If only there was a Syrian based in Syria on this forum, @Danny1982, that we could speak to, amirite.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
It's hard to calculate percentages when we're talking about one person, or one family. I don't think even you can deny that many Syrians have changed their opinion about the whole conflict. How far did they go in changing their opinion? That differs from person to another, but I don't think even you can deny that a shift is taking place about how they view the situation in Syria.
I don't have anything to deny. Here's a statement off of people off the ground in Syria just from yesterday:
If you look at the streams and streams of videos coming out from the area, you'll see the same. This is the reality for the people. They will die fighting for what they believe in, and they all know that Assad is the monster, here.
Last edited:
People are not changing their position because of the pain they're getting from the regime, but because of the pain they're getting from the alternative. What about the people who were killed/punished/tortured/robbed/... by the "rebels" whatever their name is? I bet you don't chat with these people.
I posted this about a year ago here, when people where still debating which is worse, Assad or ISIS. After the attacks in Paris I don't think we'll have this debate anymore, but people are now arguing the same thing about the other similar groups (Al-Nusra, Ahrar Al-Sham, ...) who are the real forces in control of all other areas under "rebel control" in Syria. The same thing I said about ISIS a year ago applies to them, so may be it's worth repeating one more time.
----------
It seems that you're again bringing up comparisons between Assad and ISIS, something many are doing these days (comparisons with ISIS). No, ISIS is still much much worse than Assad imo.
For the Syrians, Assad is a dictator, and he does what dictators do whenever somebody is threatening to topple them, and he's mismanaging the economy of the country which makes the living conditions of most Syrians pretty bad.. With ISIS, you have that too, and most probably at a much worse level, but, if you were being put in prison with Assad for threatening the regime, then you could be in prison with ISIS for a thousand more reasons. You smoke? You could be in prison. You're a woman and you don't cover up completely? You go to prison. You're a foreigner, from another religion, from another sect, don't pray... you could be put in prison (or punished). Remember this kid?
Want another example? These men got 25 lashes in public because they didn't pray on Friday. And by the way, this isn't ISIS or even Al-Nusra, this is another group called Ahrar Al-Sham (which was considered by some as a 'moderate' group), so imagine what ISIS would be like.
And keep in mind, these are not "leaked videos", they are the ones publishing it. This is how they operate, publicly.
Under ISIS you're not only deprived the freedom of criticizing the government or electing a new one, you're deprived the freedom of pretty much everything that goes against (or doesn't go with) their extremist ideology. ISIS already murdered thousands of innocent people and those weren't even protesting against them. They're enslaving people and selling women in the markets. They're executing children, beheading people and cutting body parts publicly, with people watching... And they're not even hiding any of that, they actually publish it on the internet themselves. And remember, ISIS is only just started. How can you say that's the same as Assad?
That's for the Syrians. It's already becoming a long post, so I'll just mention quickly the two other factors that makes me think that ISIS is still much much worse than Assad..
The first is how dangerous it is for the world. Assad has been around for many many years, I don't think he brought a comparable danger to the world as the one ISIS already brought to the world a mere couple of months after establishing their "caliphate", and this should be clear without the need to elaborate on.
And the second is how easy it is to remove them. Dictators and regimes like Assad are much easier to remove than terrorist groups like ISIS. It's also much easier to negotiate with them. Assad already gave up his chemical weapons without a bullet shot by the US or its allies, now try to negotiate with ISIS so they give up their chemical weapons.. With terrorist organizations you simply do not have any control over the situation.
Dictators are bad, but in a region like the middle East you can't just topple dictators and then let the whole region descend into a big civil war and let terrorist organizations seize control over large swathes of land, and millions of people. Before toppling dictators in the region, you have to fight ISIS' ideology in the region first. You have to pressure the countries that are supporting their ideology (which incidentally happen to be your allies), so the region will be ready for the change. A change for the better. Otherwise you're just replacing a problem with a much, much bigger problem.
You removed Saddam in 3 weeks. 11 years later and Iraq is still a much bigger problem. You removed Qaddafi in a few weeks, and I don't think you're impressed about the results there either.
I know the US and Israel don't like Assad (I mean really don't like him), and I know he's a dictator, nobody is defending his actions here, but let's keep some perspective and let's stop spreading Al-Qaeda in the name of "toppling dictators", whether you're doing it knowingly, or unknowingly (although that is highly unlikely to be honest).
Who has killed more civilians? Assad's forces are using cluster munitions and barrel bombs in highly populated areas, used chemical weapons, indiscriminately massacred civilians, abducting and torturing civilians, besieging rebel-held areas while attacking them with artillery and mortars. Hell, he released the jihadists who would fight for ISIS and other Islamist groups from prison early on to taint the revolution to ensure that the problem is one of jihadists vs order rather than democracy vs dictatorship. How do you expect negotiations to go between the Assad regime and the opposition groups who've seen their families and neighborhoods destroyed by barrel bombs? They won't just put down their guns and go home and not just because their homes have been leveled.
From a variety of sources you'll no doubt dislike: http://www.ibtimes.com/syrias-civil...oup-or-isis-far-smaller-threat-bashar-1775238
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/14/world/middleeast/syria-war-deaths.html
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/28/assad-solution-not-he-attacks-civilians
Evidence of the abduction/torture of 6,786 individuals by the Assad regime: http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ng-to-kill-inside-syrias-death-machine-caesar
Assad is neither a viable nor acceptable alternative to ISIS.
