Syria

[HoreTore]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[rvg]

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?

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

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?

[rvg]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Fragony]

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