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

[Fronk]

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.

This is certainly true to some extent, Syria under Assad, although a relatively safe place, was no joke. But this goes for the entire rebellion and not only ISIS. ISIS growth in Syria happened based on a lot of different factors. The ISIS/Nusra-split, general rebel fragmentation and so on. A giant reason ISIS has been succesfull is because of their zealous devotion to their cause and their well organised forces compared to other rebels. Unless Assad is masterminding the entire ISIS organisation behind the curtains, how is he at fault? That he didn't stop other rebels from infighting and opportunism? Go read a dozen articles on disfranchised rebel leaders in Turkey clamouring about a lost cause driven by general greed. It's all about getting their payday from the gulfstates and not driving out Assad. That is very different from ISIS that has a clear agenda.

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.

Nothing but loosely based speculation.

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.

This has already been disproven time and time again.

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 goverments small outpost left Raqqa long before the rise of ISIS incase you didn't know. Want to know why? It's in the middle of a friggin desert.

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.

ISIS didn't rise in 2011. What would later become ISIS was initially a part of Al-Qaeda and operating on a low scale in Iraq, the AQ off-shoot in Syria was Al-Nusra although many of them had close ties to their Iraqi counterpart. The rise of ISIS happened in 2013. That is when Al-Qaeda in Iraq (or the Islamic state of Iraq) moved into Syria and rebranded itself as the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria then demanded that Al-Nusra went under their command. The leader of AQ sided with Al-Nusra and it all took off from there.

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.

Because masterminding the entire opposition is simply out of his hands. The country was spiralling out of control, remember in 2012 when the supposed fall of Assad was just around the corner.
Adding to that there has always been a struggle between Islamists and the Alawite goverment. The Muslim Brotherhood carried out terrorist attacks in Syria for decades culminating in their takeover of Hama 1982 and the goverments harsh response to this. Syria has a large proportion of very religous rural Sunnis who aren't very keen on being ruled by idolatrous apostates

The following points are raised from the articles below.

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

 

[Fronk]

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

Many of them jumped ship during the early stage when the walls were crumbling around the goverment. The bigwigs sucking up to the west in Turkey has little sway over the ones doing the actual fighting in Syria.

 

[Rod1]

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

Everyone who opposes? no, a random Syrian expatriate can oppose Assad from a comfortable home in europe.

Im talking about those who are opposing him militarily. And yes, everyone who is currently opposing him military are just a bunch of islamists or fighting for them in exchange for a paycheck.

 

[whougonnacall]

The early protestors arent the ones ".

correct it was the pricks who shot at them

 

[whougonnacall]

Everyone who opposes? no, a random Syrian expatriate can oppose Assad from a comfortable home in europe.

Im talking about those who are opposing him militarily. And yes, everyone who is currently opposing him military are just a bunch of islamists or fighting for them in exchange for a paycheck.

yep couldnt in any way shape or form be people wanting to remove one of the most repressive regiemes on earth they all must be paid or loony

 

[Rod1]

yep couldnt in any way shape or form be people wanting to remove one of the most repressive regiemes on earth they all must be paid or loony

Yes, we all know how popular uprisings in the middle east have all turned into modern secular democracies.

 

[elmo_1968]

Everyone who opposes? no, a random Syrian expatriate can oppose Assad from a comfortable home in europe.

Im talking about those who are opposing him militarily. And yes, everyone who is currently opposing him military are just a bunch of islamists or fighting for them in exchange for a paycheck.

Does it strike you as at all presumptuous to claim to know the motivation of each and every person taking up arms against Assad?

 

[Zankou]

Does it strike you as at all presumptuous to claim to know the motivation of each and every person taking up arms against Assad?

Well it is a fanatical cause, and fanatical causes tend to have pretty simplistic ideology.

"Militant fighting against Assad" is not a broad category like "people who go to Houston." People go to Houston for an assload of different reasons. Fighting in a brutal war to depose the Syrian dictator Assad, on the other hand, tends to be something that requires a very specific mindset -- either huge material gain or huge ideological belief.