From a variety of sources you'll no doubt dislike: http://www.ibtimes.com/syrias-civil...oup-or-isis-far-smaller-threat-bashar-1775238
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/14/world/middleeast/syria-war-deaths.html
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/28/assad-solution-not-he-attacks-civilians
Evidence of the abduction/torture of 6,786 individuals by the Assad regime: http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ng-to-kill-inside-syrias-death-machine-caesar
Assad is neither a viable nor acceptable alternative to ISIS.
Last edited:
??? What? What are you on about? They hate Assad and what he stands for and for what he's done. What pain from the alternative? How do you think people in Homs Damascus etc feel about him? You're argument does not stack up at all. It's the people not living in Syria, like yourself, that'll make excuse after excuse for Assad, the people actually living there know the root cause for all of their problems and it's Assad.
His position is untenable and he needs to go. The sooner the better.
This hits the nail on the head, and for some reason the posters in this thread not living in Syria don't quite get it.
You can't commit the level of crimes he has and say it's better than the alternative. That's just pure contrived bullshit. It's such a stupid circular argument. Have some sense FFS. IS are in sparsely populated countryside. They don't have barrel bombs, they don't do air strikes, they have no chemical weapons. Who's the real threat to the heavily populated cities in Western Syria? Who's the one that's been killing since 2011? It's not rocket science. And it annoys me because I'm just having to repeat myself post after post.
Of course we have to debate it. Most of what you say is heavily one-sided. For most countries in the world Assad is certainly the lesser of two evil, because he has a local agenda and doesn´t promote a global-jihadi ideology. He won´t try to plot attacks on foreign soil (well at least not in Europe, Russia or the USA, Israel might think differently). Yet in Syria he is a brutal butcher. @Sir Matt nailed it with his comment. His number about abduction and torture are actually misleading and much worse in reality. HRW came to the conclusion, that more than 100k people were abducted, tortured and at least over 10k of those people were killed since 2011. Add the amount of military carnage and you get numbers that probably dwarf anything that ISIS or any other rebel group have done.
Well again, that is a very one sided view, that buys into Assad´s propaganda. There is another side to this, even so it is pretty grim itself. Here is one example:
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/a-...pressive-justice-under-isis-by-omar-al-wardi/
I wouldn´t remove or topple anyone. It is not our business to do that and the wester track-record is shambolic, so I am all against stupid interventions. At the same time it is not our business to support Assad either. Neither militarily nor politically. This white-washing of him as “lesser of two evil” blablabla is a terrible mistakes. Call him what he is: A mass murderer. Someone who is happily butchering anyone who questions his rule. Let’s not forget that the whole mess started because he killed non-violent protesters. It didn´t start with him fighting ISIS. The sad reality is, that if he would regain control over Syria, he´d either kill hundreds of thousands of people or force them into exile. I am sorry, but that is unacceptable and the West would make a terrible mistake to support him in anyway. He´ll never be able to regain complete control over Syria and create stability. That ship has sailed and that is why Assad is as much of a problem as ISIS or al-Nusra.
One last clarification: I don´t want that western governments support ISIS or any other Islamic group. I am totally aware of their agenda. They´ll also butcher anyone who isn´t on their side. Let’s not fall back to the very twisted and ill-advised cold-war logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. That would be a terrible mistakes as well. The only group worth supporting are the Kurds. They are no angles themselves, but they have a legitimate agenda and their vision of a somewhat democratic, somewhat tolerant Kurdistan is more or less in line with our own values and interests.
Last edited:
very very interesting debate.
Great post.
@PedroMendez how is the Kurdish agenda legitimate whereas groups such as the FSA aren't? And if we push a Kurdish agenda, how does that deal with southern and western parts of Syria that don't fall into traditional Kurdistan? I agree with the majority of your post, but I don't get the logic behind placing that particular group above others with the reasons you gave.
Because they're secular and their sole goal isn't power or even regime change but to defend their territories, hence why Kurdish opposition fighters are called The People's protection units. The difference is pretty much all Syrians Kurds support the YPG but you can't say the same with Syrian Arabs and the FSA and their allies.
It's territorial, and I'm not disputing that, but I fail to see why that is more legitimate than (Greater) Syrian freedom. And what of the non-Kurdistan regions of Syria?
Why would Syrian Arabs support them if they're so far removed from their territory that it has no change on their (the Arabs) life? I'm all for greater Kurdish autonomy, but that conversation isn't going to end the conflict.
The Syrian Kurds aren't entirely interested in expansion and running the nation. There's a reason they're not going for cities like Raqqa which probably wouldn't welcome them. They want an autonomous haven in the north which is predominantly Kurdish, abit like the Zapatistas in Mexico or even their brothers in Northern Iraq. Their intentions are defensive, not regime change.
Any group of people should have the right to determine their own political future. At least that is my is my conviction.
The Kurds, besides all their internal disagreements have shown that desire for a long time. The Kurds are a nation without state. Additionally we know that their ideas about government are more or less compatible with our own modern understanding of inclusive democratic values. I don´t want them to expand into areas, where Kurds aren´t living and I doubt that they have any interest to do so.
There is not such thing as the FSA. There are hundreds of small militias, that are only unified by their hate for Assad. They don´t have a common idea about a nation or a unified future. The minute you take away Assad, all those different groups will turn against each other. At this point and time - as sad as this it - the only element that could unify them in the absence of a common enemy is radical version of Islam. That doesnt end well for anyone who isn´t in agreement with their doctrine.
