Syria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

The Baath parties of Syria and Iraq didn't get along very well, you know...

---

The Ba'ath party has socialist revolutionary roots. If you can point to a single such group who hasn't fractured I will lick your boots clean.

The USSR split with China. Was there a terribly big difference between the internal politics in the two countries? Nope. Neither is there much of a difference between Assad and Saddam. Saddam adopted an "Iraq first"-policy which lead to aggressive foreign relations, but unless you're claiming support based on foreign policy(which rvg does not) that does not matter one bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Right, let's throw the minorities under the bus, after all it's not you who will be suffering under the islamist yoke. Great idea.

---

....And with that you just invalidated your own position, since it's certainly not you(and not your "group" either) who suffers under Assad's yoke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

...And with that you just invalidated your own position, since it's certainly not you(and not your "group" either) who suffers under Assad's yoke.

---

Under Assad everyone aside from Assad's inner circle is lacking in political rights. Everyone. If Assad is replaced by the islamist rabble, the minorities will suffer disproportionately. And when I say "suffer" I mean ethnic cleansing level of suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Under Assad everyone aside from Assad's inner circle is lacking in political rights. Everyone. If Assad is replaced by the islamist rabble, the minorities will suffer disproportionately. And when I say "suffer" I mean ethnic cleansing level of suffering.

---

.....you mean like what Assad is trying to do to the rebels now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

.....you mean like what Assad is trying to do to the rebels now?

---

Killing rebels on the battlefield is not ethnic cleansing. If you wanna talk ethnic cleansing, let's discuss a specific example. Besides, aren't the rebels supposed to be the "good guys"? Why are you so eager to replace Assad with someone who is no better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Killing rebels on the battlefield is not ethnic cleansing. If you wanna talk ethnic cleansing, let's discuss a specific example. Besides, aren't the rebels supposed to be the "good guys"? Why are you so eager to replace Assad with someone who is no better?

---

Over the years, and especially in my younger days, I've discussed and argued a lot with people who defend Stalin(and a few who defend Mao).

It amuses me to see you using the exact same arguments and logic as they do.



As for myself, I've gown tired of arguing with people who defend bloody and tyrannical mass-murderers. You get to a point where you just can't be bothered anymore. I limit myself to reading other people write of how they've argued with people who defend bloody and tyrannical mass-murderers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Over the years, and especially in my younger days, I've discussed and argued a lot with people who defend Stalin(and a few who defend Mao).

It amuses me to see you using the exact same arguments and logic as they do.



As for myself, I've gown tired of arguing with people who defend bloody and tyrannical mass-murderers. You get to a point where you just can't be bothered anymore. I limit myself to reading other people write of how they've argued with people who defend bloody and tyrannical mass-murderers.

---

But of course, why bother with facts on the ground when labels are so much more convenient...

Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils. In the case of Syria, I'm not sure which side is the lesser evil. It seems to me that the bulk of the fighting is concerned with tit-for-tat sectarian violence.

As for the West intervening, I think it is impossible to tell whether or not that would have a positive effect. If Syria got a relatively democratic and non-sectarian government out of it, great. But I think it is more likely that an outright Rebel victory would result in the hardline Salafists becoming the most powerful faction. It's all very well to say that Syrians will get sick of them in their own time, but as this conflict has shown, Syria is not a homogenous society. I'm not sure the Shiites would ever forgive the West if it put a Salafist faction in power - it would just increase tension in the whole Middle East and cause them to turn to Hezbollah and Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils. In the case of Syria, I'm not sure which side is the lesser evil. It seems to me that the bulk of the fighting is concerned with tit-for-tat sectarian violence.

---

That attitude was what turned the democratic spanish republicans into a force fully controlled by stalinists by the end of the war.

A movement becomes what we make it.


Still, there is never any need to support blood-drenched tyrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Still, there is never any need to support blood-drenched tyrants.

---

So, then why are you supporting the blood-drenched salafist murderers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

So, then why are you supporting the blood-drenched salafist murderers?

---

I am? That's news to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I am? That's news to me.

---

Sure you are. You want them to overthrow a secular tyrant, which will likely result in the subsequent genocide of the minorities. So, why do you want to kill the minorities in Syria?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Sure you are. You want them to overthrow a secular tyrant

---

Could you please point to the post where I express that wish?

You want Assad to lose, no? That means that the salafist opposition wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

You want Assad to lose, no? That means that the salafist opposition wins.

---

I have said I do not support bloodsoaked tyrants like Assad. Nor do I support any religious opposition(or any religious group, period, actually).

Your argument is completely in line with every stalinist I have encountered. I do not see the stalinists as a great source of moral fibre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I have said I do not support bloodsoaked tyrants like Assad. Nor do I support any religious opposition(or any religious group, period, actually).

Your argument is completely in line with every stalinist I have encountered. I do not see the stalinists as a great source of moral fibre.

