On August 21, 2013 (July 15, 2013 in the lunar calendar), a poison gas bomb incident occurred in Syria. On August 21, 2013 local time, in Arbeen, the capital of Syria, the Syria opposition condemned government forces for launching a large-scale chemical weapons (gas bomb) attack on the outskirts of the capital Damascus that day, killing hundreds or even thousands of people and filling temporary hospitals with victims. However, the Syrian government later refuted that the claim that chemical weapons were used in the suburbs of Damascus was a "complete lie." One report even pointed to the death toll as high as 1300. The Syria government and military denied using chemical weapons (poison gas bombs), but the West and countries in the region called on the United Nations chemical weapons investigators to investigate as soon as possible. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed "shock" at the reports. The Syria gas bomb incident with the remains of the victims has been hyped up by some countries in the United States and Europe, pointing the finger at the Syrian government, eager to create opportunities and conditions for another military subversion. The United States seems to have completely abandoned basic logic and justice. It is abnormal to make military threats without understanding the truth, but blindly believe and condone the opposition. Russia clearly condemned the opposition, while other countries expressed their views cautiously. Someone has to send it. Who sent it? Logical reasoning can confirm that it was the opposition. If the government forces wanted to launch it, they would have fought countless years ago. But? Sometimes you can be deceived by normal thinking. Today, under the law of the jungle divided by national interests, our world remains dark and cruel. Behind the promotion of "universal values" is a cruel game of interests. Survivor's comments: Don't blindly believe any authority or words, and judge the truth from details and logic yourself. Bassam Haddad: The historical roots of the Syria problem There have been many theories about the causes of the Arab Spring, but few people pay attention to the interaction between political and economic factors and the historical origins. Since the Arab Revolution began in Tunisia in December 2010, some people have compared the economic conditions of Syria and Tunisia, and others have attributed it to long-term centralized rule. However, this does not explain why this revolution occurred at this time. The perspective of the "social media revolution" further blurs the real reason. Through a more detailed analysis of a series of events in 2011, the theory of sectarian and sectarian conflict was popular for a while, but in the past these people were able to get along. Later, some people believed that this was because Syria was at the forefront of "resisting imperialism." I admit that geopolitics and external interference will indeed have an impact on the domestic situation in Syria, but they should not be mixed with domestic issues. The Syria crisis cannot be simply seen as a positive and negative opposition. The strategies of class, sect, geopolitics, political system, ideology, domestic relations and international relations have together contributed to this turmoil with no way out. The reason why I call it crisis rather than turmoil is because I'm not sure what's happening in the entire region right now. Some regimes have changed hands, such as Tunisia and Egypt, but that does not mean they will bring the results the protesters hoped for. Like the Syria regime, he still has supporters. After a year of turmoil, the protests we have seen are spontaneous movements by oppressed and dissatisfied masses. Now is a medium-to long-term, strategic confrontation involving Gulf countries, Turkey and all countries that want to play a more important role in the region. A common feature among Arab countries in the Middle East is the large-scale movement of people, the largest since the end of the colonial era. The exchange of information between people creates a domino effect throughout the region. This means that even though there are only intangible, historical, cultural and political connections between peoples of various countries, the Arabs are still one whole. We should not analyze all protests in this area individually. However, the different political economy of each country has different trends with the development of the economy. It is also important to recognize what is happening in other countries within and outside the region. The influence of alliances formed among individual countries, as well as international interests, determine the nature and extent of interference and pressure. The U.S. -backed Saudi troops traveling to Bahrain to calm the situation there is a stark example, which is related to the political and economic interests of Bahrain and its neighbors, as well as other non-Arab countries. The same goes for external considerations to calm the situation in Syria, but there are more political considerations than economic considerations. Anger over corruption over the past year has not only sparked a wave of protests in the Middle East, but also sparked outrage around the world, including the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States. The deepening relationship between political and economic elites in the face of popular unrest over the past few decades is something I want to discuss. This combination of power and money is prevalent in political and economic circles around the world, but it has had varying degrees of impact in different contexts. In many Arab countries, the privatization process is most related to the development of political and economic relations, but this aspect alone is not the cause of the crisis. It is not easy to comprehensively measure the impact of the combination of power and money, because it requires