You are joking here, aren't you?
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
You are joking here, aren't you?
Assad was massacring the people way before the west started sponsoring or arming the moderate rebels.
Kids will die and drown every day after Assad is replaced too. The country will be torn to pieces and ISIS will expand further into Syria. Armed conflict that's now directed at Assad will start against them and we're back to square one.
No of course not. Why do you think that is a joke?
Not really, the argument works both ways. On the flipside, if the Saudis and Qataris along with the US hadn't been funnelling billions of dollars towards all the rebel groups, extreme or 'moderate' and if they didn't have every Jihadist from Morocco to Chechnya flocking there en masse, than its feasible this civil war wouldn't have been stretched out as it has been now.
Just like how taking out Saddam and Gaddafi had saved millions of lives and prevented a catastrophe, right?
And Assad would have just forgiven the rebels and everything would have been just dandy?
He would have massacred them and then we would be arguing about how many children we can watch die...
I think we reached that point in history where the usual measures and policies don't work and nothing anyone does or did made or makes a blind bit of difference.
Which rebels are we talking about here? The rebellion movement that formed in the earlier days was considerably smaller before it swelled with an influx of foreign jihadists and mercenaries.
Similarly, what's going to happen if you take Assad and his secular regime out and leave the vacuum to be filled with the beneficiaries? What will be of the millions of Syrian Christians, Alawites, Kurds or anyone who isn't a hardline Sunni Muslim?
Assad lost control when people took to the street and demanded he left. He gunned them down and started the armed rebellion which gained ground and would have toppled him had the Russians and Iranians not intervened. The US didn't cause any of that.
I suppose the US could have backed Assad in putting down the rebels and propped up all the middle eastern dictators and this would have had your support but then they did just that in Egypt and that didn't work either and everyone condemns them for it. Like I said it just isn't working whatever we do.
Maybe you shouldn't do anything. Just an idea.
Not doing anything isn't working either though is it?
Almost 20% of the population in Ukraine identify themselves as Russians so there is clearly more than an interest in Russias part in the conflict. That coupled with almost 70 years of Soviet Union as well.
Do you think letting them sort their own things out will reduce the backlash against us? If we were never involved in the middle east would there ever have been any terrorist acts on our soil?
Egypt and Syria are two very different situations. Egypt's movement was a majority protest movement, whereas in Syria most people prefer the regime to the alternative even if they despise Assad. The only thing the two countries have in common is that the protest movements were hijacked by Islamic extremists, funded by Gulf Arab benefactors.
The problem with the West's stance is that its inconsistent. They strongly back the Bahraini, Egyptian and Yemeni autocrats during the Arab spring, but will then actively seek to undermine the secular dictatorships of Syria, Iraq and Libya. Either they uphold a consistent, pro-democracy stance across the region (and that includes the sectarian Saudi and Qatari royal family) or they do nothing at all.
You see it that way because you are on different sides of the argument pro regime or anti regime. You are as inconsistent as the US or the West.
The Syrian and Egyptian regimes were both unpopular and an attempt was made by the respective populations to topple them. In one case you want it to be suppressed and in the other you want it to succeed.
You want the Saudi's toppled but Assad held up and you want the West to not be involved but when it goes very badly wrong like in Iraq with ISIS then how can we stand by and do nothing.
I'm not having a go at you personally but this is where we are. No one has the answer no side is right no side completely to blame but nothing we do or don't do is working and in fact things are getting worse.
I honestly don't think it makes any difference, France didn't go to war in Iraq and a fat lot of good it did them. I think we have just come to the point where the wheels are coming off whatever we do or don't do.
Very good point. We are now in a new phase of this where the only option is to take the battle to ISIS/AQ, both in their territories as well as by squeezing their support base in Europe.
More wars. more weapons needed, more business, more money. Not a tough thing to understand really.
