much.

Besides this does not change the facts. Lebanon and Syria have been part of the same policies for millennia. Nobody can deny this. Your obsession about long-dead failed rulers (Hafez) and now cowards like Assad who escaped, are irrelevant here. As are the current Syrian rulers btw.

Would you have a problem with a Maronite-ruled Lebanon?

 

[_Arabia_]

I think you're exaggerating WAY too much.


Would you have a problem with a Maronite-ruled Lebanon?

You can look at all the economic and social data from that period. The rural areas of Syria (we visited Palmyra and even reached the Jazira region not far from the border of Iraq) were in particular neglected.

My general view of Arab Christians and Christian minorities in the Arab world is personally very positive. They tend to be pro-Arab unity (Arab nationalists in their outlook), patriotic, largely well-educated and largely loyal to their states. Be it the Bedouin Christians of Jordan and Syria, the Copts (great people by large from my dealings with them) as well with most of the Lebanese Christian communities (there are tons of different Christian sects there Maronites, Catholics, Orthodox, Melkites, Armenians etc.)

BTW KSA has had close/very cordial ties with Lebanon since its creation and with obviously the Sunni Arabs of Lebanon (1/3 of the population) and the Christians too. Before 1979 ties were close with Southern Lebanon as well.

A century of alliance between Saudi Arabia and Lebanon’s Christians

In the war between the axis of resistance and that of Arab countries and Western powers, Bkirki, the seat of the Maronite Church, made its choice — a very long time ago.On July 8, which marked the...

today.lorientlejour.com

You might not know this but most of the Shia Arab Lebanese clans are originally from Arabia/KSA, including the Al-Sadr family and Nasrallah's own family. He spoke about it in detail too.

Hejazi/Yemeni clans (now turned Druze in Southern Syria and Mount Lebanon) were ruled by Arabian dynasties since pre-Islamic times.

As a historical side note and curiosity, a lot of people in Southern Lebanon and Mount Lebanon area are originally from KSA. Since pre-Islamic times. Also among the Druze. This is why KSA and Druze in both Syria and Lebanon have had cordial ties.

See this Lebanese Druze Twitter user for more information, he is much more knowledgeable than me in this regard.

https://x.com/politiciian (He is constantly trolling Maronite Christian Lebanese and their delusions - it is hilarious)

Modern Lebanon was founded by them.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

However I did not like the rule that the Phalangists played in starting the Lebanese civil war back in 1975 and their alliance with Israel and many massacres but we should not generalize all of them due to this.

So yes, I have no reason to be anti-Christian Arab Lebanese/Syrian or even anti-Shia Lebanese Arab based on history/race/origin/kinship.

My opposition to the latter is their connection to a hostile foreign regime (I believe that they are being taken advantage of and used for geopolitical aims this was confirmed once again when Hezbollah was abandoned by Iran to fight for themselves) and in the case of the Maronites in Lebanon I don't like their role in the Lebanese civil war and the fact that many of them want their own state WITHIN Lebanon. As you PROBABLY might have noticed by now (LOL), I am not really in favour of more divisions/countries in the Arab world but rather the opposite. Which is also why I am very critical of what UAE are doing of stupidity in Libya, Sudan, Yemen etc. Very ugly, counterproductive and not necessary at all. Once again I have no problems with Emirati people for that reason obviously, no person in KSA has. They are extended family as everyone around us in the Arab neighborhood. Same story with Zaydis in Yemen, cousins to me, wish them no harm, just the cult (Houthis) and their leadership policies in regard to the historical/current enemies of Arabs. Very critical of that, but they will one day see the light eventually, I have no doubt about it.

 

[Foinikas]

My general view of Arab Christians and Christian minorities in the Arab world is personally very positive. They tend to be pro-Arab unity (Arab nationalists in their outlook), patriotic, largely well-educated and largely loyal to their states. Be it the Bedouin Christians of Jordan and Syria, the Copts (great people by large from my dealings with them) as well with most of the Lebanese Christian communities (there are tons of different Christian sects there Maronites, Catholics, Orthodox, Melkites, Armenians etc.)

Eh then what's the problem? Ma fee problem,the Lebanese don't need to be united with an HTS-governed Syria.

I'll tell you what I think. The problem with Arab countries in the Middle-East is the militias.
Almost every political party has a militia. If militias were banned in Lebanon,in Syria,in Palestine,in Iraq,there would have been peace. Countries should only have the Armed Forces,Police and homeguard formations.

However I did not like the rule that the Phalangists played in starting the Lebanese civil war back in 1975 and their alliance with Israel and many massacres but we should not generalize all of them due to this.