analyzing the existing symptoms in the political, social, and economic fields one by one: polarization, poverty, suppression and ultimately outbreak, all of which are so complicated that many people try to make it easier and use culture to explain everything. But in reality, what can be done is to highlight issues exacerbated by new elitism, coping models, resistance, government management and living standards. At first glance, we can divide the impact of the power-money combination into at least two aspects, which had a direct or indirect effect on what happened in the spring of 2011. Politically speaking, with or without other factors, this combination of political and wealth elites seems to have provided support for authoritarian rule over the past few decades. It can legalize the status quo, because the products of this combination include various forms of "liberalization" and "retreat from the country and progress towards the advancement of the people." The resulting social changes can be described as "germination","growth", or "activity". This is regarded as political "openness" and the economic environment "freedom" brought about by the abolition of monopolies. This change could also be the so-called growth of the "private" sphere, but at the expense of the state-owned "public" sphere, where giving more people access to resources is seen as a sign of economic democratization. This change seems to delight outsiders, including those who don't know exactly what the "international community" is, as evidenced by USAID's economic growth plan for 2004 - 2010. But the vast majority of the population, those who have to struggle to survive, do not see these changes as good, because subsidies, employment and welfare are clearly falling. The social impact of this combination of power and money was already evident before 2011. Economic reforms have led to the destruction of the social safety net (benefits, subsidies and jobs) that has in the past supported poverty caused by market failures. Since the implementation of neoliberal economic policies, basic medical care and education have been affected. Low-and middle-income people in the Middle East have always relied on subsidies to buy necessities, including wheat, flour, sugar and oil. The shift from existence to non-existence has led to two dangerous situations: poverty (extreme poverty) and polarization, with a shrinking middle class, and exclusion from the "market", which is why unrecorded economic activity is extremely active. Egyptian scholars point out that support for free markets and privatization continues, both secularists and Islamists, and continues after the revolution. The visions of trickle-down effects, tight budgets, private-sector growth, self-reliance and an end to the "big pot" still exist. It's not that I disagree with this assumption, but such a theory needs to be tested. What I want to say is that there are other development paths and models that are rarely mentioned because they require redistribution to a large extent. Another obvious result of new elitism and other political and economic policies has been the growth of the interests of the working class in the private and state-owned sectors-and there has been little growth in it. From workers to businessmen, the change in power in this class is also part of the reform of the state-owned economy. Since the 1970s, power, rules, and laws have gradually shifted from serving workers to serving businessmen. Chambers of commerce, farmers 'unions and trade unions from the 1980s to the 1990s were gradually led by government-appointed people, but still enjoyed some privileges. The political elite has long been planning for this change, but changes in recent years have taken on new characteristics. Depriving workers 'rights was earlier seen as the arbitrariness of authoritarian politics and a violation of the "moral contract", but now it is called "investment" and "growth." Syria's ideological background is socialism-nationalism, which is the basis of all judgments, standards, ideologies, and propaganda terms. Therefore, social polarization, poverty, and backwardness are considered "wrong" and unacceptable. Now, these consequences have become the new standard, that is, a "better" future. These are the only roads to wealth and efficiency, but they are disrupted passively, but this does not mean that this "zero-sum" development approach has been abandoned. Perhaps the most obvious change brought about by new elitism from a socio-economic perspective is the heavy emphasis on urban development (at the expense of rural areas and production) and unproductive economic activities, mainly consumption. Growth in tourism and services comes at the expense of manufacturing and agriculture (related to land reform and other laws), and this growth brings different needs to society. For example, the need for skilled workers has been significantly reduced, and the education and training systems used to cultivate skilled workers have also weakened. No matter what has been developed under the "new economy" policy, including information technology, it is actually far behind other countries. They are too small to replace contributions in other fields, let alone compete internationally. This means that thousands of graduates each year cannot find jobs if this public policy continues to be dominated by new elitism, whether authoritarian or newly formed governments. What happened in the spring of 2011 is closely related to the failure of this privatization reform. Whether from the perspective of public satisfaction or sustainable growth. So what is needed now is a more imaginative approach to development that leverages private and state-owned advantages while improving the distribution of benefits among different fields and regions (such as industry, trade, tourism, services, information technology and agriculture, urban and