You can't separate the rise of ISIS and other jihadist groups in the Middle East from the nature and failures of the regimes which preceded them. Regimes explicitly based on secular ideologies such as Arab nationalism and socialism made a lot of promises when they seized power from the colonial-backed governments, and with the partial exception of some land distribution policies, they broke every one. In doing so, they enabled an authoritarian state to intrude into every aspect of what was an inherently conservative society's life, disrupting time-honored methods of conflict resolution and empowering a series of military strongmen to lord it over everyone else. No wonder people turned to religion when the secular regimes' failure became clear after 1967. It's unfortunate that it just happened to coincide with the rise of Saudi oil money and the Iranian revolution to produce the toxic mix we have now.
Furthermore, while these regimes proclaimed themselves to be secular, they became increasingly based on sectarian and/or tribal ties (e.g. Alawites in Syria, Sunni Tikritis in Iraq), further accelerating the turn towards a more narrowly-based identity politics. And their brutalization of Arab society undoubtedly paved the way for the atrocities we now associate with ISIS and the others. Obviously Saddam's brutal methods of retaining control in Iraq are well-known, but not many recall these days the ferocity with which Hafiz al-Assad put down the Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Syria during the late 70s and early 80s, which culminated in the Hama Massacre in 1982 (estimated 10,000-20,000 dead). But more than those standout atrocities, there was the everyday terror of the power of a state which used violence as the ultimate arbiter in ordering social relations.
So the idea that it's a choice between Assad or ISIS in Syria obscures the fact that you wouldn't have one without the other - they're basically codependent at this stage.
(None of this is to necessarily excuse the American and Soviet/Russian governments and other from the short-sighted backing they've given to the various horrible regimes throughout the years.)
Furthermore, while these regimes proclaimed themselves to be secular, they became increasingly based on sectarian and/or tribal ties (e.g. Alawites in Syria, Sunni Tikritis in Iraq), further accelerating the turn towards a more narrowly-based identity politics. And their brutalization of Arab society undoubtedly paved the way for the atrocities we now associate with ISIS and the others. Obviously Saddam's brutal methods of retaining control in Iraq are well-known, but not many recall these days the ferocity with which Hafiz al-Assad put down the Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Syria during the late 70s and early 80s, which culminated in the Hama Massacre in 1982 (estimated 10,000-20,000 dead). But more than those standout atrocities, there was the everyday terror of the power of a state which used violence as the ultimate arbiter in ordering social relations.
So the idea that it's a choice between Assad or ISIS in Syria obscures the fact that you wouldn't have one without the other - they're basically codependent at this stage.
(None of this is to necessarily excuse the American and Soviet/Russian governments and other from the short-sighted backing they've given to the various horrible regimes throughout the years.)
Great post as always, @2cents. That Assad family have clung to power for far too long, and it started with that dog Hafez al Assad. It's a dynasty, and a small cluster of Alawis ruling over a Sunni majority isn't a great idea.
The gravest threat? Seriously? What quantifiable metric are you using here? Body count? Assad still massively outweighs IS. Time? Again, Assad outweighs IS. Amount of torture? Again, Assad > IS. Persons displace? Assad > IS. Areas destroyed (by square ft)? Again, Assad. There is no way you can say IS is the graver threat. I hate IS as much as the next man, but Assad has gone far far beyond the pale, and I think you're being disingenuous saying IS are the graver threat.
The Gulf states haven't taken any refugees, and that is appalling and I agree with you on that, but they have donated a large, large amount of money to humanitarian and refugee based causes/charities.
Here's what I posted in another thread
So, they're not perfect and some may think a monetary donation is a hollow gesture when what these people need is shelter and security, but it's not 'doing nothing' as what others say.
100% agree with you. Iran and Russia have perpetuated this conflict for so long. And what happened due to this perpetuation? The inroads and momentum gained by the FSA was lost, and their gains were hijacked by the likes of IS.
The gravest threat? Seriously? What quantifiable metric are you using here? Body count? Assad still massively outweighs IS. Time? Again, Assad outweighs IS. Amount of torture? Again, Assad > IS. Persons displace? Assad > IS. Areas destroyed (by square ft)? Again, Assad. There is no way you can say IS is the graver threat. I hate IS as much as the next man, but Assad has gone far far beyond the pale, and I think you're being disingenuous saying IS are the graver threat.
