US : Assad no longer 'has to go' ??

[Banchan]

From what I heard it's the same generic non-informative bullshit. Broad strokes accusations. Assad should not only govern his own forces and areas, he is supposed to balance the opposition?

The guest said that Al-Assad intentionally turned a blind eye, took a slow approach in dealing with, took an inactive approach allowing ISIS to operate because he felt he could ultimately control them, let members of the group out of prison, the situation that we are in is much of his making, he has been pleased by the rise of this group because he felt that we would need him to crush religious extremist groups etc. and the other guest agreed with everything she said up to that point. The response that you give to this podcast is also broad. Can you counter those specific points as being untrue?

The guests of the podcast were Rachel Bronson and Max Abrahms:

http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/expert/rachel-bronson
http://neu.academia.edu/MaxAbrahms

This wsj article that basically implies the same.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/assad-policies-aided-rise-of-islamic-state-militant-group-1408739733

If they are wrong, how? Teach me, I want to learn.

 

[elmo_1968]

That american style democracy isn't suitable for every culture on the planet. They need a strong leader/dictator to function.

Democracy fails lots of places, lots of times and most of the places its working now it didn't for a long time. Generalizing is dangerous.

 

[elmo_1968]

Really? he has gained the most from the country spiralling into chaos? He stays in power because he has a strong popular support among anyone who isnt an islamist.

Also he didnt predicted anything that wasnt being predicted since the reports of islamists moving into the country surfaced. That doesnt makes it a conspiracy.

Syria is a nation under attack, and as a pluralist and secular country, when faced with islamic genocide they will rally under one leader and that leader is Assad.

Of course this calls into question your definition of "Islamist", but it certainly must include former members of his own government.

 

[Fronk]

The guest said that Al-Assad intentionally turned a blind eye, took a slow approach in dealing with, took an inactive approach allowing ISIS to operate because he felt he could ultimately control them, let members of the group out of prison, the situation that we are in is much of his making, he has been pleased by the rise of this group because he felt that we would need him to crush religious extremist groups etc. and the other guest agreed with everything she said up to that point. The response that you give to this podcast is also broad. Can you counter those specific points as being untrue?

The guests of the podcast were Rachel Bronson and Max Abrahms:

http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/expert/rachel-bronson
http://neu.academia.edu/MaxAbrahms

This wsj article that basically implies the same.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/assad-policies-aided-rise-of-islamic-state-militant-group-1408739733

If they are wrong, how? Teach me, I want to learn.

Read a few posts back why this is a stupid argument. No point repeating it. The areas ISIS controls are peripheral.
The only argument against him is the "political prisoner" release early on in 2011 to try to appease protesters, many of them joined the rebellion.

You think the goverment likes having a highly organised determined force on their doorstep? Wouldn't they rather fight a disorganised rabble plauged by infighting that constitutes the "moderates"? 99% of them are islamist, sunni supremacy type groups anyway anyway. For example the WSJ article names the so moderate "Northern Storm Brigade", a group that is known for its kidnappings of shia pilgrims and offensive against the kurds in Aleppo 2012. It's the same group McCain cozied up to in that famous picture.

 

[Banchan]

Read a few posts back why this is a stupid argument. No point repeating it. The areas ISIS controls are peripheral.
The only argument against him is the "political prisoner" release early on in 2011 to try to appease protesters, many of them joined the rebellion.

Yes, but that is also part of their argument, that Assad was happy to let ISIS expand in those regions because they weren't really of a major concern for him at the time but that it would pose a greater problem to the western governments and the moderates that wanted him out, which was also true.

Also,

- He has not really directly engaged with ISIS forces in 3 years
- Providing Intel and corridors to ISIS to attack FSA

And that was from the professor who suggests that we should ally with Assad to get rid of Isis.

 

[Zankou]

It would have to be explained first why it would make any sense for Assad to attack ISIS for any of the arguments to work. There is no good military reason he would do so. So pointing to the fact that he is attacking the rebel militants right in his midst is literally meaningless as an attempt to show he is aligned with ISIS.

