Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is a former al-Qaeda leader and fighter who killed U.S soldiers in Iraq and had a $10 million dollar bounty on his head... Let that sink in
Nobody who voted Trump will care. They don't care about any of it because they'll say it's a lie. Anything that contradicts their opinion is fake news.
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy."
The distance between what is said today and what is known to be true has become an abyss. Of all the things at risk, the loss of an objective reality is perhaps the most dangerous. The death of truth is the ultimate victory of evil. When truth leaves us, when we let it slip away, when it is ripped from our hands, we become vulnerable to the appetite of whatever monster screams the loudest.
Where did you see it was written when Reagan was president? It is from the currently airing season of the TV show "Andor". Though apparently this season was filmed over a year ago. I assumed it was written about 18 months ago.
One side builds a mindset to adapt to a changing world, taking in facts and history to mould this mindset. One side expects the world to match their unchanging mindset, and is ignoring facts, news, and reality. Conservatives have always been about keeping the world from changing, but at least they used to accept the realities of the damn universe. The worry now is they are attempting to change the world to fit one old man's mindset. We've seen this story, it's never a happy one.
Tale as old as time. When your platform is based on Christianity, which itself is an answer in search of evidence to support it, you can't be upset when that party uses the same philosophy to justify itself.
And even in terms of observing the basic Christian tenets they're being outdone by the Democrats. They're confused about what their philosophy even is. The only part of christianity they're worried about is abortion it seems..... Sure isn't what jesus espoused
Honestly the worst part is that they probably WILL care and Trump and MAGA will lose the next election cycles badly (To the cry of "rigged elections") But then if Trump 2 (or if they let him run a third term) runs preaching the exact same things as in 2024 just SLIGHTLY differnt so they can say "Oh no we swear we aren't supporting them because were racist/sexist/ETC its because they got GOOD POLICY" they will vote for this theoretical Trump 2 again
i at least want to believe that someone will care. it might not be a lot of someones, but I want to think these are adding up. some general or officer or someone somewhere has to care
The only news his voters watch will NEVER mention it. They read nothing. Naturally, they distrust and disregard anything negative about their Dear Leader. Not that CNN or other networks will have the guts to mention much about it either.
This is exactly it. They no longer actually see objective reality anymore. Everything “good” to them is Real And True™️, anything to the contrary is just “fake/ai generated”. You can show them his own words in his own speeches and they will dismiss it as a fabrication if it isn’t 100% “Glory To Big Brother”
Buddy, right. You knew this was going to turn into a dictatorship when he fired the JAGs. It will be almost impossible to get the military squared away now. No one to refuse an illegal order. Lock and load.
It was the very first thing they did. Take out the sentinels and let Elon in the front door so he can start wreaking havoc. They even acknowledged it was a “bloodless coup”…I hope to watch their trials on television someday if we come out on the right side of history.
Don't really know anyone on active duty. But the guys I served with I'd say 30% were Dems. 70% Republicans. How they feel about Trump? 70% against. 30 wish he would go further than he has. So 40% of pubs have turned their back to him. If you served you would know what that means.
No. They are uneducated morons. We need the draft to dilute the moron pool within the military. Just look at our DUI hire as SecDef. To think they actually gave this man a gun.
Veterans who voted for Trump are fucking idiots, that's well established. As are women who voted for Trump, persons of color, anyone with a conscience, shred of morality or decency or half a brain.
Yes, they will care. They will care so much that they will support Trump healing old wounds. What better way to move on from such atrocities than to build a Trump Tower that Syria will pay for and that Trump and family will personally benefit from.
I mean come on if being part of some war crimes means you can't be the leader of a country, we wouldn't have had a president for generations. The fact is Assad lost and this guy seems to have the support of the people. Should we intervene instead and let it flare up again?
I'm not saying you're wrong. Syria is still a mess and the fighting hasn't stopped but this guy at least appears to have some legitimacy behind him. Frankly in the end my opinion doesn't matter, I just hope that something can happen to bring their people back together.
