Syria

[rvg]

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...

[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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[rvg]

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

I am? That's news to me.

[rvg]

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?

[HoreTore]

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

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.