The Gulf states haven't taken any refugees, and that is appalling and I agree with you on that, but they have donated a large, large amount of money to humanitarian and refugee based causes/charities.
Here's what I posted in another thread
So, they're not perfect and some may think a monetary donation is a hollow gesture when what these people need is shelter and security, but it's not 'doing nothing' as what others say.
100% agree with you. Iran and Russia have perpetuated this conflict for so long. And what happened due to this perpetuation? The inroads and momentum gained by the FSA was lost, and their gains were hijacked by the likes of IS.
I think, the first part was partly due to the food crisis Syria had in mid-2000s due to drought. This led to the people taking to streets and rebel group forming. Also Syria themselves have a huge group of refugees (Iraq and Palestine mostly) before the crisis began, perhaps one of the very few Arab countries to allow refugees and Syria itself was never rich. Iran would have supported them because both country have Shiite religion government (or some form of it, Alawite is said to be Shia originated). Russia because Syria is the only country outside Russia where they have military base. Both countries supported the government out of their own interest. But a key point to note in this crisis is that, the crisis didn't began 50 years after Assad family regime because they had enough, because they had fecking drought and the mass of refugees were even limiting their food supply. Then none of the country came to aid Syria, which is mostly to blame for the unrest in there. And now all countries are coming up with plan to aid Syrian people with refugee status, with arms to defend against IS and Nusra among all others. Iran was the only country that helped them resolve drought in any way but simply put that was not enough. And hence the unrest. The world was to blame for the crisis in Syria because all of them were silent when people were suffering through drought and then it imploded into a war against regime and war for IS. The western world were happy to see people revolting against the regime rather than trying to help the syrian with at least some relief in drought because for them Assad was a dictator.
THe food crisis was mostly due to climate change and geographical condition of SYria.Now, its too late to play the blame game. I personally think Iraq and Syria would be continuing into this unrest for a long time because most of people are against something (be it Assad, be it IS, be it Kurdish militia, be it Sunni, be it Shia, be it America) and that mentality is going to last forever. Hate breeds violence and that is what we are seeing here.
I agree with the general sentiment. I talked with a Iraqi student a few times who was Sunni and had his parents in Syria as refugee. He was able to escape as a student but his parent were not so lucky. I had an impression that the current Assad was a lot less strictly secularist than it gets portrayed. Unless you are Syrian yourself and would correct me, my understanding was that Sunni had political and business control over Syria while Alawite controlled the military. Of course, they are a dictator and goes without saying they are unwanted in the current democratic world but he was not Saddam Hussain like persona who chemical warfared Kurdish people for refusing to fight against Iran.
I think saying Russia and Iran are to blame for everything bad in Syria is similar to saying US is to blame for daily human rights violation in Saudi Arabia because US supports Saudi for whatever reason. My understanding of Syria situation is based on few serious conversation with Kurdish refugees in US (considering I am a refugee myself, we find these things easier to talk about) and people who are directly impacted by Syria conflict (like the student I mentioned). A lot of weaponry and rebel group being formed in early Syria were funded by Sunni government across the Arab world who hated Iran. A perfect example of a bad government not being necessarily disastrous is Iran, which despite having a shit religious government which puts ban on almost everything liberal, has a fairly stable progress and is relatively well off. Syria, on the other hand is going into this unsolvable crisis because people don't like a person of one religion sect ruling over another religion sect.
@2cents That's a terrific post man.
This is a really important element in the Syrian conflict which people forget, and another example of the Ba'athist regime failing to provide any kind of solutions to the problems of the state.
One other important thing to note with regard to Syria - Assad played a huge role in facilitating the movement of the foreign jihadis who were laying waste to Iraq a decade ago and went on to establish ISIS. The networks he helped establish then came back to haunt him in 2011. But he can never lay claim to being some sort of bulwark against 'terrorism'.