I don´t have any solution for them and I don´t think that the West has any solution for them. Nation building failed. It is time to learn this lesson. We can´t force people to be tolerant, pluralistic and democratic. We can´t build up their economy and we can´t build institutions for them. They can do what ever they want on their territory, but I don´t think the west should get involved in that. I am against forcing the rule of Assad on them, but that is about it.
I don´t think that any of those groups (Assad, ISIS, FSA/Nusra/et al.) have the capability to conquer the whole country. Hopefully all sides realize that and agree to a ceasefire. Then they can start to talk about drawing de-facto boarders into the sand. Sadly I think that will take (a lot) more time, because both sides still think that they can conquer vital regions (e.g. around Aleppo).
Solid post.
Well the FSA were a part of the Syrian National Council, a larger governance group who are the opposition party for Syria, which was then integrated into the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces (!). They actually hold within them other opposition groups, such as the Assyrian Democratic Organization, the Muslim Brotherhood who created a specific charter for Syria, which I've snippeted below:
It goes on a bit but, but that's the gist of it. Now, this is the MB charter, which is one of many groups within the National Coalition which is legitimate opposition. The bit I'm racking my brains about the most is why people still support Assad or some international body, in the face of legitimate and pluralistic opposition, which is based on equal rights, which is inclusive, and fairly represents the different minorities in Syria. You mentioned in your post above that the group of people should be able to determine their future etc and believe me, there is a large group of people who fall into the moderate opposition camp, but their voices aren't heard due to the likes of Assad and IS which obviously sells more papers, and rings more alarm bells. The above MB charter isn't me necessarily saying that this is what to go for, but there are opposition groups out there who are built on sound ideals.
Here's what the SNC wanted for Syria:
In terms of legitimate causes and opposition (like you mentioned for the Kurds earlier), there is a legitimate opposition with a clear mantra and directive on Syrian governance. In fact, they are so pluralistic their vice presidents include a Kurdish representative, a secular feminist, and a pro-democracy Syrian Arab. The Kurdish National Council are a part of the larger organisation (I think they are at odds with other Kurdish groups though, not sure). Here's a list of countries that recognise the National Coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people (I ripped this from Wiki Edit: taken out due to post length). So, we even have international legitimacy and the creation of embassies for this governance. I suppose my overall point is that this idea of nation carving irks me. Creating smaller countries will only lead to many more problems and I am vehemently opposed to it. It will not create a better long term solution. If we splinter off different groups, there will be a prolonged economic attrition, and this will be the group given their own state who were otherwise protected in the larger Syrian economy. This will then lead to more failed states. For example, Yemen was the poorest out of the Gulf countries, and subsequently, the one most prone to warfare. It's the way it goes. Countries aren't only crippled by bombs these days, but by their economy.
On top of that, supporting Assad (I know you're not, but others in this thread are), is the worst solution, as this is a cnut that has caused crime after crime against his own fricking people. How anyone can want him to stay on is beyond fecking belief. The Syrian people want him gone, and I can guarantee with his removal it will begin the process for removing IS.
Last edited:
I get that - it's just the bit where PedroM mentioned a legitimate agenda that didn't sit right with me, which I've addressed above. I'm all for autonomy for Kurdish people and fair representation, but I wouldn't advocate a separate Kurdish nation state (and I'd say the same if the roles were reversed and it was Turks wanting a separate nation state within Kurdistan, before you slay me)! I hate nationalism.
Why would you advocate a Palestinian state but not a Kurdish one?
Because the Palestinians are living in ghetto prisons, with no human rights, with no chance of success or survival. A Palestinian state would give them basic human rights, which they don't have currently, a justifiable cause / reason. It's in no way the same as Kurds in the countries they're in.
Kurds number 30million, have their own unique culture, language and history but no nation to call their own. And the diaspora have suffered immeasurably in their host nations, trust me I'm old enough to remember Saddam's brutality against us and my parents were unfortunate enough to have lived through the Anfal campaign where the Kurds were gassed like cattle or sent to concentration camps. As we speak Turkish soldiers are currently terrorising Kurds and raiding their homes in Southeastern Turkey, where dozens have been killed this week. And that's not even going into the numerous massacres the Turks have committed against them, none of which are picked up on by the media. In Iran and Syria they're pretty much treated as second class citizens too. So there's plenty of reasons which justify a Kurdish state - autonomy, dignity and human rights, i.e the very same reasons one would support Palestinian statehood.
I don't think you can claim to support a Palestinian state and not a Kurdish one or vice versa.
Of course the Kurds should have thier own country. Iraq itself is an artifical country created by the Western powers.
Pretty much every Middle Eastern country is. Still a disgrace how the Brits forgot the Kurds when they arbitrarily carved up the Middle East.
The two situations are in no way equatable, and I'm not denying anything you're saying either, there have been heinous crimes committed against Kurdish people...but a Kurdish person does have basic human rights, and rights to work, travel, build, and succeed (specifically in Turkey and in Syria). Something that simply isn't there for a Palestinian. I mean, they literally have no hope. And I don't want you to take this as a dislike for Kurdistan, call Turkey 'Turk-Kurdistan' or Syria 'Kurd-Sham' for all I care, I just don't think we can collectively progress through secession, and it creates more problems than it solves. Perhaps what I can say that if establishing a Kurdistan helps stabilise the greater region, then I'd advocate it. But I personally don't think it will.