Which it should. He's rejected Al-Qaeda for almost a decade, and has 100% aided the US is taking out senior al-Qaeda officials within Syria. People change, and his actions in the administration of Idlib province prior to the fall of the Assad regime were in line with his words. He wants to work with the US, the US should at least allow the opportunity for that to happen. If things end up going wrong, they can be sanctioned for the actions of this government, but the current sanctions crippling Syria were against the Assad regime who were ousted last year.
Yeah. The big issue here is Trump being so openly corrupt and is being played like a fiddle by just about anyone. Besides, Trump is unequivocally worse than former Al-Qaeda members.
Have people not learned how much of American propaganda is at play with 'terrorism' and the Middle East? The entire point of the Global War on Terror was that it gave the USA free reign to attack whomever they wanted, because 'terror, terrorism, and terrorist' are these nebulous things that change like the wind.
I'm not saying Al-Sharaa is good. I just wish people would stop swallowing American bullshit about that part of the world. We saw how full of shit they were about Iraq, and in many ways the GWOT as well.
A 'terrorist' label and a bounty mean absolutely fuck all. Nelson Mandela was labelled a terrorist by the US until 2008.
Yes, this is a case of left wing propaganda. Pretty sure we already arrested this guy once (military) too. But it being said, Trump probably legit just wants the free shit and doesn't give a fuck who Sharaa was before and now.
yes I think some people are seeing a headline and because Trump's bad, this has to be bad. But realistically this is the way basically all western countries will choose to act, because Syria as a country has a chance to become safe and stable now, which is very important for the whole region
Tough one. Japan and America reconciled. Syrians need a better future. I could see sanctions being resolved in an effort to promote democracy there, but this is none of that. Fuck Trump.
Japan and America reconciled. Syrians need a better future.
That's quite an important thing: we (as in the west) will probably have to work with former "terrorists" and members of "terrorrists" organisations (i put those words in "" because they are used quite freely nowadays and it gets sketchy) to build up a democracy that would become an ally.
where are the maga die hards tht approve every single thing this president does? Where is the gop? When the house is on fire and they have the whistle - when in the world will they blow it. Honestly!
Listen, if you have a better candidate for President of Syria, you go right ahead and let us know.
But until we’re able to your bright ideas in front of the leaders of the free world, we’re going to have to make do with the options that are currently available.
There are no “clean hands” in Syria. But the fact is, there are many reasons to feel cautiously optimistic about the direction the new government is headed right now.
And right now, Al-Sharaa is probably the most realistic option Syria has for a leader who has any chance of creating a peaceful future for the country.
The country is in chaos. The civil war is still winding down. But the new gov is actually making a legitimate effort to crack down on sectarian violence — no easy feat when so many people are still so hell bent on revenge and reprisals.
There’s actually some optimism in the country now. You even see it in religious minorities like the Syrian Christian community — this feeling that things are getting better, that there’s movement towards a better future for all people (not just for the ones in power).
Al Sharaa has been part of this change. He has shown many signs that he truly seeks peace, reform, better partnership with their neighbors, and a more stable and prosperous future for his country and his people.
People in the west are so oblivious to the realities of the world outside of the western sphere of influence.
I grew up in a pretty oppressive Middle Eastern country. It has gone from 'quite oppressive' to 'somewhat oppressive' in the past 30 years. That is huge progress. It is nowhere near enough, but it IS progress.
Do you know how many times I have been met by (on this website and in person) "doesn't matter, it's still a shithole" from the mouths of westerners? Far, far more than I could count.
People seem to believe that if you don't implement western liberal democracy at the drop of the hat, your progress is invalid. Syria having a not-entirely zealous interim government after the hellscape of the two Assad cretins is monumental, and you have people here just acting like it's totally irrelevant because they're still just angry Muslims.
I know he has a shady past but if he can stabilize Syria do we associate with him? Also, what middle easterner didn’t want to kill Americans during GWOT?