For the first part, it was partly because of international sanctions. The world knew the general population without the face of politics was suffering due to it. The government is pretty much helpless in such situation as they had no international support and only Iran was supporting them as much as they can while the rest were standing still. While blaming the regime is fine and such, it was a national disaster and international community that are willing to come to the rescue of the syrian population now should have arrived then. This conflict could have been avoided if such had happened. What the international community did was to allow the Sunni governed country to spark rebellion across the Sunni population and spark them into fire to eventually bring the current situation. I don't think the Ba'ath regime falling would be a saving grace for any Syrian simply because the region is too divided into religion factions to ever gain stability with one faction feeling undermined by another faction of government. The Alawites are likely to be exterminated if Sunni militia were ever to come to power because Alawites are seen as pro-Assad people, which they could or could not be depending on individual but the generalization was surely going to stop any sort of long lasting peace pact possible due to toppling of Assad regime.
The second part. ISIS is basically a pro-sunni group and assad is pro-shia, just doesn't strike me as something which is likely unless you have some media reporting things of contrary or some inside knowledge into crisis, which are plausible. I always believed the reason for ISIS was primarily the pro-shia government led by Nouri al-Maliki which excluded Sunni from power.
While it is probably true in current context that Bashar has left the ISIS to bloom due to obvious military decisions, I don't think he was the primary culprit in ISIS uprising. And the rise of ISIS in Iraq during the pro-Shia led government which was not dictatorial leads to another question, will non-dictatorial Sunni government in Syria be able to assure the Alawites of their prominence and give a safe peaceful haven for people of all religions. As of now, I see a never ending chaos.
I was talking specifically of Assad's role in facilitating the entrance of foreign jihadis into Iraq, something which is well known. The US even bombed a jihadi safe-house on the Syria-Iraq border during the height of the Iraq war. This is a really good article explaining how it worked:
Suspects into Collaborators
Peter Neumann argues that Assad has himself to blame
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n07/peter-neumann/suspects-into-collaborators
More generally of course there are a host of factors which have given rise to ISIS, some of which I got into in #4859.
Interesting read. It fails to elucidate a lot though. It is something similar to what CIA operates on and KGB operated on during the Cold war, a spy system established into hostile nation or territory with the intention of being able to carry out the national interest. Plus the rumors that Damascus was fighting non-extremist groups during the beginning of Syrian war also doesn't make sense with regard to the article. I think the rise of IS is a lot more socio-economic rather than mere political. It is due to uprisings of suppressed who are dissatisfied by the regime.
Your post #4859 generalizes the problem into the power group making promises they cannot fulfill or don't fulfil and eventually being sectarian to a particular group of person. This is the absolute core of the problem everywhere. But then, you also put the blame onto everything, the Cold War and their self-interest into favoring short term advantage over the massive influence it could have. I absolutely agree with this. Spot on. But then the question rises what is the solution? The US backed Iraqi government is at majority to blame for ISIS rise (directly as compared to lot of indirect blames) but the essential point is that this is mostly due to the society's failure to exist as a united front. As long as there is differences made between shia and sunni and one trying to oppress the other, unless a country is wholly dominated by Shia (like Iran 96%) or SUnni (Saudi, Qatar and others) there is no long lasting peace. Another fuel to the fire is the hatred towards Israel's domination of Palestine which indirectly leads to the extremist being formed. And then there are Kurdish who are being oppressed everywhere and everyplace. While the region is mingled by huge western interest due to oil and the power struggles between people with narrow sect priority, it is upto the people to be able to come up with the solution and being able to co-exist. But then a viable question comes, are people really able to decide what they chose? I don't think normal general public is extreme in any way, its the portrayal of oppression by some agendist that leads to this fuel to fire. But then what is the solution?
I think the question is will the toppling of Assad regime is SYria lead to any better government or any better structure? Alawites are likely to be exterminated if that happens because they are actively fighting against the non-extremist Sunni group set against Assad regime. I don't think that is unlikely either, but highly possible and a really fearful situation. What about Iraq? ISIL taking regime would help any way then? No, Shia would then fight back, backed by Iran and may be Russia. It is way too late to play the blame game about who is responsible but more to think of what is the solution and every one seems as bas as other one.
