Much needed piece, Aya. Thank you for writing it. I have some very minor quibbles about this but let's keep them aside for the time being.
Also, while we are acknowledging the tyranny of the Assads and the fact that an extremely tiny minority trampled over the hopes and aspirations of the vast majority of Syrians, I don't like the fact that a lot of Sunni commentators are completely ignoring the Israeli and American hand behind al-Julani and his men. As you write, it's not that hard to acknowledge the fall of Assad as a good thing for the oppressed Syrians and that their liberators have an extremely shady background.
Agreed. I don't mention Al Jolani because that's a whole other piece. Speaking with some Arab friends yesterday, they said we welcome the liberation, not the liberators.
Are any of the four mentioned actual experts? Or simply commentators, or polemicists? Murray is a former diplomat with obvious blind spots.Johnstone is an engaging writer but her world view is pretty narrow and she gets obnoxious when challenged. Petty and nasty. I gave up on her when I got into it with one of her readers to whom facts meant nothing. To some extent, you are the company you keep and a portion of the "anti-imperialist" left is very cult-like. It's full of tankies too. I don't know about the track record or background of Medhurst or Miller. But for me, a true expert is capable of holding varying ideas and nuance in their head at the same time without suffering cognitive dissonance and doubling down on deflective b.s. when their "ideas" fall flat.
This is very astute. I agree with you. It's very difficult to burst out of a bubble chamber once you're in it. Even in some of the comments to this article, there are comments about Al Jolani and the future of Syria. But I don't comment on that. The piece as simply about accepting that Assad was am oppressor and calling out those who don't.
My point being is that the chamber is so imprisoning that even in commenting to this piece, the same talking points about Al Jolani are used as a justification and diversion from Assad's brutality. And it is likely, as you say, because we are company we keep.
It's actually really scary and deeply concerning that in every question about 'was Assad oppressive?' the answers come back 'Al Jolani was paid by America.' He may well have been. He may be the most evil man who ever walked the earth. He may prove to be the worst tyrant in human history.
But what's that got to do with the question about Assad?
Agreed. I seek out better nuance always. I just finished a final Robert Fisk book published 2024. He died in 2020. Everybody has a bias of some kind. Truthseekers look beyond. The US/NATO and vassals are the biggest culprits.
Thank you for this piece. I appreciate it very much as it brings up a topic that has been nagging me for quite a while. The idea of “heroes” (you use the term in the intro) which we all gravitate to in some fashion as we find ideas and thinkers and creators that align with our views. A few years ago I realized that expecting those folks to always be consistent in that kind of support would not serve me well. If I dissected the ideas of people like Noam Chomsky, Timothy Snyder, John Ralston Saul, Chris Hedges, Judith Butler, Naomi Klein (among many others who I admire), a veto would easily be found and I would be sitting in an empty library looking at a blank screen. With the latest genocide in Gaza, I have been tempted even more. While for many years the atrocities of Assad have been denied by people that have appeared as anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist, I have tried to discern the rhetoric and listen to those that are affected. So we brought in a Syrian family as refugees to Canada through a unique program called Group of 5. I did not forget about the “rendition” program that a Canadian went through and eventually was compensated for by the Canadian government.
A couple of days after the overthrow of Assad, I asked a couple of Syrian women here in Vancouver how they felt about it. They said they were pleased with it, while wondering what will come next.
Hi Peter. Yes, my Syrian friends say similar things. It was incredibly kind of you to bring Syrian refugees to Canada.
Re the heros comment, I did apply it carte blanche to all and shouldn't have done in hindsight as Caitlin didn't fall into it. But for the others, I appreciate anyone who has gone through oppression and loss of liberty for the cause of others. Both Craig and Richard have been arrested or detained by counter terrorism police. Richard is still on bail. David Miller lost his job and fought an expensive court case which ended up in a stunning victory which solidified into UK law that anti Zionism is a protected characterised under the Equality act. For this reason I really admired these people - the loss of liberty and livelihood is no small thing and it is a sacrifice they made to speak for Palestinians rights. This is where the hero comment came from, rather than the fact they shared my views, it was due to the fact that they had sacrificed liberty and livelihood, if only briefly. They literally walked the walk. As for views, we shared a lot but also differed a lot. For one, I was never supportive of Craig Murray's campaign in Blackburn, despite the fact he was a fellow party candidate. I've also never shared any of their views on Syria even prior to the events of the last fortnight.
The thing that has changed for me is not that we differed in views on Syria, but the callousness towards the Syrians and the refusal to acknowledge what they went through. The way this has been deflected from or justified has been in what I believe are really awful ways.
It's here where my hill is. I completely reject oppression - that means of anyone. And refusing to acknowledge oppression - when it is so blatant and known and fully evidenced- is my red line.
Your piece was of interest to me, not just because I know less about Syria and Assad than other aspects of the ME, and you do show nicely the defensive heat that is generated by criticisms of strongly held views. I think the tone they take should be an embarrassment to them. I wonder if some of that heat is a part of living so much in the welter of accusation and counter accusation. Certainly it seems to me that the Twitter, short answer, argument is overly conducive to slanging, and to (deliberate?) misreading of the opponent’s claims. I thought that applied to your accusations and replies as well as theirs. You and they brought in points, claims and accusations that simply did not follow from an unbiased reading of the other’s comments.
I am a regular reader of the commentators you take to task, and had noted that they said little about the appalling inhumanity of the Assads. Instead they concentrated on the probable effects of the fall of Assad, the hypocrisy or naïveté of those who seemed to welcome the various groups who participated in the Assad removal, and the role of US/Israel in the Assad collapse. They are, of course, concerned about such things as the fall of yet another country in the long-standing US plan to remake the ME, the implications for the Palestinians who did in fact benefit from the regime, and the great threat to Iran- the final goal in the US / Israel plan. They clearly regret the setback to opposition to the Israel/US programme, which, though you don’t mention it, has been responsible directly and indirectly for millions of deaths, and continues the US imperial attempts to control, well, the world. That is to say, US militarism is on a scale of death and evil worse even than Assad’s. Yet I don’t see those omissions and foci as the Islamophobic, hypocrisy, excusing of tyranny and several other things that you criticise them of.
Perhaps I’m more forgiving than I should be about the flaws in those who I otherwise think have much of value to offer. And there are few commentators on the left who have not come under attack from other commentators because of their omissions and limited focus. Monbiot and Jones are attacked because they continue to write for the Guardian with its poor record.
I find Jeffrey Sachs about the best overall, geopolitical commentary.
I agree that there is a black-and-white reading of commentators that is emotive and reactive, and it's entirely what the neoliberal and Western propaganda, aka media, groom us towards. For example, tiny comments by celebrities are made into reels of newspaper columns, and not only does everyone react immediately and emotively, but the reactions also reject that person outright, failing to accept that they may have a differing opinion or that they may have made a mistake.
However, in the above, I have not done that. I have asked for a statement that these people will reject oppression towards anyone, and they will not give it. To me, that is my red line. While they may be insightful in some things, not accepting that documented and proven mass oppression occurred, and that the victims have a right to be acknowledged, automatically invalidates all their commentary as objective and impartial. Reading such commentators now on Syria, it’s sad that they peddle false 'facts', and their partiality is causing that.
