So Ali said: "Years ago, my late father
told me a story about Rifaat Assad, the notorious family enforcer of the
previous Assad generation. After the massacre of Hama in the early 1980s, the
late King Khalid of Saudi Arabia was understandably outraged. Hafez Assad
consequently sent his brother to meet with the king to try and “explain,” but
the old king was in no mood to listen to any excuses. With his well-known
bedouin bluntness, he heaped abuse on Rifaat for “not fearing God and killing
the Muslims of Hama.” Rifaat swallowed the abuse and left. In the car to the
airport, he turned to his government escort (who later recounted the story to
my father) and told him, “We have the highest respect for His Majesty and
appreciate his feelings, but you must understand that if we ever get threatened
again, we will be willing to wipe out not only Hama but also Damascus.”" Oh, well, Ali. If House of Saud was furious about the massacre of Hamah, it never ever expressed such views about it. And if House of Saud was furious about the Hamah massacre, why did it continue to bankroll and even arm the Asad dictatorship for much of the 1980s and beyond? And if the House of Saud was furious about the Hamah massacre, why did Rif`at continue to the enjoy the closest relationship with the House of Saud even after his split with Hafidh? And if the House of Saud was furious about the Hamah massacre, why does still continue to support Rif`at as some acceptable alternative to Bashshar? In fact, the current King, Abdullah, was the one who was the closest to the Asad ruling gang by virtue of his relation to Rif`at (Abdullah and Rif`at are brothers-in-law). One last point about the story, King Khalid was known to be a mild-mannered pious man who never berated anyone, as far as I know.
PS As for the analogy with the Spanish Civil War, it can't apply because there is no good side in the armed conflict between the Asad regime and the Free Syrian Army gangs. And the republican side of the Spanish Civil War attracted progressives and radicals from around the world while the Syrian armed conflict is attracting the most reactionary and fanatic and sectarian among world Muslims.
PS As for the analogy with the Spanish Civil War, it can't apply because there is no good side in the armed conflict between the Asad regime and the Free Syrian Army gangs. And the republican side of the Spanish Civil War attracted progressives and radicals from around the world while the Syrian armed conflict is attracting the most reactionary and fanatic and sectarian among world Muslims.
