I think it started as a demonstration against the corrupt Assad that turned violent when his army started shooting. The "rebels" picked up arms and probably brutally kills pro-government soldiers/citizens, so they are not saints either. Meanwhile ISIS takes advantage of the chaos to try to win control of regions. The Kurds are fighting them because there's probably a Kurdish area in Syria? But Erdogan doesn't like a Kurdish rise, so he's probably quietly looking the other way as European ISIS sympathisers travel via Turkey in and out of Syria. Russia wants Assad to stay in power because he's a puppet, so he's bombing "rebels" and ISIS.
We haven't even mentioned Iran and the USA. As this report https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/16/world/middlee... says, in one side of the conflict USA (at least Obama's USA) is working with Russia, in another side they're backing opposing sides.
started as a demonstration
against the corrupt Assad
There is a long history of engineering 'grassroots movements' toward overthrowing governments. All powers have been engaging in this practise, and you can find how-to manuals -- I recommend reading some, it's highly enlightening. For example many of the de-colonialisation movements in the second part of the 20th century were actively run by the Soviet Union, leading to such absurdities as Cabo Verde becoming an independent state.
Clearly various powers had strategic interests in destabilisation of Assad. [1] is an interesting document in this direction.
If it were written with more than public knowledge, it would actually proof that the US and Clinton did not organise any sorts of fake-grassroots protests, considering the document is arguing for US engagement against Assad a full year after the war started,
doesn't prove anything.
Your counterevidence is not going to be a proof in ZFC set theory either ...
- Lenin famously had to ride a train through half of Europe to get back into Russia and stir up trouble. The involved countries knew very well who he was and what he was going to do (he was under surveillance, like most activists before and since), but they let him pass in order to help destabilise a neighbouring power.
- Italian unification was aided by the British, which controlled most of the Mediterranean at the time. Whenever this or that bunch of "united Italy" guerrilla left a port directed to the country, the British would help them by providing cover and supplies. This was done in order to create new headaches for France and Austria, then the dominant powers in fractured Italy.
- The Spanish civil war was heavily influenced by foreign powers, with Germany and Italy instigating and materially supporting Franco, the USSR helping the Republic, and everyone else providing covert support for this or that faction.
Etc etc.
There's a pretty high jump from "Hitler helped the rebels during the war" to "the Civil War was orchestrated and triggered by foreign powers".
Semantics.
It's not semantics, sometimes people happen to rebel without it being the machinations of a foreign power.
I would strongly disagree regardless of that factor. If there's a realistic chance it'll make a difference, I would say you're orchestrating things. Even if not, it still is.
There are always people looking to rebel. For all sorts of reasons. Injustice. Ethnic alliances (esp. popular in Africa). Regional alliances (e.g. Catalonia, and the Balkans in general: the cities want to secede from their countries). Religious differences (esp. one particular religion, but not exclusively). And some want to purely for personal gain (famously in South America).
Even when there is no chance of making a difference. You could say yesterday's attack in Manchester was carried out as a rebel act, to get the UK to govern itself according to the islamic religion. That is certainly a true statement, even if very unpopular. Providing material support for such things is definitely orchestrating, even though it has essentially zero chance for success.
Both Hitler and the British intelligence offered logistical help to the rebels. The coup was already planned for months by the generals, and they were just waiting for the appropriate time to strike. The moment came when the police murdered Calvo Sotelo, not when the Nazis and British encouraged them.
It began when Assad's security forces tortured children for spray painting anti government graffiti in Deraa. Protests, in the spirit of the Arab Spring which had spontaneously consumed the region, then followed. Assad met these protests with total violence, including shooting unarmed civilians.
Assad's security service continued to kill and torture unarmed civilians until eventually people started shooting back. Thus began the civil war. Had Assad merely stepped down, as Mubarak did in Egypt, then Syria today would likely be as peaceful as Egypt is.
Here's an excellent documentary, filled with primary sources and not made by some conspiracy nut in their basement, on how the conflict started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njKuK3tw8PQ
"tortured children for spray painting graffiti" (which resulted in the sudden sprouting somehow of heavily armed and trained jihadists, many of whom were foreign).
You don't have to be much of a cynic to see the deep influences of foreign powers in this conflict. It's so deep that media takes (such as the view you present) don't do much to cover it up.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_...