For example, saying Syria is under Al-Qaeda. The purpose of saying this is to make the public believe that AQ – who we have been told for years are evil terrorists – are in control of Syria. This is the commentator's aim. However, all of them know that AQ isn’t heading Syria. HTS is. Jolani left AQ (I can’t remember why), and HTS is a completely different group. It’s like insisting on calling a former Tory MP who joined Labour and is now a Labour MP – a Tory MP. Now I don’t say this in any way to make any statement about Jolani. I say it because facts are important, and all these commentators are aware that Jolani is HTS, not AQ.
The second thing they do – especially Medhurst, and I think Miller – is keep saying Syria is now run by 'head choppers'. They do this to promote their disapproval of the events that have occurred and thus their political ideology. It’s infantile and crass for many reasons. Foremost, these groups existed for years in Syria, and there was no call for these 'head choppers' to go. Secondly, by calling the new leadership out as head choppers, they have again exposed that they didn’t care about the same depraved crimes of Assad. Why didn’t they describe his regime as 'Syria is controlled by the rapists and torturers, the men who set humans alight with gunpowder, the regime who sodomises men while electrocuting their genitals'? Why aren’t such adjectives and descriptors used? One of the biggest excuses they have for not calling out Assad is that 'Biden and Trump have killed more! The US and UK have killed more!' But even with that, they don’t use these descriptions for our leaders. It is a fact that Keir Starmer has used the RAF to provide intelligence for Israel's genocide. This means he is a genocider. This means the bombs that hit children are because of his decisions. Why is not one of these commentators calling him 'infanticider Keir Starmer' or 'burner alive of children in their tents'? This double standard is deafening – and it is from these commentators.
The funny thing is, all such commentators would read this and say automatically, 'You support Jolani!' because I point out a double standard against him. I haven’t promoted him in any way, at all.
I also come from a different perspective. That is, I am from a Muslim heritage and from a place where people are oppressed and murdered, and where there is a lot of outside interference and terrorism from external and imperial powers. (My personal Islamic views aren't Sunni or shiaa so any comment I make about if Syrians want islamic law, it's their choice, is truly about self-determination not personal theology. This is because should they enact Sunni or shiaa law it wouldn't match my religious beliefs - as I'm neither.)
I share this because there is a verse in the Qur'an that says:
"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So do not follow [persona] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [the truth] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever Acquainted with what you do." (Surah An-Nisa, 4:135)
Basically the Qur'anic injunction is stand up for justice (reject oppression - others verses), and don't let your political ideology supersede justice. Also don't distort truth (e.g. give skewed narratives by showing some evidence and hiding others to push your agenda. It's no different to what the BBC etc does.(
So I take this view. Reject all oppression. I can't accept oppression because politically I may prefer a certain outcome. It means I must reject it all, regardless of the oppressor.
(Btw the reason a lot of people don't like Owen Jones is that he attacked Corbyn a lot, and gave soft power support to Israel (electronic intifada has loads on that). PM Corbyn would not be sending arms, troops or giving diplomatic cover to Israel. However he does seem to have genuinely changed a lot in his stance. He's also been consistent about Assad.)
These commentators are showing they are unable to do that. They've lost their credibility because of it.
I don't much care about the others you mentioned but I have to put my own view of Catlin Johnstone reaction
A says "the callousness of comparing Assad with Biden and Trump" like Assad is many times more evil than the other two whilst the other two have sanctioned many more deaths with their further reach of US powers and their absolutely slavish devotion to Israel and the military industrial complex which is ultimately at least as evil as Assad or even worse.
So that could be why she responded the way she did but I'm not her so I can't speak for her but I will say from my readings of Catlin, I don't see her as a hypocrite at all and she has more Humanist views than almost any writer I've ever seen with little bias to any religion or sect. That's my reading of her since I've joined Substack
But Aya, I gotta tell you this. The others you mentioned do have their dark sides exposed but you also show your blind spot in that you seem to see the World mostly through the Islamic lens and perhaps due to all the Islamophobia and hate levied your religions way, I feel you have become just a tad bit too bitter and not seeing the holistic view of things and rather what you want to see through the Islamic perspective
It's an Achilles heel I feel you might have to watch and work on if you can take a step back and view the world from a more holistic view.. that's just what I'm sending of you from this writing and others I've read, I may be wrong though but I just thought I'd mention it
To respond: with Caitlin, when called out about her stance on Assad, she refused to call him an oppressor. This is a fact. If she refuses to accept Assad's brutality, yet accepts Israel's, then that reflects a hypocritical stance on humanity. Furthermore, her responses were undeniably aggressive and abusive, resorting to insults towards someone who was not engaging in a similar manner. This is evident from the tweets and is factual. She has never, at any time, accepted the reality of Assad’s oppression. I challenge anyone to find a single tweet or article where she has acknowledged his crimes.
Regarding the arguments about "who killed more," this is a distraction rooted in divide-and-rule colonialism. No one denies the atrocities committed by Biden or Trump. The real question is why, in the context of Assad, his crimes are not acknowledged. The number of deaths caused by others does not excuse or erase Assad's actions. Ironically, this mirrors the Zionist tactic of politicising the Holocaust to dismiss the genocide in Gaza. I wrote about that here: https://ayauk.substack.com/p/why-keir-starmers-statements-of-genocide.
Caitlin and others consistently deflect, refusing to engage with the specific issue of Assad’s brutality. This perpetuates colonialist divide-and-rule tactics, pitting victims of oppression against one another. The point isn't how many people have been killed, but that they are being systematically murdered. I explored this dynamic further here: https://ayauk.substack.com/p/divide-and-rule-genocide-in-gaza.
Your comment also reveals a latent Islamophobic sentiment, which is often normalised in the West and which my piece addresses. Please don’t take this as an attack; it is simply an observation. Let me explain why this is relevant.
As a Muslim, I am commenting on what I perceive as Islamophobic rhetoric and sentiments. Under legal frameworks such as the UK’s Equality Act 2010, the feelings of the person perceiving discrimination are valid and taken into account. My critique aligns with this principle.
In my piece, I discuss historical context, touching briefly on the Islamic world before colonialism. What I presented are historical facts. I also highlighted the objective reality that Muslim victims—whether Palestinian or Syrian—are rarely given platforms to speak for themselves, with others often speaking on their behalf. This is not opinion; it is a verifiable fact.
I argue that Muslims, like any other people, deserve the right to self-determination. If a Muslim-majority country chooses governance that aligns with its beliefs, it is their prerogative. It is not for outsiders to impose their preferences or critique that choice. This argument centres on agency and autonomy, not advocacy for any specific governance model.
I also touch on identity, explaining how, for Muslims, it is deeply tied to their faith. This is a fact. In contrast, Western identity often centres around the nation-state, which prioritises loyalty to borders above individual morality. I gave the current example of UK citizens being forced to support actions they may morally oppose, such as complicity in genocide.
At no point do I advocate for any specific form of governance. I merely highlight that a people’s right to self-determination, even if it includes Islamic law, is theirs alone to decide. Criticising their choice undermines their autonomy.
In response to my critique, you’ve suggested I have a “blind spot” towards Islam, seemingly because I am Muslim. This implies that any Muslim expressing observations perceived as favourable to Islam is automatically treated as biased and non-objective. However, this assumption lacks evidence.
For transparency: I am neither Sunni nor Shia. I do not adhere to any Islamic sect. My theological stance is independent, and I do not support Sunni or Shia governance. As such, I don't qualify for the bias you believe I automatically have. This is because such governance (i.e., under Sunni or Shia beliefs) would conflict with my personal beliefs. Despite this, I argue that if Muslims want Islamic (Sunni/Shia) law, it is their right to choose. My position is rooted in respect for autonomy, not my personal or religious views.