Obviously, I oppose all instances of minority persecution whether it's in Turkey, Syria, or Iraq. But I hate nationalism. I'm ethnically Pakistani, but 60+ years ago, there was no such thing. It's arbitrary borders. I'm no different to an Indian, but colonial powers came to try and put us in these separate boxes, and for what? My family had to leave their whole life behind in Jalandhar. My great uncle's family were butchered in front of him by Hindu nationalists, he's the only one that managed to escape and we were his only family, so you're preaching to the choir here. These same people were neighbours before and now they're tearing each others throats out.
The whole region is.
I think his one can only be blamed on Ataturk, that fiercely nationalistic douche. He vetoed the Treaty of Sevres, which had promised a separate Kurdistan.
I think you're still overestimating the freedoms Kurds have in their respective nations. In Turkey for starters they face systemic discrimination, arrests without trial, empty accusations of terrorism and vandalism of their property. Sound familiar to you? And that's just the non-violent stuff, just have a quick google as to what's happening in Southeast Turkey now and you'll see the everyday reality of being a Turkish Kurd. And the Turkish Kurds ironically enough have had it better than their Iraqi and Syrian counterparts in recent decades, with the latter two suffering horrendously under Saddam and Assad senior.
With all due respect its easy to say nationalism is bad and it creates more problems than it solves, but this isn't the foundation of Pakistan. Kurds are not Arabs, nor are they Turks or Iranians, and these groups will never accept them as their own so the only hand they're dealt is to suck up their second class status or to push for autonomy and an overdue state which would protect them and guarantee them the very rights ordinary citizens take for granted.
On the kurds subject I'll have to disagree with @LeChuck , most of the Kurds don't even have a syrian id card even and they don't nearly have as many rights as those of Arab Syrians even considering the fact that we don't have many rights as it is, I think they should be allowed to take part of the country and make it their own.
Also on the same subject you might want to check what Assad did to Kurds on 2004 so they suffered from him just as much as other parties did.
The SNC already withdraw from the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces. There are plenty of different rivaling bodies that all claim to represent the opposition and the only thing that they have in common is, that they hold very little power. Most of them don´t control a single fighter and most of them are sponsored by foreign countries to advance their agenda.
The Syrian National Council can´t speak for what you call the FSA. The FSA had a prolonged disagreement with them and again, the FSA simply doesn´t exist as unified army. They exist as an umbrella organization for several smaller and diverse groups who have little in common besides their opposition to Assad. Nowadays they are only successful when they cooperate with other group. All those pledges to diversity (many of those are lies anyway) wouldn´t mean anything because the Islamist faction is far more powerful on the ground. Al-Nusra, Ahrar or Jaysh al-Islam would wipe the floor with any “internal” opposition when push comes to shove. They´d slaughter or oust every single person, who doesn´t believe in their ideology.
I also think that you slightly misread my comment about “legitimate agenda”. The non-kurdish opposition groups simply don´t have any unity in their ranks. They don´t have a political body that can speak for them. There are several different armies in the region, who all answer to different people with different agendas. They don´t have a unifying ideology or culture and they don´t have a commonly shared idea about how to live. The only thing that could “unite” them (by force) would be Jaish al-Fatah slaughtering anyone who disagrees with them.
So I don´t think those people are less valuable than Kurds (or any other human being). I just don´t think that western politicians could support them in any productive way. Any kind of support regardless of intentions and means would back-fire in one way or the other. Give them weapons? Well America tried that over and over again and most of those weapons ended up in the hands of other radical factions. Train some of their soldiers? Again, the USA tried that and we all know how this ended. Give them money or political support? Well, almost all the regional powers are doing that with little effect, but the escalation of the conflict. It is time to learn the lesson that “we” seem to be awfully unable to help. The only thing that we should have done (it is now a bit too late with Putin involved) is to stop other countries to pour in more weapons/money/manpower/support.
Its hardly been a resounding success has it - not that I have a better solution but yeah that definition of madness quote springs to mind
To be honest I was planning on spending more time to reply to you, I'll still reply, but this link you posted made me question if we're ever gonna have a real debate. You really believe this (bullsh*t), and you have the nerve to accuse me of buying to "Assad's propaganda"??
What's next? Quoting Baghdadi or linking me to Dabiq's website? Come on.
And by the way, "Assad's propaganda", did you miss the part where I more than once pointed out to the fact that this is how they operate publicly, and that everything I said and posted about them was actually directly coming from them and their own propaganda? No you didn't miss it, I'm convinced you're deliberately trying to muddy the waters here. "Assad's propaganda" vs "another opinion" my a**.
If ISIS is so great why don't we see any videos or documentaries coming from there? Oh wait, there have been some videos that were secretly filmed, and they're all horrible. Two days ago Yazidi girl told her story in front of the security council for feck sake and you're posting that bullsh*t here? Did you listen to her?
Besides, if "law is necessary and ISIS are only using violence to maintain law and order", then why is Assad such a bad guy then? He's merely doing the same.
Anyway, I'll quickly point out the major flaws in your empty posts (I'll explain shortly why I think they're empty).
