To be able to condense so much history in under one hour is impressive and so prescient. Thank you. I noted an absence of a discussion of Soviet and, later, Russian interest in Syria. Is it all ultimately simply to assert Asiatic regional hegemony just as many US planners often have a goal of ensuring no other power can become the regional hegemony that the US has in the Americas? Or are there ideals and dominant particularities in play by the "great powers"? Thank you for putting your lectures on TH-cam.
I would say that the latter (with nuances): all (major*) actors are now capitalist powers, some have managed via socialism (real hard socialism or serious social-reformist policies) to forge a national bourgeoisie and it's those national bourgeoisies which are (usually under strong state discipline). The most controversial case is surely China (because they retain formal "communist" political regime but have privatized most of the economy, although they're now reversing parts of that mass-privatization due to crisis in some strategical sectors) but it is clearly a general pattern of what we can call "Bismarckianism" (classically called "Rhineland Capitalism"), which is a state-directed capitalist economy with bits of "socialism" (to dampen the class war and also to better plan the economy). This strategy was historically followed, often with success, by many countries other than Germany (II Reich) in the past (France, Japan, etc.) and is now what China most notably but also all other "nationalist" powers do (Russia, Iran, Algeria, India, etc.) Unlike Europe or Latin America or to a great extent also Africa, these "Eurasian" (or as you say: "Asian") powers are less entrampled to the domination of US bourgeoisie, which has become extremely monopolistic in the last decades (all belongs to the "investment funds" nowadays). So IMO it's classical Lenin'16 analysis of Imperialism... but with nukes, which make actual world wars "impossible", thus we are at a perilous situation of "WW3 by proxy" or "Cold War II", and Syria has been at the heart of it.
@@TaimurRahman-English - That's just a label: Britain is ruled by the so-called "Labour Party", which makes the Tories feel envy for their anti-social policies. Communism or socialism is demonstrated by collectivization, not by privatization of what belongs to society.
Christians is majority in Lebanon but because of isreal they always become refugees or lost hope in Christianity this why you see them because Muslims and fight to protect their land same for the Palestinian if you know they always leave Christianity because of the what call state 1948 so you can see why the Christians created the project of United in name of Arabs not call yourself muslims we just Arabs
Search about Palestine Christians in Chile Palestinian and Lebanese had many Christians leave the country in hope the occupation end to return to their home safely and who staid most of them became Muslims to defend their country because no on support them besides Muslims while western Christians(Evangelicalism) cheering and incite for more wars.
Informative lecture, but one of the major causes of the suffering of Syrians was the sanctions applied by the U.S. against Syria. The sanctions prevented Syria from rebuilding its infrastructure, economy, healthcare system, social programs... Not to mention Israel continuously bombed Syria, even today. It seems you may be a little biased Dr. Taimur Rahman.
I disagree with the term "civll war" being applied to Syria. The opposition is almost entirely due to outside interests interfering in Syrian affairs trying to regime change the Assad government. I would not call that a civil war.
True it is only between the regime qnd the people but the unorganised lead to be similar to civill war when it is actually worst it is ww3 against one population💔🩹
@taj3968 a civil war is conflict between two or more organzied groups within the same country. And this civil war has more groups than just regime and opposition.
Bashar-al-Assad fled to Russia a 'kaafir' country and sought refuge there. He had the option to choose a fellow 'brotherly' m.u.s.L.i.m country. There are 57 m.u.s.L.i.m countries. Why he has chosen a 'kaafir' country over 57 m.o.m.i.n countries? Can someone please explain and clarify? Thank you.
How does it matter? He and all pan-Arabists are secularists, thus for them it's not a matter of religion but of saving Arabia as nation (potentially a powerhouse, in fact totally devastated by Anglo-directed sectarianism) from colonial fragmentation and subservience to foreigners. Russia was the best ally they ever had, so it makes all sense that he fled to Russia, where the rather honorable Vladimir Putin guarantees his life and that of his family, just as he gave asylum to Snowden, the Ukrainian democrats, Tara Reade or secured the liberation of my compatriot journalist Pablo González (who has dual Spanish and Russian nationality and was arbitrarily imprisoned by Poland when reporting on the Ukrainian exodus in 2022). In any case Assad is finished, Baathist police state proved to be too divisive and the last decade-plus of endless war and siege have destroyed the country. If something secularist and politically constructive for the region, similar to what the Baath aimed to be, re-emerges, it will take time, unless it's the already existing communist forces in the Kurdish-plus area (most of the areas they control are actually Arab and they have their own milittias and self-rule, however I fear that the USA will abandon them to Turkish imperialist aggression and they will be unable to find alternative allies).
