Better for who? You? Me? Westerners? The Syrian people?
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Yes, Westerners.
Democracy has always been achieved and maintained mainly by the will and actions of people living under it. It requires the force of a committed populace to survive. Committed to the system of government itself, not to simple tribalism.
40 years of strongman and his Dad are precisely what started the absolute chaos.
Yes - and a strongman may be better for Westerners, but it definitely isn't what is needed for the Syrian people, or the ME region, either.
Indeed. There are six million Syrian refugees in the adjacent countries alone, maybe one and a half million men of fighting age, who could be clamouring to be trained and equipped as an unstoppable fighting force for democracy. Except they don't want it, or at least not enough to fight for it.
A bizarre post.
Who's the Republican here? I want us out of any war (I have a 18 year old son
) and you want us to be involved.
Who's the Republican here? I want us out of any war (I have a 18 year old son
Not particularly. I'm making the point that Assad is not viable because there will always be an armed opposition that will seek to get rid of him, which will doom Syria to endless cycles of violence.
We should let Israel take care the problem, I heard they are good dealing with troublemakers.
Everyone. I didn't specify a maniacal authoritarian; but the alternative is chaos and violence if the citizens aren't committed to the process.
Afghanistan is one of the most corrupt countries on earth. Iraq exists in name only. Libya is a powder keg. As is Egypt after their whiffed attempt at democracy.
Democracy is good in principal but you have to take each situation on its own merits. The idea of jumping straight from a totalitarian regime to a peaceful liberal democracy in a tribal land is naive and dangerous.
The Arab Spring/disbanding the Iraqi Army/letting Malarki have the run of the place whilst marginalizing Sunnis/deposing Saddam also contributed...
Last edited:
In all those examples you gave, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the transgression was brought from outside forces, and the revolution wasn't organic to the people. I know there were protests in Libya, but it wasn't to the same scale of what we're seeing in Syria, and comparing Gaddaffi to Assad...well that's a different debate. The situation in Syria is an organic revolution where the people want change, and pluralistic governance. This is after 40 years of power being held within one family. A strongman (in this case Assad) remaining there is (being the root cause of all the bloodshed and mayhem we've seen) is absolutely the wrong answer. The solution starts with the removal of Assad.
And Egypt will be heading down this path soon enough. Sisi has basically murdered / imprisoned any rival that he didn't want. It's as Assad-like as you can get.
That's not a complete study. First of all they're interviewing refugees - not the Syrian people as a whole. And out of those refugees surveyed (which totalled a whooping 889), almost all of them were young men. They weren't even asked what their sect was either, and yet somehow they managed to spurge out dozens of graphs for it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-to-assad-regime-for-protection-from-jihadis/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-syrians-support-bashar-al-assad/5405208
Now of course I'm not suggesting he's universally liked or even mostly liked, but making a generalisation that all Syrians hate him is simply a wrong one. Yes most Syrians may not hold a favourable opinion of him in secret, but that's not to mean everyone wants regime change and to hand over power to Islamist factions.
Hezbollah were invited by the Syrian government whereas every Islamist from Chechnya to Mali were given weapons and thrown into Syria by foreign Arab powers and US sponsors. Its a proxy civil war but the difference is that one faction were invited by the sovereign government, whereas others were mostly mercenaries paid off by neighbouring states. Another difference is Hezbollah don't want to force their religious ideals on the people there (just as they haven't in Lebanon), but their enemy combatants from Al Nusra, Ahrar and even the FSA would often give their 'liberated' subjects the choice of Sunni conversion or the sword, if they're lucky.
I actually chose that because it's the most recent (Oct 15), and therefore it's the most credible source we can use at the moment.
Jan 2012, when the Syrian situation was 9 months old. This line is especially telling: "Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a spectre that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders."
You can't use this as a barometer because it's so out of date. If they had taken the same survey post Assad-led mayhem, what would they have said?
Its not a credible source if its only interviewing a small number of mostly male refugees living in Germany. It might be credible for portraying their opinions, but not the Syrian people (including those actually living in Syria) as a whole.
LeChuck sounds like a Saudi propaganda outfit.
It is still the most credible thing we have though. And I don't see why 889 Syrian refugees views should be disregarded...just because they're refugees and living in Germany. I don't get what your point is here. It may be small in number but it's still more than either one of us can say.
