|
|
Post by Meghan Miller on May 7, 2018 3:31:24 GMT
@maya French While you descried the Syrian conflict as a revolution at a stalemate, do you believe that if the Syrian people are not successful that this period would still be called a revolution? In the case studies we have done, it seems like eras are only periodized as revolutions if the dramatic change is successful. In the case of the Syrian conflict it seems as though the government will eventually squash out the citizen's organized groups or that the terror groups will create infighting, because of their extremist views.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chloe Fetter on May 7, 2018 11:05:39 GMT
@meghan I worry that without the correct foreign intervention, which is subjective to measure, a point will be reached where a side is actually “killed off”. At this point in the fight, hundreds of thousands of rebels, as well as innocent civilians, are dying while President Bashar al-Assad’s side is not as affected and continues to be supported by stronger, more armed countries. This makes it likely to only last a few more years potentially. Terror groups have only brought upon more attention to the situation which inevitably will and have made tensions worse. What do you think Syria would look like without the rebels? I don't think they would be able to form a functioning government without people to boss around. Bashar Al- Assad's side wouldn't know what to do with themselves and it might even be possible that they might lash out on surrounding countries. l |
|
|
|
Post by Chloe Fetter on May 7, 2018 11:09:55 GMT
@maya French While you descried the Syrian conflict as a revolution at a stalemate, do you believe that if the Syrian people are not successful that this period would still be called a revolution? In the case studies we have done, it seems like eras are only periodized as revolutions if the dramatic change is successful. In the case of the Syrian conflict it seems as though the government will eventually squash out the citizen's organized groups or that the terror groups will create infighting, because of their extremist views. This could very well be.classified as a revolution because the rebels do make a massive attempt to change or alter the way things are playing out in their homeland.There are many examples of rebel held revolt. Whether they are successful or not, they are still pushing for change. I agree with the infighting statement too. |
|
|
|
Post by Makayla Rieder on May 7, 2018 12:40:35 GMT
@meghan The involvement of terrorist groups in this conflict has sure not helped anything, in fact, it just makes it harder for the death toll to be tracked. Analysts can try to track death tolls just from the civil war, but terrorist group killings are quite unpredictable and could be harder to track.
|
|
|
|
Post by Makayla Rieder on May 7, 2018 12:44:14 GMT
@olivia The countries around Syria aren’t getting much backlash from the war because they seem to be separating themselves from it completely. Sure they may get some refugees, but keeping themselves out of it shields them from getting hurt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maya French on May 7, 2018 14:09:52 GMT
@meghan, in response to your reply, I do believe that after this conflict ends it will be considered a revolution. A failed revolution is a revolution none the less. Take The Cold War for example, this conflict was lacking many characteristics we normally see in conflicts labled "war". There were no massive ground battles or major deaths suffered by either side, yet to this day it is considered a "war". If you were to consider the "success" of a war as to have a victorious side and a loser side, then The Cold War was technically a "failed war". If the Syrian government overpowers the Syrian rebels then their revolution should be seen as a failed revolution. Even if the rebels lose, they still attempted to over throw their government, which is still a revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddy Crighton on May 8, 2018 1:54:48 GMT
@olivia i totally agree with you on the fact that this is not a genocide. The war is Syria is one of a civil war. Genocide involves the killings of mass civilians of a certain group.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Girdwood on May 8, 2018 11:42:56 GMT
@meghan
I believe there may never be an end to this crisis, unless a bomb were to be dropped and wipe out a very large majority of one side. Even then there will still be conflict, even if they are outnumbered. Terror groups, to a point, have escalated the violence, as they tend to do most of the time. People are scared, and when they are scared there can only be two outcomes: 1. they fight with everything they have for their life or 2. they cower and disappear in the face of violence. In this case, they are fighting and nothing is going to stop all of the conflicts in this region.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Girdwood on May 8, 2018 11:49:05 GMT
@laura
While I kinda see what you are saying, I have to disagree. A massacre, in common terms, is one group of people being almost killed off in a sense, without much of a fight. In the Syrian case it is a civil war more so than a massacre or a genocide. Both sides are fighting hard, both are killing each others men and women. The government is the source of the first conflict; the people did not like their ruling government, but they did not start the fighting. It could also be considered a revolution in the midst of a civil war because the people wanted change. I do not see how anyone could efficiently label the Syrian crisis a genocide.
|
|