As Fronk1 says above, the only thing anybody has been able to pin on Assad's regime that looks like it might be genuine support was the prisoner release.

The rest of the narrative just doesn't make any sense if you consider the position Assad is in. And ISIS doesn't need a corridor to attack the FSA, they have a direct line to the FSA territory.

That's not even addressing the fact that Assad's bitter enemies have been caught red handed supporting the extremists. If Assad is so pro extremist, why is Turkey shipping arms to them? And supporting their transit? Why did Saudi Arabia and Qatar send them so much money? Our anti-Assad allies have been caught with far dirtier hands when it comes to supporting the extemists. Granted they are idiots who probably ended up screwing themselves, but the question is what these idiots subjectively hoped would happen.

 

[MicroBrew]

West/Sunnis: Assad you aided ISIS

Assad: No I didn't

West/Sunnis: You did not attack ISIS from the start

Assad: I attacked those who were my biggest threat

West/Sunnis: You should have attacked those who were our biggest threat

Assad: Ninja pulease

West/Sunnis: Ergo you aided ISIS.

 

[Orgasmo]

Assad is an Islamic crazy. He is partly to blame for ISIS in Syria. Notice how the spread of ISIS is the only thing keeping him off the Take Him Out Murica(!) list? ISIS (and Iran) saved this guy's life. If he were a Jew, this angle would already be conspiracied to no end. Fortunately he's Muslim and no one talks about them for fear of being Charlie Hebdoed.

What in the hell are you talking about? Assad is from the Alawite sect, which is about as secular as you can get within Islam. In addition, he comes from the Baathist party, a traditional enemy of Islamic fundamentalist. You definition of "Islamic crazy" is broken beyond repair. How exactly is Assad responsible for ISIS, when ISIS originated as Al-Qaeda in Iraq? In addition, he's fighting thousands of jihadists supported by the West, Gulf States and Turkey. If anything, he's doing the world a favour by killing these scums.

 

[cabal]

What in the hell are you talking about? Assad is from the Alawite sect, which is about as secular as you can get within Islam. In addition, he comes from the Baathist party, a traditional enemy of Islamic fundamentalist. You definition of "Islamic crazy" is broken beyond repair.

The average american is not aware of those details..

 

[Rod1]

Of course this calls into question your definition of "Islamist", but it certainly must include former members of his own government.

Islamist is someone that think their religion should run every aspect of their lives and government, as opposed to secularism or arab socialism.

Funny that when El-Sisi brutally kills 600 islamists he is labeled a hero, when Assad does, he is an evil dictator.

 

[Rod1]

The guest said that Al-Assad intentionally turned a blind eye, took a slow approach in dealing with, took an inactive approach allowing ISIS to operate because he felt he could ultimately control them, let members of the group out of prison, the situation that we are in is much of his making, he has been pleased by the rise of this group because he felt that we would need him to crush religious extremist groups etc. and the other guest agreed with everything she said up to that point. The response that you give to this podcast is also broad. Can you counter those specific points as being untrue?


If they are wrong, how? Teach me, I want to learn.

Yes, those points have been countered plenty of times but you wont simply listen, whats the point of arguing if you wont change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It wasnt Turkey giving free transit and weapons to terrorist, it wasnt Qatar or Saudi Arabia who funnel money and weapons, it wasnt Israel who continually hinders Assad and Hezbollah while not touching the rebels.

It was totally Assad for not trying to stop a force that was brewing in a zone that was pretty far away from him while the rebels were banging on his doorstep.

 

[Rod1]

West/Sunnis: Assad you aided ISIS

Assad: No I didn't

West/Sunnis: You did not attack ISIS from the start

Assad: I attacked those who were my biggest threat

West/Sunnis: You should have attacked those who were our biggest threat

Assad: Ninja pulease

West/Sunnis: Ergo you aided ISIS.