You're in the wrong thread. And also, you just end up copying, literally, word for word some of 2cents old posts. At least make an attempt to change the text.LeChuck sounds like a Saudi propaganda outfit.
I'm not disregarding their opinions or anyone's opinion for that matter, but rather I reject the notion that their views represent the 20-25million+ Syrians in the world, most of whom are still living in Syria.
Granted - but in the absence of a national consensus, we have to use this to make our inferences, and the inference I can make with some credibility is that Assad is root cause of their difficulty, not Wahhabism, or anyone else. But Assad. Now, if we corroborate that with s_scholes on this board, who is still live there, we can safely assume on what the first step should be to resolve that conflict, and that is the removal of Assad.
All this excuse making by yourself and Danny for Assad are just excuses. I mean, if traditional Kurdish regions was bordering pro-govt areas (W. Syria), and Assad still conducted the actions he has done, how would you feel? I doubt you'd still feel the same way. At least we can assert that your view point is based on Kurds being in conflict with IS, but that shouldn't stop you from calling Assad out as the monster he is.
I'm glad you bring up the Kurds actually, since they're in effective truce with the regime in the West where they are in fact bordering pro-government areas of Qamishli and Hasaqah, where both sides have respected the truce so far. I haven't forgotten the treatment the Kurds have been historically subjected to under Assad and his father, but looking ahead I'd very much rather have a secular Syria at the hands of the regime as a neighbour then I would a rag tag bunch of Islamists backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Its bad enough we have an Islamist government in Turkey that murders, oppresses and subjects us to humiliation every day, the last thing we want is a proxy of theirs by our doorstep. I'd like to think the Arab Christians and other minorities in the region would echo those views.
Hang on a minute, the US is propping up the Iraqi Government too and you seem to be OK with that, the Saudis were asked into the Yemen by Yemen's govt which apparently makes it legitimate to intervene when Russia or Hezbollah does it in Syria. Iran is arming that insurgency which you say is wrong when Saudi Arabia does this in Syria.
This thread is weird now as I can't see what the general principle behind anyone's posts is any more.Other than Danny's Russia is great whatever it does.
And I think you should be careful to say the radical extremists who are giving the Wahhabi a bad name rather than the whole of the Wahhabi faith because we all know its a religion of peace.
Hang on a minute, the US is propping up the Iraqi Government too and you seem to be OK with that, the Saudis were asked into the Yemen by Yemen's govt which apparently makes it legitimate to intervene when Russia or Hezbollah does it in Syria. Iran is arming that insurgency which you say is wrong when Saudi Arabia does this in Syria.
This thread is weird now as I can't see what the general principle behind anyone's posts is any more.Other than Danny's Russia is great whatever it does.
And I think you should be careful to say the radical extremists who are giving the Wahhabi a bad name rather than the whole of the Wahhabi faith because we all know its a religion of peace.
Have you seen me here singing the Iraqi government's praises? Its a corrupt abomination which has largely failed its people. The difference in Yemen is that there aren't a million and one Islamist factions backed by foreign powers requiring a government invited intervention, instead its to attack the Houthis who've been actively fighting Al Qaeda, yet the Saudi bombing campaign has mostly played into the latter's hands. Iran is supporting its ally because the entire region is essentially conspiring to antagonise it, they're essentially they're the main reason why pretty much every Arab state and the US have been desperate to overthrow the Assad regime.
The whole Wahabi sect is poison, no exceptions.
LeChuck sounds like a Saudi propaganda outfit.
Sounds more like Threepwood's nemesis.
What?Hang on a minute, the US is propping up the Iraqi Government too and you seem to be OK with that, the Saudis were asked into the Yemen by Yemen's govt which apparently makes it legitimate to intervene when Russia or Hezbollah does it in Syria. Iran is arming that insurgency which you say is wrong when Saudi Arabia does this in Syria.
This thread is weird now as I can't see what the general principle behind anyone's posts is any more.Other than Danny's Russia is great whatever it does.
And I think you should be careful to say the radical extremists who are giving the Wahhabi a bad name rather than the whole of the Wahhabi faith because we all know its a religion of peace.
You're meant to leave logic at the table when you enter the CE forum.
You're thinking of Antihenry, he's the Kremlin shill.Hang on a minute, the US is propping up the Iraqi Government too and you seem to be OK with that, the Saudis were asked into the Yemen by Yemen's govt which apparently makes it legitimate to intervene when Russia or Hezbollah does it in Syria. Iran is arming that insurgency which you say is wrong when Saudi Arabia does this in Syria.