rural areas). It is obviously wrong to classify the causes of the current revolution or protests into private sector investment, foreign direct investment, new market institutions, new laws, new regulations, and legal systems. However, if we do not analyze it from these perspectives, then it will be difficult to fully understand the depth, breadth and intensity of this turmoil. Development is not just a matter of rules or markets, nor can it be easily solved. Those serious deviations come from a variety of persistent political and economic imbalances, and from the denial of the path to independence, both individually and collectively. The new combination of power and money has amplified these problems, and if no other solution is found, they will only continue to deteriorate. The combination of power and money in itself is not enough to lead to continued demonstrations and protests. Only a combination of factors can end the seemingly unreachable fear. These factors are not structurally harsh at all: political and strategic and personal considerations ultimately played an important role, upending the balance, and producing the unimaginable result: demonstrations in Syria. In other words, in addition to the economic recession caused by the combination of power and money in Syria, we can find two main factors: one is autocratic rule, and the other is the demonstration effect. The economy is in severe recession, elites control public policies, and authoritarian rule cannot be effectively corrected. Over the years, these factors have created a pressure cooker effect, causing despair in many citizens, affecting not only people's basic lives and needs for political freedom. A closer look at this situation will reveal that these factors have also deeply undermined people's dignity. I don't think even this outcome (threatened people's dignity) is enough to cause large-scale unrest in some countries, especially Syria. The reason why protests broke out in Syria was that people felt that now, after Tunisia and Egypt, people could actually do something about it. Under such political and economic factors, when people's dignity is harmed, some strategic guidelines or driving factors are still needed to stimulate large-scale unrest. Many observers ask why people are willing to sacrifice their lives and continue to fight, especially in Syria. It's entirely because of the long-term harm that people have suffered, accompanied by the hope of finding a way out. However, in some countries, the timing for such changes is not as ripe, people's dissatisfaction is not as strong, and social mechanisms do not allow immediate challenges or changes to the status quo. Syria is a case in point, and Yemen barely fits it. The time is ripe here means that the harm we are discussing and the possibilities for better options have not yet reached the heart of all sectors of society or regions. As a result, Damascus and Aleppo are relatively calm.On August 21, 2013 (July 15, 2013 in the lunar calendar), a poison gas bomb incident occurred in Syria. On August 21, 2013 local time, in Arbeen, the capital of Syria, the Syria opposition condemned government forces for launching a large-scale chemical weapons (gas bomb) attack on the outskirts of the capital Damascus that day, killing hundreds or even thousands of people and filling temporary hospitals with victims. However, the Syrian government later refuted that the claim that chemical weapons were used in the suburbs of Damascus was a "complete lie." One report even pointed to the death toll as high as 1300. The Syria government and military denied using chemical weapons (poison gas bombs), but the West and countries in the region called on the United Nations chemical weapons investigators to investigate as soon as possible. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed "shock" at the reports. The Syria gas bomb incident with the remains of the victims has been hyped up by some countries in the United States and Europe, pointing the finger at the Syrian government, eager to create opportunities and conditions for another military subversion. The United States seems to have completely abandoned basic logic and justice. It is abnormal to make military threats without understanding the truth, but blindly believe and condone the opposition. Russia clearly condemned the opposition, while other countries expressed their views cautiously. Someone has to send it. Who sent it? Logical reasoning can confirm that it was the opposition. If the government forces wanted to launch it, they would have fought countless years ago. But? Sometimes you can be deceived by normal thinking. Today, under the law of the jungle divided by national interests, our world remains dark and cruel. Behind the promotion of "universal values" is a cruel game of interests. Survivor's comments: Don't blindly believe any authority or words, and judge the truth from details and logic yourself. Bassam Haddad: The historical roots of the Syria problem There have been many theories about the causes of the Arab Spring, but few people pay attention to the interaction between political and economic factors and the historical origins. Since the Arab Revolution began in Tunisia in December 2010, some people have compared the economic conditions of Syria and Tunisia, and others have attributed it to long-term centralized rule. However, this does not explain why this revolution occurred at this time. The perspective of the "social media revolution" further blurs the real reason. Through a more detailed analysis of a series of events in 2011, the theory of sectarian and sectarian conflict was popular for a while, but in the past these people were able to get along. Later, some people believed that this was because Syria was at the forefront of "resisting imperialism." I admit that geopolitics and external interference will indeed have an impact