Western govts had a strong moral case against Assad, but squandered it by trying to depose him through groups like Ahrar al-Sham, who massacre Christians; al-Zenki, who behead children; and Jaysh al-Islam, who "accidentally" carry out gas attacks. I hope our govts learn from this
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
That line of thinking could also be used by Assad to justify his crimes.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It's not quite as clear cut as that. What exactly do you mean by "stopping Assad"? Deposing him? then who is going to fill the power vacuum? The jihadis who deposed him, despite the fact that half the country will resent what they did to Assad? Long term thinking is essential.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Incorrect. If the West hadn't resorted to using jihadis, it could have built up a much stronger moral case against Assad, potentially mobilising a popular democratic movement against him, consisting of civilians, SNC, moderate FSA elements, possibly the DFNS, backed up by UN/NATO
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The UN could have aided with humanitarian intervention to mitigate Assad's excesses. But this would have required a majority vote by the UNSC, which itself would have required a strong moral case.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Again, incorrect. Security Council Resolutions 1483 (2003), 1511 (2003) and 1546 (2004) make regime change a possibility if a good moral case can be made.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.