---

You think I like Assad? No, I just hate the opposition more than him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

You think I like Assad? No, I just hate the opposition more than him.

---

Yet you excuse his behaviour by pointing out that "those guys are bastards too", just like any good commie will do when faced with the repression of Ukranians in the USSR(they supported the whites, who are worse, so they had to die).

I don't see how Syria is more polarized today than the USSR was in 1920, yet I see absolutely no reason to support either the reds or the whites. The democratic opposition exists, and are crying for your attention before they're all gunned down by both extremes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That attitude was what turned the democratic spanish republicans into a force fully controlled by stalinists by the end of the war.

A movement becomes what we make it.

---

Right... but in Syria things have been at that stage for a long time. The Stalinists/Salafists have been running the show and tbh they took over right from the beginning because they were the only viable fighting force available to the rebels - handing out weapons alone does not create a serious fighting force.

I do remember reading that a lot of young fighters joined the Islamists because the Free Syrian Army lacked weapons - I'll grant that if we acted earlier then the secular FSA-elements might have become dominant on the rebel side - but there's no way we can know for sure. At the end of the day, the very nature of the conflict creates a vicious cycle of sectarian violence and sectarian division, so the opposing forces will naturally divide themselves along such lines and see the conflict in those terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Still, there is never any need to support blood-drenched tyrants.

---

Even if, in failing to do so, they are replaced with even worse tyrants?

I do sympathise with your position here since I think in the long-term it is the best way, but you have to at least be aware of the short-term drawbacks in terms of practical outcomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yet you excuse his behaviour by pointing out that "those guys are bastards too", just like any good commie will do when faced with the repression of Ukranians in the USSR(they supported the whites, who are worse, so they had to die).

---

What the heck are you talking about?

Quote:

---

I don't see how Syria is more polarized today than the USSR was in 1920, yet I see absolutely no reason to support either the reds or the whites. The democratic opposition exists, and are crying for your attention before they're all gunned down by both extremes.

---

The Russian civil war after WW1 was purely ideological. It had little to do with religion or ethnicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Right... but in Syria things have been at that stage for a long time. The Stalinists/Salafists have been running the show and tbh they took over right from the beginning because they were the only viable fighting force available to the rebels - handing out weapons alone does not create a serious fighting force.

I do remember reading that a lot of young fighters joined the Islamists because the Free Syrian Army lacked weapons - I'll grant that if we acted earlier then the secular FSA-elements might have become dominant on the rebel side - but there's no way we can know for sure. At the end of the day, the very nature of the conflict creates a vicious cycle of sectarian violence and sectarian division, so the opposing forces will naturally divide themselves along such lines and see the conflict in those terms.

---

It is my clear understanding that Syria was botched from the very beginning. I do agree with you that the state of the current opposition is very much(at least too much) like the republicans in 1937/8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Even if, in failing to do so, they are replaced with even worse tyrants?

I do sympathise with your position here since I think in the long-term it is the best way, but you have to at least be aware of the short-term drawbacks in terms of practical outcomes.

---

And what is the short-term drawback of supporting Assad? There is likely to be yet another mid-east uprising soon(or already - Turkey), and they are now even clearer that the west won't even provide moral support, let alone any material support.

By judging these events on an individual basis, I believe we are digging ourselves further and further into the mud. Every time we fail to give clear support of the opposition out of the fear that one of the shadier groups will seize the opposition, we make it more and more likely that the next opposition will end up exactly like that. A spiral, if you will, and it must be broken. The hardliners won't do it, the democratic opposition can't do it - and so it falls to the wider international democratic society to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

What the heck are you talking about?

The Russian civil war after WW1 was purely ideological. It had little to do with religion or ethnicity.

---

And you believe class struggle has less potential for murder than religion or racism? But you are wrong, of course, the russian civil war was also about ethnicity(cossacks, ukranians, caucasians) and religion(eastern orthodoxy, atheism).

Anyway, allow me to elaborate on the part you didn't understand fully:

You support Assad's regime. Your support is based on the fear of what you perceive the opposition to be, and the actions you believe they will take should they win. Correct?

The early slaughters of the USSR(the civil war dead) is a quite common criticism of the USSR. The argument against the USSR is the extremes they took against their enemies, mostly located in the south of Russia(north of the black sea - cossacks and ukranians). A proper Stalinist will reply by saying that the killings were completely justified. He will point to the Cossack loyalty to the Tsar and the curent(at the time) loyalty of the population in the areas in question to the White army. He will state, as is correct, that the White army had committed severe atrocities, including numerous pogroms, before and during the civil war. He will liken the white army to the later Nazi's(something I consider correct as well), and claim that if they had been victorious, they would've carried out far worse acts than Lenin did, and that these acts would be targeted against groups they identify with(workers and jews). In addition, they will point out that 20 years later, many of their descendants supported the Nazi invasion. Thus, the stalinist argues, the massacres of soldiers and civilians was entirely justified, as it prevented an even greater massacre than the one Lenin was responsible for.

