Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 297

On May 22 2015 04:24 Livelovedie wrote:

Seems to be rewarding sunni terrorism by giving them a vast state.

On May 22 2015 04:24 Livelovedie wrote:

Seems to be rewarding sunni terrorism by giving them a vast state.

On May 22 2015 14:42 Korakys wrote:

That's the point. Everyone, everywhere always hates violence in their own home, but the Sunni majority still supports IS because the alternative (Shia and Alawite government) is worse. Remove that possibility and IS will very quickly lose it's support among the population.

IS is leveraging a legitimate grievance to fuel their otherwise very unpopular goals.

There is an old American proverb, it goes: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". But that does not mean you should not grease a squeaky wheel! And maybe it prompts you to check if other wheels perhaps need greasing too.

SAA, National Hospital Survivors.

ISIS Video of SAA Retreating from Suknhnah, Homs Governate.

SAA Breakout from Jisr al-Shughour Hospital Footage.

On May 24 2015 18:29 NasusAndDraven wrote:

I dont know whats supposed to be weird about this. There are four main factions in the syrian civil war: Regime, Syrian Opposition, Kurds and the IS. The IS has also attacked Iraq where US wants to keep their multiple military bases, which is not something they can do if the nation is under IS control so they must fight them. The regime forces are in hostile relations with Israel which is a strategical ally for the US, so of course US wont mind if the IS destroys the regime for them. Its just that US does not want to directly engage the regime since it would force Iran to take a bigger role in the war which would just make the whole situation a lot more difficult. Kurds/Syrian opposition winning the war would be ideal for the US since then there would be no kind of threat for any of their interest from that area, so US supports them.

So yeah, the US military is doing exactly what is its job. Fighting for the advantage of them selves. They have never fought wars with heroic intentions (and i really think they shouldnt either) be it against nazis, north koreans, vietmanese, iraqese or the IS, that is just part of the media fluff which has been an increasingly important part of warfare since 1914. Only thing what is weird is that people still take the media fluff seriously after over 100 years. The history is right there for everyone.

On May 24 2015 21:13 ImFromPortugal wrote:


And what would be the ideal scenario for the Syrian people?

On May 25 2015 00:41 NasusAndDraven wrote:


Ideal outcome would be all of them suddenly forgiving each other, and they make peace and live happily ever after.

Best possible outcome for them would be for any of the sides winning as quickly as possible, which side would best depends on from whom you ask. If you want secular multicultural nation, then assad should win and return things to how they were. If you want to live in nation under sharia law then IS winning would be best. The rebels dont really have an end game as they just want to get rid of assad, so the results of them winning is unknown, most likely the nation would go to chaos like libya and egypt.

On May 25 2015 00:57 Catch]22 wrote:


Hi Assad. Nice to see you posting your propaganda here on TL.

On May 22 2015 14:42 Korakys wrote:

That's the point. Everyone, everywhere always hates violence in their own home, but the Sunni majority still supports IS because the alternative (Shia and Alawite government) is worse. Remove that possibility and IS will very quickly lose it's support among the population.

IS is leveraging a legitimate grievance to fuel their otherwise very unpopular goals.

There is an old American proverb, it goes: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". But that does not mean you should not grease a squeaky wheel! And maybe it prompts you to check if other wheels perhaps need greasing too.

On May 25 2015 03:29 koreasilver wrote:
So many people have this delusion that the secular governments of the Middle East in modernity was and is just a better alternative than all Islamic forms, and it's just beyond exasperating because it simplifies such a complicated socio-political history. Most of all the secular governments were explicitly Arab nationalist - the secular form was the political structure to encompass all Arabs, and in such a political mythos any other affiliation of identity was utterly secondary to ethnicity. Assad's regime was born from within this political epoch - for heaven's sake, Assad's regime had international support from various neo-fascist groups from the West; why would he receive such support if he really cared about "minorities" of all kinds? Again, the term "minority" here is extremely misleading as the secular Arab nationalists were more accepting of religious differences but were utterly xenophobic to those that weren't Arab, and any attempt to defend Assad for "protecting minorities" is seriously asinine given how much the Assad regime manipulated sectarian identities for political purposes. This would be akin to defending IS and other Muslim fundamentalists for "protecting minorities" since ethnic differences hold little weight in their friend-enemy distinction - they do, after all, believe in the ummah as a universal community that transcends ethnic and cultural boundaries.

There's so many fucking people posting in this thread that aren't just ignorant of socio-political and historical complexities of the Middle East but comment on it with blatantly racist, orientalist notions. It's honestly comical how idiotic some of these posts read.