on the domestic situation in Syria, but they should not be mixed with domestic issues. The Syria crisis cannot be simply seen as a positive and negative opposition. The strategies of class, sect, geopolitics, political system, ideology, domestic relations and international relations have together contributed to this turmoil with no way out. The reason why I call it crisis rather than turmoil is because I'm not sure what's happening in the entire region right now. Some regimes have changed hands, such as Tunisia and Egypt, but that does not mean they will bring the results the protesters hoped for. Like the Syria regime, he still has supporters. After a year of turmoil, the protests we have seen are spontaneous movements by oppressed and dissatisfied masses. Now is a medium-to long-term, strategic confrontation involving Gulf countries, Turkey and all countries that want to play a more important role in the region. A common feature among Arab countries in the Middle East is the large-scale movement of people, the largest since the end of the colonial era. The exchange of information between people creates a domino effect throughout the region. This means that even though there are only intangible, historical, cultural and political connections between peoples of various countries, the Arabs are still one whole. We should not analyze all protests in this area individually. However, the different political economy of each country has different trends with the development of the economy. It is also important to recognize what is happening in other countries within and outside the region. The influence of alliances formed among individual countries, as well as international interests, determine the nature and extent of interference and pressure. The U.S. -backed Saudi troops traveling to Bahrain to calm the situation there is a stark example, which is related to the political and economic interests of Bahrain and its neighbors, as well as other non-Arab countries. The same goes for external considerations to calm the situation in Syria, but there are more political considerations than economic considerations. Anger over corruption over the past year has not only sparked a wave of protests in the Middle East, but also sparked outrage around the world, including the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States. The deepening relationship between political and economic elites in the face of popular unrest over the past few decades is something I want to discuss. This combination of power and money is prevalent in political and economic circles around the world, but it has had varying degrees of impact in different contexts. In many Arab countries, the privatization process is most related to the development of political and economic relations, but this aspect alone is not the cause of the crisis. It is not easy to comprehensively measure the impact of the combination of power and money, because it requires analyzing the existing symptoms in the political, social, and economic fields one by one: polarization, poverty, suppression and ultimately outbreak, all of which are so complicated that many people try to make it easier and use culture to explain everything. But in reality, what can be done is to highlight issues exacerbated by new elitism, coping models, resistance, government management and living standards. At first glance, we can divide the impact of the power-money combination into at least two aspects, which had a direct or indirect effect on what happened in the spring of 2011. Politically speaking, with or without other factors, this combination of political and wealth elites seems to have provided support for authoritarian rule over the past few decades. It can legalize the status quo, because the products of this combination include various forms of "liberalization" and "retreat from the country and progress towards the advancement of the people." The resulting social changes can be described as "germination","growth", or "activity". This is regarded as political "openness" and the economic environment "freedom" brought about by the abolition of monopolies. This change could also be the so-called growth of the "private" sphere, but at the expense of the state-owned "public" sphere, where giving more people access to resources is seen as a sign of economic democratization. This change seems to delight outsiders, including those who don't know exactly what the "international community" is, as evidenced by USAID's economic growth plan for 2004 - 2010. But the vast majority of the population, those who have to struggle to survive, do not see these changes as good, because subsidies, employment and welfare are clearly falling. The social impact of this combination of power and money was already evident before 2011. Economic reforms have led to the destruction of the social safety net (benefits, subsidies and jobs) that has in the past supported poverty caused by market failures. Since the implementation of neoliberal economic policies, basic medical care and education have been affected. Low-and middle-income people in the Middle East have always relied on subsidies to buy necessities, including wheat, flour, sugar and oil. The shift from existence to non-existence has led to two dangerous situations: poverty (extreme poverty) and polarization, with a shrinking middle class, and exclusion from the "market", which is why unrecorded economic activity is extremely active. Egyptian scholars point out that support for free markets and privatization continues, both secularists and Islamists, and continues after the revolution. The visions of trickle-down effects, tight budgets, private-sector growth, self-reliance and an end to the "big pot" still exist. It's not that I disagree with this assumption, but such a theory needs to be tested. What I want to say is that there are other development paths and