The real blind spot here is the defence of Caitlin’s actions. Her tweets and articles show a clear refusal to acknowledge Assad’s oppression, coupled with aggressive and abusive rhetoric. This behaviour is overlooked or excused, while my critique is dismissed. This reflects the very behaviour I called out in the article itself. If I am mistaken and Caitlin has acknowledged Assad’s tyranny, I welcome evidence to the contrary.
At the end of the day, my goal is not to convince anyone of anything. My position is clear: if someone cannot accept that Assad was oppressive—or does so reluctantly or with frustration—it indicates they prioritise their politics over human lives. Anyone who criticises Syrians for rejoicing at the end of decades of oppression is not someone I consider worth engaging with.
Yes, the future looks terrifyingly bleak. Greater Israel seems to be becoming a reality, and much more bloodshed is likely. But this reality does not negate Assad’s oppression or justify ignoring it. Accepting both truths is not mutually exclusive. Those who cannot do so are often driven by an agenda that necessitates the erasure of suffering to advance their worldview.
Ultimately, I have presented observations supported by evidence. Every assertion I made is backed by receipts, and I did so without relying on discriminatory stereotypes or assumptions.
And that's all I do—observe. From those observations, I decide where I should expend my time.
First off, I'm a Nigerian born to Christian parents who has never practiced the religion in any way and now I'm a Spiritualist whose religion if I do have one will be Omnism (the belief that there is Truth in All Religions). So I don't care if you're Muslim or not as I live in a country where half the population are Muslims and my younger brother lives with Muslims currently
The reason I said you have a blind spot with regards to Islam has to do with nuances beyond just "any Muslim presenting Islam in a positive light is biased..." as your religion really doesn't concern me and I truthfully don't know much about it beyond the basics
You've explained in detail now how you don't support Muslims creating their own state personally perse but you don't mind if they do so if they wish but that was not included in your original post and you also clarified the other aspects of your post which made me believe you have an Islamic blind spot. You pointing out those areas by yourself without me doing so suggests you also saw that without further clarification, one will think you have an Islamist coloured lens by just reading your original post alone
As I said in my own original comment, "I could be wrong..." and it seems I am about your Islamic blind spot and I am happy to be wrong cuz I enjoy your posts and I've always felt a kindred Spirit in you so I'm glad my original feelings towards you have been proven correct 😊
As for my defense of Catlin, again I say I am not her so I will not speak further in her defense but I just thought to point out that aspect which I felt could explain why she reacted the way she did. She's also another one whom I feel a strong kinship to through her words but I also know humans are not infallible so I hope it's just a misinterpretation of her tweets et all that is causing you to see her in this light, but if she truly has latent Islamophobia in her then it will be a shame but for now I'd rather believe that she doesn't if you don't mind 😅
Oh I didn't think Caitlin was Islamophobic in her replies. She was very abusive though, and she still hasn't acknowledged Assad's tyranny.
If I had any lens in the piece it would be islamic - not islamist. Islamist is a meaningless and made up term to demonise Muslims. It's far more scary to call someone and islamist than a Muslim, with islamist ideologies rather than an islamic religion. But it does prove my point about the commentators -the terminology is troublesome.
Btw Im not saying this to lay any blame or accusation at you at all, but to point out how insidious the narrative is when it comes to Islam and the English language. It language powerfully controls the narrative so much so that even when no islamophobia is even intended, the terminology is in of itself, islamophobic. For this reason I've started relying on other languages, even to express myself with others. The dominance of the English language is really something powerful in controlling narratives, which I've only come to appreciate recently.
Ps I know you're Nigerian and still appreciate that website you sent me!!
Complete tangent, but how is Xmas celebrated in Nigeria (if it is?)
Oh, she's quite combative I know, even from her write-ups 😅.. and I also hope she acknowledges Assad's Tyranny as it's very obvious and like you say, one can say that Assad, Biden, Trump, Netanayuu and Al Jolani are all bad eggs without it being contradictory in any way
And like I said, I don't know much about Islam so I'll defer to you on the terminologies involved (Islamist vs Islamic et all) 👌🏼
And yeah, the English language is quite a powerful spell that the Elites weaved up to control the human consciousness collectively I believe or at least developed or used later on in that manner
Was that nairaland.com? And if it was, hope my countrymen and women aren't "falling my hand" (embarrassing me)? 😅
And yes, we celebrate Christmas a whole lot over here as the other half of my country is made up of Christians (we have a tiny minority that still identify with our Traditional "pagan" religions but they are very few)
It's usually a time when people travel down to their respective Towns and Villages in various States and for family to hang out together in various ways. Plus our now quite famous "Jollof Rice" 😋 with Fried Chicken (as opposed to the American Turkey tradition you could say) and just a time to unwind from hustling all year long
The new Syrian leader is, as you know a former leadung figure of both ISIL and Al Qeada. These so called Islamist groups have never lifted a finger against Israel.
Indeed, there is evidence of collusion between them and the zionist state. Along with wounded Jihadists being treated in Israeli hospitals. There is an old saying amongst Africans that seems appropriate for tge current situation in Syria, Save Us From Our Saviours. Syria is being carved up between Turkey the US, still stealing your oil and the zionist settlers. If you think Jolani has either the intention or means to force Israel to leave then I have a bridge to sell you. Take a good look at Libya, a failed state after similar western backed "liberation". Your troublesnbare just beginning. Notice that the US has removed the 10 million dollars bounty on Jolani. The powers that ousted Assad dont give a monkey’s toss about freedom, welfare and prosperity of the Syrian people, any more than they did in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. I am one of those anti-imperialists you would probably call a hypocrite. Not something I am going to lose any sleep about. I would advise that if you sup the with the US/Zionist devil then use a long spoon!
I haven't commented on Al Jolani at all in this piece and it want a critique of what will happen or what is happening. It was about selective humanity and the inability to call Assad out as an oppressor. These aren't mutually exclusive positions, and it's strange they are being presented as such.
Don't worry, I will come to Al.Jolani. but this piece want about him, nor do I comment about him in any way save to quote him twice re: Israel. The quotes seem to be clearly contradictory.
As my Arab friends dispersed around the world said, 'we welcome the liberation, not the liberators'.
No amount of talk about how bad the liberators are or will be or anything btw, justifies not accepting Assad's brutality. I'm genuinely confused and flabbergasted why it is being pitted as such?
The rebels can be evil, Assad can be evil, Netanyahu can be evil, Biden can be evil, Al Jolani can be evil, Trump can be evil. I accept all of this. I reject all oppression.
So why can't these people? Why can't they accept Assad's oppression? They'll accept all the above, but not Assad. Why?
Aya, I'd like to express my appreciation to you for devoting such time and effort towards providing valuable clarification and context to the current situation in Syria after the fall of the cruel, oppressive, murderous Assad dynasty. You also provided some very helpful insight into the strange, confusing rhetoric coming from certain prominent "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Imperialism" commentators, related to whether the downfall of the insanely brutal tyrant was a good thing or not. There is much that I could say, but I believe that you have already done an excellent job of putting the puzzling discussion in a proper perspective. I also want to compliment you for your admirable willingness to extensively engage and interact with the many people who replied to this post with comments and questions. (You wisely ignored the single ignorant jackass who had nothing relevant to offer.) Ibn Abu Tareq's commentary about how to think about the Syrian revolution and how to see through Assadist propaganda was also extremely helpful.
