-
Discussion with a supporter of the regime
You enter into a discussion with a supporter of the authority, expecting them to provide a convincing reason that motivates them to defend it—perhaps a moral stance, achievements and results, or even political or economic interests.
But you quickly realize that none of these exist. As soon as you ask a serious question, the mask falls, and the conversation turns into a stream of insults and sarcasm, as if the goal is not to discuss the idea but to silence you by any means.
This happens repeatedly with every criticism I or others make, and the clearer the evidence and the stronger the arguments, the more they become agitated and start attacking the person instead of discussing the content. Instead of offering rational criticism of your words or evidence to prove the opposite of what you claim, they throw pre-made accusations: “You’re a traitor, you’re a collaborator, you’re paid.”
The strangest thing is that most of them do not distinguish between authority, the regime, and the state. For them, the ruler is the state, and the authority is the homeland. Any criticism of the ruler means treason, and any objection to the authority means you want to dismantle the entire country. This confusion has been created by authoritarian regimes to make the ruler or the system of authority the same as the state—the ultimate meaning of the homeland.
And if charges of treason fail, they resort to the weapon of religion and sectarianism: “You’re against Islam,” “You don’t want the majority to rule.” Even if you are Muslim and Sunni, they use the same phrase, because what matters to them is silencing you by any means. And if that doesn’t work, they revert to the last card: “You’re a remnant, a supporter of the previous regime,” even if your history is full of confronting tyranny and personal sacrifices.
The tragicomic thing is that what we see today is a repeated version of the speech of Assad’s supporters. Same words, same methods, same distorted logic. Yesterday, criticism was met with the phrase “You’re against the army and the resistance, and you serve the enemy.” Today, they only change the words: “You’re against Islam,” “You’re against the majority.” As if the machinery of tyranny is one entity, just changing names but keeping the same mentality.
Engaging in a debate with these people reveals that tyranny is more dangerous than the dictator himself because it creates a mindset that sees wrong as right and right as wrong. A mindset unable to confront ideas with arguments, so it resorts to insults and accusations of treason.
Here lies our responsibility to adhere to the language of reason and facts, not insults. To prove that the homeland is not limited to a person, and that the state cannot be built on blind loyalty but on citizenship and justice.
Tyranny may fall over time, but the most dangerous thing it leaves behind is this wreckage in minds. Confronting it begins here—with restoring the debate to its natural place, where ideas govern, not insults; where arguments prevail, not accusations of treason.
Shadi Adel Al-Khash
