I was subjected to a liberal rant about Assad gassing Syrian people, and it sounded like some BS (Just smells like propaganda), but the Internet is a fuck these days and I'm unable to find any informtion I trust, or develop the tools to debunk wikihasbara.
Did it happen?
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) released a report this year (2024) finally saying that it was actually ISIS that did the chemical attack in Marea in 2015. So just under a decade to finally admit to something that was obvious. I guess you just need to wait a few more decades until they find out who did the rest of the chemical attacks.
https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2024/02/opcw-identifies-isil-perpetrators-2015-chemical-attack-marea-syria
this is a different attack from the ones people are usually talking about with Assad, that report is about a mustard gas attack (which ISIS has/had access to) and the notable attacks people accuse Assad of perpetrating were sarin gas attacks (which ISIS never had access to afaik)
Right, it took a decade to show that this attack wasn't Assad. It's going to take a lot longer for anything that's less obvious. I'm mostly showing that there is very little interest in investigation if it can't be pinned on Assad.
Sarin gas isn't hard to make by the way. A bunch of Japanese cultists were able to do it. They also made VX, phosegene, and hydrogen cyanide. Apparently money and dedication will take you a long way.
I'm sure that someone else might have a better answer but likely bullshit. This was sort of the bombshell article on it. Theodore Postol is a leading expert on these sort of weapons systems, and he makes arguments that haven't been meaningfully disputed from what I've read.
Aaron Mate and the OPCW leaks convinced me that the Douma attack was an atrocity hoax. There was more than one alleged gas attack; I know less about the others.
I don't know either way but can anyone comment on whether or not he must go?
I don't think this can be answered on here. There's too much propaganda and psyops, and quite simply, I doubt anyone on here is from Syria!
I do not like authoritarianism, so that's a no from me dawg, but if Assad's rule is that big a threat to the Empire of America then maybe? But that's about as deep an analysis as any non-expert forum (i.e. lemmy) can give you imo.
EDIT: some research - like the ideology of the coup, dislike hereditary regimes. It's really not an easy one to balance out imo
To engage seriously, any ""serious"" opposition party or parties in Syria are going to be much worse (see: Mujahideen vs Socialist Afghanistan, the Shah vs Iranian nationalists, the Nicaraguan Contras vs Sandinistas, etc etc) and much like in the past, the more parties more friendly to the US are going to get boosted in the media and the sitting parties will get a magnifying glass to their misdeeds to the point of atrocities being outright fabricated. Assad is anti ISIS but also not exactly friendly towards the west, which is why the west pushes for his demise. Same as with Muamar Gaddafi. The current state of Libya speaks volumes. An authoritarian nation with guaranteed housing, healthcare and food vs a free one that has open slave markets in the capital? Gadaffi wasn't a saint, no, but you can't argue that the average Libyan is better off now than before he was ousted.
To the point that ISIS terror attacks against Syrian civilian populations being attributed to the Assad government?
I dunno we have at least one poster in lebanon, idr where in the region theyre originally from but they have an interesting perspective in the news mega
What does authoritarianism mean in the Syrian context?
Syria won its independence from the Ottoman Empire, and then again from the French. They abandoned the monarchy that was put in place there, and Gulf State monarchies, with American assistance, have been trying to get footholds in the country with their proxies. These proxies are heavily fundamentalist, theocratic, and unfriendly to minorities, so it's not surprising when they have a continuity with groups like Daesh.
"Suppresses dissent" is not a good definition, we see that in most countries. "Conducts mass surveillance of citizens" is not a good definition, we see that in almost all countries. "Dynastic" is also a poor definition for the same reasons, as is "sham elections/democracy".
What we have is a remnant of the pan-Arab nationalist, social-democratic pole of the broader Arab conflict in the Cold War. It's been revised and watered down, and it picks up a lot of neoliberal policies, but it remains the best guarantor of a pluralistic and independent society in Syrian nationwide politics (not counting the regional entity that is in a permanent truce with the federal government).
"It's impossible to know one way or the other" is a weak stance. Recognize the dynamics of power in war and media, and decide which story you think is more compelling: the one that lines right up with the CIA and State Department, or some alternative to that.
in addition to the other comments, I'm pretty sure the BBC publicly retracted their story on it
No no no. It's the low-IQ, steroid pumping, ghost killer, meathead brigade that did most of the damage.
Not even the US has any basis for thinking that he did:
https://apnews.com/united-states-government-bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5I wouldn't support a baby eater, just a radical personal red line of mine.
Assad must go! 
