"Well, I didn't get much past the first couple of sentences."
Well Catgut, suggest you read the rest before a premature analysis.
Might as well quote just a few paragraphs:
"However, it is clear that after a decade in power, Bashar al-Asad has not taken the steps necessary to truly improve his country’s human rights record. He has focused his efforts on opening up the economy without broadening public freedoms or establishing public institutions that are accountable for their actions. So while visitors to Damascus are likely to stay in smart boutique hotels and dine in shiny new restaurants, ordinary Syrians continue to risk jail merely for criticizing their president, starting a blog, or protesting government policies."
"The state of emergency, enacted in 1963, remains in place, and the government continues to rule by emergency powers. Syria’s security agencies, the feared mukhabarat, continue to detain people without arrest warrants, frequently refuse to disclose their whereabouts for weeks and sometimes months, and regularly engage in torture. Special courts set up under Syria’s emergency laws, such as the Supreme State Security Court (SSSC), sentence people following unfair trials. Syria is still a de facto single-party state with only the Ba`ath Party holding effective power.
Bashar al-Asad has permitted Syrians to access the internet but his security services detain bloggers and censor popular websites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Blogger (Google’s blogging engine). On September 22, 2001, one year after al-Asad assumed power, the Syrian government adopted a new Press Law (Decree No. 50/2001), which provided the government with sweeping controls over newspapers, magazines, and other periodicals, as well as virtually anything else printed in Syria, from books to pamphlets and posters.
Despite statements by First Lady Asma al-Asad in January 2010 that the government “wanted to open more space for civil society to work,” Syria’s security services continue to deny registration requests for independent non-governmental organizations and none of Syria’s human rights groups are licensed.[3]
The Kurdish minority, estimated to be 10 percent of the population, is denied basic group rights, including the right to learn Kurdish in schools or celebrate Kurdish festivals, such as Nowruz (Kurdish New Year). Official repression of Kurds increased further after Syrian Kurds held large-scale demonstrations, some violent, throughout northern Syria in March 2004 in order to voice long-simmering grievances. Since then, security forces have dispersed Kurdish political and cultural gatherings, sometimes with lethal force, and have detained a number of leading Kurdish political activists, who they have referred to military courts or the SSSC for prosecution under charges of “inciting strife,” or “weakening national sentiment.” Despite repeated promises by al-Asad, an estimated 300,000 stateless Kurds are still waiting for the Syrian government to solve their predicament by granting them citizenship. Most of these had their Syrian citizenship stripped by the Syrian government after an exceptional census in 1962 or are their descendants."
-----
...and on it goes. It almost sounds like a mini Iran - hmmm.
Now like most, I'm not a lover of Islam, although in trying to analyse the problem, I actually feel sorry for the poor plebs who have never had a chance - they have been indoctrinated from the cradle, if not the womb. The leaderships have learned that the religion requires its followers to be indoctrinated en-masse and the only way to do this is to provide them with an automatic enemy and an excuse not to trust outsiders - and the concept of outsiders extends to include those of their own faith (even relatives).
Whether we are for or against Sunnis (and I still don't believe all are extremists), they form/ed the majority of the population of Syria and so finally, it is obvious that a revolution was going to occur given Assad's treatment of them (whether you agree with it or not). And as for your comment "Maybe Assad should follow the Saudi lead and just chop heads off in a public square to get the masses under control", it is very convenient that posters like you do not like to reference that this is indeed also a common theme of how the Ayatollahs do it in Iran, except their frequency of executions are even greater than in Saudi Arabia and yet, the average Iranian is supposedly a pretty good and non-extreme character - so what's the deal with Iran and the nutjob Ayatollahs? So maybe Iran is the perfect example of an Islamic country that could potentially flourish and become democratic, if not for the crazy Religious "Twelver" leaders who are laying the platform for a chaotic world in readiness for the return of their hidden prophet Mahdi.
Three kinds of relations form after knowing someone:
You either make a 'friend' who becomes a frenemy,
Or a foe who hates you honestly and outwardly,
Or a true friend who shares your goals, likes and qualities.
The frenemies: known for being genuinely fake -
Are those who spend time with you with a hidden motive -
They're mostly made of lies. They give off negative vibes.
For your welfare, for Allah's sake they're best avoided.
The enemies: these haters loathe you for who you are -
For doing the good deeds you do, for enjoining right,
For your faith and gains, as they resent you day and night.
With Allah's Will, their wrongs will meet them at the best time.
The true friends: their numbers are few, for they are unique -
They love you for Allah and insist you be with them.
Their discussions are on Islam and self-improvement.
You always help each other find God's Way to Heaven.
If real friends are hard to find, remember, "There's Allah."
Embrace solitude and know, "Allah always hears you."
No praising the unworthy nor playing with untruth.
True friendship is with Allah, Who's always been with you.
-------------
So from this poem, a true friend appears only to be a Muslim and a friend is really a frenemy.
