Are the rebels in Syria bad?

Answer 1

It's difficult to say for certain, which is often the case in Civil wars such as this. Both sides, Qaddafi and the rebels, had their pros and cons. Qaddafi sent military troops to wipe out protesters, which is certainly something bad, but on the other hand, he did manage to keep the peace among the individual tribes and elders of Libya. The rebels, on the other hand, fought for democracy, and to oust a tyrant, which Qaddafi surely was. They do, however, have a daunting task ahead of them: rebuilding Libya.

I believe we'll need to wait and see how they do before we can truly classify them as 'good'. But, I suppose for the sake of the question, I would say that, compared to Qaddafi, yes, the rebels were good.

Answer 2

Answer 1

Sure they are bad. They are destroying every thing in Syria. Why they don't express their opinions peacefully? why the west is supporting them with weapons and training? why they are coming from everywhere in the world? it is a western policy to weaken the country and to get control over its policies and to divert the attention against getting back the Golan occupied lands since war 1967.

One should not give ears to the news from one side. It is logic that what they call the free Syrian army claims that the Syrian regimes killed thousands including children and women. Then, what is the problem to have Syria in cooperation with Iran. Isn't Israel in cooperation with the US? Isn't the European Union in cooperation with US? Isn't Turkey in cooperation with the NATO? How people from all over the world came to Syria through Iraq and Turkey will establish democracy in Syria? Do you think that Al-Qaeda will seek democracy in Syria? It is a plot against the Syrian Regime because they are seeking liberation of the occupied Golan heights. It is a plot to destroy the Syrian economy and army and stability.

Answer 2

Rather than assert nonsense conspiracy theories like Answer 1, such as a Western conspiracy to weaken Syria, the various rebel groups in Syria and the regime forces in Syria should be examined on their own merits. The violence began because of repeated regime oppression of protesters. You cannot peacefully protest if the regime repeatedly kills protesters, which is why the Syrian people took to arms. However, their only agreement was that the regime needed to go, not what needed to replace it, which led to fissioning.

The Syrian Regime is the current authority in Damascus and is directly supported by Iran as its client state. Western authorities believe that the regime has murdered thousands of civilians in gas weapons attacks and conventional weaponsfire.

The Free Syrian Army wants to promote some kind of democracy and is among one of the more liberal groups in the Syrian Civil War. As of yet, none of the wartime atrocities have been tied to them. However, the FSA has been responsible for numerous civilian casualties by coventional weaponsfire. Also, the FSA is probably the militarily weakest of the rebel groups.

The Kurdish Peshmerga has localized claims over the area of Syrian Kurdistan and has managed to stabilize most of the areas under its control. There are incidents of ethnic-cleansing against Non-Kurds, especially relative to how these minorities (mostly Assyrian Christians) had been treated by the regime prior to the war, but these incidents are less frequent and less virulent than in Arab-dominated areas of Syria and Arab-dominated areas of Iraq.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) is a former affiliate of al-Qaeda and actually controls the largest amount of Syria after the regime. They are not terribly different from the Taliban and have already begun to persecute non-Sunni minorities, burn alcohol and cigarettes, and forcibly veil women.

[For all of the non-sequitor questions in Answer 1, please see the Related Links below.]