@dustfingers
Alawites wouldn't be exterminated. The FSA and the rebel groups don't want an extermination of a non Sunni presence in Syria, they just want the removal of Assad and his goons. Some of the rebel forces are Alawites themselves. I mean, the civil war didn't start as a Sunni v Shia/Alawite war...it was nonviolent demonstrations against Bashar and different ethnic/religious groups took part, Christians, Druze, Sunnis etc. Here's some Alawi defectors that helped compose the Free Alawites group https://freehalab.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-free-alawite-front/ it's a little dated, btw.
Alawites wouldn't be exterminated. The FSA and the rebel groups don't want an extermination of a non Sunni presence in Syria, they just want the removal of Assad and his goons. Some of the rebel forces are Alawites themselves. I mean, the civil war didn't start as a Sunni v Shia/Alawite war...it was nonviolent demonstrations against Bashar and different ethnic/religious groups took part, Christians, Druze, Sunnis etc. Here's some Alawi defectors that helped compose the Free Alawites group https://freehalab.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-free-alawite-front/ it's a little dated, btw.
Great post as always, @2cents. That Assad family have clung to power for far too long, and it started with that dog Hafez al Assad. It's a dynasty, and a small cluster of Alawis ruling over a Sunni majority isn't a great idea.
The gravest threat? Seriously? What quantifiable metric are you using here? Body count? Assad still massively outweighs IS. Time? Again, Assad outweighs IS. Amount of torture? Again, Assad > IS. Persons displace? Assad > IS. Areas destroyed (by square ft)? Again, Assad. There is no way you can say IS is the graver threat. I hate IS as much as the next man, but Assad has gone far far beyond the pale, and I think you're being disingenuous saying IS are the graver threat.
The Gulf states haven't taken any refugees, and that is appalling and I agree with you on that, but they have donated a large, large amount of money to humanitarian and refugee based causes/charities.
Here's what I posted in another thread
So, they're not perfect and some may think a monetary donation is a hollow gesture when what these people need is shelter and security, but it's not 'doing nothing' as what others say.
100% agree with you. Iran and Russia have perpetuated this conflict for so long. And what happened due to this perpetuation? The inroads and momentum gained by the FSA was lost, and their gains were hijacked by the likes of IS.
Assad is a brutal dictator who much like his regional peers will often employ heavy-handed and violent methods to stay in power. ISIS are quite something else though - they're a macabre doomsday cult who genuinely see no moral confliction with massacring anyone who doesn't fit their niche and extreme take on Islam. You can't even compare them. Ask the Syrian people if they'd rather live under Assad's autocracy or ISIS' medieval theocracy, heck ask anyone in the world who isn't an ISIS sympathiser.
Your point about the minority sect ruling over the majority is an interesting one. Though I don't recall you echoing the same sentiments regarding Saddam's minority rule over a Shia majority who've suffered immeasurably under his 25 year tenure, ditto for the Bahraini monarchy who's minority rule has only been consolidated using ultraviolence and the help of the Saudi military.
Furthermore your point about Gulf Arab's humanitarian efforts is absolutely correct - its a hollow gesture. Ask them if they'd take anyone in and its a different story. You have to remember that for these people money is obsolete and dispensible, its a culture which is accustomed to doing this:
Last edited:
I agree with this. What's going to happen to the Alawite in Syria, Sunni in Iraq, Kurds in both if ISIS ever gains control is a ghastly thought. What is going to happen to people who are fighting against them right now, the shias and alawites and kurds? What if they make a regime of the citizens only being Islam of certain sect (similar to Saudi Arabia but of only Sunni faction) is going to be terrible for the region? I don't think Isis offers any solution and are horrors in the middle east right now. But they are not macabre doomsday cult, they have loyal support from some people, some powerful people who believe in the Sunni controlled country with disregard for those who fights against them.