 

[Banchan]

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.

It has everything to do with everyone, including Assad, who is a central part to all of this. The Qataris, Saudis and Turks no less deserve a spot on the cast of characters. It takes a village of scumbags to make ISIS.

 

[Rod1]

It has everything to do with everyone, including Assad, who is a central part to all of this. The Qataris, Saudis and Turks no less deserve a spot on the cast of characters. It takes a village of scumbags to make ISIS.

Your point is as asinine as claiming that Stalin was behind the Nazis because of the non-aggression pact.

 

[Banchan]

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.

Assad's campaign to hold onto power displaced half the population and resulted in almost 1/4 million deaths. Let's just talk about the Alwites and their struggles though.

 

[Fronk]

Assad's campaign to hold onto power displaced half the population and resulted in almost 1/4 million deaths. Let's just talk about the Alwites and their struggles though.

it's only the fate of millions of people.

it's the reason for the desperate clinging to power.

 

[Banchan]

Your point is as asinine as claiming that Stalin was behind the Nazis because of the non-aggression pact.

I may be wrong, but my opinion was based on literature of which I posted proof. Is it illogical for me to consider the opinions of professors over Rod1 ? Not everything I posted, such as Assad's role in the creation and spread of ISIS is being disputed unless your comment stood to be an unsubstantiated dispute.

 

[Banchan]

it's only the fate of millions of people.

it's the reason for the desperate clinging to power.

I guess we all have to pick a pony to play and then choose a narrative which justifies the implications of those actions.

 

[Zankou]

I may be wrong, but my opinion was based on literature of which I posted proof. Is it illogical for me to consider the opinions of professors over Rod1 ? Not everything I posted, such as Assad's role in the creation and spread of ISIS is being disputed unless your comment stood to be an unsubstantiated dispute.

It's not that the point is asinine in the sense of being unintelligent, it's more that it is incredibly biased. Assad is being blamed for things that just don't make much sense. Some things he did you can rightly pin on him, because they supported ISIS directly without being a natural military or economic strategy -- like releasing militant Sunni prisoners -- but most of the other things are basically just accusing him of not sacrificing his regime in an all-out war against ISIS. And that's basically saying as long as he isn't committed to destroying his own Syrian government, then he's supporting ISIS. His very indecency to exist and not turn power over to 'moderate Sunni rebels' = Assad is supporting ISIS. Despite the fact that the majority of Syrians want Assad to stay.

That isn't a factual or analytical point, it's a biased ideological contention from an unreasonable premise.

By those standards, if Assad is 'supporting ISIS,' then you might as well note that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are themselves part of Islamic State, since their support goes far beyond anything Assad ever did, and their military efforts against Islamic State are far more faultworthy -- Turkey not only isn't fighting Islamic State, it's actively assisting Islamic State and trying to block other groups from fighting them. Despite all three having absolutely gigantic armies that are right in the region, as close as Assad's military. Yet they are either rather openly fighting on ISIS's side or (as with Saudi Arabia) making only symbolic efforts.

 

[Rod1]

Assad's campaign to hold onto power displaced half the population and resulted in almost 1/4 million deaths. Let's just talk about the Alwites and their struggles though.

So if Assad had fled to Iran, Syria would be at peace and everyone would hold hands and sing kumbaya.

Im pretty sure that if people had let the Nazis run unopposed there would had been far less deaths from WW2 right?

 

[Perfidious]

You have to respect Assad's resilience. He'll gas his own people, and yet he is a cockroach the West won't squash merely because when gametime comes around he always manages to be the lesser of (at least) two evils.

I never got back to posting in this thread but this is what I wanted to say in response to Banchan. He is so intent on talking about how evil Assad is, which is fine with me, as long as he acknowledges he is the lesser evil.

We don't live in a perfect world and sometimes trade-offs must be made. Assad might be evil, but seemingly every leader in the Middle East is evil. Isn't the secular one better?

