Who knows?.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 3 2013 18:37 utc | 4

Interesting developments in Syria… It seems both sides are trying to take as much territory as possible?! Fighting flaring in almost all regions…
Also interesting, the FSA expended a lot in men and material to capture the Police Academy outside of Aleppo, some reports saying 200 dead and upwards. And it seemed that they were trying to close the last major road in government hands. According to the same reports, fighting is still ongoing, so it’s difficult to say, but it seems they have captured it. Unfortunately, the government has grabbed for the road south out of Aleppo airport to secure their supply lines.
Also fighting in Ar Raqqah with major assaults on government held positions from several directions…it appears the Kurds have made a deal with the FSA… Probably something along te lines of don’t attack us and we won’t attack you… Just stay out of the way. The Syrian Kurds seem to be taking advise from Barzani… I hope they don’t live to regret it.
In the West the government has tried to take advantage of fighting to the east to roll back some of the rebel position around Latakia,
In the South, things seem to have lulled inthe latest “final assault on Damascus” but if the rebels are trying to capture at least one city ie Ar Raqqah, they will need to keep the army occupied in the south.. Expect a new renewed assault within the next few days.
To the southeast, the most interesting thing is the Iraqi forces attacking or at least shelling real positions at the Yorabia border point…
It’s getting expensive for all sides now… And the stakes are going higher… The Turks are either going to win big or fail miserably, at least their consolation prize could be entrance Ito Europe…

Posted by: OAB | Mar 3 2013 18:50 utc | 6

re 6
The Turks …, at least their consolation prize could be entrance Ito Europe…
I’m surprised people are still pulling out that old chestnut. It’s an American fantasy. The Turks aren’t interested any more.

Posted by: alexno | Mar 3 2013 19:44 utc | 8

“The whole interview, in which Assad is unlike his opponents again very rational and logical, is recommended reading….”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GZ8IgItBZDQ

Posted by: David | Mar 3 2013 20:15 utc | 10

My answer wasn’t completely clear in #11.
What I mean to say is that the religious sect can take root but it can be removed as well. These people have been brainwashed and undoing that would take a considerable amount of effort. Irreversible? Not entirely but very difficult in my opinion.

Posted by: Gehenna | Mar 3 2013 21:03 utc | 12

Ideology can only be discussed and reasoned with educated, smart people, NOT with fanatics (regardless if its wahabbi, atheists or anyone else). Thats what Assad is talking about. His main enemies are “NATO akbar” psychos, who are hell bend to destroy or die in the process, you cant reason with them, what to speak of convincing them to change their ideology.
In other words, judging by the context, Assad is spot on here as well. My favorite quote from his speech was “arsonists cant be firefighter”, that was brilliant.

Posted by: Harry | Mar 3 2013 22:05 utc | 14

While ideology may not be irreversible, people heavily indoctrinated in something find it very difficult to change. Especially if the indoctrination is heavily imposed during their first 5 years of life. Most people retain the core indoctrination, even though they drop, or alter, their views of much of the ideology surrounding it later.
“But the Jihadi ideology (we need a better word for this) seems to be still on the rise, supported by the Gulf monarchies and used as a proxy force by the “west”. That is what makes it dangerous. Its inherent growth momentum would probably be nil without such support.”
The beginning of the harnessing of the fundamentalist Christian right to Israeli interests was begun by zionists shortly before the same was applied to Muslims. Zionists needed a larger share of the more conservative Republican American types, as of the 60’s at least half of Americans still at least occasionally went to church. The zionists pretty much had the Democrats under their wing at that time, so in order to get the sort of clout they wanted, they bought up some of the more influential preachers, and backed some new ones. This is why, ludicrous as the Christian right is to most Americans, they were never seriously challenged or exposed by the zionist msm, who essentially gave the movement a free ride and did a lot to promote it.
I suspect the way Muslims were corrupted was a very similar method, change to suit the cultural circumstances. Once it became clear the process worked, zionists figured out what would work against the Muslim proples. Which branches of the religion would be most susceptible to co-optation and corruption. In this, Israweli experience was no doubt invaluable, and they likely lead in the policy making around recruiting Muslim terrorism to the zionist cause. It should also be remembered that the American establishment had long history of corruption one group so they could be used as a front to attack another. This was used extensively in S.E Asian wars the Americans conducted there. But Americans didn’t have a lot of experience operating with Arabs, like the Israelis do, or also, even the British do, so the Israeli-Americans used British and especially the Israelis, for on the ground work and to control these operations.