- You got it terribly wrong when you compare the numbers of victims, for the following reasons:
1- You're only counting ISIS' victims in Syria. However what you should be counting is the victims of that ideology, so all groups carrying that ideology, and not only in Syria but everywhere. Tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed by carbombs in Iraq since 2003, why don't you count these? Thousands killed in Pakistan, Lebanon, Nigeria, 9/11, 7/7, the Paris attacks, the Russian plane... All of those were done by the same enemy, by the same group of people, and if you let them win anywhere, they'll continue their massacres everywhere. Counting in Syria only for ISIS shows that you still don't understand the conflict and the dimensions of the conflict. So in reality, those Saudi backed Wahhabis have already killed far more civilians than Assad.
2- The regime has more weapons and more destructive weapons, give ISIS or Al-Nusra or Ahrar Al-Sham barrel bombs or jets and you'll see how much they will kill.
3- Even the numbers you use are far from accurate. Who is really documenting what ISIS or the other groups are doing? Can you even get there? Until a year ago you were even denying that there are terrorists in Syria, and look how stupid that claim looks now. The Western propaganda is understandably only interested in counting Assad's victims (and they'd happily lie to add to the number, we all saw how they shamelessly lied about the attack on the hospital in Sarmin for example), yet when it happens to be somebody else they don't care, don't count, or just hide it. How can you claim after that that you can compare the numbers? Based on what sources?
4- The real reason for the large number of victims in Syria compared to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, ...etc is because the West and their allies kept pouring weapons into Syria. Isn't Erdogan already using tanks against the Kurds with thousands dead already? Imagine if we give them advanced weapons and pour in tens of thousands of foreign fighters, how do you think the picture in Turkey will look like? There is nothing different about the way Assad is handling the situation to any other ruler of your allies. You're just pouring fuel on the fire in Syria to keep it burning. Also, should I remind you how many Iraqi civilians died after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?? Should I show you some stories from Abu-Ghraib again? Did you also say at the time the US and Al-Qaeda are equally bad?
The rest of these posts are basically clutching at straws..
"He released some extremists after the protests", well first of all wasn't that one of the demands of the protests that had to be met? And second, a lot of the prominent leaders of groups with Al-Qaeda ideology have been released from US prisons, so? When people say the US is deliberately spreading terrorism to taint Islam's picture (and there is a lot that goes with that theory) you just call them conspiracy theorists, yet you make the same theory based on even much less evidence.
"How do you expect negotiations to go between the Assad regime and the opposition groups". Everybody will negotiate, even Assad himself. In fact there has already been many negotiations between rebel groups and Assad and some led to very positive deals, the latest of which was in Al-Waer in Homs which saw 2000 fighters choosing to return to their homes instead of going somewhere else to fight (700 took the other option and were transferred to Idlib). In fact, right now, Saudi Arabia and the US are more interested in the 'rebels' refusing to negotiate than many rebels themselves, and that was one of the reasons Saudi Arabia invited the 'rebel' groups to that joke of a conference. Number 1 priority was "No negotiations!".
"Assad is neither a viable nor acceptable alternative to ISIS.". Assad hasn't done as much as what Saddam did in 1991. In fact, I hope he doesn't get accepted like Saddam was accepted after 1991. So quit the "neither a viable nor acceptable" bs.
And the rest of these posts are just empty and pointless statements. "ISIS is bad, and Assad is equally bad (or actually worse!), the West is also bad and shambolic, I don't want intervention, I don't want to topple anybody, everybody is bad, life sucks." And then? What should we do? What should be the plan? You seem to be more interested in giving an "emotional speech" than an actual solution to the mess we have in Syria.
We all know things are fecking horrible right now in Syria, however imo it would be 10x more horrible if Assad was removed before ISIS and the other terrorist organisations are dealt with. I stood by this position from the beginning and I have no problem quoting myself from a year, two years or three years ago, because I always had the same clear position, and imo, this has now become fairly obvious for everybody, apart from those with certain agendas, or people who are just clutching at straws right now to try and justify their positions from 2 years ago.
The UN resolution adopted today by the security council regarding Syria:
Resolution 2254 (2015)
The Security Council,
PP1. Recalling its resolutions 2042 (2012), 2043 (2012), 2118 (2013), 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2170 (2014), 2175 (2014), 2178 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2199 (2015), 2235 (2015), and 2249 (2015) and Presidential Statements of 3 August 2011 (S/PRST/2011/16), 21 March 2012 (S/PRST/2012/6), 5 April 2012 (S/PRST/2012/10), 2 October 2013 (S/PRST/2013/15), 24 April 2015 (S/PRST/2015/10) and 17 August 2015 (S/PRST/2015/15),
PP2. Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
PP3. Expressing its gravest concern at the continued suffering of the Syrian people, the dire and deteriorating humanitarian situation, the ongoing conflict and its persistent and brutal violence, the negative impact of terrorism and violent extremist ideology in support of terrorism, the destabilizing effect of the crisis on the region and beyond, including the resulting increase in terrorists drawn to the fighting in Syria, the physical destruction in the country, and increasing sectarianism, and underscoring that the situation will continue to deteriorate in the absence of a political solution,
PP4. Recalling its demand that all parties take all appropriate steps to protect civilians, including members of ethnic, religious and confessional communities, and stresses that, in this regard, the primary responsibility to protect its population lies with the Syrian authorities,
PP5. Reiterating that the only sustainable solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, with a view to full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 as endorsed by resolution 2118 (2013), including through the establishment of an inclusive transitional governing body with full executive powers, which shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent while ensuring continuity of governmental institutions,
PP6. Encouraging, in this regard, the diplomatic efforts of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) to help bring an end to the conflict in Syria,
PP7. Commending the commitment of the ISSG, as set forth in the Joint Statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the Statement of the ISSG of 14 November 2015 (hereinafter the “Vienna Statements”), to ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communiqué in its entirety, and emphasizing the urgency for all parties in Syria to work diligently and constructively towards this goal,
PP8. Urging all parties to the UN-facilitated political process to adhere to the principles identified by the ISSG, including commitments to Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character, to ensuring continuity of governmental institutions, to protecting the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination, and to ensuring humanitarian access throughout the country,
PP9. Encouraging the meaningful participation of women in the UN-facilitated political process for Syria,
PP10. Bearing in mind the goal to bring together the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition, chosen by Syrians, who will decide their negotiation representatives and define their negotiation positions so as to enable the political process to begin, taking note of the meetings in Moscow and Cairo and other initiatives to this end, and noting in particular the usefulness of the meeting in Riyadh on 9-11 December 2015, whose outcomes contribute to the preparation of negotiations under UN auspices on a political settlement of the conflict, in accordance with the Geneva Communique and the “Vienna Statements”, and looking forward to the Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Syria finalizing efforts to this end,
... continued.
