Syrian anarchist on imperialist interventions and the Syrian Revolution


The Syrian revolution is a revolution that began as a struggle for self-determination. The Syrian people demanded to determine their own destiny. And, for more than two years, against all odds, and in the face of massive repression and destruction from the Assad regime, they persevered.  In the course of the revolutionary process, many other actors have also appeared on the scene to work against the struggle for self-determination. Iran and its militias, with the backing of Russia, came to the aid of the regime, to ensure the Syrian people would not be given this right. The jihadis of the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham and others, under the guise of “fighting the Assad regime,” worked against this right as well. And I feel the same way about any Western intervention.

Some would argue that we have come a long way from that, that it isn’t even about self-determination anymore, but rather, simply stopping the killing. This is a position I cannot support. If it was simply about stopping the killing, then I would’ve supported the jihadis when they came in, because, no one can deny, they were the best armed and the best equipped to challenge the Assad regime. But I didn’t, and many others didn’t, because we knew that despite their ability to challenge the regime, that they did not share the goals of the Syrian people. They wanted to control the Syrian people, and stifle their ability to determine their own destiny. Because of this, they were counter-revolutionaries, even if they were fighting against the regime.

And now in the face of a possible Western intervention in Syria, I hold the same position. Many would say I’m being ideological, and that I should just focus on stopping the killing; but those people are ignoring that, even on pragmatic terms and within their own line of reasoning, their argument holds no sway, after repeated US insistence that “these will only be punitive strikes” and they “do not intend to topple the regime.” What indication is there that these strikes will do anything to stop the killing, or “solve” the Syrian crisis?

I don’t care about sovereignty. Syria has become a land for everyone but Syrians nowadays. The myth of Syrian sovereignty is not why I oppose Western intervention. Neither is the prospect of the destruction of Syria, for it has already been destroyed by this criminal regime. I oppose Western intervention because it will work against the struggle for self-determination, that is, against the Syrian revolution.

Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. I have no doubt about this. And this could have been prevented if the Syrian resistance was actually given weapons that could have tilted the balance against the regime. But foreign powers sat on their hands, not wanting Assad to win, but not wanting the resistance to win either. They couldn’t give weapons to the Syrian people to defend themselves, they said, who knows whose hands they might end up in? They might accidentally end up in, say, the hands of Syrians who wanted to determine their own destiny despite foreign interests!

So we’ve come full circle. No one armed the Syrian resistance, so they were killed by the regime, or forced to put up with jihadi infiltration. So Assad used chemical weapons against the Syrians, and the West wants to respond to teach Assad a lesson, a response that still guarantees that Syrians have no say in the matter of their future. And the regime will probably live through any “punitive” Western intervention, and the killing will probably not stop.

But despite all that, the Syrian revolution, and, at its heart, the Syrian people’s struggle for liberation and to determine their own destiny, will live on.

WORDS: Darth Nader, from


The Rebels used Chemical Weapons not Assad

The UN had already accused the Rebels of using Chemical Weapons back in May earlier this year. The Assad regime had already gained the upper hand with the rebels and retaken many areas and so they had absolutely no reason to use chemical weapons for it would only generate the pretext for "official" Western intervention, no fly zones and all that follows. There is every reason to believe that the chemical weapons were carried out by the rebels and the whole episode has been planned and is being used as a pretext to bomb Syria to re-balance the power and allow the rebels to make a comeback given they have been losing badly. This image of these guys being "rebels" is naive. They are made up of mercenaries and Al Qaeda types and have killed many people.

This is not to say given the right circumstances that they would behave brutally as I am sure they have already in trying to crush resistance, but your article seems to not acknowledge that the so called rebels are and have been backed, trained, financed and armed by a number of Gulf states -like Qatar and by Western powers chiefly France, UK and USA.

Removing Syria, allows a free passage in terms of logistics to attack Iran. This is what much of it is about.

What a load of bollocks!

What a load of bollocks!
"No one armed the Syrian resistance..." Erm, no-one except the CIA, Turkey and Israel he means?!

This 'anarchist', with seemingly no background knowledge of Syria or the wider region whatsoever, is embarrasing himself with polemic based not on fact but some fictional reality in his own head. But I guess if he admitted that the legitimate protest movement in Syria was almost immediately hijacked and bankrolled, on one side by US and Zionist Imperialism, and on the other by Islamic extremists, he wouldn't be able to eulogise about what a great bunch of guys these terrorists and foreign mercenaries are.

No evidence of Assad regime using chemical weapons

In the Syrian context, we all need to be very careful with all these made up stories with what we have already seen with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and so on...We all know that the international world had fell to take appropriate measures in all the conflicts that worsen the middle east...but in terms of international laws, no ever a single rebel should be allowed to take weapons against any regime anymore...those who are mostly killed are the innocent civilians who never wished or started a war...So if rebels believe their popularity they should take appropriate measures democratically to challenge election and not war...rebels no matters what are the reasons are more criminals that an autocratic regime...More those idiots dictating from the outside should be hold accountable...Nonsense to see what till going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc... before making things worse...Even Assad killed today Syria will never recover peace anymore and making it worse will endanger all of our lives...

I don't understand train of thought

Forth paragraph,
"I don't care about sovereignty." then, same paragraph...
"I oppose Western Intervention because it will work against the struggle for self- determination, that is, against the Syrian revolution."

Together, how are both statements possible when Sovereignty is defined by 'self-determination'?

Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.

"Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. I have no doubt about this."

Why not?

Assad used it against enemies

Rebels are also criminals and deserved to be punish like we cannot ask someone to sit and let be beaten by someone else, so if rebels believe in their power let them fight rather than peace...we should not allow western with their imperialism manners to make things worse...and at the end of it, where are we to not have learned of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and so on...Stupid isn't????

this article is a

this article is a reproduction of the authors blog post so to have a reasonable chance of a response from the author I'd recommend asking your question there.