ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Viking]

It's the rule of these secular dictators that have been enabling the islamists to be seen as decent alternatives. If Syria's secular dictatorship survives, with or without Assad, we risk seeing the islamist threat repeat every x years.

A secular dictator is not likely to be a part of a lasting stable solution anywhere in the islamic world, whether they are nutty colonels or grey-eyed suit wearers.

[Pannonian]

It's the rule of these secular dictators that have been enabling the islamists to be seen as decent alternatives. If Syria's secular dictatorship survives, with or without Assad, we risk seeing the islamist threat repeat every x years.

A secular dictator is not likely to be a part of a lasting stable solution anywhere in the islamic world, whether they are nutty colonels or grey-eyed suit wearers.

So you reckon we should be paying for them to undergo the transitioning process. I'd rather we keep out of it until they sort out a liberal-ish democracy for themselves. The end results are more stable, we get less of the fall-out, and we save money. Better all-round for us, except we don't get to feel good about how pro-freedom we are. Having seen what that entails, I can do without that sense of satisfaction.

Thinking about it, have we yet seen a dictatorship that we've overthrown, that has gone through the religiosi stage, and successfully transitioned into a liberal democracy friendly to us?

[Brenus]

“Thinking about it, have we yet seen a dictatorship that we've overthrown, that has gone through the religiosi stage, and successfully transitioned into a liberal democracy friendly to us?” It might happen. But first, we have to stop to help dictators to kill/torture or train their security troops to kill/torture opponents under the pretext they are/were communists each time they ask for better wages and human rights.

[Viking]

So you reckon we should be paying for them to undergo the transitioning process. I'd rather we keep out of it until they sort out a liberal-ish democracy for themselves. The end results are more stable, we get less of the fall-out, and we save money. Better all-round for us, except we don't get to feel good about how pro-freedom we are. Having seen what that entails, I can do without that sense of satisfaction.

Thinking about it, have we yet seen a dictatorship that we've overthrown, that has gone through the religiosi stage, and successfully transitioned into a liberal democracy friendly to us?

I reckon that, as a minimum, we should not intentionally help Assad's regime survive the Syrian war just because of the IS bogeyman.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't get why the US can't have opposition without painting them out to be Cobra from G.I. Joe...

It's basically ill educated people with fundamentalist brainwashing, equipped with tech that was barely cool in the cold war days (unintentional pun ).

Stop trying to make a big scare off of it.

[HoreTore]

I reckon that, as a minimum, we should not intentionally help Assad's regime survive the Syrian war just because of the IS bogeyman.

True enough, as Assad's proper opponents(Free Syrian Army) are also fighting against IS. If we're going to have one of them fight our war for us, it should be the FSA and not Assad.

Anyway, there was a huge anti-IS(and muslim extremism in general) rally in Oslo today. Tens of thousands participated(for comparison, it was about the size of the gaza demo). It was held by local muslim organizations.

I'm sure the counterjihad cranks are going to paint it as an example of taqiyya, though.