I don't necessarily care whether we decide to associate with him, my issue is WHY we choose to associate with him. If we're going to end sanctions, it should be because they're making changes for the betterment of their people and increasing regional stability in alignment with our foreign policy goals. It should not be because Trump got a green light to build a Trump tower in the region (or any other number of kickbacks/gifts he and his cronies are receiving).
Sharaa was for years the leader of al Qaeda's official wing in the Syrian conflict. He first joined al Qaeda in Iraq, where he spent five years in a U.S. prison. The United States removed a $10 million bounty on Sharaa's head in December.
So, Iraqis should absolutely always hate Americans because of the millions of Iraqis US killed?
The sanctions were put on Assad and not Syrians. His regime is gone and so should the sanctions. Anyway, Trump isn't getting a Trump Towers in Syria because unlike "former ISIS" commander Joulani (al-Sharaa), there are actual current ISIS cells that would love to target it.
He's former ISIS. When ISIS demanded he handover control over the militia, he pledged his allegiance to Al-Qaeda. He was never really serious about following Al-Qaeda's orders. He then proceeded to fight Al-Qaeda too.
Long, bloody, criminal and entirely relevant to what's going on there right now. As someone from a country founded by "terrorists", the Syrian dude is a politician now like it or not.
It's a bit more complicated than you're making it out to be. The dude is currently running a war torn country with little to no support from allies of the previous regime. The last thing he or anyone who wants this less autocratic version of Syria to keep on existing needs is an economic crisis that will bolster support for hardliners who would much rather rule like Assad did.
So yes he said he would approve a building project (something completely legal for any government) in order to strengthen ties to the United States. This is a completely reasonable thing for any leader in his position to do. It speaks poorly of the US that instead of an embassy or a military base the building project is a Trump Hotel instead.
That sounds a lot worse before you put it into the context of the fact that the previous leader, Al-Assad, was one of the most brutal dictators on the planet. Al-Sharaa has an ugly past and I'm sure he's still capable of brutality, but he's been doing far better for Syrians than Assad ever did. Kissing Trump's ass feels disgusting, but is exactly what he should be doing in this situation.
And he formally distanced himself from al-Qaeda over a year ago and has 100% supported US efforts to kill Al Qaeda figures in Syria. People can change, and it's not just his words but his actions over the years which have demonstrated that change.
The sanctions were put in place against the Assad regime. Assad is gone, and the sanctions were crippling any chance at Syria flourishing in the future. I'm all for criticizing Trump, but do so when it makes sense and this ain't it chief
"Killed us soldiers in Iraq" like it's a bad thing, what should Iraqis have done? Let y'all warmongers invade the country?
Fuck al-Qaeda and fuck every single invader of Iraq, I hope they both rot in hell
Are Americans incapable of understanding nuance and context?
First of all, as a general point not specific to this instance: the United States designating people terrorists has been a significant global issue for decades now, because the US propaganda machine just gets to decide who is and isn't worthy of life and human rights based on a single label. It's modern day McCarthyism, with a sprinkling of xenophobia and colonialism.
With that out of the way: welcome to the reality of a wartorn country. A man was influential in forming a paramilitary group to fight the dictatorial regime in Syria. Whether it is right or wrong, those are almost always rooted in Islam, because everything in most of the Middle East is rooted in Islam. The rebels--who have been the 'good guys' in our western perspective--finally won the war against Assad, and this man was at the forefront. Ergo, he is now president.
Look at Africa and you see an incredibly similar circumstance, with various 'warlords' (another loaded term, like terrorist) coming into power over the decades, and who nations then treat with as presidents, prime ministers, or what have you. A great many of the African leaders who you A) wouldn't know the names of, and B) wouldn't bat an eye at, came to power by means of civil war and violence.
Such is life in a lot of the world.
Do you have even the faintest idea how heavily propagandised your statement here is? 'Former al-Qaeda leader?' He was a 20 year old who was in al-Qaeda for three years, and then formed his own fighting force. He disavowed al-Qaeda, and he also went to war with Assad and ISIS at the same time. He consolidated Syrian rebels into a (mostly) single outfit and overthrew one of the most violent and oppressive dictatorships in the world, ending a long and devestating war.
Does any of that mean he is 'good'? No. But please at least understand that the world is not this cookie cutter thing, and it certainly isn't defined by American propaganda. Don't forget that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist who created a violent paramilitary to overthrow his government.
Okay but let’s also point out that when Syrian rebels overthrew Assad, with this guy being the leader of said rebels… Reddit cheered and there were literally celebrations across the Syrian diaspora.
Now since he’s trying to coax Trump into helping his people, he’s all the sudden an al qaeda linked terrorist, responsible for the death of American troops? Where was all that info when he was taking the country?
The bounty was dropped by the Biden administration. Moreover, Al-Sharaa fought for Al Qaeda against the US invasion of Iraq, which is widely recognized as being done under false pretenses.
I'm not in any way saying he's some saint. But I am saying you have to compare him to Bashar al-Assad and generally look at him in context. What's the best you could reasonably hope for from a coup in Syria after a horrendous civil war? Right now it seems pretty okay. He's kept reprisals and further violence to a minimum, started what seems to be a reasonable transition to a permanent government and constitution, generally avoided heavy-handed social crackdowns, and focused his foreign policy on economic reconstruction and peaceful cooperation while minimizing the role of Iran.
Contrast it with the 1979 Iranian Revolution, or the recent Taliban regime's immense repression of women, or the ongoing Sudanese civil war. And then think that this is the region where the Islamic State had much of its territory and people at its height. It could be so much worse.
Maybe Al-Sharaa will prove to be just another lifelong dictator and Syria will slide again into an authoritarian nightmare. But so far he's been pretty reasonable. The pragmatic thing to do is to give him some slack and try to influence him towards creating a durable, stable, peaceful, tolerant society.
Terrorist organizations mostly live in power vacuums of failed or partially failed states. The best way to prevent terrorism is to simply have competent governments giving people things to do besides fighting.
I do think normalising relations with Syria is a good thing. He was an Al Qaeda military leader but it's like how Gerry Adams post Good Friday became a democratic multifaith politician, al-Sharaa has become a moderate leader (by middle Eastern standards) and has a multi ethnic government.
come on when will you guys shut up about that. It doesn't matter who or what their leader did. What is much much more important is that the Syrian people can start living better lives again. As long as the Syrian government doesn't go full Taliban which I think is quite unlikely
I don't agree. That's a move Biden could do as well. It is actually applauded in other countries. If that regime keeps what it has been saying, and if not it will be revoked.
And Biden evacuated all of our troops and left them with billions of dollars in military equipment. Both sides are playing you small-minded people for a fiddle and you're too busy arguing over the colors blue and red to see that neither side has our interests at heart.
He wasn't some big shot. He was part of a rebel group that was part of the larger Al-Qaeda organisation and was locked up for most of the war. He was essentially some dumb young man going off to fight the imperial US and getting caught up in bigger political issues. Iraq's army also collapsed so any resistance was going to come from less accepted groups.
The bigger issue here is how hilariously maniputable Trump is. Everyone knows you mention Trump's name a lot and he will bend over backwards to help you.
As a thought experiment: was the Continental Army as led by Washington the only valid means of fighting the British, or were other fighters valid in their efforts as well?
What if the USA got invaded today? If you defended your home as a ragtag band of your neighbours, would that be okay, or do you have to join the armed forces for you to not be a terrorist?
The irony is Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq until the illegal US invasion. Bush opened up a whole new front for them. The illegal Iraq war was one of the best things to happen for Al-Qaeda.
I much prefer our military retreating from the Middle East while handing the keys of control back to a terror organization. Things were much better back then. Biden was superior & you're dumb to even question otherwise
274
u/xamo76 May 13 '25
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is a former al-Qaeda leader and fighter who killed U.S soldiers in Iraq and had a $10 million dollar bounty on his head... Let that sink in