ISIS in Iraq and Syria

They may have the power to pressure Assad into accepting such reforms, but why? As it is, they will probably gain a loyal dictator and a larger military base in the Mediterranean. Splitting Syria might be the right thing to do, but Russia is not interested in whether the majority of the population will be misrepresented. For them this would only mean weaken an ally, therefore I doubt something will happen there. If this is dealt with using the UN Security council, China will probably not be too excited about a foreign push to split up a nation either.
Assad has made changes. The Syrian Kurds were stateless foreigners until he made the change to give them citizenship - for instance. He must go much further - change the constitution - though. The carefully cultivated personality cult they've nutured since his father's days will probably ensure he wins a fair and free election - believe it or not folks.

Do you guys accept that it was US meddling with the aim of regime-change that caused this whole ugly mess in the first place? Have you seen the wikileaks cables? Read about how the US worked on Assad's phobias - with regard to certain individuals and the Muslim Brotherhood for example - to kick hi into doing something reckless. It was deliberate and callous. If you've read all the cables and discussed this previously then sorry for bringing it up again. It just seems important to bear in mind, that's all.
 
Assad has made changes. The Syrian Kurds were stateless foreigners until he made the change to give them citizenship - for instance.

Most Syrian Kurds had citizenship already. There are a minority of Syrian Kurds classed as foreigners due to their alleged origins in Turkey or Iraq. The regime offered these citizenship in April 2011 (I wonder why?). Syrian Kurds in general are not fans of the Ba'thist regime.

As I've said above, the Ba'th is incapable of true reform.

Do you guys accept that it was US meddling with the aim of regime-change that caused this whole ugly mess in the first place?

I believe it's been a contributory factor, but not crucial.
 
Most Syrian Kurds had citizenship already. There are a minority of Syrian Kurds classed as foreigners due to their alleged origins in Turkey or Iraq. The regime offered these citizenship in April 2011 (I wonder why?). Syrian Kurds in general are not fans of the Ba'thist regime.

As I've said above, the Ba'th is incapable of true reform.



I believe it's been a contributory factor, but not crucial.
Really? I don't understand.
 
Assad has made changes. The Syrian Kurds were stateless foreigners until he made the change to give them citizenship - for instance. He must go much further - change the constitution - though. The carefully cultivated personality cult they've nutured since his father's days will probably ensure he wins a fair and free election - believe it or not folks.

Do you guys accept that it was US meddling with the aim of regime-change that caused this whole ugly mess in the first place? Have you seen the wikileaks cables? Read about how the US worked on Assad's phobias - with regard to certain individuals and the Muslim Brotherhood for example - to kick hi into doing something reckless. It was deliberate and callous. If you've read all the cables and discussed this previously then sorry for bringing it up again. It just seems important to bear in mind, that's all.
This is the problem when all you do is read regime propoganda. Assad is not capable for reform, it's undemocratic to support him after the way he killed civilians during protests. Blame America all you want but the fact of the matter is he could have avoided all of this by opening a dialogue of with the people rather than killing them. He's a cold blooded dictator and the fact that you are in support of him shows how entrenched you have become in regime propoganda.
 
As in its been a multitude of compounding factors. US meddling certainly played a part, but it's not the only contributing factor to the mess we have today.
I very much doubt the original demonstrations and predicted/planned responses would have come about without US medling. Did you read the cables?
 
This is the problem when all you do is read regime propoganda. Assad is not capable for reform, it's undemocratic to support him after the way he killed civilians during protests. Blame America all you want but the fact of the matter is he could have avoided all of this by opening a dialogue of with the people rather than killing them. He's a cold blooded dictator and the fact that you are in support of him shows how entrenched you have become in regime propoganda.

Let's just tke a step back.

Assad is the leader of a sovereign state.
The US, UK, Saudis, Qataris and others have no business there.
Russia and Iran and Hezbolah etc were invited in. The Kurds are largely Syrians anyway.
The "rebels" are no longer simply dissatisfied Syrians - they're mostly radical headchopping terrorists from all over the world.

You talk about regime propaganda. The regime reports from on the spot within Syria. MSM reports from overseas (US, UK, Lebanon, wherever). MSM Reporters that used to operate with the "rebels" are now unable to do so with any degree of freedom since two of them were gruesomely slaughtered by the rebel headchoppers. Most MSM reporting is based on twitter feeds from rebels, be they bona fide embedded reporters, pseudo NGOs, or radicals with a bad attitude. In this situation, it's the MSM stuff which most resembes "propaganda", while the footage and reports from RT and the reporters operating with the blessing of the Syrian government is quite obviously more reliable and credible.
 