Resolution 2254 (2015)
The Security Council,
PP1. Recalling its resolutions 2042 (2012), 2043 (2012), 2118 (2013), 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2170 (2014), 2175 (2014), 2178 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2199 (2015), 2235 (2015), and 2249 (2015) and Presidential Statements of 3 August 2011 (S/PRST/2011/16), 21 March 2012 (S/PRST/2012/6), 5 April 2012 (S/PRST/2012/10), 2 October 2013 (S/PRST/2013/15), 24 April 2015 (S/PRST/2015/10) and 17 August 2015 (S/PRST/2015/15),
PP2. Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
PP3. Expressing its gravest concern at the continued suffering of the Syrian people, the dire and deteriorating humanitarian situation, the ongoing conflict and its persistent and brutal violence, the negative impact of terrorism and violent extremist ideology in support of terrorism, the destabilizing effect of the crisis on the region and beyond, including the resulting increase in terrorists drawn to the fighting in Syria, the physical destruction in the country, and increasing sectarianism, and underscoring that the situation will continue to deteriorate in the absence of a political solution,
PP4. Recalling its demand that all parties take all appropriate steps to protect civilians, including members of ethnic, religious and confessional communities, and stresses that, in this regard, the primary responsibility to protect its population lies with the Syrian authorities,
PP5. Reiterating that the only sustainable solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, with a view to full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 as endorsed by resolution 2118 (2013), including through the establishment of an inclusive transitional governing body with full executive powers, which shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent while ensuring continuity of governmental institutions,
PP6. Encouraging, in this regard, the diplomatic efforts of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) to help bring an end to the conflict in Syria,
PP7. Commending the commitment of the ISSG, as set forth in the Joint Statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the Statement of the ISSG of 14 November 2015 (hereinafter the “Vienna Statements”), to ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communiqué in its entirety, and emphasizing the urgency for all parties in Syria to work diligently and constructively towards this goal,
PP8. Urging all parties to the UN-facilitated political process to adhere to the principles identified by the ISSG, including commitments to Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character, to ensuring continuity of governmental institutions, to protecting the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination, and to ensuring humanitarian access throughout the country,
PP9. Encouraging the meaningful participation of women in the UN-facilitated political process for Syria,
PP10. Bearing in mind the goal to bring together the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition, chosen by Syrians, who will decide their negotiation representatives and define their negotiation positions so as to enable the political process to begin, taking note of the meetings in Moscow and Cairo and other initiatives to this end, and noting in particular the usefulness of the meeting in Riyadh on 9-11 December 2015, whose outcomes contribute to the preparation of negotiations under UN auspices on a political settlement of the conflict, in accordance with the Geneva Communique and the “Vienna Statements”, and looking forward to the Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Syria finalizing efforts to this end,
... continued.
