A Guide to the Confusing Contentious Discourse on Syria

A Guide to the Confusing Contentious Discourse on Syria

Over the past five years, I have frequently heard people say how confusing and contentious the discourses on Syria are. There are many loud voices, most of which belong to non-Syrians speaking on behalf of Syrians, but even then, things are a mess among Syrian themselves. So it is completely understandable how Syria, as a topic of discussion, can be fraught with anxiety, sensitivity, and befuddlement.

But fear not, for after five years of observing the various discourses and even daring to participate in them from time to time with mixed results and a bruised heart, I have been able to boil down the various arguments to their very core, cutting right to the jugular and without any of that perplexing fluffy BS. Feel free to use this guide to match your friends and followers on social media or family members at home. Go on, try it!

The essential arguments are as follows:

  • The (Arab and non-Arab) anti-imperialist: "I accept the burning of Syria if Palestine is liberated."
  • The (Arab and non-Arab) pro-imperialist: "I accept the burning of Syria if our civilizing mission endures."
  • The pro-Syrian regime: "I accept the burning of Syria if Assad remains."
  • The anti-Syrian regime: "I accept the burning of Syria if Assad leaves."
  • The mainstream leftist: "I accept the burning of Syria if (Western) empire is defeated."
  • The mainstream rightist: "I accept the burning of Syria if it keeps the (non-Western) barbarians away."
  • The Islamist: "I accept the burning of Syria if an Islamic state is established."
  • The sectarian: “I accept the burning of Syria if my sect survives.”
  • The hedonist: “I accept the burning of Syria if it doesn’t put a damper on weekend parties.”
  • The war profiteer: “I accept the burning of Syria if I can make sweet cash out of it.”
  • The liberal: "I accept the burning of Syria if capitalism and pseudo-democracy Western-copy-cat state is established."
  • The Russian and Western states: "I accept the burning of Syria if our interests are maintained."
  • The neighboring countries: "I accept the burning of Syria if it keeps any movement for self-determination of the masses away from our borders."
  • The Zionist: "I accept the burning of Syria if it distracts from our (incremental) genocide of the Palestinians."
  • The iNGO: “I accept the burning of Syria if that’s what my donors want.”
  • The animal-rights activist: “I accept the burning of Syria if the poor animals are saved.”
  • The curators: “I accept the burning of Syria if the precious ruins in Palmyra are preserved.”
  • The fashionistas: “I accept the burning of Syria if I can still buy cool Syrian outfits for low prices.”
  • The war tourist: “I accept the burning of Syria if I can watch.”
  • The foreign correspondent: “I accept the burning of Syria if I can win a Pulitzer.”
  • The arm-chair activist: “I accept the burning of Syria if I can still write Facebook statuses about it.”
  • The nihilist: “I accept the burning of Syria.”

And finally, the Syrian layperson: "Holy f#@! will people stop wanting us to burn and actually help us survive?"

 

 

This blog post doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinion of Raseef22.
Yazan Al-Saadi

Yazan al-Saadi has the terrible delusion that he's a serious writer and researcher. Based somewhere in the West Asian region, Yazan continues in his desperate search to be relevant.

Comments