It's instructive to see how ingrained notions of white privilege and even unconscious (perhaps) supremacist mentalities can render in some prominent commentators a belief that they are best positioned to analyze and define the realities and dictate the appropriate directions, behavior, and reactions for people in the center of certain conflicts, even though these commentators themselves are only remote observers, often with their own platforms and agendas. It's frustrating, but it has often been the case. The real problem is that they can often distort and confuse the facts to their own constituencies. But what's really concerning is a commentator escalating from simply disagreeing with a differing perspective to actively, arrogantly, and dangerously fomenting violence and retribution against those with different views - such as the disgusting screed uttered by the clearly unstable Scott Ritter. Such outbursts reveal an ugly degree of narcissism and fanaticism based simply on a difference of opinion. Rather pitiful, but worth keeping an eye on. At any rate, thank you, Aya for a brilliant, well-written and very helpful piece. Whatever the future of the Syrian people, it should no more be dictated by condescending pundits than by predatory and ill-intentioned foreign agendas.
In terms of scale they absolutely do. In terms of brutality they don't - they all brutal. But it's irrelevant to the the point - Assad commited crimes, horrible ones, why can't these commentators except them or why do they try to minimise them by comparing them with larger scale crimes? It's the same argument saying Gaza isn't a genocide because not enough people have been killed and we need more. There is no difference between the arguments. It's a dangerous path to go down. And it's one which these commentators are hurtling down and by doing so they give full legitimacy to genocidal denialism based on scale and numbers.
On a domestic level, they are basically saying low level crimes like theft aren't the same as murder so we shouldn't have laws for theft. Or that a serial killer is worse than one off murderer so the one off murderer isn't so bad and we can ignore or minimise his crime. It's objectively insane.
Alt media - I read and watch everything from many different countries. Western commentators including medhurst and Danny haipong and so many others, news from the Arab would, Pakistan, Turkey, China. Really interesting why each chooses to report
Yes that's why I considered him a hero. People who take risks and accept the sacrifice of their liberty - however briefly - or their livelihoods for a busy cause. He's not the only one btw - loads of people have been arrested and harassed for longer and far more insidiously but they don't have platforms where they can make this known.
However it doesn't excuse what is clearly Assad apologism.
As people get very confused about things. This is because in the western education system for the past few decades we are not taught nuance and true critical thinking but in black and white only. So we suffer massively from cognitive dissonance and I genuinely believe that this is a root for lots of mental health issues - and the fact they are growing at speed.
Eg Keir Starmer being a human rights lawyer makes people think he must be for human rights. He's crushed so many human rights in his growing authoritarianism. Human rights is simply an area of law to practice in and doesn't indicate the practitioner is for them.
Likewise Aung San Suu Kyi is a nobel peace prize winner meaning people think she's good and for peace. The nobel peace prize is a misnomer and has been awarded to huge numbers of murderers and war criminals, and those committing massacres. Aung San Suu is no different - a nobel peace prize winner who spent years under house arrest for a noble cause, only to gain power and utter anti-Muslim hate and contribute to their massacre and genocide by refusing the Rohingya their identity (genocidal intent) and defining, justifying and legitimising the military's genociding.
Just because a person may be for a nobel cause and suffer for it isn't mutually exclusive with them being pretty horrific on another cause. The test is - are you against all oppression or only some? And if it's only some you factually are not a voice for humanity.
99.99% of Global rulers oppress their own people. Sanctions squeezed the Assad government to breaking. He never wanted the job.
We very much need to hold the puppet masters accountable first. Who provided the weapons? Turkey, USA/NATO, Israel, others have destroyed Syria for many years. Assad was not the only guilty party. US/western propaganda is insulting.
This doesn't address the piece nor the fact he committed horrendous crimes and oppression. Whether he 'wanted' the job or not is irrelevant - though sticking around for decades indicate otherwise. It's not about who should be 'first' to be held accountable. They all should be. The piece doesn't detract from that in any way. It does the opposite.
This does fall into Assad apologism and I don't know what it serves?
I think you might receive some insights by following Ben Norton's
Geopolitical Economy Report here and/or on You Tube. Also, Col. Jacques Baud is a good analyst.
Bottom Line:
The strangling of the Syrian economy by the US/NATO is the highest crime. It's been going on pre-2011.
The Arab Spring in most places WAS done primarily by the US. One must see the Big Picture. Regime change in the ME has been and is a long-term goal of empire.
The events in Ukraine has also been a US project since before 2014.
My piece doesn't deny this. It's not contrary to it.
It addresses only the failure of commentators with a myopic worldview to accept Assad's crimes, and falling over themselves to minimise them, deny them or excuse them through comparison to others.
Why can't everyone's crimes be acknowledged? Or rather, why is everyone's acknowledged but Assad's?
Much needed piece, Aya. Thank you for writing it. I have some very minor quibbles about this but let's keep them aside for the time being.
Also, while we are acknowledging the tyranny of the Assads and the fact that an extremely tiny minority trampled over the hopes and aspirations of the vast majority of Syrians, I don't like the fact that a lot of Sunni commentators are completely ignoring the Israeli and American hand behind al-Julani and his men. As you write, it's not that hard to acknowledge the fall of Assad as a good thing for the oppressed Syrians and that their liberators have an extremely shady background.
Agreed. I don't mention Al Jolani because that's a whole other piece. Speaking with some Arab friends yesterday, they said we welcome the liberation, not the liberators.
Are any of the four mentioned actual experts? Or simply commentators, or polemicists? Murray is a former diplomat with obvious blind spots.Johnstone is an engaging writer but her world view is pretty narrow and she gets obnoxious when challenged. Petty and nasty. I gave up on her when I got into it with one of her readers to whom facts meant nothing. To some extent, you are the company you keep and a portion of the "anti-imperialist" left is very cult-like. It's full of tankies too. I don't know about the track record or background of Medhurst or Miller. But for me, a true expert is capable of holding varying ideas and nuance in their head at the same time without suffering cognitive dissonance and doubling down on deflective b.s. when their "ideas" fall flat.
This is very astute. I agree with you. It's very difficult to burst out of a bubble chamber once you're in it. Even in some of the comments to this article, there are comments about Al Jolani and the future of Syria. But I don't comment on that. The piece as simply about accepting that Assad was am oppressor and calling out those who don't.
My point being is that the chamber is so imprisoning that even in commenting to this piece, the same talking points about Al Jolani are used as a justification and diversion from Assad's brutality. And it is likely, as you say, because we are company we keep.
It's actually really scary and deeply concerning that in every question about 'was Assad oppressive?' the answers come back 'Al Jolani was paid by America.' He may well have been. He may be the most evil man who ever walked the earth. He may prove to be the worst tyrant in human history.
But what's that got to do with the question about Assad?
[To be circulated as broadly as possible.]
AN OPEN CALL TO –
· ALL LOVERS OF PALESTINE,
· ALL SUPPORTERS OF THE WRETCHED OF GAZA,
· ALL WHO OPPOSE THE HOLY G-D OF ISRAEL, HIS TORAH AND HIS PEOPLE.
WE ARE OPENLY ATTEMPTING TODAY TO PROVOKE YOU!
· TO ARISE, WHEREVER YOU MAY BE!
· TO JOIN OUR ENEMIES WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE LAND OF ISRAEL!
· TO CEASE PROCRASTINATING AND TAKE UP ARMS!
· TO MOVE DEVOTEDLY INTO THE SPACE CIRCUMSCRIBED BY YOUR CONVICTIONS!
· AND TO CEASE YOUR ENDLESS BLATHERING ON SOCIAL MEDIA.
WHAT BE YOU, AFTER ALL --
MAN...?