The mental gymnastics done by terrorist sponsoring/supporting states is staggering.

 

[zulqarnayn]

You guys have it twisted. ISIS came from Iraq; it started there a long time ago, like 10 years ago since the start of the American invasion. It came into Syria recently and gained a lot of support there because of Assad's insanity. Assad killed hundreds of thousands, far more than ISIS or any other group in the region. There is no way Assad will go back to ruling Syria again. Syria is a lost cause no matter who you support; it will never be back to the way it used to be. All the current strategies are about containment; to protect surrounding nations. That's it.

 

[Rod1]

You guys have it twisted. ISIS came from Iraq; it started there a long time ago, like 10 years ago since the start of the American invasion. It came into Syria recently and gained a lot of support there because of Assad's insanity. Assad killed hundreds of thousands, far more than ISIS or any other group in the region. There is no way Assad will go back to ruling Syria again. Syria is a lost cause no matter who you support; it will never be back to the way it used to be. All the current strategies are about containment; to protect surrounding nations. That's it.

Yes Assad insanity, it has nothing to do with Erdoshit or Qatar/Saudi, totally Assad madness, god forbid he actually fights back against a genocidal force.

 

[Banchan]

It would have to be explained first why it would make any sense for Assad to attack ISIS for any of the arguments to work. There is no good military reason he would do so. So pointing to the fact that he is attacking the rebel militants right in his midst is literally meaningless as an attempt to show he is aligned with ISIS.

As Fronk1 says above, the only thing anybody has been able to pin on Assad's regime that looks like it might be genuine support was the prisoner release.

The rest of the narrative just doesn't make any sense if you consider the position Assad is in. And ISIS doesn't need a corridor to attack the FSA, they have a direct line to the FSA territory.

That's not even addressing the fact that Assad's bitter enemies have been caught red handed supporting the extremists. If Assad is so pro extremist, why is Turkey shipping arms to them? And supporting their transit? Why did Saudi Arabia and Qatar send them so much money? Our anti-Assad allies have been caught with far dirtier hands when it comes to supporting the extemists. Granted they are idiots who probably ended up screwing themselves, but the question is what these idiots subjectively hoped would happen.

They assert that Assad like Al-Maliki is very much responsible for the rise of ISIS. Maybe not purposely, but their ignorance and brutality created the condition for which it transpired. If Assad did release those prisoners in 2011, that is all the more damning that he had a direct and purposeful hand in creating ISIS and not just contributing "accidentally" like Al-Maliki.

The Saudis and Qataris are supporting the Wahhabist Jihadis, that isn't what is being said about Assad. He is not in cahoots with them directly besides having purchased oil and other commodities but a sort of initial collusion to work in his benefit, but one which also benefited ISIS and increased their stronghold. They seemed to have a mutual and beneficial relationship where the two regimes focused on eliminating the rebels before turning on each other. Assad's men virtually walked away from Raqqa which would become a key city in establishing the Caliphate sanctuary in Syria. This city was not known for Sunni extremism, but was in strong support of Assad, but they had left the extremists in peace there for nearly two years. The prisoner releases tie in with the assumption that during the initial rise of ISIS from 2011, Assad was looking to allow extremist threats to gain momentum in the region so that he could be heralded as a necessity for peace in the region and keep his regime in power. Nawaf al-Fares (former Syrian ambassador to Iraq) claimed that they had been so desperate for an enemy, that they were releasing known Wahhabists, so that they could carry out suicide missions against Syria and Al-Assad could essentially say; "See, what I am dealing with? I do not kill innocent people, they are terrorists." He has been saying this all along in response to accusations of butchering his own people. This was at a time when Assad was the West's worst enemy in the region and Obama was threatening airstrikes against Assad and calling for him to step down. I'm not sure why this comes off as a conspiracy theory and not just a simple act of convenience by a scumbag of epic proportions that would have little to no ethical conundrum about the slaughter of thousands of innocent people so long as he stands to benefit. However, I'm not an expert and can stand to be corrected, but someone how this makes perfect sense to me.