Can't pretend I have any. Obviously it's far easier to analyze how we got here than it is to think of viable solutions or even predict what happens next. With that said, I think by summer 2011, and probably long before, the brutalization of Syrian and Iraqi society had gone too far for those states to survive the recent upheavals. I have zero faith in any of the Syrian rebels, including the FSA, solving any of the country's problems. One of my major annoyances is the way the rise of ISIS has managed to make bin Ladenist groups like Nusra and Ahrar appear like moderate alternatives. If I was a member of any Syrian minority, I'd be firmly on Team Assad (my in-laws are Iraqi Christians hounded out of Baghdad by al-Qaeda in 2004-2006 - they're unapolagetic Assad supporters these days).
The conflicts will likely drag on into the next decade, any number of things could happen in that time that could turn the tide one way or another. Perhaps with an increase in Russian aid and Obama continuing to look the other way, Assad will be able to regain lost ground - but an Assad 'victory' is not a 'solution'. Then again if a Republican gains the White House in 2016, we may see a major push for a rebel 'victory' - again not a 'solution'.
The best we may be able to hope for is for all sides to get exhausted so that the frontlines between them become de facto borders within a Syria and Iraq partitioned in all but name. They can then await a day (which may never come) when the populations decide peacefully if they want to reunite or permanently go their separate ways. But that exhaustion is years away since all sides still appear to believe they can achieve victory militarily.
Last edited:
The Gulf states haven't taken any refugees, and that is appalling and I agree with you on that, but they have donated a large, large amount of money to humanitarian and refugee based causes/charities.
Here's what I posted in another thread
So, they're not perfect and some may think a monetary donation is a hollow gesture when what these people need is shelter and security, but it's not 'doing nothing' as what others say.
Shelter and security in Jordan, Turkey and elsewhere but no on their soil. It's almost meaningless considering their resources and financial prowess.
Most of all such deeply religious countries should follow the teachings of their faith and open up their homes for fellow muslims instead of throwing two bob at the problem.
When NATO bombed Miloshevic hundreds of thousands crossed the border to Albania from Kosovo and not a single refugee camp was set up, the people opened up their homes and took them all in.
None of them were concerned that they struggled to make ends meet every single month, or that they didn't have enough food to feed their own children, they still shared whatever they had and were not concerned like @Q80 suggests in another thread about their own stability or that of their country because that takes a backseat when helping people in need.
I have no doubt that if the Gulf states were poor they would have welcomed them with open arms, just like the Syrians have for decades as you've posted, and even though I'm not relegious myself it makes me think that the love for money really could be the root of all evil.
But you dont get it, we arent deeply religious. Thats a complete facade. You must understand the difference between culture and religion, and then toss politics in there to complicate it even further.
Our religion states clearly how we should help those in need, i wont go in detail here, but take my word for the fact that in no way shape or form does the religion say "dont take people in when they need shelter", the prophet was taken in by a King in Habasha who Christian but was very just when the prophet was chased out of Mecca. He was also taken in by people of the the Medinah, and both are praised 100 fold for these actions.
Arabian culture is a massively broad spectrum, bar the hijab, mostly everything else is down to the culture. The niqab (where the woman covers her entire face) is NOT religious, its culture and i kicked many husbands out of the ER because they thought it inappropriate for me to examine their wives face after facial trauma without a chaperone present, its NOT religion and its a stupidly narrow minded piece of culture that i personally dont agree with but must respect. Thats one of many things that get misinterpreted as "religious".
Politicians now we deem "mutaslimeen" not "muslims", which mean "they don islam" to further their political aims. Most of the gulf countries ride the "islam" wave to ease governing their people. Their daily bread, their work ethic, how they treat ethnic minorities, the shit they do abroad, the bribes, the corruption - prove they are not nearly religious as they claim. You can call yourself muslim, do our prayers 5 times a month but lie, cheat, and kill your way to the top - does that make you religious?