I've been through this previously, read from here - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isis-in-iraq-and-syria.392179/page-182#post-19868831

As you'll see, there are others in the thread who agree with you.

Also, please post links to the cables you're using to support your view.
I don't have the links anymore. I could dig them up again but it took me ages this morning. Some are linked to from http://www.truth-out.org/progressiv...d-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath

Don't tell me if it's a dodgy site - just dig down to the wikileaks stuff, and off to washington post.
 
Let's just tke a step back.

Assad is the leader of a sovereign state.
The US, UK, Saudis, Qataris and others have no business there.
Russia and Iran and Hezbolah etc were invited in. The Kurds are largely Syrians anyway.
The "rebels" are no longer simply dissatisfied Syrians - they're mostly radical headchopping terrorists from all over the world.

You talk about regime propaganda. The regime reports from on the spot within Syria. MSM reports from overseas (US, UK, Lebanon, wherever). MSM Reporters that used to operate with the "rebels" are now unable to do so with any degree of freedom since two of them were gruesomely slaughtered by the rebel headchoppers. Most MSM reporting is based on twitter feeds from rebels, be they bona fide embedded reporters, pseudo NGOs, or radicals with a bad attitude. In this situation, it's the MSM stuff which most resembes "propaganda", while the footage and reports from RT and the reporters operating with the blessing of the Syrian government is quite obviously more reliable and credible.
Can't you see the hypocrisy in your post? You complain about headchoppers fair enough I don't disagree, but want to ignore the murder, chemical, torture and jailing done by Assad. Problem with following regime propoganda is you only get one side of the story, while dismissing everything on the other side, you will only see pro regime narrative on these sources which isn't rocket science. Any dissent shown by journalists who don't follow regime narrative get their visas revoked and sent packing, see 2 cents post about the Swedish journalist. And no matter what the regime say there are Syrians in the rebel areas reporting on the ground, if you just want to dismiss them then you really are blinded by one side and Imo being intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:


I've seen this idea that Assad held 'democratic' elections being thrown about lately - that Eva Bartlett one even based her claim that the majority of Syrians support Assad (not an unreasonable claim btw) on the 'fact' that he got 88% in the last election - despite the sense she spoke with regards to the mainstream media's stance, that marks her out as a regime stooge.

https://t.co/s1uIoPzyMU
 
Can't you see the hypocrisy in your post? You complain about headchoppers fair enough I don't disagree, but want to ignore the murder, chemical, torture and jailing done by Assad. Problem with following regime propoganda is you only get one side of the story, while dismissing everything on the other side, you will only see pro regime narrative on these sources which isn't rocket science. Any dissent shown by journalists who don't follow regime narrative get their visas revoked and sent packing, see 2 cents post about the Swedish journalist. And no matter what the regime say there are Syrians in the rebel areas reporting on the ground, if you just want to dismiss them then you really are blinded by one side and Imo being intellectually dishonest.

Just highlights the absurdity of picking either side in this conflict. They are both completely unhinged and anyone who chooses between them owns the moral depravity of their actions. Whether that's headchopping, barrel bombs, burning people alive, or launching sarin gas attacks.
 
Just highlights the absurdity of picking either side in this conflict. They are both completely unhinged and anyone who chooses between them owns the moral depravity of their actions. Whether that's headchopping, barrel bombs, burning people alive, or launching sarin gas attacks.

Anyone? Does this apply to, say, a Syrian Christian or Alawite who supports the regime out of fear of jihadists?




 
I don't have the links anymore. I could dig them up again but it took me ages this morning. Some are linked to from http://www.truth-out.org/progressiv...d-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath

Don't tell me if it's a dodgy site - just dig down to the wikileaks stuff, and off to washington post.

There are no cables cited there from 2011. It's mainly to do with a 2006 cable which discusses ways to destabilize the Assad regime. Hardly revelatory stuff given that regime change was the publicly acknowledged policy of the Bush administration which had lumped Syria in with the 'Axis of Evil.' Where are the cables showing that the US organized the protests and funded the armed rebels in 2011?
 
Anyone? Does this apply to, say, a Syrian Christian or Alawite who supports the regime out of fear of jihadists?

You can't begrudge anyone for wanting the violence and war to end. I'm speaking more as a philosophical device of supporting one side or the other in a debate about why one side is better than the other. Both are despotic and totalitarian.
 
You can't begrudge anyone for wanting the violence and war to end. I'm speaking more as a philosophical device of supporting one side or the other in a debate about why one side is better than the other. Both are despotic and totalitarian.

Yeah I agree it leaves a bad taste. I don't hold it against anyone with a stake in the conflict though, and that includes a lot of people, throughout the whole Middle East and beyond.
 
Just highlights the absurdity of picking either side in this conflict. They are both completely unhinged and anyone who chooses between them owns the moral depravity of their actions. Whether that's headchopping, barrel bombs, burning people alive, or launching sarin gas attacks.

Picking a side doesn't necessarily mean you're morally aligning yourself with the values of that given faction. If that were the case the US would be sharing its moral principes with some very questionable groups.

It's more a pragmatic preference as to the outcome. Do you want a jihadist-riddled theocracy or a secular dictatorship with perhaps some leeway for an autonomous federal system? As 2cents has correctly pointed out its also a matter of survival - as an Alawite or Christian for instance, your choice is already made because of the frightening implications of the alternative outcome.
 
Can't you see the hypocrisy in your post? You complain about headchoppers fair enough I don't disagree, but want to ignore the murder, chemical, torture and jailing done by Assad. Problem with following regime propoganda is you only get one side of the story, while dismissing everything on the other side, you will only see pro regime narrative on these sources which isn't rocket science. Any dissent shown by journalists who don't follow regime narrative get their visas revoked and sent packing, see 2 cents post about the Swedish journalist. And no matter what the regime say there are Syrians in the rebel areas reporting on the ground, if you just want to dismiss them then you really are blinded by one side and Imo being intellectually dishonest.
What's this Credible report or propaganda bullshit?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-massacre-assad-david-miliband-a7481241.html
 
Picking a side doesn't necessarily mean you're morally aligning yourself with the values of that given faction. If that were the case the US would be sharing its moral principes with some very questionable groups.

It's more a pragmatic preference as to the outcome. Do you want a jihadist-riddled theocracy or a secular dictatorship with perhaps some leeway for an autonomous federal system? As 2cents has correctly pointed out its also a matter of survival - as an Alawite or Christian for instance, your choice is already made because of the frightening implications of the alternative outcome.

Philosophically, you aren't obliged to choose either of the two. You can make a pretty accurate statement that both are to varying degrees despotic and you prefer a third option for example, of a UN brokered ceasefire with Security Council support, humanitarian corridors, disarming of belligerents, and a roadmap to elections. If you continue to think its a binary choice between "ISIS or Assad" then you remained constrained between bad or worse.
 
Raoul said:
a UN brokered ceasefire with Security Council support, humanitarian corridors, disarming of belligerents, and a roadmap to elections.

I might prefer Assad or even ISIS to that.
 
So many great theories on here about how we should establish a fair rule and democracy in Syria, if only we had previous empirical evidence for how these things end up.

..oh, wait.
 
So many great theories on here about how we should establish a fair rule and democracy in Syria, if only we had previous empirical evidence for how these things end up.

..oh, wait.

I don't think there are any prior examples of the UN leading something of this scale.
 
I don't think there are any prior examples of the UN leading something of this scale.

How many armed groups are there in Syria? 200+ ? How many shady nations have vested interests in Syria? Turkey, Iraq, Iran, USA, Russia, Saudi, Gulf States, Israel etc.

There is simply no way it would work, this calamity makes Iraq and Libya look like shining beacons of hope and the ones we got right.
 
How many armed groups are there in Syria? 200+ ? How many shady nations have vested interests in Syria? Turkey, Iraq, Iran, USA, Russia, Saudi, Gulf States, Israel etc.

There is simply no way it would work, this calamity makes Iraq and Libya look like shining beacons of hope and the ones we got right.

The alternative is what has transpired over the past 5 years. Even if Assad magically regains control of the country, an endless insurgency will persist for years.
 
The Kurds definitely need their own homeland.
I have not heard of them being involved in any terrorist acts.
Perhaps take some land that is part of Iraq and Syria and give them a country of their own.
Perhaps they can include Christians and other minorities as part of the deal.

tbh I do not know if that will be tolerable for all parties concerned.

As for the rest of Syria, just seprate the Sunis and Shias.

I actually see Trump being able to persuade Putin to make some positive moves here, instead of just taking the anti Assad position and prolonging the conflict in as far as the US is concerned.
 
The Kurds definitely need their own homeland.
I have not heard of them being involved in any terrorist acts.
Perhaps take some land that is part of Iraq and Syria and give them a country of their own.
Perhaps they can include Christians and other minorities as part of the deal.

tbh I do not know if that will be tolerable for all parties concerned.

As for the rest of Syria, just seprate the Sunis and Shias.

I actually see Trump being able to persuade Putin to make some positive moves here, instead of just taking the anti Assad position and prolonging the conflict in as far as the US is concerned.
The Kurds have been "at home" there for over a thousand years. Saladin was a Kurd - from Tikrit
 
The Kurds definitely need their own homeland.
I have not heard of them being involved in any terrorist acts.
Perhaps take some land that is part of Iraq and Syria and give them a country of their own.
Perhaps they can include Christians and other minorities as part of the deal.

tbh I do not know if that will be tolerable for all parties concerned.

As for the rest of Syria, just seprate the Sunis and Shias.

I actually see Trump being able to persuade Putin to make some positive moves here, instead of just taking the anti Assad position and prolonging the conflict in as far as the US is concerned.

How do you propose separating Sunni and 'Shia' (I presume you mean Alawite) in Syria?

You know that Sunnis have been killing other Sunnis throughout the war?
 
The Kurds definitely need their own homeland.
I have not heard of them being involved in any terrorist acts.
Perhaps take some land that is part of Iraq and Syria and give them a country of their own.
Perhaps they can include Christians and other minorities as part of the deal.

tbh I do not know if that will be tolerable for all parties concerned.

As for the rest of Syria, just seprate the Sunis and Shias.

I actually see Trump being able to persuade Putin to make some positive moves here, instead of just taking the anti Assad position and prolonging the conflict in as far as the US is concerned.

Depends which kurds you are referring to, just recently they've been setting bombs off in Turkey.
 
...If democracy contains within it the seed of disorder, what is the alternative? The problem in the Arab world is not a lack of democracy. It is a lack of self-determination. Here I do not mean national self-determination; I mean latitude for ethnic, religious, and kinship groups to exercise the maximum autonomous control over their collective lives. This is what has been eroded by the cancerous growth of the state over the past fifty years, exemplified by Iraq. The problem is the overbearing state, which has achieved efficiency in one thing only: depriving the Middle Easterner of the freedom he most cherishes, which is to be left alone to practice his faith, speak his language, and enjoy the traditions of his sub-national community.

This community does not always value democracy. In Iraq’s Sunni triangle, they like their tribes and they might want a tough-minded sheikh to keep order among them; in the Shi’ite south, they might wish to venerate a white-bearded recluse in a turban, and have him resolve all their disputes; and so on. What they crave is not democracy, but sub-national self-determination, for both majorities and minorities. More important to them than one-man one-vote, are guarantees for social, religious and linguistic freedom, implied by the retreat of the state.

To what point should it retreat? Ideally, to the distance at which the Ottomans stood. We have much more to learn from the Ottoman way of empire in the Middle East than from the British or the French. The European imperial powers also overturned heirarchies, which is why they constantly had to put down the kind of insurgencies that the United States now faces in Iraq. The Ottomans obviously had certain advantages over Europeans: first, they were Muslims, and second, the peoples of the Middle East were not at a heightened level of political consciousness until the empire’s last days. But the Ottomans ruled for as long as they did because they did not threaten their subjects with an all-intrusive state, and did not seek to turn the social order on its head...

I don't subscribe to everything in the article, but the whole thing is worth a read:

http://martinkramer.org/sandbox/2004/12/when-minorities-rule/
http://martinkramer.org/sandbox/2004/12/when-minorities-rule/
 
An alternative explanation:

 
Last edited:
:lol:

Is Reuters good enough for you? Listen to this, now they're saying this, after Aleppo was liberated. All of your propaganda machines lied about this for years, to keep Aleppo in Al-Qaeda's hands... And now time is telling who was telling the truth, and who was lying and telling pure propaganda...

Aleppo civilians find food stockpile at abandoned rebel depot

http://uk.reuters.com/video/2016/12...tockpile-at?videoId=370716597&videoChannel=75

Yes, even though...