OR DOG!?
THE JEW HAS SUMMONED YOU!
THIS IS YOUR DESTINY!
WILL YOU DARE PUT AN END TO HIS PROVOCATION?
WILL YOU DARE FACE DOWN THE AL-MIGHTY G-D'S CHOSEN PEOPLE IN A FINAL MILLENIAL CONFRONTATION TO DETERMINE ETERNAL TRUTH?
OR WILL YOU CONTINUE TO DITHER AND WHINE, TIP-TAP-TIPPING AWAY ON YOUR GRIMY KEYBOARD?
MOUSE! I SAY.
ANSWER THE CALL!
LET HASHEM, MASTER OF LEGIONS, DECIDE WHOSE BONES TO INTER ON THE BRIGHT, ROLLING HILLS OF SAMARIA WHERE I AND MY BROTHERS DWELL --
YOURS... OR MINE.
WILL YOU SEND ME TO HEAVEN, AS YOU'VE ALWAYS DREAMED?
OR WILL YOU DIE LIKE A DOG IN THE ATTEMPT?
THE SUNNI SYRIAN HOBGOBLIN HAS OPENED THE DOOR FOR YOU AND ALL THE IMPURE ENEMIES OF THE ONE, TRUE G-D OF ISRAEL TO COME!
PROVE YOURSELF!
GO TO HIM!
HE IS YOUR ENTREE TO ARMAGEDDON...
What is this rubbish?
Agreed. I seek out better nuance always. I just finished a final Robert Fisk book published 2024. He died in 2020. Everybody has a bias of some kind. Truthseekers look beyond. The US/NATO and vassals are the biggest culprits.
Oh I'm reading that too!
“Tankie” is a stupid ass word.
[To be circulated as broadly as possible.]
AN OPEN CALL TO –
· ALL LOVERS OF PALESTINE,
· ALL SUPPORTERS OF THE WRETCHED OF GAZA,
· ALL WHO OPPOSE THE HOLY G-D OF ISRAEL, HIS TORAH AND HIS PEOPLE.
WE ARE OPENLY ATTEMPTING TODAY TO PROVOKE YOU!
· TO ARISE, WHEREVER YOU MAY BE!
· TO JOIN OUR ENEMIES WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE LAND OF ISRAEL!
· TO CEASE PROCRASTINATING AND TAKE UP ARMS!
· TO MOVE DEVOTEDLY INTO THE SPACE CIRCUMSCRIBED BY YOUR CONVICTIONS!
· AND TO CEASE YOUR ENDLESS BLATHERING ON SOCIAL MEDIA.
WHAT BE YOU, AFTER ALL --
MAN...?
OR DOG!?
THE JEW HAS SUMMONED YOU!
THIS IS YOUR DESTINY!
WILL YOU DARE PUT AN END TO HIS PROVOCATION?
WILL YOU DARE FACE DOWN THE AL-MIGHTY G-D'S CHOSEN PEOPLE IN A FINAL MILLENIAL CONFRONTATION TO DETERMINE ETERNAL TRUTH?
OR WILL YOU CONTINUE TO DITHER AND WHINE, TIP-TAP-TIPPING AWAY ON YOUR GRIMY KEYBOARD?
MOUSE! I SAY.
ANSWER THE CALL!
LET HASHEM, MASTER OF LEGIONS, DECIDE WHOSE BONES TO INTER ON THE BRIGHT, ROLLING HILLS OF SAMARIA WHERE I AND MY BROTHERS DWELL --
YOURS... OR MINE.
WILL YOU SEND ME TO HEAVEN, AS YOU'VE ALWAYS DREAMED?
OR WILL YOU DIE LIKE A DOG IN THE ATTEMPT?
THE SUNNI SYRIAN HOBGOBLIN HAS OPENED THE DOOR FOR YOU AND ALL THE IMPURE ENEMIES OF THE ONE, TRUE G-D OF ISRAEL TO COME!
PROVE YOURSELF!
GO TO HIM!
HE IS YOUR ENTREE TO ARMAGEDDON...
Thank you for this piece. I appreciate it very much as it brings up a topic that has been nagging me for quite a while. The idea of “heroes” (you use the term in the intro) which we all gravitate to in some fashion as we find ideas and thinkers and creators that align with our views. A few years ago I realized that expecting those folks to always be consistent in that kind of support would not serve me well. If I dissected the ideas of people like Noam Chomsky, Timothy Snyder, John Ralston Saul, Chris Hedges, Judith Butler, Naomi Klein (among many others who I admire), a veto would easily be found and I would be sitting in an empty library looking at a blank screen. With the latest genocide in Gaza, I have been tempted even more. While for many years the atrocities of Assad have been denied by people that have appeared as anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist, I have tried to discern the rhetoric and listen to those that are affected. So we brought in a Syrian family as refugees to Canada through a unique program called Group of 5. I did not forget about the “rendition” program that a Canadian went through and eventually was compensated for by the Canadian government.
A couple of days after the overthrow of Assad, I asked a couple of Syrian women here in Vancouver how they felt about it. They said they were pleased with it, while wondering what will come next.
Hi Peter. Yes, my Syrian friends say similar things. It was incredibly kind of you to bring Syrian refugees to Canada.
Re the heros comment, I did apply it carte blanche to all and shouldn't have done in hindsight as Caitlin didn't fall into it. But for the others, I appreciate anyone who has gone through oppression and loss of liberty for the cause of others. Both Craig and Richard have been arrested or detained by counter terrorism police. Richard is still on bail. David Miller lost his job and fought an expensive court case which ended up in a stunning victory which solidified into UK law that anti Zionism is a protected characterised under the Equality act. For this reason I really admired these people - the loss of liberty and livelihood is no small thing and it is a sacrifice they made to speak for Palestinians rights. This is where the hero comment came from, rather than the fact they shared my views, it was due to the fact that they had sacrificed liberty and livelihood, if only briefly. They literally walked the walk. As for views, we shared a lot but also differed a lot. For one, I was never supportive of Craig Murray's campaign in Blackburn, despite the fact he was a fellow party candidate. I've also never shared any of their views on Syria even prior to the events of the last fortnight.
The thing that has changed for me is not that we differed in views on Syria, but the callousness towards the Syrians and the refusal to acknowledge what they went through. The way this has been deflected from or justified has been in what I believe are really awful ways.
It's here where my hill is. I completely reject oppression - that means of anyone. And refusing to acknowledge oppression - when it is so blatant and known and fully evidenced- is my red line.
Thank you, at last an educated and informed post that puts into words what I have been thinking.
Insightful and brilliantly articulated. An excellent read as always.
Your piece was of interest to me, not just because I know less about Syria and Assad than other aspects of the ME, and you do show nicely the defensive heat that is generated by criticisms of strongly held views. I think the tone they take should be an embarrassment to them. I wonder if some of that heat is a part of living so much in the welter of accusation and counter accusation. Certainly it seems to me that the Twitter, short answer, argument is overly conducive to slanging, and to (deliberate?) misreading of the opponent’s claims. I thought that applied to your accusations and replies as well as theirs. You and they brought in points, claims and accusations that simply did not follow from an unbiased reading of the other’s comments.