models that are rarely mentioned because they require redistribution to a large extent. Another obvious result of new elitism and other political and economic policies has been the growth of the interests of the working class in the private and state-owned sectors-and there has been little growth in it. From workers to businessmen, the change in power in this class is also part of the reform of the state-owned economy. Since the 1970s, power, rules, and laws have gradually shifted from serving workers to serving businessmen. Chambers of commerce, farmers 'unions and trade unions from the 1980s to the 1990s were gradually led by government-appointed people, but still enjoyed some privileges. The political elite has long been planning for this change, but changes in recent years have taken on new characteristics. Depriving workers 'rights was earlier seen as the arbitrariness of authoritarian politics and a violation of the "moral contract", but now it is called "investment" and "growth." Syria's ideological background is socialism-nationalism, which is the basis of all judgments, standards, ideologies, and propaganda terms. Therefore, social polarization, poverty, and backwardness are considered "wrong" and unacceptable. Now, these consequences have become the new standard, that is, a "better" future. These are the only roads to wealth and efficiency, but they are disrupted passively, but this does not mean that this "zero-sum" development approach has been abandoned. Perhaps the most obvious change brought about by new elitism from a socio-economic perspective is the heavy emphasis on urban development (at the expense of rural areas and production) and unproductive economic activities, mainly consumption. Growth in tourism and services comes at the expense of manufacturing and agriculture (related to land reform and other laws), and this growth brings different needs to society. For example, the need for skilled workers has been significantly reduced, and the education and training systems used to cultivate skilled workers have also weakened. No matter what has been developed under the "new economy" policy, including information technology, it is actually far behind other countries. They are too small to replace contributions in other fields, let alone compete internationally. This means that thousands of graduates each year cannot find jobs if this public policy continues to be dominated by new elitism, whether authoritarian or newly formed governments. What happened in the spring of 2011 is closely related to the failure of this privatization reform. Whether from the perspective of public satisfaction or sustainable growth. So what is needed now is a more imaginative approach to development that leverages private and state-owned advantages while improving the distribution of benefits among different fields and regions (such as industry, trade, tourism, services, information technology and agriculture, urban and rural areas). It is obviously wrong to classify the causes of the current revolution or protests into private sector investment, foreign direct investment, new market institutions, new laws, new regulations, and legal systems. However, if we do not analyze it from these perspectives, then it will be difficult to fully understand the depth, breadth and intensity of this turmoil. Development is not just a matter of rules or markets, nor can it be easily solved. Those serious deviations come from a variety of persistent political and economic imbalances, and from the denial of the path to independence, both individually and collectively. The new combination of power and money has amplified these problems, and if no other solution is found, they will only continue to deteriorate. The combination of power and money in itself is not enough to lead to continued demonstrations and protests. Only a combination of factors can end the seemingly unreachable fear. These factors are not structurally harsh at all: political and strategic and personal considerations ultimately played an important role, upending the balance, and producing the unimaginable result: demonstrations in Syria. In other words, in addition to the economic recession caused by the combination of power and money in Syria, we can find two main factors: one is autocratic rule, and the other is the demonstration effect. The economy is in severe recession, elites control public policies, and authoritarian rule cannot be effectively corrected. Over the years, these factors have created a pressure cooker effect, causing despair in many citizens, affecting not only people's basic lives and needs for political freedom. A closer look at this situation will reveal that these factors have also deeply undermined people's dignity. I don't think even this outcome (threatened people's dignity) is enough to cause large-scale unrest in some countries, especially Syria. The reason why protests broke out in Syria was that people felt that now, after Tunisia and Egypt, people could actually do something about it. Under such political and economic factors, when people's dignity is harmed, some strategic guidelines or driving factors are still needed to stimulate large-scale unrest. Many observers ask why people are willing to sacrifice their lives and continue to fight, especially in Syria. It's entirely because of the long-term harm that people have suffered, accompanied by the hope of finding a way out. However, in some countries, the timing for such changes is not as ripe, people's dissatisfaction is not as strong, and social mechanisms do not allow immediate challenges or changes to the status quo. Syria is a case in point, and Yemen barely fits it. The time is ripe here means that the harm we are discussing and the possibilities for better options have not yet reached the heart of all sectors of society or regions. As a result, Damascus and Aleppo are relatively calm.