Because short of being Arab, Assad had literally nothing in common with the other arab or muslim countries. He survived by paying lip service to the Pakestinian suffering. Other than that Assad was on his own side.
THIS IS REALLY SAD, TO SEE ARAB TURN ON ARAB. GUESS YOU ARE TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER WHAT USA DID TO SYRIA AND HAS BEEN DOING SINCE 2011. MAY USA NEVER DO TO WHAT THEY DID TO SYRIA.
Keep sharing these lectures
Thank you. Likewise, Please share.
So far, the best history of Syria from the 1500s to the present that I’ve been able to find on utube!
Thank you. Please share it.
Goddamn, 52 minutes seemed so short I could listen to more of this all day that's how great this lecture is
Thank you Dr Rahman, for this informative lecture.
Helping me to understand the world a little bit more😊
Excellent work comrade
Thank you. Please share. Help me get more subscribers.
Thanks you very much for such an interesting lecture!
Thanks. Share please.
Thank you, Professor!❤
To be able to condense so much history in under one hour is impressive and so prescient. Thank you.
I noted an absence of a discussion of Soviet and, later, Russian interest in Syria. Is it all ultimately simply to assert Asiatic regional hegemony just as many US planners often have a goal of ensuring no other power can become the regional hegemony that the US has in the Americas? Or are there ideals and dominant particularities in play by the "great powers"?
Thank you for putting your lectures on TH-cam.
I would say that the latter (with nuances): all (major*) actors are now capitalist powers, some have managed via socialism (real hard socialism or serious social-reformist policies) to forge a national bourgeoisie and it's those national bourgeoisies which are (usually under strong state discipline). The most controversial case is surely China (because they retain formal "communist" political regime but have privatized most of the economy, although they're now reversing parts of that mass-privatization due to crisis in some strategical sectors) but it is clearly a general pattern of what we can call "Bismarckianism" (classically called "Rhineland Capitalism"), which is a state-directed capitalist economy with bits of "socialism" (to dampen the class war and also to better plan the economy). This strategy was historically followed, often with success, by many countries other than Germany (II Reich) in the past (France, Japan, etc.) and is now what China most notably but also all other "nationalist" powers do (Russia, Iran, Algeria, India, etc.) Unlike Europe or Latin America or to a great extent also Africa, these "Eurasian" (or as you say: "Asian") powers are less entrampled to the domination of US bourgeoisie, which has become extremely monopolistic in the last decades (all belongs to the "investment funds" nowadays). So IMO it's classical Lenin'16 analysis of Imperialism... but with nukes, which make actual world wars "impossible", thus we are at a perilous situation of "WW3 by proxy" or "Cold War II", and Syria has been at the heart of it.
@@LuisAldamiz equating China to Bismark's Germany? China has a communist party in power.
@@TaimurRahman-English - That's just a label: Britain is ruled by the so-called "Labour Party", which makes the Tories feel envy for their anti-social policies. Communism or socialism is demonstrated by collectivization, not by privatization of what belongs to society.
Amazing lecture
Very interesting history and take on the current situation. Thank you. Seattle.
Excellent quality lecture cde
Nice review. TY.
Great lecture.
Fabulous Dr sahb
@@Shahfaisal-u7s thank you. Please share
Sir, also make a video on Iraq. Ap ne Arab-Israel series may bhi usse add nahi kia as separate lecture.
Your presentation was perfect and beautiful it gives the painful reality and hope for better future
I think Christian population in Lebanon was almost 50% pre war, and still today its close to 40%.
Christians is majority in Lebanon but because of isreal they always become refugees or lost hope in Christianity this why you see them because Muslims and fight to protect their land same for the Palestinian if you know they always leave Christianity because of the what call state 1948 so you can see why the Christians created the project of United in name of Arabs not call yourself muslims we just Arabs
Search about Palestine Christians in Chile Palestinian and Lebanese had many Christians leave the country in hope the occupation end to return to their home safely and who staid most of them became Muslims to defend their country because no on support them besides Muslims while western Christians(Evangelicalism) cheering and incite for more wars.
2:50 it is true everyone feel Syria healing is giving everyone in the world that they can actually heal and save their country and it's people suffer
Спасибо Таймур за эту лекцию.
Впервые я увидел Вас на видео где вы объясняли почему вы не троцкист.
Всех благ Вам.
Привет из России.
Informative lecture, but one of the major causes of the suffering of Syrians was the sanctions applied by the U.S. against Syria. The sanctions prevented Syria from rebuilding its infrastructure, economy, healthcare system, social programs... Not to mention Israel continuously bombed Syria, even today. It seems you may be a little biased Dr. Taimur Rahman.
I disagree with the term "civll war" being applied to Syria. The opposition is almost entirely due to outside interests interfering in Syrian affairs trying to regime change the Assad government. I would not call that a civil war.
That doesn't negate the term civil war. Belligerent parties almost always have outside help to fund their war efforts
True it is only between the regime qnd the people but the unorganised lead to be similar to civill war when it is actually worst it is ww3 against one population💔🩹
@@sanwalyousafbut if it was only about the people is against the regime does this still make it civill war?
@taj3968 a civil war is conflict between two or more organzied groups within the same country.
And this civil war has more groups than just regime and opposition.
@@sanwalyousaf so is this mean Egypt revolution in 2011 was civil war even if it was only between regime and civilians? Or it was just revolution ..?
3:19 it was and still name a "sham" "بلاد الشام"
What sources could i use to dive deeper in this part of History?
Is the book, from which the citation at the end was taken, a good start?
Hmmm. I'll find something for you. I put together this lecture from many different sources. No one source was, in my opinion, on its own, that good.
@@TaimurRahman-English Thank you very much!
Help Syria heal don't support dividing move and don't accuse Syrian to be terrorist, help Syria born as democracy state
dude im not even pakistani. but this is great. thank you for the content. keep up the good work.
Knowledge is for everyone :)
So much fighting is Madness
❤️❤️❤️❤️👍👍❤️👍🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹
Just to be clear the Assads weren’t Ba’athists. Aflaq, Bakr and Saddam were the Ba’athists.
What about Salah Jadid? Do u draw the line at the the 66 coup or the corrective movement?
Indinlermores
Bashar-al-Assad fled to Russia a 'kaafir' country and sought refuge there. He had the option to choose a fellow 'brotherly' m.u.s.L.i.m country. There are 57 m.u.s.L.i.m countries. Why he has chosen a 'kaafir' country over 57 m.o.m.i.n countries? Can someone please explain and clarify? Thank you.
@@BHELISG-c5s because he doesn’t want to be assassinated by Mosad.
@TaimurRahman-English Agreed. 'Kaafir' countries are safer, secure, civilized, dependable and trustworthy than 'm.o.m.i.n' countries.
Agreed. 'Kaafir' nations are more safe, secure, stable, civilized, dependable and trustworthy than 'm.o.m.i.n' nations.
How does it matter? He and all pan-Arabists are secularists, thus for them it's not a matter of religion but of saving Arabia as nation (potentially a powerhouse, in fact totally devastated by Anglo-directed sectarianism) from colonial fragmentation and subservience to foreigners. Russia was the best ally they ever had, so it makes all sense that he fled to Russia, where the rather honorable Vladimir Putin guarantees his life and that of his family, just as he gave asylum to Snowden, the Ukrainian democrats, Tara Reade or secured the liberation of my compatriot journalist Pablo González (who has dual Spanish and Russian nationality and was arbitrarily imprisoned by Poland when reporting on the Ukrainian exodus in 2022).
In any case Assad is finished, Baathist police state proved to be too divisive and the last decade-plus of endless war and siege have destroyed the country. If something secularist and politically constructive for the region, similar to what the Baath aimed to be, re-emerges, it will take time, unless it's the already existing communist forces in the Kurdish-plus area (most of the areas they control are actually Arab and they have their own milittias and self-rule, however I fear that the USA will abandon them to Turkish imperialist aggression and they will be unable to find alternative allies).
Because short of being Arab, Assad had literally nothing in common with the other arab or muslim countries.
He survived by paying lip service to the Pakestinian suffering.
Other than that Assad was on his own side.
Enlightening
I didn't know red star was your channel
THIS IS REALLY SAD, TO SEE ARAB TURN ON ARAB. GUESS YOU ARE TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER WHAT USA DID TO SYRIA AND HAS BEEN DOING SINCE 2011. MAY USA NEVER DO TO WHAT THEY DID TO SYRIA.