I am a regular reader of the commentators you take to task, and had noted that they said little about the appalling inhumanity of the Assads. Instead they concentrated on the probable effects of the fall of Assad, the hypocrisy or naïveté of those who seemed to welcome the various groups who participated in the Assad removal, and the role of US/Israel in the Assad collapse. They are, of course, concerned about such things as the fall of yet another country in the long-standing US plan to remake the ME, the implications for the Palestinians who did in fact benefit from the regime, and the great threat to Iran- the final goal in the US / Israel plan. They clearly regret the setback to opposition to the Israel/US programme, which, though you don’t mention it, has been responsible directly and indirectly for millions of deaths, and continues the US imperial attempts to control, well, the world. That is to say, US militarism is on a scale of death and evil worse even than Assad’s. Yet I don’t see those omissions and foci as the Islamophobic, hypocrisy, excusing of tyranny and several other things that you criticise them of.
Perhaps I’m more forgiving than I should be about the flaws in those who I otherwise think have much of value to offer. And there are few commentators on the left who have not come under attack from other commentators because of their omissions and limited focus. Monbiot and Jones are attacked because they continue to write for the Guardian with its poor record.
I find Jeffrey Sachs about the best overall, geopolitical commentary.
Thanks for your comment, Nigel.
I agree that there is a black-and-white reading of commentators that is emotive and reactive, and it's entirely what the neoliberal and Western propaganda, aka media, groom us towards. For example, tiny comments by celebrities are made into reels of newspaper columns, and not only does everyone react immediately and emotively, but the reactions also reject that person outright, failing to accept that they may have a differing opinion or that they may have made a mistake.
However, in the above, I have not done that. I have asked for a statement that these people will reject oppression towards anyone, and they will not give it. To me, that is my red line. While they may be insightful in some things, not accepting that documented and proven mass oppression occurred, and that the victims have a right to be acknowledged, automatically invalidates all their commentary as objective and impartial. Reading such commentators now on Syria, it’s sad that they peddle false 'facts', and their partiality is causing that.
For example, saying Syria is under Al-Qaeda. The purpose of saying this is to make the public believe that AQ – who we have been told for years are evil terrorists – are in control of Syria. This is the commentator's aim. However, all of them know that AQ isn’t heading Syria. HTS is. Jolani left AQ (I can’t remember why), and HTS is a completely different group. It’s like insisting on calling a former Tory MP who joined Labour and is now a Labour MP – a Tory MP. Now I don’t say this in any way to make any statement about Jolani. I say it because facts are important, and all these commentators are aware that Jolani is HTS, not AQ.
The second thing they do – especially Medhurst, and I think Miller – is keep saying Syria is now run by 'head choppers'. They do this to promote their disapproval of the events that have occurred and thus their political ideology. It’s infantile and crass for many reasons. Foremost, these groups existed for years in Syria, and there was no call for these 'head choppers' to go. Secondly, by calling the new leadership out as head choppers, they have again exposed that they didn’t care about the same depraved crimes of Assad. Why didn’t they describe his regime as 'Syria is controlled by the rapists and torturers, the men who set humans alight with gunpowder, the regime who sodomises men while electrocuting their genitals'? Why aren’t such adjectives and descriptors used? One of the biggest excuses they have for not calling out Assad is that 'Biden and Trump have killed more! The US and UK have killed more!' But even with that, they don’t use these descriptions for our leaders. It is a fact that Keir Starmer has used the RAF to provide intelligence for Israel's genocide. This means he is a genocider. This means the bombs that hit children are because of his decisions. Why is not one of these commentators calling him 'infanticider Keir Starmer' or 'burner alive of children in their tents'? This double standard is deafening – and it is from these commentators.
The funny thing is, all such commentators would read this and say automatically, 'You support Jolani!' because I point out a double standard against him. I haven’t promoted him in any way, at all.
I also come from a different perspective. That is, I am from a Muslim heritage and from a place where people are oppressed and murdered, and where there is a lot of outside interference and terrorism from external and imperial powers. (My personal Islamic views aren't Sunni or shiaa so any comment I make about if Syrians want islamic law, it's their choice, is truly about self-determination not personal theology. This is because should they enact Sunni or shiaa law it wouldn't match my religious beliefs - as I'm neither.)
I share this because there is a verse in the Qur'an that says:
"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So do not follow [persona] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [the truth] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever Acquainted with what you do." (Surah An-Nisa, 4:135)
Basically the Qur'anic injunction is stand up for justice (reject oppression - others verses), and don't let your political ideology supersede justice. Also don't distort truth (e.g. give skewed narratives by showing some evidence and hiding others to push your agenda. It's no different to what the BBC etc does.(
So I take this view. Reject all oppression. I can't accept oppression because politically I may prefer a certain outcome. It means I must reject it all, regardless of the oppressor.
(Btw the reason a lot of people don't like Owen Jones is that he attacked Corbyn a lot, and gave soft power support to Israel (electronic intifada has loads on that). PM Corbyn would not be sending arms, troops or giving diplomatic cover to Israel. However he does seem to have genuinely changed a lot in his stance. He's also been consistent about Assad.)
These commentators are showing they are unable to do that. They've lost their credibility because of it.
I don't much care about the others you mentioned but I have to put my own view of Catlin Johnstone reaction
A says "the callousness of comparing Assad with Biden and Trump" like Assad is many times more evil than the other two whilst the other two have sanctioned many more deaths with their further reach of US powers and their absolutely slavish devotion to Israel and the military industrial complex which is ultimately at least as evil as Assad or even worse.
So that could be why she responded the way she did but I'm not her so I can't speak for her but I will say from my readings of Catlin, I don't see her as a hypocrite at all and she has more Humanist views than almost any writer I've ever seen with little bias to any religion or sect. That's my reading of her since I've joined Substack
But Aya, I gotta tell you this. The others you mentioned do have their dark sides exposed but you also show your blind spot in that you seem to see the World mostly through the Islamic lens and perhaps due to all the Islamophobia and hate levied your religions way, I feel you have become just a tad bit too bitter and not seeing the holistic view of things and rather what you want to see through the Islamic perspective
It's an Achilles heel I feel you might have to watch and work on if you can take a step back and view the world from a more holistic view.. that's just what I'm sending of you from this writing and others I've read, I may be wrong though but I just thought I'd mention it
Thank you for your comment.
To respond: with Caitlin, when called out about her stance on Assad, she refused to call him an oppressor. This is a fact. If she refuses to accept Assad's brutality, yet accepts Israel's, then that reflects a hypocritical stance on humanity. Furthermore, her responses were undeniably aggressive and abusive, resorting to insults towards someone who was not engaging in a similar manner. This is evident from the tweets and is factual. She has never, at any time, accepted the reality of Assad’s oppression. I challenge anyone to find a single tweet or article where she has acknowledged his crimes.
Regarding the arguments about "who killed more," this is a distraction rooted in divide-and-rule colonialism. No one denies the atrocities committed by Biden or Trump. The real question is why, in the context of Assad, his crimes are not acknowledged. The number of deaths caused by others does not excuse or erase Assad's actions. Ironically, this mirrors the Zionist tactic of politicising the Holocaust to dismiss the genocide in Gaza. I wrote about that here: https://ayauk.substack.com/p/why-keir-starmers-statements-of-genocide.
Caitlin and others consistently deflect, refusing to engage with the specific issue of Assad’s brutality. This perpetuates colonialist divide-and-rule tactics, pitting victims of oppression against one another. The point isn't how many people have been killed, but that they are being systematically murdered. I explored this dynamic further here: https://ayauk.substack.com/p/divide-and-rule-genocide-in-gaza.
Your comment also reveals a latent Islamophobic sentiment, which is often normalised in the West and which my piece addresses. Please don’t take this as an attack; it is simply an observation. Let me explain why this is relevant.
