Which would make it nearly impossible to have peace as long as Assad is in power, whether ISIS are defeated or not.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Which would make it nearly impossible to have peace as long as Assad is in power, whether ISIS are defeated or not.
I understand and sympathise with your predicament. However, what are the solutions and scenarios of removing Assad?
The Assad family has been in power for many generations with Sunnis/Shias/Alawites/others having all co-existed. I'm not fully versed in its history but we hardly heard of issues between different sects or tribes previously. What has changed drastically over the last few years to make Assad and his supporters target Sunnis or being demonised?
Who do you blame or suspect is behind these issues in your country. Are outside forces complicit, namely Russia, USA, Saudi, Iran, ISIS?
I don't blame anyone other than Assad, we didn't co-exist but we had to co-exist, they don't live in our neighborhoods while we don't either, they always get what they want while we couldn't get anything, you can't talk about the past when no one could say anything back then, have you heard of Khaddam? He was a minister who left in early 2000s, he said many things, have you heard what happened in the 80s? Hafez killed almost an entire city and did many massacres, you really know nothing about Syria's past.
Without any sunni support the govt would have collapsed years ago, clearly the statement that all sunnis are fighting against the govt is not accurate.
I admitted not knowing much of Syria's past history in my question.
What do you think the solution should be, and will it be workable? If the Sunnis get into power will Alawite community be safeguarded?
The question is much more complicated.
If assad steps down then who will get rid of rebels aka moderate terrorists and isis ? then there's also the question regarding the kurds.
@syrian_scholes
I understand your dislike for Assad and agree a new structure needs to be in place. However, I just can't see any group capable of running the country without further bloodshed. It seems many people leaving the country suggests they think they have no future.
Who do you blame or suspect is behind these issues in your country. Are outside forces complicit, namely Russia, USA, Saudi, Iran, ISIS?
I understand your dislike for Assad and agree a new structure needs to be in place. However, I just can't see any group capable of running the country without further bloodshed. It seems many people leaving the country suggests they think they have no future.
Who do you blame or suspect is behind these issues in your country. Are outside forces complicit, namely Russia, USA, Saudi, Iran, ISIS?
That's why I'm asking the question. Getting rid of Assad is probably the most simplistic answer to the mess.
If Assad is forced to step down the "so-called moderates" would no longer need to be in opposition and would surely be part of the rebuilding process?
I agree with them, we have no future, I'm also leaving the country in a year or so, my family already left only ones left are me, my mom, and my dad as I want to get my degree before leaving and they don't want to leave their work, can't see any solution and Assad staying is not an option, it's going downhill and it will be for a long long time and I'm not about to waste my future for this country as I can't really feel connected to it anymore.
Top comment in that video:
"Would've been great if McCain was there, chilling with his comrades"
Where will you go? I hope you can start over again and build a good life for yourself wherever you decide to go, mate. It's sad that you have to leave your country, but with the situation as dire as it is over there, the majority of us would do the same. Good luck and stay safe.
There was a Muslim Brotherhood-led uprising against the regime throughout Syria during the late 70s and early 80s which culminated when they seized control of Hama, leading Hafiz al-Assad to surround and lay siege to the city and pulverise it in 1982 until at least 10,000 inside were dead. We didn't hear a peep of Islamist resistance after that until 2011. Inexplicably (or perhaps not), Bashar released many prisoners associated with that uprising in an amnesty after the 2011 protests started.
Unfortunately, I think we're on the brink of being stuck in a frozen cold war type situation with the Russians now involved. Assad as Syrian Scholes mentioned, will never be accepted after what he has done, and yet there is no viable, long term solution without getting rid of the ISIS element, then Assad, and forming brand new government that is initially overseen by an international body like the UN.
For people who still see Assad as the 'least bad option', what kind of country do you think will be left for him to rule over in the unlikely event he manages to reconquer the rebel-held areas? The country lies in ruins now, but just imagine the force of violence that will be needed to retake towns and villages which utterly despise Assad and the Alawites, not to mention the Iranian and Hezbollah forces which will inevitably be required for Assad to do so.
This is why, IMO, partition is inevitable.
This is why, IMO, partition is inevitable.
Already have my green card plus my sister lives in the US, l'll be doing the USMLES and hopefully it works out.
Partition is the only solution really. A secular Alawite heartland for Christians, Alawites and other minorities, allied to Russia and Iran. And the rest of Syria being for the Sunnis, being allied to Saudi Arabia and the US. Now another question - who would be responsible for forming a government in the latter entity?
Top comment in that video:
"Would've been great if McCain was there, chilling with his comrades"
Indeed. He is a despicable human being.That's fantastic. Hope it works out for you. What part of the US are you going to ?
God knows.
Partition itself poses many problems, e.g. Assad will only remain useful to the Iranians for as long as he can maintain the supply lines to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and the Beka'a. That means he has to hang on to Damascus and Homs, which are dominated by Sunnis and surrounded by rebel-held areas.
The trouble with partition is that various groups will always feel a bit hard done by in thinking a particular enclave they believe should belong to them was given to the other side, especially in bigger cities with mixed demographics. That would make it nearly impossible to pull off.
That's if it was imposed from the outside. I think it's more likely that partition will inevitably result as a consequence of the fighting and associated ethnic cleansing, etc., like what happened in Europe during the two world wars. Even then, the partition won't be officially recognised by any side but will likely be one the de facto status quo. But there are still some huge battles ahead before the fate of some areas is decided.
If diplomatic negotiations fail, then this will likely happen.
Perhaps it's a good idea finishing your studies in Syria. At least colleges there are safer than in the US.
What about the Kurds? There are nervous individuals across the border, shitting it about Kurds becoming independent.
True, although at that point, and much like now, there would no longer be a country called Syria. It would have to be internationally reconfigured as several different states.
Watching which countries' media and governments react badly to Russian airstrikes is very telling of who supports who in Syria. Those strikes must have hit all the right places.
Their homeland has been longer overdue.
Yeah. It's about time those internationals quit that rubbish about the occupation of the Golan Heights too while they're at it.
Let's face it though, they're probably going to get fecked again here.
John McCain was the most honest about it - he claimed the strikes were hitting CIA-trained Islamists, hence the uproar from Washington.
Of course they will. So long as Turkey is an important NATO ally, their wishes will take precedence over the Kurds. However I expect Iraqi Kurdistan to become independent in the not too distant future, which should make things interesting for the implications it has on the Kurdish diaspora in the region.
Good luck with that.
Well you can understand the uproar when one side is training the FSA and the other side is bombing them.
Well if one side is training terrorists and the other is bombing them, then it sounds somewhat silly when the former party kicks up a fuss.
"They might be Islamist nutters but they're OUR Islamist nutters, which our dear tax payers have helped arm and train!"
That's a pretty disingenuous interpretation of things. Its entirely possible to take the moral position that both ISIS and Assad are bad, and that a moderate opposition to Assad should therefore be supported. The trouble with the latter is that one can't always control what happens to an opposition in a civil war in terms of defections, will to fight etc. But conceptually a position opposing ISIS and Assad is the morally correct one to take.
Are they worse than Al Qaeda/Al Nusra who are part of the moderate rebels?
There's your myth right there.
If you follow an sectarian Islamist doctrine and have often aligned yourself with extremist factions, then you cease to be a 'moderate' entity. There may be genuinely secular elements that have defected from the government, but they represent the smallest and least organised of the opposition forces.
Well that's the thing, you can't always control the will and means of a moderate opposition fighter. Some may well fight according to the aspirations you think and others may defect to other groups.