Posted by: вот так | Mar 4 2013 1:10 utc | 16

jihad is a boon to the US war machine….fighters for tuppence, ready to kill and die, convinced their cause is ‘righteous'(a feature of semitic religions) and so many of them that US can save a great deal of money as well as popular reactions at home from use of US troops

Posted by: brian | Mar 4 2013 7:33 utc | 18

Posted by: Gehenna | Mar 3, 2013 3:59:48 PM | 11
some good points, but the 5 pillars of islam are:
belief
worship
charitable giving
fasting during the month of Ramadan (sawm)
the pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) at least once in a lifetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam
jihad is seen as a 6th pillar by certain muslims

Posted by: brian | Mar 4 2013 7:47 utc | 20

I don’t even think it’s necessarily an ideological thing when it comes to the Jihadis in Libya or Syria. The most influential factor, I’d guess, is the “transnational” Idea in the islamist stance. But there are many empoverished young male guys in every islamic country. Give them some money and a passage, tell them to go to XY and take what they can loot… and they’ll go there and take what they can. Mercenaries will always find a cause to justify their fighting, be it islam, communism or “freedom”. You can even do this in the “1st” world, think of the french foreign legion e.g.
I don’t think there’d be as many Jihadi fighters if they’d only fight for ideology.

Posted by: peter radiator | Mar 4 2013 8:44 utc | 22

@ b [#0],
Q: A full transcript liberated from the paywall…
R: Thanks. Appreciated. If only Assad would act and talk like the madman he’s made out to be…

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 4 2013 12:05 utc | 24

ideologies are reversible, even in the most extreme cases so i cannot fully agree with him. but in principle i think he is right because altering a persons ideology or belief system, especially when it represents a movement can take generations. even an individual who seeks to change themselves from within, for example if i wanted with all my heart to be saved by jesus, to be a believer..could i? i don’t think so. i always say the heart has it’s own clock. it would be like willing oneself not to be in love anymore. if that was a simple or controllable thing people would not have to suffer from broken hearts.
and an ideological fanatic does not see himself as such. someone deeply entrenched in a religious ideology needs an awakening of sorts, and that is not easily predictable or controllable. some things are more predictable, like transformation after experiencing severe trauma.
anyway, i do not think you can simply will an ideological reversal either on oneself or ones foes. in that regard the ideology ‘assuming the mantle of Islam’ is more of a danger to syria than the killing.

Posted by: annie | Mar 4 2013 12:44 utc | 26

Penny @ 14=3 — Were I a Shiite in Iraq, especially a Shiite politician or other leader, I would be worried about the US et al re-invading in order to bring “peace and rule of law” –or some such pablum– to that country. It would be part of the US move to wipe out Shia ruled nations.
Since the US left it in such great shape…and the current pols there have not been as pliant as the US desires.

Posted by: jawbone | Mar 4 2013 21:41 utc | 28

“Is an ideology, once it has taken ground in some people, really irreversible?”
I think that we adopt ideologies partly based on our emotional needs: we choose (consciously or unconsciously) ideologies that fit those preexisting emotional needs.
So my first answer to the question about the reversibility of ideology would be that it depends on the emotional needs that contributed to its adoption.
Let’s take a strict form of pacifism as an example, i.e. an ideology that prohibits us to fight even in self-defense.
This ideology apparently satisfies people who feel to a high degree the need to “open up” to the world, so much so as to be willing to sacrifice their animal instinct to defend themselves. I think that it is very likely that this ideology can change easily, and i have in mind what was referred to by another commenter as “traumatic experience”: If the pacifist in question loses a beloved one because of an unjust physical attack, she is liable (i think) to reconsider her ideology.
But ideologies which satisfy our need to dominate cannot be that amenable to reconsideration. If my basic emotional need is to dominate no matter how much violence i have to inflict in order to achieve this domination, and i come to internalize an ideology that is offered to me by my culture and which happens to serve my need for domination, then i doubt that a single traumatic experience can alter this ideology. I think it’s going to take a series of traumas, not just one, to make me willing to reconsider.
I haven’t really thought about the matter, i am just musing and i wrote down my immediate intuitions that the reversibility question triggered.

Posted by: dion | Mar 4 2013 23:36 utc | 30

In an individual anything is reversible. But in a more general sense, there is no unringing a bell – so Assad is right in that way. Once an ideology is out there it can always be accessed and acted upon. It may no longer be very popular, like Communism, but try as you might, it cannot be eradicated.
@ 14 Harry – “NATO Akbar” LOL! Have not heard that before. Maybe someone should copyright it and make some t-shirts and stickers.

Posted by: J. Bradley | Mar 5 2013 6:31 utc | 32

Were I a Shiite in Iraq, especially a Shiite politician or other leader, I would be worried about the US et al re-invading in order to bring “peace and rule of law” –or some such pablum– to that country.
I would be very surprised if al-Maliki was afraid of that. There’s not a chance of it happening.
More likely Maliki could be concerned about Gulf funding of al-Qa’ida in Iraq. But even then, does it make him lose sleep? The bombs blowing up Shi’a keep him in power.

Posted by: alexno | Mar 5 2013 16:00 utc | 34

Lena – 35
LOL, Guardian is so Israel.

Posted by: вот так | Mar 6 2013 17:54 utc | 36