As a Muslim, I am commenting on what I perceive as Islamophobic rhetoric and sentiments. Under legal frameworks such as the UK’s Equality Act 2010, the feelings of the person perceiving discrimination are valid and taken into account. My critique aligns with this principle.
In my piece, I discuss historical context, touching briefly on the Islamic world before colonialism. What I presented are historical facts. I also highlighted the objective reality that Muslim victims—whether Palestinian or Syrian—are rarely given platforms to speak for themselves, with others often speaking on their behalf. This is not opinion; it is a verifiable fact.
I argue that Muslims, like any other people, deserve the right to self-determination. If a Muslim-majority country chooses governance that aligns with its beliefs, it is their prerogative. It is not for outsiders to impose their preferences or critique that choice. This argument centres on agency and autonomy, not advocacy for any specific governance model.
I also touch on identity, explaining how, for Muslims, it is deeply tied to their faith. This is a fact. In contrast, Western identity often centres around the nation-state, which prioritises loyalty to borders above individual morality. I gave the current example of UK citizens being forced to support actions they may morally oppose, such as complicity in genocide.
At no point do I advocate for any specific form of governance. I merely highlight that a people’s right to self-determination, even if it includes Islamic law, is theirs alone to decide. Criticising their choice undermines their autonomy.
In response to my critique, you’ve suggested I have a “blind spot” towards Islam, seemingly because I am Muslim. This implies that any Muslim expressing observations perceived as favourable to Islam is automatically treated as biased and non-objective. However, this assumption lacks evidence.
For transparency: I am neither Sunni nor Shia. I do not adhere to any Islamic sect. My theological stance is independent, and I do not support Sunni or Shia governance. As such, I don't qualify for the bias you believe I automatically have. This is because such governance (i.e., under Sunni or Shia beliefs) would conflict with my personal beliefs. Despite this, I argue that if Muslims want Islamic (Sunni/Shia) law, it is their right to choose. My position is rooted in respect for autonomy, not my personal or religious views.
The real blind spot here is the defence of Caitlin’s actions. Her tweets and articles show a clear refusal to acknowledge Assad’s oppression, coupled with aggressive and abusive rhetoric. This behaviour is overlooked or excused, while my critique is dismissed. This reflects the very behaviour I called out in the article itself. If I am mistaken and Caitlin has acknowledged Assad’s tyranny, I welcome evidence to the contrary.
At the end of the day, my goal is not to convince anyone of anything. My position is clear: if someone cannot accept that Assad was oppressive—or does so reluctantly or with frustration—it indicates they prioritise their politics over human lives. Anyone who criticises Syrians for rejoicing at the end of decades of oppression is not someone I consider worth engaging with.
Yes, the future looks terrifyingly bleak. Greater Israel seems to be becoming a reality, and much more bloodshed is likely. But this reality does not negate Assad’s oppression or justify ignoring it. Accepting both truths is not mutually exclusive. Those who cannot do so are often driven by an agenda that necessitates the erasure of suffering to advance their worldview.
Ultimately, I have presented observations supported by evidence. Every assertion I made is backed by receipts, and I did so without relying on discriminatory stereotypes or assumptions.
And that's all I do—observe. From those observations, I decide where I should expend my time.
First off, I'm a Nigerian born to Christian parents who has never practiced the religion in any way and now I'm a Spiritualist whose religion if I do have one will be Omnism (the belief that there is Truth in All Religions). So I don't care if you're Muslim or not as I live in a country where half the population are Muslims and my younger brother lives with Muslims currently
The reason I said you have a blind spot with regards to Islam has to do with nuances beyond just "any Muslim presenting Islam in a positive light is biased..." as your religion really doesn't concern me and I truthfully don't know much about it beyond the basics
You've explained in detail now how you don't support Muslims creating their own state personally perse but you don't mind if they do so if they wish but that was not included in your original post and you also clarified the other aspects of your post which made me believe you have an Islamic blind spot. You pointing out those areas by yourself without me doing so suggests you also saw that without further clarification, one will think you have an Islamist coloured lens by just reading your original post alone
As I said in my own original comment, "I could be wrong..." and it seems I am about your Islamic blind spot and I am happy to be wrong cuz I enjoy your posts and I've always felt a kindred Spirit in you so I'm glad my original feelings towards you have been proven correct 😊
As for my defense of Catlin, again I say I am not her so I will not speak further in her defense but I just thought to point out that aspect which I felt could explain why she reacted the way she did. She's also another one whom I feel a strong kinship to through her words but I also know humans are not infallible so I hope it's just a misinterpretation of her tweets et all that is causing you to see her in this light, but if she truly has latent Islamophobia in her then it will be a shame but for now I'd rather believe that she doesn't if you don't mind 😅
Oh I didn't think Caitlin was Islamophobic in her replies. She was very abusive though, and she still hasn't acknowledged Assad's tyranny.
If I had any lens in the piece it would be islamic - not islamist. Islamist is a meaningless and made up term to demonise Muslims. It's far more scary to call someone and islamist than a Muslim, with islamist ideologies rather than an islamic religion. But it does prove my point about the commentators -the terminology is troublesome.
Btw Im not saying this to lay any blame or accusation at you at all, but to point out how insidious the narrative is when it comes to Islam and the English language. It language powerfully controls the narrative so much so that even when no islamophobia is even intended, the terminology is in of itself, islamophobic. For this reason I've started relying on other languages, even to express myself with others. The dominance of the English language is really something powerful in controlling narratives, which I've only come to appreciate recently.
Ps I know you're Nigerian and still appreciate that website you sent me!!
Complete tangent, but how is Xmas celebrated in Nigeria (if it is?)
Oh, she's quite combative I know, even from her write-ups 😅.. and I also hope she acknowledges Assad's Tyranny as it's very obvious and like you say, one can say that Assad, Biden, Trump, Netanayuu and Al Jolani are all bad eggs without it being contradictory in any way
And like I said, I don't know much about Islam so I'll defer to you on the terminologies involved (Islamist vs Islamic et all) 👌🏼
And yeah, the English language is quite a powerful spell that the Elites weaved up to control the human consciousness collectively I believe or at least developed or used later on in that manner
Was that nairaland.com? And if it was, hope my countrymen and women aren't "falling my hand" (embarrassing me)? 😅
And yes, we celebrate Christmas a whole lot over here as the other half of my country is made up of Christians (we have a tiny minority that still identify with our Traditional "pagan" religions but they are very few)
It's usually a time when people travel down to their respective Towns and Villages in various States and for family to hang out together in various ways. Plus our now quite famous "Jollof Rice" 😋 with Fried Chicken (as opposed to the American Turkey tradition you could say) and just a time to unwind from hustling all year long
Yes it's that's the site!!
I love jollof rice! You're very lucky. My fam is mixed ethnicity and mixed beliefs but we always celebrate Xmas - with a fusion turkey !
Mixed ethnicity of what if you don't mind me asking?
So you're a fellow Jollof lover, glad to see ya here 😂
*sensing not sending
The new Syrian leader is, as you know a former leadung figure of both ISIL and Al Qeada. These so called Islamist groups have never lifted a finger against Israel.
Indeed, there is evidence of collusion between them and the zionist state. Along with wounded Jihadists being treated in Israeli hospitals. There is an old saying amongst Africans that seems appropriate for tge current situation in Syria, Save Us From Our Saviours. Syria is being carved up between Turkey the US, still stealing your oil and the zionist settlers. If you think Jolani has either the intention or means to force Israel to leave then I have a bridge to sell you. Take a good look at Libya, a failed state after similar western backed "liberation". Your troublesnbare just beginning. Notice that the US has removed the 10 million dollars bounty on Jolani. The powers that ousted Assad dont give a monkey’s toss about freedom, welfare and prosperity of the Syrian people, any more than they did in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. I am one of those anti-imperialists you would probably call a hypocrite. Not something I am going to lose any sleep about. I would advise that if you sup the with the US/Zionist devil then use a long spoon!