The following points are raised from the articles below.

- For long periods of time, the regime largely spared ISIS

 

[elmo_1968]

Islamist is someone that think their religion should run every aspect of their lives and government, as opposed to secularism or arab socialism.

Good definition, but the early protesters against Assad espoused democracy, which is very non-Islamist. Several of his officials defected to join the movement, suggesting he had Islamists in his govt. all along. Or that you just want to tar his opponents with the Islamist brush, sort of how he declares every one of his opponents to be a terrorist.

Funny that when El-Sisi brutally kills 600 islamists he is labeled a hero, when Assad does, he is an evil dictator.

Is there some reason you put this in a response to me?

 

[Banchan]

Yes, those points have been countered plenty of times but you wont simply listen, whats the point of arguing if you wont change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It wasnt Turkey giving free transit and weapons to terrorist, it wasnt Qatar or Saudi Arabia who funnel money and weapons, it wasnt Israel who continually hinders Assad and Hezbollah while not touching the rebels.

It was totally Assad for not trying to stop a force that was brewing in a zone that was pretty far away from him while the rebels were banging on his doorstep.

The podcast does not mention Turkey, Qatar or Saudi Arabia but that doesn't mean those parties are excused from the conflict, just that they specifically focused on Assad's role in the conflict and whether we should ally with him to solve the ISIS issue.

Rachel Bronson wrote a book about the convoluted relationship between the US and Saudi alliance called Thicker Than Oil and she implicates the Saudi pony in this conflict as the Wahhabist Jihadis.

Am I not interpreting my message correctly? It could be my fault that we don't seem to be talking about the same thing. I am not excusing the roles that others are playing either, but specifically why I don't like Assad and why I think he helped create the very problem he says he will help us solve. The Saudis, Qataris and Turkey deserve the most credit for aiding ISIS but I am just sticking with Assad's role because the thread is about him and whether or not we should ally with him to deal with ISIS.

 

[Fronk]

You guys have it twisted. ISIS came from Iraq; it started there a long time ago, like 10 years ago since the start of the American invasion. It came into Syria recently and gained a lot of support there because of Assad's insanity. Assad killed hundreds of thousands, far more than ISIS or any other group in the region. There is no way Assad will go back to ruling Syria again. Syria is a lost cause no matter who you support; it will never be back to the way it used to be. All the current strategies are about containment; to protect surrounding nations. That's it.

Assad hasn't killed "hundreds of thousands", it's a civil war with many sides participating you know. I've stated this in other threads, for the Alawites this is a struggle for their very survival and they know this. There is no chance they would willingly give up power to the sunni islamists who are coming for their heads. Alawites never wanted to be a part of what would become Syria because they knew the problem that would arise living amongst other sects who hated them. Interesting fact, Assads grandfather Sulayman Assad wrote a letter to France protesting against the plans for the Alawite "nation" to become a part of a sunni majority country.

 

[Rod1]

Good definition, but the early protesters against Assad espoused democracy, which is very non-Islamist. Several of his officials defected to join the movement, suggesting he had Islamists in his govt. all along. Or that you just want to tar his opponents with the Islamist brush, sort of how he declares every one of his opponents to be a terrorist.

Is there some reason you put this in a response to me?

The early protestors arent the ones that initiated the civil war, they were the Poland or the Archduke Franz Ferdinand who were used as a flag for the start of hostilities on the generalized uprising of the arab spring, conveniently exploited by the sunni terrorist states to start their holy war under the mantle of "freedom fighters".

 

[elmo_1968]

The early protestors arent the ones that initiated the civil war, they were the Poland or the Archduke Franz Ferdinand who were used as a flag for the start of hostilities on the generalized uprising of the arab spring, conveniently exploited by the sunni terrorist states to start their holy war under the mantle of "freedom fighters".

So are they all dead, or will you back off of the claim that everyone who opposes Assad is an Islamist?