As usual, "The Left" ("Hands Off Syria" etc.) is stuck in the same confused logic. US = bad. Anti-US = good. Therefore Assad = anti-imperialist hero. Of course this isn't really an analysis of Syria, just the usual identikit model applied once again: fill in the blanks with name of country/regime. Does opposing US imperialism mean we have to rally behind local tyrannies? Do we have to take sides? Are there just two sides, or more nuanced positions? Is there anything positive, any hope to hold onto out of the bloody mess of the Syrian revolution?

So what are Syrian, and other Arab and Kurdish, anarchists and anti-authoritarians actually saying? There has certainly been a big rise in anarchist thought and action in the Middle East since the beginning of the "Arab Spring". You have to read Arabic (or sometimes facebook) to see a lot of it, but there are some interesting sites in English. To start with, here are two good links for stuff on Syria, maybe other people know more (I'm not an expert on Syria or Arab anarchism by any means):

Tahrir ICN:  https://tahriricn.wordpress.com/

Darth Nader:  http://darthnader.net/about/

In the particular context of the planned US attacks this statement by Middle Eastern leftists is also perhaps worth noting, though problematic in many respects:  http://www.al-manshour.org/en/statement-by-rev-socialists-marxists-on-us-attack-on-syria

From reading these sources, and actually talking to comrades from the region, a few basic points emerge that you won't hear in the "Hands Off Syria" blather. Apologies for over-generalising, but these seem basically right:

1) The revolution against Assad should still be supported. The uprising started with hope, joy, and passion for freedom. At least in many moments and areas it involved autonomous self-organisation. Yes, jihadi groups sponsored by nasty regimes then jumped in. And yes the joy has largely turned to despair, given both the co-option and infighting, and above all the sheer horrifying brutality of the repression. But despite that many people still see this as "our revolution".

2) Supporting the revolution (and the Syrian Fre Army) does not mean supporting the Islamist jihadis and their state backers. The Syrian Free Army is a coalition of many groups. Some are deeply unpleasant. But the revolution, and the armed struggle, has also involved anarchists, communists, and people of all views trying to fight against oppression and for their communities and free spaces. For one particular anarchist position within the revolution see the obituary of Omar Aziz:  https://tahriricn.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/syria-the-life-and-work-of-anarchist-omar-aziz-and-his-impact-on-self-organization-in-the-syrian-revolution/

3) Supporting the revolution does not mean supporting US bombing. This is how Darth Nader puts it:

"The Syrian revolution is a revolution that began as a struggle for self-determination. The Syrian people demanded to determine their own destiny. And, for more than two years, against all odds, and in the face of massive repression and destruction from the Assad regime, they persevered. In the course of the revolutionary process, many other actors have also appeared on the scene to work against the struggle for self-determination. Iran and its militias, with the backing of Russia, came to the aid of the regime, to ensure the Syrian people would not be given this right. The jihadis of the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham and others, under the guise of “fighting the Assad regime,” worked against this right as well. And I feel the same way about any Western intervention."  http://darthnader.net/2013/08/27/on-interventions-and-the-syrian-revolution/

And this is what Tahriricn say on the chemical weapons attacks and the US threats: "Yes, we have no doubt [that Assad used chemical weapons] and we got a confirmation from people on the ground in Syria. You know, one thing is the intervention and how USA wants to use it (we are against intervention), but another thing is silencing the fact of using chemical weapon by Assad. It was used by him, and any geopolitical calculations (the threat of intervention) should not push us to silence the fact that this weapon was used."

4) The rebels in Syria want weapons, not US attacks. Of course, the US isn't going to give them arms.

Is there any hope? Maybe not. The situation looks very bleak indeed. People in Syria rose up against an extremely strong and well-organised state prepared to use extreme violence to maintain its domination. That state has now murdered over a 100,000 people and sent 2 million into exile. And now the Syrians have to contend not just with Assad but also with the jihadis, their state backers, and now the US and allies too. Some might say the Syrians would be better off if they'd never started the revolution. Would you have gone to the streets if you knew your hunger for freedom would open the gates of hell? If we move on from the leftist simplifications, we have to face hard questions like that.

Darth Nader says:

"So we’ve come full circle. No one armed the Syrian resistance, so they were killed by the regime, or forced to put up with jihadi infiltration. So Assad used chemical weapons against the Syrians, and the West wants to respond to teach Assad a lesson, a response that still guarantees that Syrians have no say in the matter of their future. And the regime will probably live through any “punitive” Western intervention, and the killing will probably not stop.

But despite all that, the Syrian revolution, and, at its heart, the Syrian people’s struggle for liberation and to determine their own destiny, will live on."