my solidarity is with the secularists, the apostates, the socialists and the democrats on the ground, which represent an overwhelming majority in syria, and which backed assad as a lesser evil. the reason assad did not fall is that he was popular and represented syrian popular opinion, which was and remains in opposition to religious tyranny, theocracy and autocracy. syria, unlike lebanon, is an arab state, but it's history is older, and syria was deeply tied into the persian, greek and roman worlds. it's people are mostly white, there is a large christian minority and the culture is moderate and secular and believes in democracy. syria is not a religious society and the syrian people do not want to live under theocracy or to be oppressed by islamic fascism. in fact, syria would be a more likely candidate as a european union member state, in the long run, than as a member of the arab league.
however, a false dichotomy in nato military doctrine going back to jimmy carter that is fundamentally about supporting islamic fascists as a bulwark against communism led to the collapse of the middle east's only arab democracy (i don't consider lebanon to be arab), and the region's most moderate state, in order to advance the goals of bloodthirsty autocrats in riyadh and try to steal a deepwater port from the russians.
it bother me that liberal media buys into this so fully. assad was not an ideal figure head, but he was a popular leader and he was effectively preventing the country's collapse into backwardsness. it is very sad that he failed to prevent the saudis from destroying the country, but you can't fault him for trying. in the end, the russians gave up - assad and syria got traded for something, but it's not yet clear what that was.
my solidarity remains with the secularists on the ground as they seek to overthrow the fascist nato-backed government and return syria to democracy.