Syrian National Coalition (SNC) members have laid out a paper detailing their plans for a transitional government and the end to fighting in Syria, keeping with the plan for today’s talks in Geneva. The plan remains a secret.
One detail of the plan did come out, and it’s a rather clever solution to the ongoing dispute over President Bashar Assad’s potential role in the future Syrian government – they didn’t mention it.
Instead of railing against Assad and insisting he can’t be involved in any way, which has been what the SNC did in the past and what the US continues to do, the SNC simply left the question totally unanswered, avoiding the inevitable clashes with Assad representatives.
The US was quick with praise for the SNC plan, but also very brief with it, praising the SNC’s willingness to “engage constructively,” but segueing into a protracted condemnation of the Assad delegation.
The question is: will actual Syrians living in Syria take these ex-pats who have been living in Europe, the UK and US seriously? Will the SOHR guy in his two-bedroom flat be involved? More people mapping out a nation's fate, that don't even live there, or haven't for years. LOL.
Doubtful.
This opposition is delusional. If they claim that they represent the "revolutionaries' in Syria, then they will have to take the responsibility for their brutal acts, the list of such would fill a book. It they do not, then they are useless. Why would any of the various groups — all of them committed hineous crimes — go along with anything they say or do. So, who is really the party to the negotiations? The only legitmacy it would appear belong to the heroism of army that now for all these years has to deal with trying to protect civilian population from being taken hostages by the militant groups that are not accountable to anyone. And as far as many journalists not belonging to the western corporate media can tell, majority of population want their army to get the militants out of their country, and support their president. It is rather clear who we should support, isn't it.
"It is rather clear who we should support, isn't it."
Actually sort of the opposite: It's rather clear who we SHOULDN'T support, that being either of the two putative sides since both are evil and murderous.
It is very clear who the people of the world is supporting, it is however not clear for some people what to support and when to support as long as they can jump from branch to branch, gathering a nonsense here and nonsense there and finally come up with some wording that have no meaning. It is always easier if you don’t think, pretend not having a brain, or a screw or two missing somewhere, which enables “one” to think about the outcome of a matter then thinking with what ever is left of the little brain the “one” might have. Bianca you are correct.