OP1. Reconfirms its endorsement of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, endorses the “Vienna Statements” in pursuit of the full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué, as the basis for a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition in order to end the conflict in Syria, and stresses that the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria;
OP2. Requests the Secretary-General, through his good offices and the efforts of his Special Envoy for Syria, to convene representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition to engage in formal negotiations on a political transition process on an urgent basis, with a target of early January 2016 for the initiation of talks, pursuant to the Geneva Communiqué, consistent with the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement, with a view to a lasting political settlement of the crisis;
OP3. Acknowledges the role of the ISSG as the central platform to facilitate the United Nations’ efforts to achieve a lasting political settlement in Syria;
OP4. Expresses its support, in this regard, for a Syrian-led political process that is facilitated by the United Nations and, within a target of six months, establishes credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance and sets a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution, and further expresses its support for free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution, to be held within 18 months and administered under supervision of the United Nations, to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including members of the diaspora, eligible to participate, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement;
OP5. Acknowledges the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process, pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communiqué, and that both initiatives should move ahead expeditiously, and in this regard expresses its support for a nationwide ceasefire in Syria, which the ISSG has committed to support and assist in implementing, to come into effect as soon as the representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition have begun initial steps towards a political transition under UN auspices, on the basis of the Geneva Communiqué, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement, and to do so on an urgent basis;
OP6. Requests the Secretary-General to lead the effort, through the office of his Special Envoy and in consultation with relevant parties, to determine the modalities and requirements of a ceasefire as well as continue planning for the support of ceasefire implementation, and urges Member States, in particular members of the ISSG, to support and accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to agree and adhere to such a ceasefire;
OP7. Emphasizes the need for a ceasefire monitoring, verification and reporting mechanism, requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on options for such a mechanism that it can support, as soon as possible and no later than one month after the adoption of this resolution, and encourages Member States, including members of the Security Council, to provide assistance, including through expertise and in-kind contributions, to support such a mechanism;
OP8. Reiterates its call in resolution 2249 (2015) for Member States to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the ISSG and determined by the Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the ISSG of 14 November 2015, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria, and notes that the aforementioned ceasefire will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement;
OP9. Welcomes the effort of the government of Jordan to help develop a common understanding within the ISSG of individuals and groups for possible determination as terrorists and will consider expeditiously the recommendation of the ISSG for the purpose of determining terrorist groups;
OP10. Emphasizes the need for all parties in Syria to take confidence building measures to contribute to the viability of a political process and a lasting ceasefire, and calls on all states to use their influence with the government of Syria and the Syrian opposition to advance the peace process, confidence building measures and steps towards a ceasefire;
OP11. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council, as soon as possible and no later than one month after the adoption of this resolution, on options for further confidence building measures;
OP12. Calls on the parties to immediately allow humanitarian agencies rapid, safe and unhindered access throughout Syria by most direct routes, allow immediate, humanitarian assistance to reach all people in need, in particular in all besieged and hard-to-reach areas, release any arbitrarily detained persons, particularly women and children, calls on ISSG states to use their influence immediately to these ends, and demands the full implementation of resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014) and any other applicable resolutions;
OP13. Demands that all parties immediately cease any attacks against civilians and civilian objects as such, including attacks against medical facilities and personnel, and any indiscriminate use of weapons, including through shelling and aerial bombardment, welcomes the commitment by the ISSG to press the parties in this regard, and further demands that all parties immediately comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law as applicable;
OP14. Underscores the critical need to build conditions for the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their home areas and the re-habilitation of affected areas, in accordance with international law, including applicable provisions of the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and taking into account the interests of those countries hosting refugees, and urges Member States to provide assistance in this regard, and looks forward to the London Conference on Syria in February 2016, hosted by the United Kingdom, Germany, Kuwait, Norway and the United Nations, as an important contribution to this endeavor, and further expresses its support to the post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation of Syria;
OP15. Requests that the Secretary-General report back to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution, including on progress of the UN-facilitated political process, within 60 days;
OP16. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.
OP2. Requests the Secretary-General, through his good offices and the efforts of his Special Envoy for Syria, to convene representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition to engage in formal negotiations on a political transition process on an urgent basis, with a target of early January 2016 for the initiation of talks, pursuant to the Geneva Communiqué, consistent with the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement, with a view to a lasting political settlement of the crisis;
OP3. Acknowledges the role of the ISSG as the central platform to facilitate the United Nations’ efforts to achieve a lasting political settlement in Syria;
OP4. Expresses its support, in this regard, for a Syrian-led political process that is facilitated by the United Nations and, within a target of six months, establishes credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance and sets a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution, and further expresses its support for free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution, to be held within 18 months and administered under supervision of the United Nations, to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including members of the diaspora, eligible to participate, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement;
OP5. Acknowledges the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process, pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communiqué, and that both initiatives should move ahead expeditiously, and in this regard expresses its support for a nationwide ceasefire in Syria, which the ISSG has committed to support and assist in implementing, to come into effect as soon as the representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition have begun initial steps towards a political transition under UN auspices, on the basis of the Geneva Communiqué, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement, and to do so on an urgent basis;
OP6. Requests the Secretary-General to lead the effort, through the office of his Special Envoy and in consultation with relevant parties, to determine the modalities and requirements of a ceasefire as well as continue planning for the support of ceasefire implementation, and urges Member States, in particular members of the ISSG, to support and accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to agree and adhere to such a ceasefire;
OP7. Emphasizes the need for a ceasefire monitoring, verification and reporting mechanism, requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on options for such a mechanism that it can support, as soon as possible and no later than one month after the adoption of this resolution, and encourages Member States, including members of the Security Council, to provide assistance, including through expertise and in-kind contributions, to support such a mechanism;
OP8. Reiterates its call in resolution 2249 (2015) for Member States to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the ISSG and determined by the Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the ISSG of 14 November 2015, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria, and notes that the aforementioned ceasefire will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement;
OP9. Welcomes the effort of the government of Jordan to help develop a common understanding within the ISSG of individuals and groups for possible determination as terrorists and will consider expeditiously the recommendation of the ISSG for the purpose of determining terrorist groups;
OP10. Emphasizes the need for all parties in Syria to take confidence building measures to contribute to the viability of a political process and a lasting ceasefire, and calls on all states to use their influence with the government of Syria and the Syrian opposition to advance the peace process, confidence building measures and steps towards a ceasefire;
OP11. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council, as soon as possible and no later than one month after the adoption of this resolution, on options for further confidence building measures;
OP12. Calls on the parties to immediately allow humanitarian agencies rapid, safe and unhindered access throughout Syria by most direct routes, allow immediate, humanitarian assistance to reach all people in need, in particular in all besieged and hard-to-reach areas, release any arbitrarily detained persons, particularly women and children, calls on ISSG states to use their influence immediately to these ends, and demands the full implementation of resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014) and any other applicable resolutions;
OP13. Demands that all parties immediately cease any attacks against civilians and civilian objects as such, including attacks against medical facilities and personnel, and any indiscriminate use of weapons, including through shelling and aerial bombardment, welcomes the commitment by the ISSG to press the parties in this regard, and further demands that all parties immediately comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law as applicable;
OP14. Underscores the critical need to build conditions for the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their home areas and the re-habilitation of affected areas, in accordance with international law, including applicable provisions of the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and taking into account the interests of those countries hosting refugees, and urges Member States to provide assistance in this regard, and looks forward to the London Conference on Syria in February 2016, hosted by the United Kingdom, Germany, Kuwait, Norway and the United Nations, as an important contribution to this endeavor, and further expresses its support to the post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation of Syria;
OP15. Requests that the Secretary-General report back to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution, including on progress of the UN-facilitated political process, within 60 days;
OP16. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.
