1/Corrected:
Most Syrians and The Guardian back President Assad: but you'd never know from western media
2/ How do you know the poll was a "respectable" poll. Or even that it was accurate? How was the polling done? How many people were polled and was polling countrywide? Were people free to respond however they wanted or was it closely watched? See, theses are the things you don't know and probably can never know. So calling it "respectable" is something that you can do, but not with any accuracy.
3/ 55% of Syrians are so afraid of the prospect of an all-out civil war (with all the horror and destruction that would entail) that they prefer for Assad to remain in power until free elections can be held.
Seems perfectly sensible and understandable and not in any way a ringing endorsement of Assad.
Just because you would prefer to see your leader replaced through a peaceful, democratic election rather than a bloody civil war doesn't mean you support the leader.
FFS.
4/ I have no idea what % of Syrians support Assad, and nor does the author. Opinion polls have their uses, but how on earth could you eliminate statistical bias in Syria, or allow for the fact that individuals might be reluctant to tell a total stranger (or even a trusted friend) that they are in favour of overthrowing the regime?
Our role is simple; we should impose sanctions on regimes where peaceful protesters are gunned down in the streets, make it clear that crimes against humanity will be prosecuted, asylum for corrupt leaders refused, and immediately freeze any of their bank accounts we can identify. That will concentrate their minds.
If the killings continue, we can devastate the regimes military power through air strikes. After all, a popular ruler doesn't need an army to protect him from his own people.