This thread is weird now as I can't see what the general principle behind anyone's posts is any more.Other than Danny's Russia is great whatever it does.
And I think you should be careful to say the radical extremists who are giving the Wahhabi a bad name rather than the whole of the Wahhabi faith because we all know its a religion of peace.
What?
Sorry, Danny. It appears you've been outed.
We do, well most of us anyway. Would it be great if there's proper democracy in Syria? Of course, but we know what the alternative is. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm more Anti "revolution" than pro-Assad.
My ex girlfriend is Syrian(Christian). She went back to Syria just before the civil war. The impression I get from her, is that minority groups in Syria aren't exactly pro Assad but are incredibly frightened of the alternative.
It’s official: Sunnis joining Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units
BAGHDAD — Sunnis are saying "sign me up" now that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has approved the appointment of 40,000 Sunni fighters to the Popular Mobilization Units, a force that was once almost exclusively Shiite.
Summary⎙ Print Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has announced that 40,000 Sunnis will join the mostly Shiite Popular Mobilization Units, fueling speculation that the new balance could lead to formation of a National Guard.
Author Mustafa SaadounPosted January 14, 2016
TranslatorCynthia Milan
Samer al-Hamdani, who in 2014 fled from Baiji in northern Iraq to Baghdad, says he is ready to return to his liberated city and join up. He told Al-Monitor, “It is essential for the Popular Mobilization Units to include Iraqis of all spectra for it to become a national institution able to earn everybody’s approval and respect, away from sectarian labels.”
He added, “The presence of 40,000 Sunni fighters creates an important and necessary balance within the Popular Mobilization Units. But we hope the politicians’ positions and statements avoid sectarian incitement, so as not to offend the [group], which must be excluded from interventions and conflicts between the political blocs."
Iraqi parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri had said in June, “Sunnis find it difficult to join the ranks of the Popular Mobilization Units, and the door is not open for them to be part of it.” But the Iraqi government believes it has become necessary to officially involve Sunni fighters in the war against the Islamic State. Abadi’s decision could help change the public image of the Popular Mobilization Units as a Shiite fighting organization.
It seems that the units' image began shifting even before Abadi’s decision. Karim al-Nuri, the group's spokesman, told Al-Monitor, “Thousands of Sunni fighters joined the ranks of the Popular Mobilization Units months ago.” He described their presence as positive and necessary and said, “We believe that areas must be liberated by their residents, who know the geography and details relating to the people who joined the ranks of IS, and know information about the organization’s locations and weapons caches."
Nuri added, “Sunni volunteers are nothing like some Sunni politicians who are trying to discourage the morale of the fighters in the war against terrorism and offend some of them. [The volunteers] believe in the importance of defending their homeland."
The Iraqi parliament last year approved a draft law to create a National Guard. Adding Sunni fighters to the Popular Mobilization Units could set the stage for the force to become the core of the National Guard. The draft law has raised disputes between political parties, and parliament has not yet set a date to take further action. Yet supporters believe the proposal eventually will be approved.
Meanwhile, Abadi's spokesman Saad al-Hadithi told Al-Monitor, “Balance will be achieved in the National Guard law, according to political agreements. Prime Minister Abadi is making serious efforts to grant everyone their rights according to demographic proportions.”
The National Guard draft law stipulates the importance of having 5,000 Sunni fighters for every 1 million Iraqis.
Security expert Hisham al-Hashemi told Al-Monitor, “The presence of Sunni fighters within the Popular Mobilization Units ranks is a prelude to the establishment of a national military movement — which may be the National Guard — especially in light of the positive relationship between Shiite and Sunni fighters within the Popular Mobilization, as they are fighting side by side to liberate Sunni towns.”
The 40,000 Sunni fighters will be concentrated in the provinces of Anbar, Salahuddin and Ninevah, where they will be joined by 10,000 more at a later stage, he said.
The US-led alliance forces have trained almost 16,000 Iraqi fighters and police officers. Hashemi estimated that number includes almost 4,400 Sunnis. On Dec. 17, the US Embassy in Baghdad issued a press release stating, “The training was focused on guerrilla wars, de-mining, dealing with improvised explosive devices, rescuing operations in the battlefield and other important military skills necessary for the Iraqi security forces in their fight against IS.”
Weighing in on the matter, the Iraqi National Forces Alliance stressed the importance of balance in the military and the Popular Mobilization Units. After a Nov. 11 meeting between Jabouri and former parliament Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, both members of the Sunni alliance, the group announced its position: Abadi is being put to the test and should implement the commitments stipulated by the political agreement, such as making reforms in the state institutions, achieving balance, working on achieving security and enhancing living conditions for Iraqis.
Meanwhile, Sheikh Asham Subhan Khalaf al-Jubouri, who commands Sunni fighters in the Popular Mobilization Units' Salahuddin Brigade, told Al-Monitor, “Abadi’s approval of the official presence of Sunni fighters in the Popular Mobilization Units is positive.”
Jubouri, speaking by phone from the Hamrin Mountains region in northern Iraq, added, “The Iraqi government will be responsible for arming Sunni fighters and paying their salaries. We will be under the command of the Popular Mobilization Units’ officials under the current leadership. We will be directly linked to both the units’ leadership and the Iraqi army’s operations command."
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...opular-mobilization-forces.html#ixzz3xKawpirA
The PMU were initially an exclusively-Shia militia, so this is pretty big. It suggests that Abadi is sidelining the Iranian backed militias in favour of Iraqi nationalist forces which is a good move IMO.
BAGHDAD — Sunnis are saying "sign me up" now that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has approved the appointment of 40,000 Sunni fighters to the Popular Mobilization Units, a force that was once almost exclusively Shiite.
Summary⎙ Print Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has announced that 40,000 Sunnis will join the mostly Shiite Popular Mobilization Units, fueling speculation that the new balance could lead to formation of a National Guard.
Author Mustafa SaadounPosted January 14, 2016
TranslatorCynthia Milan
Samer al-Hamdani, who in 2014 fled from Baiji in northern Iraq to Baghdad, says he is ready to return to his liberated city and join up. He told Al-Monitor, “It is essential for the Popular Mobilization Units to include Iraqis of all spectra for it to become a national institution able to earn everybody’s approval and respect, away from sectarian labels.”
He added, “The presence of 40,000 Sunni fighters creates an important and necessary balance within the Popular Mobilization Units. But we hope the politicians’ positions and statements avoid sectarian incitement, so as not to offend the [group], which must be excluded from interventions and conflicts between the political blocs."
Iraqi parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri had said in June, “Sunnis find it difficult to join the ranks of the Popular Mobilization Units, and the door is not open for them to be part of it.” But the Iraqi government believes it has become necessary to officially involve Sunni fighters in the war against the Islamic State. Abadi’s decision could help change the public image of the Popular Mobilization Units as a Shiite fighting organization.
It seems that the units' image began shifting even before Abadi’s decision. Karim al-Nuri, the group's spokesman, told Al-Monitor, “Thousands of Sunni fighters joined the ranks of the Popular Mobilization Units months ago.” He described their presence as positive and necessary and said, “We believe that areas must be liberated by their residents, who know the geography and details relating to the people who joined the ranks of IS, and know information about the organization’s locations and weapons caches."
Nuri added, “Sunni volunteers are nothing like some Sunni politicians who are trying to discourage the morale of the fighters in the war against terrorism and offend some of them. [The volunteers] believe in the importance of defending their homeland."
The Iraqi parliament last year approved a draft law to create a National Guard. Adding Sunni fighters to the Popular Mobilization Units could set the stage for the force to become the core of the National Guard. The draft law has raised disputes between political parties, and parliament has not yet set a date to take further action. Yet supporters believe the proposal eventually will be approved.
Meanwhile, Abadi's spokesman Saad al-Hadithi told Al-Monitor, “Balance will be achieved in the National Guard law, according to political agreements. Prime Minister Abadi is making serious efforts to grant everyone their rights according to demographic proportions.”
The National Guard draft law stipulates the importance of having 5,000 Sunni fighters for every 1 million Iraqis.
Security expert Hisham al-Hashemi told Al-Monitor, “The presence of Sunni fighters within the Popular Mobilization Units ranks is a prelude to the establishment of a national military movement — which may be the National Guard — especially in light of the positive relationship between Shiite and Sunni fighters within the Popular Mobilization, as they are fighting side by side to liberate Sunni towns.”
The 40,000 Sunni fighters will be concentrated in the provinces of Anbar, Salahuddin and Ninevah, where they will be joined by 10,000 more at a later stage, he said.
The US-led alliance forces have trained almost 16,000 Iraqi fighters and police officers. Hashemi estimated that number includes almost 4,400 Sunnis. On Dec. 17, the US Embassy in Baghdad issued a press release stating, “The training was focused on guerrilla wars, de-mining, dealing with improvised explosive devices, rescuing operations in the battlefield and other important military skills necessary for the Iraqi security forces in their fight against IS.”
Weighing in on the matter, the Iraqi National Forces Alliance stressed the importance of balance in the military and the Popular Mobilization Units. After a Nov. 11 meeting between Jabouri and former parliament Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, both members of the Sunni alliance, the group announced its position: Abadi is being put to the test and should implement the commitments stipulated by the political agreement, such as making reforms in the state institutions, achieving balance, working on achieving security and enhancing living conditions for Iraqis.
Meanwhile, Sheikh Asham Subhan Khalaf al-Jubouri, who commands Sunni fighters in the Popular Mobilization Units' Salahuddin Brigade, told Al-Monitor, “Abadi’s approval of the official presence of Sunni fighters in the Popular Mobilization Units is positive.”
Jubouri, speaking by phone from the Hamrin Mountains region in northern Iraq, added, “The Iraqi government will be responsible for arming Sunni fighters and paying their salaries. We will be under the command of the Popular Mobilization Units’ officials under the current leadership. We will be directly linked to both the units’ leadership and the Iraqi army’s operations command."
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...opular-mobilization-forces.html#ixzz3xKawpirA
The PMU were initially an exclusively-Shia militia, so this is pretty big. It suggests that Abadi is sidelining the Iranian backed militias in favour of Iraqi nationalist forces which is a good move IMO.
Just confirmation of older reports that he was killed in a US airstrike.
Anyone watching this thing on Channel 4?
Some of it is like a spoof.
"Don't touch me, don't touch me, I know the law" (Continues to go mental at the police officer for a minute)
"You're being detained for a search"
"Ok, ok, let him search me"
"This is ..... [some cnut], a convert from South East London who used to be a drum and bass MC"
(paraphrased)
These are the kind of morons that may eventually do something in the UK, although a lot I imagine are just whoppers buying into the cause to make their shit lives seem worthwhile.
Loved seeing the real muslims stand up to them on the street.
Some of it is like a spoof.
"Don't touch me, don't touch me, I know the law" (Continues to go mental at the police officer for a minute)
"You're being detained for a search"
"Ok, ok, let him search me"
"This is ..... [some cnut], a convert from South East London who used to be a drum and bass MC"
(paraphrased)
These are the kind of morons that may eventually do something in the UK, although a lot I imagine are just whoppers buying into the cause to make their shit lives seem worthwhile.
Loved seeing the real muslims stand up to them on the street.
So what is needed for the Syrian people? What type of government would the majority of them be happy with?
Last edited:
Is that the 1st or 2nd Jihadi John?
The problem is, that a good number of Muslims living in these regions are still fine with, or actively seek integration of religion and state. This isn't a commentary on Islam being barbaric, it's no more or less barbaric than Christianity. If you look at either book, religious justice, is hardly justice by modern standards.
What was fine 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, isn't fine by today's standard.
This is where the hiccup is. While I'm sure you could find a great deal of uneducated Americans who think that instituting christian justice (which they have no fecking idea what that actually entails) would be a fantastic idea. Luckily for us here in the US and other western democracies, we have a tradition of separation of state and church going back several hundred years.
People in Syria don't have that tradition, and the number of wackos who do want that, we can all agree wield too much influence. Iraq and Afghanistan are both perfect examples.
It's a very complex issue, the problem of tribalism is at its source, but so is the issue that too much political influence and willpower is wielded by people who would love nothing more than a democracy to be instituted, so they could knock it down.
The idea of nation building, is spot on, but I think the US had the wrong definition. Nation building needs to happen, but it needs to happen not at a political level, but in terms of identity. Afghans need to value a national identity more than their tribal allegiance, or else it will always be easy for organized groups like the Taliban, whose organization transcends simple tribal allegiance to overcome a government body. The same has happened in Iraq. The same is happening in Syria. These religious fanatical groups cut across boundaries to incorporate the largest base of power they can. The common people, where the true force of any state actually rests, are not invested in a national identity the way we in the west are.
If you force democracy on these people, or hand democracy to an intellectual elite, they are just going to lose it to the radical groups. That's a shitty reality, but I think we've seen that the evidence supports this assertion. I personally don't think ISIS has much of a long term future, the group has signed its own death warrant, but the ideas behind ISIS, those will continue on, and if a savy individual can tap into that power base, it will be very difficult for any local democratic government to maintain control.
What was fine 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, isn't fine by today's standard.
This is where the hiccup is. While I'm sure you could find a great deal of uneducated Americans who think that instituting christian justice (which they have no fecking idea what that actually entails) would be a fantastic idea. Luckily for us here in the US and other western democracies, we have a tradition of separation of state and church going back several hundred years.
People in Syria don't have that tradition, and the number of wackos who do want that, we can all agree wield too much influence. Iraq and Afghanistan are both perfect examples.
It's a very complex issue, the problem of tribalism is at its source, but so is the issue that too much political influence and willpower is wielded by people who would love nothing more than a democracy to be instituted, so they could knock it down.
The idea of nation building, is spot on, but I think the US had the wrong definition. Nation building needs to happen, but it needs to happen not at a political level, but in terms of identity. Afghans need to value a national identity more than their tribal allegiance, or else it will always be easy for organized groups like the Taliban, whose organization transcends simple tribal allegiance to overcome a government body. The same has happened in Iraq. The same is happening in Syria. These religious fanatical groups cut across boundaries to incorporate the largest base of power they can. The common people, where the true force of any state actually rests, are not invested in a national identity the way we in the west are.
If you force democracy on these people, or hand democracy to an intellectual elite, they are just going to lose it to the radical groups. That's a shitty reality, but I think we've seen that the evidence supports this assertion. I personally don't think ISIS has much of a long term future, the group has signed its own death warrant, but the ideas behind ISIS, those will continue on, and if a savy individual can tap into that power base, it will be very difficult for any local democratic government to maintain control.
Spot on. Just really don't know how to drive that national identity, can't think of any blueprints to follow.
You can't drive a national identity...it's an organic phenomenon.
The British made up arbitrary borders....it's why bengali speaking Bangladesh which shared no borders and shared nothing but religion with Pakistan was lumped together with Pakistan during the partition after WWII.
End result? You guessed it, civil war after 35 years and two separate countries.
Same in Africa.
You can't impose it but external factors or motivators can forge it from disparate groups. The northern and southern colonies that became the US were fairly similar but had substantial religious differences, regional interests, and varying political ideas. King George became the external threat that helped bring them together despite their differences. One major difference is that they were forming a secular government that enshrined freedom of religion, speech, etc. If the Iraqis weren't so intent on making their religious group the dominant power, there would be a greater chance for success of the Iraqi state. Unfortunately, there has yet to be a Martin Luther of Islam to reconcile secular government with the religion. Nor does an "Enlightenment" appear on the horizon for the Middle East. Then again, the push for religious tolerance followed the Thirty Years War in Europe.
Syria is a Sunni dominant land with a myriad of different groups / nationalities and minorities. We've had 40+ years of 1 family holding this land in their grasp through killing any opposing force and silencing anyone that opposes them. It's what happened with the MB, and it's what happened in Dara'a.
The one certainty is that there is no place for Assad and his ilk in the future in Syria. Likewise, there is no place for IS. I think everyone in the spectrum of opposition can agree on that.
What the Syrian people want (and by Syrian people I mean Syrian Sunnis, Shias, Alawis, Druze, Christians, Syrian Kurds all of them) is stability, plurality, freedom and representation in the ruling government and most importantly, being able to air their views without being killed for it. So, what we need to do is form a government that is high on goal congruence of these different groups. And there are opposition groups that want a pluralistic, democratic government which caters to these differing people. I believe that Syria should be divided into its principalities (as most of those religious groups cluster together anyway) with autonomy being given to them (and a voice) at the governmental level. Further secession into new national borders will be an awful solution as it will create a tense unstable environment with the poorest new nation falling into war. It's what happens.
For the more conservative Sunnis, they do have a right to live by an Islamic form of governance, and so they should be given that right. Likewise, for people that don't want to, they should be given that right too. Ideally there'd be a conservative principality, and a secular one. The only issue is how the major Western densely populated cities will be catered for, as they're a mishmash of these groups so separation would be difficult.
Last edited: