Hacker News Reader

Comment by _4cbz | Hacker News Reader

The incompetenes of the government might have lead to desertification but that's merely scratching the suface level of the problems. The article is full of confirmation bias and tunnel vision from an author who wants to think his work is the center of the universe.

If you're seriously contemplating the author's idea, just try answering this simple question. If there was no desertification whatsoever, everything else the same, would the war still happen?

It's honestly disgusting to throw away the blood of people and their struggles, and try to frame it as some sort of fairytale butterfly effect.

Edit: Funny how me, a Syrian, is being down voted by people who claim to know more about his own country

View on HN

I feel you, this happens to me sometimes. Arrogance and ignorance are a dangerous mix. Many people know nothing yet argue aggressively about the Middle East.

People with full bellies are less likely to rebel. If would be syria x 1000 if the south of US couldn't feed themselves for example.

I do agree that the author merely correlated without proving causal relationship. But I think it might also be correct that had the syrian economy been doing well, there wouldn't be a civil war.

But Syria was doing fairly good economically circa 2010?

According to world bank[1] Its GDP per capita was competitive relative to the region. It was ahead of Turkey, for example, and far better than most its neighbors (except Gulf countries).

[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2010...

i don’t agree with the article but i think there was a big urban/rural divide in poverty. Sure, Damascus was doing great but I think a lot of the rebels came from outlying areas

According to the original post, the economy not working out for rural syrians was a thing back then. Look at China, they put up with the CCP because the economy continues to do well for most. Communists have a strategy where they appease/convert the rural working class first and then cities natually fall, they do that knowing cities only function because rural people let them.

Very interesting, you appear to be a rebel supporter whereas almost everyone from Syria that I have met in the more affluent circles I am in in the US appears to have heavy sympathies for the regime.

Could you explain what you mean and where the author is wrong?

Because I know for a fact, that no one on the ground was losing sleep over desertification.

I'm not dismissing its ecological affect, but to claim it's the root cause, I see as belittling and trying to erase what the people were actually fighting for:

If you're in the mood for harsh history lesson, there's a list of root causes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_U.S._airstrike_in_Baghu...

"According to the report by The New York Times, the crowd had been identified as civilians by U.S. drone operators based in Al-Udeid airbase in Qatar. The drone operators were reportedly stunned seeing the first 500 lb bomb dropped, followed by a second 2,000 lb bomb on the survivors; 80 people were killed including Islamic State fighters according to The New York Times report.[2]"

How on earth is dropping a bomb supposed to be a root cause? If you really wanted to point out root causes you would link to the most important massacres instead of expecting us to do your research for you.

> Because I know for a fact, that no one on the ground was losing sleep over desertification.

Why does that matter? What people lose sleep over or not can be due to totally trivial reasons or for reasons that are far removed from the actual biggest threat facing them.

A list of massacres is not a root cause; those are symptoms of something.

Surely massacres are not a symptom of desertification?

Syrian massacres are a symptom of protestors and rebels gathering at a certain point and the government using military force and now we are back to square one.

I have read a bunch of them and the massacres are clearly in response to resistance movements so they cannot be the root causes. The problem isn't a trigger happy government that just needs to get it's hand off its weapons and then peace sets in.

If anything, if I had to point to a root cause based on almost no research I would start here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Syrian_Revolution and not with some random massacre.

Loss of water, living space, and farming livelihoods absolutely leads to nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict

No one loses sleep about root causes. Most people tend to only care about the symptoms that result from it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U10p3Tn9V5Y

Reply on news.ycombinator.com