of Syrian people, they don't even care about gaining political power - they wouldn't know
what to do with it should they win. All they care about is waging jihad and raising mayhem.
Those fanatical murderers need to be wiped out for Syria to enjoy peace again.

Or do you think the news of atrocities by the Syrian army in Homs are lies by the "Evil Western Capitalist Running Dogs"

I read plenty of reports about "Rafidite Alawite polytheists cutting throats of thousands of innocent Muslims who don't accept Assad is their god" and the like. Ikwanist front groups like the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" and other European-based media propaganda outlets, in addition to the multitude of Saudi/Qatari newspapers and television stations, were churning those things out like a factory, sometimes toning the sectarian fanaticism down for a white audience. There was absolutely no standard whatsoever for what wild claims got reported; I heard Assad was dropping chemical and nuclear weapons on the place at one point and that the siege was a bigger deal than Stalingrad. Much footage has been found to be meticulously staged by Ikwanist and other Saudi/Qatari-backed media agents for broadcast on al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya, CNN, BBC, and other pro-interventionist forces.
It is perhaps odd that those calling loudest for intervention lifted no fingers as war crimes were committed in Gaza, Fallujah, or Qandahar; probably because those hypocrites were too busy carrying them out themselves amid absolute impunity and self-congratulation.

In additional to the reposting of merely exaggerated atrocity reporting, which is commonplace, we see repeated posts from a certain Syrian opposition propaganda agent containing persistent, outright lies such as the claim that there is no al-Qaeda infiltration and reconstitution in Syria or Libya.

Even Director of National Intelligence Clapper and the State Department have acknowledged that these regime change operations bring in the Jihadists from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, who are being refunded, rehabilitated as "freedom fighters", and rearmed in an area of hostility they know the US won't attack them.

... he'd show up only after the building was blown up.

Anybody who thinks Assad will sit down with the opposition is asking for much. As long as he has a standing army with hundreds of tanks and artillery guns to level the opposition, he has no incentive to come to the bargaining table. On top of that, countries like Russia and Iran are free to continue to send him weapons.

Isn't saving thousands of lives and finding a peaceful solution worth taking a risk
even at a cost of few dozen opposition figures? Apparently not for the opposition.
Why not at least give it a chance? How come with all that army and tanks and
guns Assad is the one urging negotiations and his opponents, without any of
those things, wouldn't hear of anything but war? Something does not make sense
here.

If Assad had conceded power and promised to hold elections for parliament and the presidency, there's reason to go to the bargaining table, but whatever Assad has offered is, as far as I've seen, nothing approaching that.

Just fucking try it and see and let everybody else see "what's he going to do". Otherwise it just looks like a lame
excuse and an attempt to hide real intentions on the part of the opposition. We know what will happen without
negotiations - war, death and misery. Why the hell not give peace a chance? Maybe "negotiating himself out of power"
is exactly what Assad intends to do. Is the alternative here that by steadfastly refusing to negotiate the opposition
will force Assad to just give up without getting anything in return? Out of those two approaches which do you think
is a more delusional one?

As long as he has backing on the Security Council from Russia and China and weapons from Iran, he has no real incentive to sit down and talk besides bombing civilians until they give in to his control. If Russia and China had abstained instead of voting no, he'd have no leg to stand on.

and I am guessing here, on somewhat incomplete information. Rather that think and guess, why
not take his offer and start negotiating process? I keep asking this question and all I hear in
response is Assad won't negotiate so let's keep the killing going. Obviously, the opposition
thinks that it can win this civil war on the battlefield. So Assad is completely rational in
trying to convince them otherwise.

I just don't think he would be an honest broker for peace. He has no incentive to be. Unlike the opposition, he does have the firepower. He has the tanks, the warplanes, the artillery guns, and many army units at his disposal. Unless he were magnanimous, I just do not see him setting a level playing field at the negotiation table.

One doesn't need to be magnanimous to appreciate that in war both sides suffer.
He continues to command loyalty of his immediate circle, if not a majority of Syrian
people, not by being completely indifferent to their safety, fate and interests. His
main interest may be in protecting himself, his family and his inner circle - but
even that is best achieved in context of a comprehensive peace settlement in Syria.
Presenting him as some sort of Nero-style homicidal maniac who cares nothing
about any of his subjects and is interested only in killing as many people as he can
may be a smart propaganda, but has little to do with reality. Negotiation is not a game
of croquet - level playing field is never a precondition for one. Any party would want to
tilt the field in their favor before coming to the table. If the opposition thinks that
a long bloody fight with Assad will help them to level the field - they are delusional.
They are just trying to hold out for US/NATO/Arab military intervention and any
negotiation will clearly throw a wrench into this plan. That's why they will keep
refusing to come to the table, not because they don't trust Assad or wouldn't
negotiate with a murderer. All it takes for them to change that position is for US/NATO
to stop leading them on and state unambiguously that there will be no military
intervention on their behalf.

Did not those governments negotiates themselves "out of power?" I believe so. There are numerous instances of such a thing occurring.

For whatever reason, they did not go "all the way" in terms of killing appalling numbers of their own citizens to send a message that they aren't leaving, but people conveniently ignore the counter-example of China 1989. Assad, if anything, has demonstrated already that he is a fan of the Chinese solution, as opposed to what the Eastern Bloc governments actually did.

I am confident that they would negotiate with the NCB, which is a genuine opposition force, that opposes violating the sovereignty of Syria. I do not know if Syria would negotiate with the Muslim Brothers. The "red lines" appear to be secularism, "Arabism," and commitment to a unitary state.

where have I heard that before? What would they call it if militia rose up in the US to overthrow the government? Oh, been there, done that...cost over 50,000 lives from both sides.