- The supposed Qatar->Europe would have to cross Saudi Arabia, which is a much larger obstacle to any pipeline project.
- Same for Turkey
- Dependence on Russian gas isn't so much a "European" problem, as a Eastern-European problem, from Germany to Greece. These are countries that aren't really known for 007-style false flag operations in the middle east
- There doesn't seem to be a pipeline being build anywhere near Syria. This outcome wasn't that surprising, considering almost every other conflict in the region also turned into a decades-long quagmire
- The further destabilisation of the middle east creates risks that dominate any supposed gains from lower energy dependence: the migrant crisis was among the worst in the European Union's history, at least in terms of its potential to unravel the union. The power vacuum that was created gave rise to ISIS, which the west will have to grapple with for decades in some form or other
- The supposed perpetrators in the west are democratically elected politicians, not actually psychopaths trying to amass natural resources.
- Even if they were so inclined, they'd have a really hard time profiting from it because
(a) elected politicians think in much shorter timeframes
than what would be required for this pipeline
to start making money,
(b) they would never be able to actually do anything
with any money they made, being constantly in the
public eye even after their terms are up,
(c) they'd be dead by then anyway,
(d) most politicians have actually proven that
they have below-average interest in monetary
riches compared to public admiration, and
(e) they could never get that, either, because
they'd be prosecuted and ostracised if it
ever came to light.
Some of the opposition may have democratic ideas, some may be communists, or fascists, or islamists, or hairdressers. There's no easy way to label the opposition because Assad really managed to get a lot of people rather angry, for all sorts of different reasons (but mostly for killing people other people liked)
As another point: if you take a really good look at Iran, you'll find they are a lot less bad than one might think. They are without any doubt the second-best democracy in the region–behind Israel, but quite certainly ahead of today's Turkey. And while that democracy is incredibly flawed, Iran is so much better than Saudi Arabia, it isn't even funny. With the added knowledge that all the islamic terror against the west since 2001 has been Sunni, it's really strange to see who's an ally and who is in line to get bombed when the US President next has a bad day.
You also presume that the short-term interests of politicians is not heavily tied to the long term interests of their major constituents.. See also: think tanks
As for brutality: Try to create a 'peaceful and inclusive' society when a significant enough minority to overthrow a weaker regime is always present and agitating to do so (e.g. jihadi sympathizers).. it might be more difficult than you imagine, which is not to say that conflict never exacerbates extreme positions. You might find that some normal people would prefer a harsh regieme keeping those people out than a week democracy which they expect will likely fail (see also: egypt)
Nothing is simple in that area of the world.
There are a lot of forces at play. One of which is upset Syrian citizens. Another of which are interested foreign powers.
1) western and sunni middle eastern press: it's all Assad's (government's) fault. People want democracy. Specifically this is supposed to be a response to violent repression of pro-democracy protests from March 2011.
Problem: very hard to believe. The attitude of the government against the people of Syria has not changed, and the "protesters" do not seem very pro-democracy at all.
Second problem: the middle eastern press (al Jazeera) is owned by a government that would stand to benefit substantially from the pipeline issue. Even aside from the pipeline, that government is involved in funding the exremists in Syria.
2) shi'a middle eastern press
Coordinated Sunni attack against one of the two last multicultural/tolerant middle eastern Countries (the other one being Iran, and while Israel is multicultural/tolerant Iran doesn't see it that way). It's an attack to massacre the last vestiges of tolerance in the middle east.
Problem: obviously this is state propaganda. That doesn't mean it's not true, of course, but there are military interests at stake by the same people who own these press.
3) Russian press (there were/are hundreds of thousands of Russians from the Soviet union who lived in Syria)
This is a coordinated assault against the last Russian ally on the mediterranean. They note the same as the Shi'a press does (attack on tolerance for non-Sunnis), and also note the pipeline project that would deliver oil from.
Problem: of course this too is state propaganda.
4) Catholic information sources (there is/was no shortage of Monasteries in Syria)
Well-funded Sunni extremists attacking (and killing) everyone in sight, with no identifiable cause. Ethnic cleansing, including even of Sunni's that don't want to fight for them. They seem to disagree with the notions that the fighters care about either Russian interests, or the pipeline (though the funding parties might think differently)
Problem: They're not very willing to come forward with information, and the few times they do they say they really fear retaliation. The ones that come forward are refugees.