I haven't commented on Al Jolani at all in this piece and it want a critique of what will happen or what is happening. It was about selective humanity and the inability to call Assad out as an oppressor. These aren't mutually exclusive positions, and it's strange they are being presented as such.
Don't worry, I will come to Al.Jolani. but this piece want about him, nor do I comment about him in any way save to quote him twice re: Israel. The quotes seem to be clearly contradictory.
As my Arab friends dispersed around the world said, 'we welcome the liberation, not the liberators'.
No amount of talk about how bad the liberators are or will be or anything btw, justifies not accepting Assad's brutality. I'm genuinely confused and flabbergasted why it is being pitted as such?
The rebels can be evil, Assad can be evil, Netanyahu can be evil, Biden can be evil, Al Jolani can be evil, Trump can be evil. I accept all of this. I reject all oppression.
So why can't these people? Why can't they accept Assad's oppression? They'll accept all the above, but not Assad. Why?
That was the point of the article.
Assad was not a dictator in anyway.
Aya, I'd like to express my appreciation to you for devoting such time and effort towards providing valuable clarification and context to the current situation in Syria after the fall of the cruel, oppressive, murderous Assad dynasty. You also provided some very helpful insight into the strange, confusing rhetoric coming from certain prominent "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Imperialism" commentators, related to whether the downfall of the insanely brutal tyrant was a good thing or not. There is much that I could say, but I believe that you have already done an excellent job of putting the puzzling discussion in a proper perspective. I also want to compliment you for your admirable willingness to extensively engage and interact with the many people who replied to this post with comments and questions. (You wisely ignored the single ignorant jackass who had nothing relevant to offer.) Ibn Abu Tareq's commentary about how to think about the Syrian revolution and how to see through Assadist propaganda was also extremely helpful.
It's instructive to see how ingrained notions of white privilege and even unconscious (perhaps) supremacist mentalities can render in some prominent commentators a belief that they are best positioned to analyze and define the realities and dictate the appropriate directions, behavior, and reactions for people in the center of certain conflicts, even though these commentators themselves are only remote observers, often with their own platforms and agendas. It's frustrating, but it has often been the case. The real problem is that they can often distort and confuse the facts to their own constituencies. But what's really concerning is a commentator escalating from simply disagreeing with a differing perspective to actively, arrogantly, and dangerously fomenting violence and retribution against those with different views - such as the disgusting screed uttered by the clearly unstable Scott Ritter. Such outbursts reveal an ugly degree of narcissism and fanaticism based simply on a difference of opinion. Rather pitiful, but worth keeping an eye on. At any rate, thank you, Aya for a brilliant, well-written and very helpful piece. Whatever the future of the Syrian people, it should no more be dictated by condescending pundits than by predatory and ill-intentioned foreign agendas.
why cry? I guess Lady Liberty is a zionazi pig
OINK .OINK .Hitler would be so proud🤣
I tend to think that the US/NATO/Israel's crimes far supercede the crimes of Assad. 🤔
Who do you follow in alternative media? I'm curious is all. I tire of the prolific ones, like Johnstone. I search out numerous thinkers for context.
In terms of scale they absolutely do. In terms of brutality they don't - they all brutal. But it's irrelevant to the the point - Assad commited crimes, horrible ones, why can't these commentators except them or why do they try to minimise them by comparing them with larger scale crimes? It's the same argument saying Gaza isn't a genocide because not enough people have been killed and we need more. There is no difference between the arguments. It's a dangerous path to go down. And it's one which these commentators are hurtling down and by doing so they give full legitimacy to genocidal denialism based on scale and numbers.
On a domestic level, they are basically saying low level crimes like theft aren't the same as murder so we shouldn't have laws for theft. Or that a serial killer is worse than one off murderer so the one off murderer isn't so bad and we can ignore or minimise his crime. It's objectively insane.
Alt media - I read and watch everything from many different countries. Western commentators including medhurst and Danny haipong and so many others, news from the Arab would, Pakistan, Turkey, China. Really interesting why each chooses to report
I forgot to say this:
Are you aware that Richard Medhurst was arrested at Healthrow? There were others being harrassed during that same timeframe.
One thing about him that bothers me is that he seems to approve more of Hezbolla. I oppose violence.
However, oppressed people do have the right to resist illegal occupations. It's how that matters.
Yes that's why I considered him a hero. People who take risks and accept the sacrifice of their liberty - however briefly - or their livelihoods for a busy cause. He's not the only one btw - loads of people have been arrested and harassed for longer and far more insidiously but they don't have platforms where they can make this known.
However it doesn't excuse what is clearly Assad apologism.
As people get very confused about things. This is because in the western education system for the past few decades we are not taught nuance and true critical thinking but in black and white only. So we suffer massively from cognitive dissonance and I genuinely believe that this is a root for lots of mental health issues - and the fact they are growing at speed.
Eg Keir Starmer being a human rights lawyer makes people think he must be for human rights. He's crushed so many human rights in his growing authoritarianism. Human rights is simply an area of law to practice in and doesn't indicate the practitioner is for them.
Likewise Aung San Suu Kyi is a nobel peace prize winner meaning people think she's good and for peace. The nobel peace prize is a misnomer and has been awarded to huge numbers of murderers and war criminals, and those committing massacres. Aung San Suu is no different - a nobel peace prize winner who spent years under house arrest for a noble cause, only to gain power and utter anti-Muslim hate and contribute to their massacre and genocide by refusing the Rohingya their identity (genocidal intent) and defining, justifying and legitimising the military's genociding.
Just because a person may be for a nobel cause and suffer for it isn't mutually exclusive with them being pretty horrific on another cause. The test is - are you against all oppression or only some? And if it's only some you factually are not a voice for humanity.
99.99% of Global rulers oppress their own people. Sanctions squeezed the Assad government to breaking. He never wanted the job.
We very much need to hold the puppet masters accountable first. Who provided the weapons? Turkey, USA/NATO, Israel, others have destroyed Syria for many years. Assad was not the only guilty party. US/western propaganda is insulting.
This doesn't address the piece nor the fact he committed horrendous crimes and oppression. Whether he 'wanted' the job or not is irrelevant - though sticking around for decades indicate otherwise. It's not about who should be 'first' to be held accountable. They all should be. The piece doesn't detract from that in any way. It does the opposite.
This does fall into Assad apologism and I don't know what it serves?
I think you might receive some insights by following Ben Norton's
Geopolitical Economy Report here and/or on You Tube. Also, Col. Jacques Baud is a good analyst.
Bottom Line:
The strangling of the Syrian economy by the US/NATO is the highest crime. It's been going on pre-2011.
The Arab Spring in most places WAS done primarily by the US. One must see the Big Picture. Regime change in the ME has been and is a long-term goal of empire.
The events in Ukraine has also been a US project since before 2014.
My piece doesn't deny this. It's not contrary to it.
It addresses only the failure of commentators with a myopic worldview to accept Assad's crimes, and falling over themselves to minimise them, deny them or excuse them through comparison to others.
Why can't everyone's crimes be acknowledged? Or rather, why is everyone's acknowledged but Assad's?
It's deeply concerning