Arab countries, if they were truly as religious as they preach, would be a much fairer and easy going society than it is today. Please, dont confuse someone who says they are something with someone who truly is that thing.
I said that as a contradiction as I too know that it's a massive facade. A lot of things are in the middle east but that doesn't make any of it morally just or exclude it from any criticism.
The Gulf states are using money as a get out of jail free card for everything they do and as I mentioned in the other thread the Quran does say that wealth is a test so even if the governments, kings and royals will not care for this, it should be peoples responsibility to pull them up on it, but sadly they too have been corrupted by money which was evident on how quickly the uprising in Bahrain was supressed once 1000 Dinars was thrown at every family...
Exactly. In the end of the day, the money they have given for this crisis, is less than what Arab countries spent in Manchester City and PSG and far less than what Qatar is spending on World Cup 2022, which tells you all you need to know about how much they care for this matter. And I would guess, that it is less than what Saudi Arabia spent on financing IS.
The Syrian people don't want Assad. I know Syrian people, and trust me, they hate him with every fibre of their being. And you tell me - what is the difference between Assad and IS? The least you can say about IS is that they are fairly recent, so the death toll isn't even near the likes of Assad junior and senior. There were up to 40,000 killed due to the Hama massacre. Do you think the sons and daughters and survivors have forgotten that? Bashar has killed and killed and killed, at my last count, 400,000 have been killed during this Syrian conflict. Like I said before, whatever quantifiable metric you want to use, there is no way you can say IS have been worse than Bashar. In fact, even the most depraved crimes by IS have been following from Bashar. By intangible, unquantifiable metrics 'macabre doomsday cult', 'no moral confliction' etc, then you might have a case, but for documented evidence that we can all see with our eyes, there is only one 'winner' here, and you know who it is, and I know who it is, but you're not willing to admit it.
Let's not be disingenuous here, the only reason IS are so much more notorious in the public eye is because they want an audience, and they're the perfect pantomime villain for Western eyes. No one in the West wants to admit or realise that their Western educated, secular, suit wearing, beardless banner of democracy Bashar al-Assad is worse than the 'medieval backward crazies' IS. We need to understand and accept that Bashar is the real issue here.
I said it wasn't a great idea. And my justification is thus - would the Assad family kill as readily and indiscriminately if they were ruling over an Alawite majority population? I'm not so sure. And I agree with you regarding Saddam. I'm not a fan of these dictators using any means necessary to keep control. But I am also vehemently against the US going in and destabilising it further.
The Middle East is a mess, and we're going round in circles here. One side calling the other Rafidi. The other side calling them Wahabi. Where does it end? I think the worst thing that happened for the Sunni Muslims was the abolishment of the Caliphate. In my eyes, the end of the Caliphate divided us and led to the state we're in now. But this is a whole different rant, for a different day, so I won't go into too much detail about it now.
I did a bit more research, and it's not as hollow as I thought. I'll make a separate post in the Refugee thread and tag you in it to show the extent the Saudi gov't has helped.
But going on the abundance of wealth - well, yea, they're so rich they've lost their sense. I agree with you. But you have to remember, this is the 1% of the people, who unfortunately control the whole land, and it's not exclusive to them, either. It's not exactly shocking as it happens in every single country. It's nothing new. It happens here, but we call them upper class right wing etc. There's a reason these Gulf emiratis elites are better known as 'bedouins with barefeet', because that's essentially what they are. Desert people who stumbled onto unimaginable wealth, competing to try and outdo one another in indulgence.
Do you know all Syrian people and speak for all of them? I'm not saying Assad is a good guy, but there are no good guys in this conflict, there are are just various degrees of scum and he is probably not the worst.
If the Syrian people wanted Assad, the rebellion would have been over ages ago. In fact, there'd have been no rebellion. When you have non state actors propping them up to for their own self serving interests such as Iran, Hezbollah and Russia then this will perpetuate the conflict.
Very convinced that if there were democratic free elections before the other countries helped spread the war, Assad would have comfortably won. Same about Gadaf in Lybia.