I don't like that either. They often behaved brutally. But then again,others did too back then. There were factions on the same side,sometimes fighting each other. Clan leaders,local strongmen,ethnic,religious and political divisions.

 

[_Arabia_]

Eh then what's the problem? Ma fee problem,the Lebanese don't need to be united with an HTS-governed Syria.

I'll tell you what I think. The problem with Arab countries in the Middle-East is the militias.
Almost every political party has a militia. If militias were banned in Lebanon,in Syria,in Palestine,in Iraq,there would have been peace. Countries should only have the Armed Forces,Police and homeguard formations.


I don't like that either. They often behaved brutally. But then again,others did too back then. There were factions on the same side,sometimes fighting each other. Clan leaders,local strongmen,ethnic,religious and political divisions.

Forget the HTS. As I said I don't care about leaderships in country x or y. Some are good and competent, some are average, some are bad and incompetent etc. Like anywhere. Some you agree with on topic x or y, sometimes you disagree.

I am talking about states/people here. I don't see the purpose of Syria and Lebanon being divided and not united like throughout millennia. Just like I personally don't like the divisions in Arabia (KSA, Yemen, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE = should be one big large powerful country in my view - you could include Jordan here as well and even Iraq). The goal back in WW1 (and this would have happened likely if not for British betrayal) was one big Arab Mashriq from Syria to Yemen as one federal country. If that had been implemented history would have been totally different. We can only speculate but I think it is a question of time before the GCC (at least) unifies into a single federal state.

Yes, militias are a problem but you mostly have that in the likes of Libya, Sudan, Iraq and Yemen. What is the common thing among all 4 in this regard? All 4 are very tribal countries.

You don't have this problem in large Arab countries like Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, KSA etc.

Syria did not have it either until the civil war.

I believe that Arab monarchies (I am talking about modern era) have proven to be the best and most stable system for us. If you notice even in the West the most stable/wealthiest/leaders on most societal parameters are monarchies as well albeit constitutional ones. I mean it was the form of government for 99% of all of recorded history everywhere practically and the Arab world has obviously the longest recorded evidence of monarchs anywhere.

But what to do in places like Lebanon, Iraq, Libya and Yemen? The Zaydis threw their monarchy out (the family lives in KSA and the West - I have met the grandson of the last Northern Yemeni Zaydi Imam/monarch) thanks to Nasser's invasion of Yemen, the socialist/communist South in Yemen did the same with their many small kingdoms/emirates (now most of those families live in KSA and the West as well), we all know what happened in Iraq in 1958, Libya too after Gaddafi's coup etc.

I like the idea of a non-partisan head of state (monarch) who is the symbol of state unity, tradition, Islam (all monarchies are by nature conservative and bastions of tradition) and as the connecting link between the most important families of the state/clans/tribes/nobility (like in the GCC where we are all connected in this web) and ordinary people.

Sure, some Palestinian movements/groups/militias caused trouble not only in Lebanon but in Jordan, Kuwait (when Saddam invaded - I have always admired how fiercely pro-Kuwait is despite this treason from Arafat) and elsewhere but what they did back in 1975 was very wrong. No two ways about it and it has created unnecessary distrust within Lebanon.

But honestly, even as a outsider, you must admit that the purpose of Lebanon, other than the one I described, is hard to argue against.

Even more so now when the state is literally a completely failed stated economically, politically and socially. Highest inflation in the world. Hezbollah ruling tiny Southern Lebanon as a fiefdom and taking orders from Tehran etc.

Would any sane person/patriot accept for instance if Crete or Thessaloniki was ruled by some militia loyal to a foreign state that is hostile to Athens? I cannot imagine one province in KSA being ruled by a foreign-sponsored militia, sponsored by a hostile nation/regime that is even more so. Absurd to me.

Same with the situation with the Shia militias in Iraq - brainwashing ordinary impoversihed Iraqi Shia Arabs in the South while stealing billions of dollars and each Mullah having his own party/militia/donations/mosques he controls etc. Terrribly what has happened with Iraq in particular and it pains me a lot as a person with ancestral and family ties to this great country.

 

[Foinikas]

I am talking about states/people here. I don't see the purpose of Syria and Lebanon being divided and not united like throughout millennia. Just like I personally don't like the divisions in Arabia (KSA, Yemen, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE = should be one big large powerful country in my view - you could include Jordan here as well and even Iraq). The goal back in WW1 (and this would have happened likely if not for British betrayal) was one big Arab Mashriq from Syria to Yemen as one federal country. If that had been implemented history would have been totally different. We can only speculate but I think it is a question of time before the GCC (at least) unifies into a single federal state.

But who's going to rule that? Arabs have tribal mentality still,especially the ones in the Sham and jazira