right.

in syria, the "protests" were really just a pretext for a saudi-backed invasion. i've written about this here extensively, and the search function works, but the simple statement is that it wasn't the same thing as the "arab spring".

if you're going to criticize me, i really need you to do the research on what i actually said. i can have these debates, but i don't have time for strawmen arguments, or patience for people that want to imagine my positions. there's a lot of writing here; it's very specific. do the research, first, or shut up.

the saudis essentially took advantage of the situation in egypt to invade syria - that's what actually happened. why? because assad was threatening to bring in a democracy. i know that this is essentially the exact opposite of the western media narrative, but the truth is usually the exact opposite of what the military-intelligence-media complex tells you. so, we were told that assad was trying to suppress a democratic uprising and was slaughtering civilians; the truth is that he was trying to defend his country from an assault by a bunch of foreign terrorist groups, often using very old hardware, that were trying to stop him from bringing in a democracy, and assert a theocratic totalitarian state, instead. assad inherited a position of power that he didn't want, and then just wanted to dismantle it and go home; home was london.

why would the saudis do this? because they see any embrace of democracy by the arab world, whatsoever, as an existential threat. it's the old chomsky line - the last thing the united states or it's allies want in the region is democracy (note that chomsky's primary concern here has long been the well-being of the kurds). the mess in syria is maybe the most profound example of this, and certainly the most profound example in my conscious lifetime.

however, the protests in egypt were always real. so, when the saudis intervened in 2013 to back el-sisi, they were orchestrating a counter-revolution of a legitimate, if failed, revolution.

i don't have any support for the muslim brotherhood; it's maybe a little over the top to ban it, we need to allow for freedom of association, but i offer it to no solidarity at all. my solidarity is with the egyptian secular left, which is substantive, but disorganized. unfortunately, they boycotted the vote in 2011, which let the brotherhood win - a major mistake that should not be repeated.

why now? well, i don't know. but, the saudis are experiencing a moment of weakness, so it's perhaps a good opportunity, whether that was the actual calculus, or not.

but, standing with a secular arab left means that assad is on the same side as the protestors in egypt, and that the militants in syria are on the same side as sisi. this is the point that the media has tried to confuse you on....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/26/over-1900-arrested-as-egypt-braces-for-more-protests

the liberals are supposed to do better than this.