 

[whougonnacall]

Yes, we all know how popular uprisings in the middle east have all turned into modern secular democracies.

wtf has that got to do with anything? what people want and what happens are 2 very different things

 

[whougonnacall]

Well it is a fanatical cause, and fanatical causes tend to have pretty simplistic ideology.

"Militant fighting against Assad" is not a broad category like "people who go to Houston." People go to Houston for an assload of different reasons. Fighting in a brutal war to depose the Syrian dictator Assad, on the other hand, tends to be something that requires a very specific mindset -- either huge material gain or huge ideological belief.

to be fair though wanting to rid themselves of a brutal tyrant is pretty much the natural mindset of anyone living under one, you dont have to be a fanatic militant or paid to want him dead
bear in mind many of the rebels who fight have shown themselves on camera , they know the regime must fall or they and their families will always be in danger of a knock at the door.

 

[Banchan]

It's not that the point is asinine in the sense of being unintelligent, it's more that it is incredibly biased. Assad is being blamed for things that just don't make much sense. Some things he did you can rightly pin on him, because they supported ISIS directly without being a natural military or economic strategy -- like releasing militant Sunni prisoners -- but most of the other things are basically just accusing him of not sacrificing his regime in an all-out war against ISIS. And that's basically saying as long as he isn't committed to destroying his own Syrian government, then he's supporting ISIS. His very indecency to exist and not turn power over to 'moderate Sunni rebels' = Assad is supporting ISIS. Despite the fact that the majority of Syrians want Assad to stay.

That isn't a factual or analytical point, it's a biased ideological contention from an unreasonable premise.

By those standards, if Assad is 'supporting ISIS,' then you might as well note that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are themselves part of Islamic State, since their support goes far beyond anything Assad ever did, and their military efforts against Islamic State are far more faultworthy -- Turkey not only isn't fighting Islamic State, it's actively assisting Islamic State and trying to block other groups from fighting them. Despite all three having absolutely gigantic armies that are right in the region, as close as Assad's military. Yet they are either rather openly fighting on ISIS's side or (as with Saudi Arabia) making only symbolic efforts.

I felt that Assad using militants for short term gain was reasonable when you consider the releasing of militant Sunnis at a time when he was battling militants in the Arab Spring protests as he stated and also at a time of western pressure to step down. Why do you think he did this (in bold) if not to let a militant foe purposely rise as they are saying ? Not valuing Raqqa enough to launch campaigns against its hostile takeover doesn't seem strange in itself, but leaving a known ISIS sanctuary for 2 years? However short your military power, surely you don't just leave a critical enemy unmolested right by the border of another enemy (Turkey) for that kind of duration?

I accept that this narrative may be incorrect.

So if Assad had fled to Iran, Syria would be at peace and everyone would hold hands and sing kumbaya.

Im pretty sure that if people had let the Nazis run unopposed there would had been far less deaths from WW2 right?

I find it hard to understand sarcasm in the English language. I can tell that you're doing it but I'm not sure I get the insult correctly.

Did Assad handle the Arab Spring in the most diplomatic way possible ? Were the protesters really proxy militants and not really protesters? How do I find out? Your time would have been more wisely spent telling me those things rather than throwing a war reference to which I don't understand how it applies to Assad and Syria or how it was supposed to be used against me to illustrate how ridiculous my post was? All it did was confuse me more. I understand english very well, but these "implied" forms of speech confuse me completely.

I never got back to posting in this thread but this is what I wanted to say in response to Banchan. He is so intent on talking about how evil Assad is, which is fine with me, as long as he acknowledges he is the lesser evil.

We don't live in a perfect world and sometimes trade-offs must be made. Assad might be evil, but seemingly every leader in the Middle East is evil. Isn't the secular one better?

Yes I do. Even if my understanding of the conflict were 100% accurate, I still realize that he is still the lesser of two evils. But does that mean we should ally with him and provide arms and training when it could be used against us in the future ?