In my opinion, this is a logical fallacy, a means becoming an end and a romantization of genocide. Do you see the similarity with your argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And you believe class struggle has less potential for murder than religion or racism? But you are wrong, of course, the russian civil war was also about ethnicity(cossacks, ukranians, caucasians) and religion(eastern orthodoxy, atheism).

---

If you're such an expert on Russian history, perhaps you could provide an example of a civil war massacre done by the Red Army to a specific ethnic/religious group?

Quote:

---

Anyway, allow me to elaborate on the part you didn't understand fully:

You support Assad's regime. Your support is based on the fear of what you perceive the opposition to be, and the actions you believe they will take should they win. Correct?

The early slaughters of the USSR(the civil war dead) is a quite common criticism of the USSR. The argument against the USSR is the extremes they took against their enemies, mostly located in the south of Russia(north of the black sea - cossacks and ukranians).

---

Once again, where's your evidence? Especially when it comes to the Ukranians. Both Cossacks and Ukranians were deeply divided and both groups fought on both sides as well as against the German occupation of Ukraine. You're oversimplifying the situation without knowing all the facts. Repressions against both groups came much later (in the 1930s), and they had nothing to do with the civil war. Ukraine and the Don region (the cossack homeland) had large numbers of rich landed farmers, who didn't like Stalin's idea of collectivization. By that time the civil war was old news.

Quote:

---

A proper Stalinist will reply by saying that the killings were completely justified. He will point to the Cossack loyalty to the Tsar and the curent(at the time) loyalty of the population in the areas in question to the White army.

---

Russian civil war has little to do with Stalin. He was a minor party figure at that time, he didn't make the policy. He was basically an opportunistic nobody who only sprung up as Lenin's physical condition began to deteriorate.

Quote:

---

He will state, as is correct, that the White army had committed severe atrocities, including numerous pogroms, before and during the civil war. He will liken the white army to the later Nazi's(something I consider correct as well), and claim that if they had been victorious, they would've carried out far worse acts than Lenin did, and that these acts would be targeted against groups they identify with(workers and jews). In addition, they will point out that 20 years later, many of their descendants supported the Nazi invasion. Thus, the stalinist argues, the massacres of soldiers and civilians was entirely justified, as it prevented an even greater massacre than the one Lenin was responsible for.

In my opinion, this is a logical fallacy, a means becoming an end and a romantization of genocide. Do you see the similarity with your argument?

---

There is no similarity with my argument. None. I do not argue for the genocide of the rebels. I merely argue for not letting them win.

Lulz, catholic priest beheaded in Syria by rebels. People who read quality media can't have heard of it for obvious reasons, well yeah let's send more weapons. Leftist people know, for a fact, that it's an Arab spring. Who does know better by now, at least one knew better for an agonising minute. No you idiots. Islam is not peace it's a sadistic ideoligy and you lefties can bambi-eye it all you want, it is what it is and it will remain what it is.

Go Assad

This kind of news does not get nearly as much coverage as it should.

I still wouldn't go so far as to champion either side, but more and more news of rebel atrocities does seem to be coming through.

The latest is shooting a boy in the face for blaspheming God.

You know there is good reason to keep a hands off approach to this one.

I think both sides could easily be called the bad guys and there a’int no good guys playing in this one.

as I have said before the entire war is one big example of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

If we back the rebels we will be supporting the next Afghanistan, if we support the current regime we are effectively saying we are willing to back blood soaked dictators (I mean i know we do but actually outright saying it) and if we do nothing the 2 sides will brutally massacre each other until either one side wins or the entire region joins in...

I don't see a winning solution to this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

I don't see a winning solution to this...

---

Kill Everyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

I don't see a winning solution to this...

---

Stay out of it?

The moment you get involved, everything that goes wrong is your fault.

It is good advice but it still doesn’t work.

The west will get the blame, in or out. Of course it is best to stay out, it simply costs less in both blood and treasure, but escaping blame? Someone will blame you no matter what happens. Real or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It is good advice but it still doesn’t work.

The west will get the blame, in or out. Of course it is best to stay out, it simply costs less in both blood and treasure, but escaping blame? Someone will blame you no matter what happens. Real or not.

---

Not even remotely similar. If the West doesn't get involved, some, usually the losing side will assign the blame, but in general, it will be relegated to intelectual discussions. If the West does get involved, the common people will be the ones who hold the grudge, regardless of the outcome.

if we don't get involved we will be blamed for the bloodshed caused by the winning side or worse if this develops into region wide war we will be blamed for not stopping it earlier...

staying out is the best option for us you are right but we will get the blame whatever happens and the worse the outcome the more blame we will get... that of course is the problem we (the west) have created by behaving like the worlds policeman and meddling in so many affairs