Bashar al-assad should stay in power.

I was expecting my opponent's rebuttal in this round. Anyhow, I'm going to provide my rebuttal as I promised in the earlier round.A- Can Bashar Al-Assad really stop the armed clashes and the civil disorders?This seems to be a main assumption in my opponent's argument, even though it is unrealistic due to many reasons:1- The frail state of the Syrian national army which is now relying on Hezbollah to fight its battles[1]. 2- The nature of the FSA's resistance, which is basically coming from "beehive" military factions of a persecuted majority in Syria[2]. 3- The presence of foreign soldiers in the FSA that pass the wide Syrian borders, and who are backed by many rich nations in the Arab world. This point was also listed by my opponent, and it ensures the presence of a continuous and well-funded resistance against the Syrian regime[3].[1] http://www.reuters.com...[2] http://www.mcclatchydc.com...[3] http://online.wsj.com...B- Brief critique of my opponent's main points.B1- "The FSA is not well-defined nor do they have control or any responsibility over their actions." Even if the FSA were as disorganized, chaotic and dispersed as my opponent claims, this does not necessarily mean that they would always stay like that. Take as an example Hezbollah which started as a set of disorganized and "not well-defined" factions in south Lebanon, and after the retreat of Israel, changed into one of the most organized and powerful militias in the world[4].[4] http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com...B2- "The various factions will not be able to unify. As said before, these factions are already claiming territory and not allowing certain factions to pass." According to their own definition, they are not a military that holds territory but one that seeks to spread the Syrian army in all Syria so that it weakens its defences[5]. Even though they are dispersed because of this strategy, they fight for the same goal and help each other with weapons, artillery, shelter, food and military operations[6]. The talk about their dispersion is exaggerated and inaccurate. [5] http://www.mcclatchydc.com...[6] http://www.thenational.ae...B3- "The only reason the U.S. wishes to aid the rebels in an attempt to destabilize the Middle-east." This is a non-sequitur. Even if it was true, it doesn't work as a reason for why the FSA cannot rule. The US, and if truly wanted destabilization, would ensure that Assad stays ruling while the FSA continues fighting him, which contradicts putting the FSA in power.B4- "Many, at least a large minority, of the rebels are mercenaries, some foreign backed. And many more of them are Islamist fundamentalist Jihadist." My opponent has to explain why a majority of "Islamist fundamentalist Jihadist" would oppose a Jihad call from Lebanese Salafees[7]. It is clear that the majority of the FSA are moderate Muslims, who identify themselves separately from Jabhat Al-Nusrah because of their dismissal of radical Islam. As an FSA spokesman in Aleppo said, the FSA doesn't share the beliefs of Jabhat Al-Nusrah, but they are fighting the same enemy together[8]. Needless to say, the Pro-Syrian forces are using Hezbollah, a mercenary of Jihadists, and newly-trained Shite jihadists on their side. Hence, a mirrored situation exists even if my opponent's accusation was true.[7] http://www.naharnet.com...[8] http://www.usatoday.com...B5- "The FSA and the various rebel-factions will not be able to form a coercive government."It would be effective to state this reason, if Bashar could actually control Syria as he did before. But this is clearly not the case, given the Syrian government lost its power in many parts of Syria. Therefore, it is pointless to use this as a reason for why the FSA should not rule, when Bashar Al-Assad has lost his tight grip on the Syrian nation, and cannot form a coercive government due to all the changes.B6- "If Assad is knocked out of power or if the rebels are not exterminated then the country will be thrown into eternal conflict and, eventually, forgotten by the media and the public, as always."I wouldn't say "eternal," but definitely long-lasting, and this is currently the situation in Syria even with Assad present. The proxy war is continuing in both scenarios, which means that this claim is ignoring the mirrored situation which won't be that different in this regard.C- Rebuttal of specific claims in my opponent's argumentContention 1: "But the rebels have indeed seized a Saudi-owned chemical plant and has obviously used it against innocent civilians in an attempt to pin the blame on the government."According to my opponent's citation, this was done by Jabhat al-Nusra, not the FSA. And I agreed to debate based on the condition that those should be treated as two different groups. Here is the citation: "On 8 December, it was reported that members of the jihadist Al-Nusra Front had recently captured a Saudi-owned toxic chemicals plant outside of Aleppo." In addition to that, the citation does not say that chemical bombs from this plant were used against innocent civilians. This is a baseless claim.It is true that there is no proof yet on who is behind the chemical bombings, but there is good evidence that the Syrian government is behind it:1- "Zahir al-Sakit, a former Syrian army general from the chemical weapons branch, said he was instructed to use chemical weapons during a battle with the FSA in the southwestern area of Hauran. But instead, Sakit disobeyed the orders and swapped the chemicals with disinfectant water he called "Javel water."[9]2- "An 23 April 2013 the New York Times reported that the British and French governments had sent a confidential letter to the United Nations Secretary General, claiming that there was evidence that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in Aleppo, Homs, and perhaps Damascus."[10]3- "By 25 April the U.S intelligence assessment was that the Assad regime had likely used chemical weapons – specifically sarin gas."[11]4- "After clandestinely spending two months in Jobar, Damascus, several reporters for the French news media Le Monde personally witnessed the Syrian army's use of chemical weapons on civilians." [12,13][9] http://english.alarabiya.net...[10] http://www.nytimes.com...[11] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[12] http://www.lemonde.fr...[13] http://www.guardian.co.uk...Contention 2: "FSA is quite ruthless, as are other rebel factions. If they approach a male civilian who is fit for or not aiding their general cause, due to black and white thinking, in their eyes if you aren't for them then you're against them."This is an outrageous generalization stated without any evidence, although it claims that it describes a dominant behaviour among the FSA members. BoP on my opponent.Contention 3: "I have seen dozens of videos of innocent men who have been accused of working for Assad by the FSA and executed, all the while the innocent men pleaded..."This won't pass here that easily. We need proof that those men were actually innocent.