What do you make of the Kurds semi-alliance with the regime now in Syria? Here is more about how they look at the situation..
Syria civil war: Kurdish leader says collapse of Assad regime 'would be a disaster' despite its treatment of his people
Saleh Muslim tells Patrick Cockburn he is no supporter of President Bashar al-Assad, but is fearful of the dangers Islamist groups close to Damascus pose
The overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad by Isis and rebel groups that are affiliated to al-Qaeda would be a calamity for the world, says the Syrian Kurdish leader Saleh Muslim.
In an interview with The Independent he warned that “if the regime collapses because of the salafis [fundamentalist Islamic militants] it would be a disaster for everyone.”
Mr Muslim said he was fully in favour of Mr Assad and his government being replaced by a more acceptable alternative. But he is concerned that Isis and other extreme Islamist groups are now close to Damascus on several sides, saying that “this is dangerous”. During a recent Isis offensive in the north eastern city of Hasaka, the Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units) militia and the Syrian Army both came under attack from Isis, but Mr Muslim denied that there was any collaboration between the two.
The Syrian Kurds, previously marginalised and discriminated against by the Damascus government, have become crucial players in the country’s civil war over the last year. In January, they defeated Isis at Kobani with the aid of US airstrikes after a four-and-a-half month siege and their forces are still advancing. While Mr Muslim said that he wants an end to rule by Mr Assad, he makes clear that he considers Isis to be the main enemy.
“Our main goal is the defeat of Daesh [Isis],” he said. “We would not feel safe in our home so long as there is one Daesh [Isis] left alive.” The threat did not come from them alone, he said, but also from al-Qaeda clones such as Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. “They all have the same mentality.”
...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...would-be-a-disaster-despite-its-10515922.html
Apparently another Iraqi offensive against Ramadi is starting soon. The gov is telling the residents to leave the city in the next 72 hours.
On the SNC - yea they have, but I just wanted to draw your attention to their plans for Syria, and their stance because I thought that people either think it's Assad or Jihadi-land, which it isn't. Even so, some of the guys on the board for the SNC decided to stay on as part of the Nat. Coalition, so there is a sinificant 'feel' of the SNC remaining including their policies, and in their membership and representatives, it's heavily weighted with SNC members. So, even though they 'withdrew', they basically haven't totally withdrawn and just want to hold onto some of their own autonomy. Out of 60+ members, 40+ are SNC affiliates. Now, the FSA are also represented within the Nat. Coal. I'm not saying it's their armed wing or anything, but they are represented and they were the first rebel group to be represented. I suppose what I'm trying to say here is that they are a viable alternative and pluralistic entity that can replace the Syrian gov't.
To your bits on Al Nusra, Ahrar - have you been copying 2cents? I had a similar discussion with him a while back. To date, there have been minor struggles for power with the FSA, with minimal casualties, but they are a lot more closely aligned than you think. Most of the fighters joining the ranks of Jaysh, al Nusra etc are ex FSA. The only reason they left the FSA is they were given better wages and benefits from joining. It's the reason why the FSA's numbers began to dwindle as the funding began to lessen, and they couldn't pay their soldiers. There's interviews online of ex-FSA guys saying the reason they joined was to be paid more. The issue with this conflict is that there are now so many different groups involved, some of which hate each other, some don't, some hate the friends of the other etc. and this confuses a simple issue. And the simple issue is that the Syrian people, who are in the middle of this mess don't want Assad.
Autonomy and representation in government - I'm 100% in. I've never said otherwise to that. A separate nation state isn't an idea I can get behind. Tbh, the reason they're currently like this is due to Arab / Turk nationalism. My own stance would be to give them their own emirate / principality rather than secession. I think this is the only viable solution for Syria myself. Each principality is given autonomy over themselves, but their is one centralised government in which all principalities are represented, and their allegiance should be to this centralised government (which subsequently serves them). Closing off and further division is only going to cause more problems than solve it.
So you could have a Kurdistan principality that falls under greater Syria. For those that are conservative, they could have their own principality, much like Sharjah in the UAE etc.
Sharjah isn't that conservative. They don't have bottle shops but non-muslims can drink at home and at the Wanderers Club for example. The UAE works mainly because there is so much cash floating about and the smaller emirates know where the real power lies (Dubai and Abu Dhabi). I'm not convinced that this model would work in Syria which is essentially a civil war.
Last edited: