Every single non-Sunni I know in Syria would still rather take their chances with Assad then any possible Sunni leadership
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Russia is gearing up its support of Assad in Syria with Soldiers and Hardware
- Thread starter Gabriel_Logan
- Start date
- Status
Every single non-Sunni I know in Syria would still rather take their chances with Assad then any possible Sunni leadership
captainnapalm
Member
Considering the state of the American news media, and the popularity of comedians on TV who skewer it, I'm surprised there isn't an article online with that exact title.
That's another part of the puzzle right there, people seem to over look the fact that minorities in Syria have always been protected by Assad and they will be either slaughtered with an Islamic government in charge or be forced to not practice their religion. A Syrian christian i know tells me they have no choice but to stand with Assad because he has always protected the minorities in Syria. Things are more complicated in Syria than say Libya.
Calling Assad a moderate is hilarious. His is a murderous fascist dictatorship. And it's also funny that you say it's attack from outside by Al Qaeda. While it is the case now, at the early stage it was protests throughout the country, even in the so called Assad's stronghold Latakia.
Trumped up charges against Gaddaffi? His human rights violation was not exactly a secret.
His regime encompasses all sects and religions, his foreign and prime ministers are Sunni for example, Walid al Mualim, his Sunni foreign minister is one of his closest confidants, the general in charge of his political security, Ali Al Mamluk is a Sunni, his army leader and chief of staff is a Sunni, his former defence minister is an Orthodox Christian, his general in charge of Deir Ezzor, Issam Zahreddine is a Druze. He is the most secular moderate leader in Syria right now. Secylarism and non sectarianism was enforced in most Syrian public schools with emphasis on national socialism and religious tolerance, in fact the ideology that the regime in Syria follows was concoted by an Arab Christian.
I would love to see an opposition group as religiously tolerant and diverse as the current regime.
Being secular does not make one moderate as his government is terribly authoritarian. I don't consider any government that has something like the Mukhabarat around "moderate". And his government is not that all inclusive as it heavily favors Alawites, especially in military and government positions regardless of some that make it.
Also you are assuming I have love for the rebel groups. I don't because most of them are al qaeda affiliates.
We're talking about sectarianism and religion, on those levels Assad is a moderate especially in comparison to the rest in the region. Let's look at it this way, Assad isn't going to chop my head for practicing a different religion or for drinking alcohol.
He has given the highest military position to a Sunni, his government is mostly Sunni, how is that not inclusive? His is the most inclusive one in the whole Middle East, unlike the rest of the hypocritical Arab states that preach equality and democracy in Syria while practicing none.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
wat? Turkey is funding ISIS? Are you sure you're correct?
It may be better than most around the region but that is not saying much. And Syria is certainly not democratic.
That is certainly an extremely difficult thing and there is no easy solution. With Assad, well you get the massacre you are seeing now, without Assad, it will be massacre to the minorities for vengeance. .
Well Turkey had been openly supporting the more extremist factions that aren't ISIS and at the very least have been tacitly supporting ISIS for most of the war by inaction on their border with Syria.
Coriolanus
Banned
Yeah, those fools would rather destroy the Kurds.
Frozenprince
Banned
No it does fucking not. That's just outright bold faced fucking lies. His regime is run by himself and other Alawites, top to bottom, anybody else his "all encompassing regime" incorporates are just shills there to emptily do his bidding as puppets. Not equals. The seectarian violence tearing his country apart has been propagated by his family for the last 40+ fucking years. The reason there is such a massive Sunni/Shi'a divide is because HE ENSURED THERE WAS ONE.
Frozenprince is right. A truly secular state would allow anyone of any religious persuasion to climb up the governmental ladder. Assad's government is a nepotistic Alawite oligarchy, and the Sunnis in his government are either shills or have defected.
Burden of proof is upon you, because I'm seeing Sunnis and Shia in his government as well as other faiths. In Qusayr my Shia friends were fighting with Sunni soldiers from Homs. Calling every Sunni who supports Assad a shill is a blanket statement without evidence.
Heh, people probably said the same bullshit before we went to Iraq.
Better a leader who lets you live your life for no political dissension than extremist factions turning the state upside down violently affecting the lives of exponentially more people.
I think the big picture point you're missing is that this is really no different than Iraq and Libya. Unless you're prepared to topple Assad AND the extremist factions vying to replace him with 100% bald eagle certified democracy which will undoubtedly take at least a decade of western occupation and funding - its probably not worth it to get involved.
FreedomFighter
Member
Didn't we already go through this in 2012 when Russia delivered on its contractual obligations and delivered helicopters to Syria?
This rhetoric coming primarily out of the US amazes me with it's blatant double standard. They drop off weapons to so-called "moderates" and even to ISIS but throw a temper tantrum when (or IF) Russia supports an ally in Assad (the Russians say this is more contractual obligations - I don't believe that though). Even though we're getting the usual "officials say" journalism here, I personally belief it isn't too far off.
To me, this looks like US and their lap dogs are gearing up to make another push at overthrowing Assad. The Russians aren't too keen on just sitting by and letting that happen without protest. And now Washington is crying foul, saying that giving an Assad regime, THAT IS FIGHTING ISIS, any support is "destabilizing and counterproductive" (Josh Earnest's actual words).
I think most people can see right through this. US wants Assad gone more than it wants ISIS dealt with. Say what you will about Assad, and I'll likely agree with you, but he's a hell of a lot of a better option than having some Wahabi or Salafist wacko in power - and I think Syrians would agree.
This rhetoric coming primarily out of the US amazes me with it's blatant double standard. They drop off weapons to so-called "moderates" and even to ISIS but throw a temper tantrum when (or IF) Russia supports an ally in Assad (the Russians say this is more contractual obligations - I don't believe that though). Even though we're getting the usual "officials say" journalism here, I personally belief it isn't too far off.
To me, this looks like US and their lap dogs are gearing up to make another push at overthrowing Assad. The Russians aren't too keen on just sitting by and letting that happen without protest. And now Washington is crying foul, saying that giving an Assad regime, THAT IS FIGHTING ISIS, any support is "destabilizing and counterproductive" (Josh Earnest's actual words).
I think most people can see right through this. US wants Assad gone more than it wants ISIS dealt with. Say what you will about Assad, and I'll likely agree with you, but he's a hell of a lot of a better option than having some Wahabi or Salafist wacko in power - and I think Syrians would agree.
Assad is already killing more civilians than ISIS (a lot of them through torture) and you can probably bet the house on him being far, far worse after winning the war than he ever was before. Not to mention that ISIS is bound to collapse sooner or later anyway, their strategic situation isn't sustainable. They get their funds and supplies through raiding and donations, sooner or later that is going to dry up. They're like the medieval Crusades: as long as they keep advancing they grow in support but the moment they stall or are pushed back they will collapse rather swiftly. They simply do not have a dependable resource base to create their state on. They're little more than unusually organised bandits.
No nation should support one over the other. Neither will create a future for Syria. They should either support what good elements are left, like the Kurds, or simply stay out of it and take in refugees while ISIS and Assad bleed each other dry.
FreedomFighter
Member
ISIS gets all their funding through Saudi, Turkey, the UAE, and other sympathizers. "Donations" makes it sound like it's chump change. They get millions; and they're selling oil. They also get free passing over the Turkish border (a reporter was killed for exposing this, I forget which network) and the US routinely "mistakenly" give them arms all the time. I disagree with your assessment. Especially the part about Assad killing more people than ISIS.
Where I do agree with you is that everyone should stay out of it. But imagine that ever happening.
But yeah, you're downplaying ISIS' capabilities and backing immensely.
Yeah Assad is an asshole. He has and will probably kill more Syrians.
But if ISIS keeps on expanding, imo it will be even worse.
You know that ISIS plan is to overload Europe with refugees? They want to radicalize them and use terrorists in their ranks. It already started.
The more instability in Syria, the more ISIS gains power, the more refugees and instability will flood elsewhere.
We can't force tyrants out and hope for democracy to come in. The Middle EAst just ain't ready for it.
But if ISIS keeps on expanding, imo it will be even worse.
You know that ISIS plan is to overload Europe with refugees? They want to radicalize them and use terrorists in their ranks. It already started.
The more instability in Syria, the more ISIS gains power, the more refugees and instability will flood elsewhere.
We can't force tyrants out and hope for democracy to come in. The Middle EAst just ain't ready for it.
Thousands, millions, even billions... unless there's some system where they're giving something back in return besides the crusade it's still just donations, subject to going away completely when their backers lose faith in them. The oil is also just loot really - they probably can't maintain the wells and infrastructure long term and they're locked out of the global market and forced to sell the oil only after extensive laundering.
My point is that if Assad wins, he can rebuild Syria's economic resources to some extent at least and keep the dictatorship going long term. If ISIS wins I just can't see them doing the same. They can't trade with anyone, so what are they supposed to do? Turn the population that hasn't fled yet into medieval serfs and attempt to create some kind of pre-industrial economy? That's just not sustainable. In its current iteration ISIS can only keep going as long as they keep fighting and advancing and there are limits to that, outside of Syria and maybe Iraq if the latter keeps screwing up there's nowhere to advance. Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Jordan? I guess there's always Lebanon but I think that would be the straw that would break the camel's back for the West if nothing else.
ISIS is brutal but they don't have any staying power. You can't build a lasting society on the blood of your enemies. As for Assad killing more civilians this isn't a claim, it's documented. I posted it earlier in the thread.
http://www.businessinsider.com/assa...ills-way-more-civilians-than-isis-2015-2?IR=T
I'm sure ISIS would love to kill more people if they could but they really aren't everything they're made up to be, the only reason they've even gotten as far as they have has been the phenomenal failures of the Iraqi army and chaos in Syria.
Syria was ready. They protested for democracy during the Arab spring and only failed because Assad started slaughtering people. It's not like Iraq where the US swooped in and toppled a dictator with no follow-up plan, the Syrian Civil War started as a genuine revolution. But once the revolution devolved into civil war the radical forces poured in and the door was wide open for ISIS. As for the refugees they're fleeing Assad just as much as they're fleeing ISIS, maybe even more considering that most Syrians supporting Assad relocated to government-controlled areas. The idea that they could be used as some Trojan Horse for ISIS sounds both far fetched and more than a little self-serving - "we need to support the dictator to save ourselves!" doesn't sound right to me.
So now instead of dropping barrel bombs on civilians daily, they can drop proper ones. Fuck Assad. He's the biggest monster out there right now. His atrocities are just as bad as ISIS, actually they're worse. If he hadn't responded violently to protests, none of this would have happened. The Syrian regime has concentration camps where they torture, kill, and starve people to death. Everyday they bomb civilians cities to terrorize them. He is a complete fool and a heartless shithead who has single handedly destroyed his own country.
CaptainMellow
Banned
These Rebels are armed to the teeth. If it takes russian forces to topple these rebels, than that is for the best, however i dont trust the russian, they could stab assad in the back once this is all over, but guess Assad isn't exactly going to get support from Nato or US. Everyone has their own interests in the Middle-East, Oil, gas etc.
aygomyownroad
Member
For once I'm with Russia. Isis needs to be stopped.
The area needs stability especially so refugees can return to a safe country.
Assad is the lesser of two evils here.
The area needs stability especially so refugees can return to a safe country.
Assad is the lesser of two evils here.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It's really debatable. You should do some reading about Syria.
Although, i'd consider the prospect of ISIS gaining control of Syria to be worse... barely.
In the sense that, Syria is not currently invading other areas, while ISIS is looking to expand.
The same Assad who recently bombed a marketplace killing 100 civilians.
Do you seriously think the dystopian hell that would be a Syria ruled by a post-civil war Assad would be a place any sane person would want to return to, let alone "safe"? There's no going back. The refugees are here to stay.
I doubt they're all true blue ISIS crazies, most are prob just rebels uniting under the biggest tent with the most resources against Assad. Even if Assad was taken out, I think this civil war would splinter further between pro and anti-ISIS factions. Syria won't be stable for a long time.
Yeah post-Assad Syria would definitely be better to return to. Just look at how much better post-Saddam Iraq and post-Gadafi Libya are doing. They are not utterly failed states in turmoil right now, at all.
Heck, even if we make sure ISIS does not take control and somehow dissolves into the ground, an entity pretty much like ISIS has no chance of taking power, either. In fact Syria should be a nice place while those factions vie for power.
FreedomFighter
Member
I'm dismissing that business week article, pretty much like I do with nearly anything from the western press. Marching orders are to demonize and blame everything on Assad right now, so everything in the corporate media will fall in line with that. Same way they did with the chemical weapons attack - blamed on Assad, but plenty of evidence to the contrary from independent media and MIT study, which I find infinitely more credible. Our media will lie us into a war at every opportunity if that's what some folks in DC order them to do. Just read the bat shit insane ideas coming out of the neo-con press. It's just ridiculous. The most unfortunate thing about it though is that faction is very powerful in Washington and have massive influence on US foreign policy. Besides, I find SNHR to be highly politicized, and it's hard for me to blame that many deaths on the Syrian regime when ISIS itself publically brags about beheading people monthly.
As for your ISIS point, they'll be powerful for as long as they're propped up. It's impossible to know how much staying power they'll have because they be around as long as they're useful. There's no doubt in my mind that the US finds them to be quite useful in terms of keeping the region destabilized, creating a wedge in the "Shia Crescent" with Iran and Iraq on one side and what's left of Syria and Lebanon on the other.
That's true. But you can still have staying power. See Saddam, see the Shah, see Assad himself.
Anyways, the point of contention here is whether Assad or ISIS is worst. In my opinion, Assad would be much better than ISIS, al Nusra, or any of the other Salafist or Wahabi groups. I personally don't think this is debatable, but, hey... agree to disagree I suppose.
I doubt it would ever be possible to return to how things were. If you lost family members on the account of the government or the dictator, how would you ever be able to forgive the perpetratros for the lives they took away from you?
There can be no reconciliation after this and there's no going back.
I think this is a point that a lot of people gloss over: there really isn't any going back to the way things were. The post-civil war landscape, even if Assad wins, would be completely unsuitable for normal civilian life. That's why talking about the civil war is such a difficult topic. Letting Assad and ISIS fight it out isn't an option. Propping up Assad isn't a long-term solution. A purely humanitarian mission doesn't directly address the flight of refugees, including an eventual return to their homes.
The 8th circle of hell might technically be better than the 9th but that doesn't mean a bunch of people who have already reached heaven (or limbo or whatever the EU represents in this tortured analogy) are going to be willing to head back to it. Face it, the refugees are here to stay permanently. If we try to throw them out they'll just run straight back again and we wouldn't have much ground to stand on to insist that an Assadi post-war Syria wouldn't be enough for asylum.
I personally suspect that the reason people overestimate how many atrocities ISIS commits compared to the Assad regime is precisely because ISIS trumpets them from the rooftops while the regime tries to sweep them under the rug. I'm also not particularly clear on where you're getting the West beating on the war drum over this, we've had years to intervene but no country has (well the US hasn't, the rest can't intervene on their own anyway) because everyone still remembers Iraq. The appetite for another such war is completely non-existent. The Obama administration has done its best to give the semblance of doing something while at the same time trying to do as little as possible besides the occasional airstrikes on ISIS. Maybe that would change with a (God forbid) Trump administration but right now the US seems to take a hands-off approach. They did support the rebels with some (very limited) arms and supplies early on, granted, but I'm not sure they're even doing that anymore apart from maybe the Kurdish People's Defense Units.
I'm also not sure where you're getting the idea that the US somehow thinks ISIS is a good thing or even a useful thing, they're nowhere near competently insidious enough to pull off a move like what you're describing. The US is not interested in a destabilized Middle East anyway. The only thing they've ever wanted is a stable and friendly Middle East and everything they do is attempting to achieve this, with the possible exception of their relationship with Israel. Even the Iraq War was an incredibly misguided attempt at turning an enemy into an ally that could help pivot the entire region towards their side. The US just wants the oil to keep flowing and the region to maintain some semblance of peace and good relations, right now they would much rather be able to pivot to Asia, or maybe back to Europe.
As for Hussein and the Shah, they didn't build their nations on blood but oil, respectively. Iraq was an economic powerhouse before the Iran-Iraq war and Iran has always been able to rely on its oil exports (which they, unlike ISIS, can do legally and at market prices). ISIS does simply not have the foundation to form a sustainable state. The very nature of holy wars like theirs is that the backers will lose interest if the movement isn't making progress, they can't provide the stable source of food, fuel and everyday goods you need to actually run a state. For that you need an economy and you can't have one if you've looted everything and you're blocked off from all legal trade.
I'm also not trying to argue that ISIS is better than Assad or vice verse. My argument is that both are evil in different ways and neither should be supported. As I've mentioned repeatedly I don't see a way out of this for Syria no matter who wins, even if no one wins. With Assad you have an incredibly oppressive dictatorship that post-civil war might be able to challenge even North Korea for the title in that discipline, with ISIS you have complete barbarism and likely eventual dissolution into warlord territories and if no one wins you'll probably still have a descent into warlord territories after the factions have bled each other dry.
So yeah, I pretty much expect Syria to end up more or less depopulated and think the only and best thing we can do is try to make sure that the millions of refugees are at least cared for.
FreedomFighter
Member
Well, "stability" as defined by the US means a nation or region is completely subjugated and nearly 100% economically and politically beholden to the US and its corporations. Basically, the US calls the shots. So long as Lebanon, Iran, Syria exist as they do - i.e. outside the control of the US, the US will always seek to destabilize, undermine, and overthrow said regimes that do not follow US dictates. Only then will there be a "stable Middle East" according to Washington.
And the Iraq War was the result of and ally turned into an enemy first, then turn that enemy into an "ally" by bringing about regime change. This is the same thing that happened in Afghanistan (it happened in reverse in Iran [enemy, friend, enemy instead of friend, enemy, "friend"). Peace to the US means installing a strong man armed to the teeth to suppress popular uprisings (see Iran under the Shah, Iraq under Saddam, the House of Saud, etc. - and that's just considering the Middle East, not the rest of the world where this same dynamic plays out ad nauseum). Then they'll serenade you as some champion for human rights even while you're beheading citizens on a daily basis and even hold essay contests for you when you die.
I agree with you about whether Assad or ISIS (or ISIS derivative) is not an ideal situation for post-civil/proxy war Syria but Syria is pretty secular and the latter will be completely intolerant of certain types of Muslims and likely persecute Christians and continue desecrating religious sites. If anything, post Assad, the country would look a lot like Libya. And we all know what kind of clusterfuck that turned into.
Sidebar: It's "fun" to watch what was said post overthrow of Gadaffi by Western leaders and see how they pretty much pretend Libya doesn't exist nowadays. Libya is pretty much what Western intervention gets you.
I have to admit, I got a good chuckle out of the news that the US -- with its 21,000+ troops stationed in 8 Middle Eastern countries propping up a a string of autocratic dictators, the same US that has all but completely destroyed the nation states of Iraq and Libya and up until early this year referred to Yemen as a model state in the region, the same US that is training and arming moderate Syrian rebels who return to Syria and quickly join Jihadi Islamist groups -- is expressing 'concern' of Russian movements in Syria. That was truly a good bit of comic relief.
Back in the realm of reality rather than in that one of hysteric Russophobia, however, I have my doubts that Russia intends to help Assad truly win the war. More likely they want to help the Assad regime win back territory in the Latakia district, carving out what will be a large, contiguous region along the coast that would serve as the basis of a future Alawi + Christian state. By sending troops and weapons there today and helping them win minor battles, they are fostering ties with the men who will rule such a future state, allowing Russia to permanently maintain its Mediterranean naval base and have a significant foothold in the region. That's just my guess, though.
Back in the realm of reality rather than in that one of hysteric Russophobia, however, I have my doubts that Russia intends to help Assad truly win the war. More likely they want to help the Assad regime win back territory in the Latakia district, carving out what will be a large, contiguous region along the coast that would serve as the basis of a future Alawi + Christian state. By sending troops and weapons there today and helping them win minor battles, they are fostering ties with the men who will rule such a future state, allowing Russia to permanently maintain its Mediterranean naval base and have a significant foothold in the region. That's just my guess, though.
Yeah, that's why I really don't think Syria and Iraq should continue to exist as polities.
I love pluralism and I'm not fond of ethnostates, but as long as a sizable minority is ruled by the majority, I don't see how there won't be violence.
A person talking about the "realm of reality" concerning Russia while having a DNR flag avatar, that's rich.
I really don't get Putin. He says he wants a strong prosperous Russia, and the West has extended tons of olive branches and chances to integrate, and he spits on them and does shit like this. I feel bad for the Russian people being fed the crap they from state run news and media. They truly think the US, UK, etc are to blame for their continuing misfortunes.
Which changes nothing of what the poster said. Maybe you should focus on discussing the hypocritical stance the West has which the poster described with very valid points instead of focusing on his avatar, just a thought.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
You are attacking him while knowing fully well that what he is saying is completely correct, dont agree with him most times but for once he is completely right.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/just-got-clearest-sign-yet-181700769.html
Good article that highlights that unlike what some thought here. Russia has no real interest in dealing with ISIS. If anything Russia is worried the west will succeed against Assad.
Russia bringing into Syria some of the most advanced anti-air systems in the world. ISIS and various rebel factions have no air force but its pretty obvious who does and its forces opposed to Assad in the middle east and the West. Russia has gone so far as t make veiled threats over potential "unintended consequences"
Good article that highlights that unlike what some thought here. Russia has no real interest in dealing with ISIS. If anything Russia is worried the west will succeed against Assad.
Russia bringing into Syria some of the most advanced anti-air systems in the world. ISIS and various rebel factions have no air force but its pretty obvious who does and its forces opposed to Assad in the middle east and the West. Russia has gone so far as t make veiled threats over potential "unintended consequences"
daTRUballin
Member
I'd rather believe what the DNR and LNR say regarding anything about the conflict in Ukraine than anything the West says. Just saying.
Resident_UA
Member
Please change your avatar picture. At this point even you have to realize that DNR was just Putin's tool and has nothing to do with Russia. I don't have issue with you liking Russia. In fact I will be happy once Russian regime changes so that country can prosper again. But please take down the flag that is a symbol of hate towards Ukrainian people and cost thousands of lives for absolutely no reason. It's pretty much a terrorist flag to overwhelming majority of the world population.
I think you mentioned before that you are American. Just watch NBC's intros to Sochi Olympics again. Russophobia only exists because of actions that Russia took. Just 2 years ago Russia was not ever in the news and was generally viewed very positively worldwide.
This brings me back to this topic. Nothing that Russia is doing right now has anything to do with world politics. Putin just needs to get elected again and the only way it will happen is if Russia is constantly involved in some conflict. Russia needs to create image for its own population of fighting the evil United States and at the same time Putin keeps his relationship with the EU and US alive. And at this point I don't even find his actions as ridiculous as EU's inability to comprehend what is happening.
daTRUballin
Member
Lol
The Ukrainian flag is also a symbol of hate towards the people living in Donetsk and Luhansk and has cost thousands of lives there as well.
Resident_UA
Member
It's not funny and it really isn't. I was in Donetsk. Nobody hated anyone before "DNR". It's simply Russian narrative. As of year ago most people running DNR were Russian citizens. Would it surprise you that over 70% of Kiev region and close to 90% of the city of Kiev speak Russian? There's really nothing that Russia is saying that is true.
daTRUballin
Member
If there's really no hate coming from Kiev towards DNR/LNR, then why does Kiev keep referring to those regions as "terrorists"?
I just think its funny that someone with that avatar talks about "Back in the realm of reality rather than in that one of hysteric Russophobia".
Yeah every country is hypocritical so what? Russia is escalating their involvement in the civil war and there is a huge difference between supplying weapons to vetted groups(like the U.S although the vetting ain't great) and deploying troops (like Russia), and if they continue that could lead to some very terrible things especially since Russia isn't known for caring about civilians in war (so i guess they'll fit right in with Assad).
Resident_UA
Member
What? There's difference between armed men and general population. Imagine that somebody took over a government building in the US. Would you call them "terrorist"?
Not sure why you finding this concept confusing. There are no huge differences in religion, language, or social status between people in Kiev and Donetsk. Now there's animosity between citizens who stayed in Donetsk and those who are in Kiev. Those who are in Kiev are pissed that Donetsk people didn't fight back and protest. People in Donetsk are pissed that Ukraine cut them off economically. And there's also Russian propaganda which is constantly making up stories. I think "execution of a 3 year old boy" is classic now.
- Status