Are we siding with those who fight ISIS, or with those who protect them??

[darkangel218]

Just curious.

(posted because of the many posts making excuses for Turkey shooting down a Russian plane)

[Electric Monk]

1. What an odd question. I am siding with those who oppose Daesh. I can't speak for everybody. nt

[jeff47]

2. Yes. (nt)

[arcane1]

4. Beat me to it :)

[TIME TO PANIC]

28. +1

[Aerows]

121. Yep, just about to say that. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

3. Good question! "Our side" is shooting down people who are bombing Isis. Makes you wonder...

[CentralMass]

29. The jet that was shot down was not, according to Turkey, targeting ISIS.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/middleeast/warplane-crashes-near-syria-turkey-border/index.html

"The Russian plane was warned numerous times beforehand and was subsequently dealt with because it "did not answer our warning," Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday.

There was no ISIS presence along that border area, but there were Turkmen there, Erdogan said. So anyone who bombs that area attacks "our brothers and sisters -- Turkmen," Erdogan said in Ankara. Turkmen are a Turkic-speaking, traditionally nomadic people who live primarily in Central Asia, but a small minority of them can be found in the Middle East, primarily in northern Iraq, Iran and Turkey"

[jeff47]

49. They weren't bombing ISIS. The plane was bombing anti-Assad rebels.

ISIS doesn't hold any territory in that area.

[atreides1]

57. Anti-Assad Rebels

Russia is doing what an ally does, attacking the forces that area threat to that ally, regardless of what name they go by!

Why wouldn't the Russians bomb the anti-Assad forces? The US would be doing the same thing, if the roles were reversed, would we all be so picky then?

[jeff47]

61. Because the claim is Russia is there to fight ISIS. They aren't fighting ISIS.

Instead, they are fighting the people who are fighting ISIS.

There are at least 5 sides to this war. Each of them have atrocities "on their books".

[CJCRANE]

64. Russia are fighting both Isis and Al Qaeda.

It would be pretty dumb to just fight Isis and let Al Qaeda gain in strength.

[jeff47]

70. Except almost all of their bombs are falling on places where ISIS is not located.

It would be pretty dumb to just fight Isis and let Al Qaeda gain in strength.

Not all anti-Assad rebels are aligned with Al Qaeda. In fact, a minority are. Russia is bombing them all.

Russia is working to restore Assad to power in order to serve their larger geopolitical goals. That means knocking off all anti-Assad rebels. ISIS is much less of an immediate threat to Assad, because ISIS can't fight Assad and the Kurds at the same time. They're currently busy with the Kurds.

So Russia is bombing the rebels. They'll get on to bombing ISIS after the rebels have been slaughtered.

[CJCRANE]

74. Many of them with Al Qaeda. Just look at that list posted elsewhere on DU. When Assad goes all hell

will break loose just as happened in Libya.

The west and our allies are spreading Salafism. Just look at the results, not the rhetoric.

[jeff47]

103. And if Assad stays, all hell will break loose.

It's not like he's going to just let bygones be bygones.

[ucrdem]

110. Because CNN says he's an evil dictator. nt

[jeff47]

112. No, because his security forces tortured a 13-year-old to death

As one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Hamza_Ali_Al-Khateeb

So...Al Jazeera and the host of other media in that are just like CNN, right?

[ucrdem]

113. 3 of six links are to CNN:

External links:
Syrian Free Press segment showing Hamza's body on YouTube
AlJazeera segment showing Hamza's body on YouTube
AlJazeera coverage of support protests for Hamza
CNN's AC360 incident segment
CNN's John Roberts review
CNN segment on protest response

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Hamza_Ali_Al-Khateeb

Not to belabor it but that was my point

[jeff47]

123. And those reports from CNN were not contradicted by the other news sources.

And there's a lot more than 6 if you actually look at the article.

[leveymg]

107. Almost all the other opposition groups are Islamist militants, including FSA and Turkomen militias.

There really isn't much to distinguish most of them from ISIS. When the other groups have the misfortune of having to come up against ISIS -- which is an amalgam of Sunni opposition militias and radical foreign fighters supported by the Saudis/Gulf States and Turkey -- they tend to merge rather than fight, and they bring their Qatari, Turkish and US-supplied weapons with them or simply hand them over to ISIS.

There are no good guys in Syria. Why should it surprise or upset anyone if the Russians treat them all as threats?

[JDPriestly]

127. I agree. There is not good side in Syria at this time. There may be good individuals, but

they apparently have not power.

One of the worst situations we have seen in a long, long time.

[ozone_man]

67. They're bombing ISIS oil facilities and trucks.

ISIS has been selling oil to Turkey. This may be one reason for this incident. Also, the U.S. is now bombing oil facilities, now that Russia is.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-airstrikes-blast-isis-oil-facilities-in-syria/

[Munificence]

94. I'd appreciate

any link you have to where Russia officially stated that "Russia is there to fight ISIS". I've never heard an official claim like that where Russia simply stated they were there for that. I have heard Russia make a statement that they are there to fight "terrorist" of which ISIS is included.

I'd appreciate the education if you'd be so obliged to help.

[jeff47]

101. I was using shorthand that the poster was using.

The poster was essentially using "terrorist = ISIS". I was using the same shorthand in order to try and get the point across.

[kentuck]

5. Good question.

I have no idea.

[uppityperson]

6. Dichotomous thinking works for movies. This is real life.

[forsaken mortal]

7. I just watched a video of the Russian pilots being shot to death as they parachuted down

and also a Russian rescue helicopter being destroyed on the ground as it tried to retrieve one of the pilots. Turkey was hotheaded and wrong in this action. The plane was in Turkish airspace for only a few seconds and it crashed and burned in Syria, not Turkey. The Russians will probably send a missile to greet any Turkish plane that locks a missile on them now. RIP Russian pilots, you were killed by senseless stupidity.

[uhnope]

30. This is the kind of fuck-up everyone predicted when Russia moved in to support the dictator Assad

while pretending to fight ISIS/Daesh.

Now Russia has stepped in it big time.

Putin wants to be a Stalin--and he's blundering into a world war

[Comrade Grumpy]

120. Your fever dreams and invective notwithstanding...

I believe this was no fuck up. It was a deliberate provocation by Turkey. Yeah, Turkey has the right to shoot down intruding jets (let's not question the intrusion for right now), but that doesn't mean it should.

Where it leads, nobody knows. I understand Erdogan's Turkmen and Al Nusra puppets are now wishing for the good old days as Russian bombs pour down on them.

Erdogan may also have fucked any possibility of a unified front against ISIS. While NATO publicly stands with Turkey, I'd love to be a fly on the way for some of those conversations.

I know you have a personal thing for Putin, but I think Erdogan is far more of the bad actor when it comes to Syria. But you know this, I'm sure.

[840high]

35. ...

[jeff47]

50. So we need to show you videos of Russian bombs landing on civilians

in anti-Assad rebel areas then. (Russia is using "dumb" bombs, so they miss a lot)

This is a real-life war. No "side" is clean.

[jeff47]

98. :facepalm:

You need photographic evidence that dropping bombs on civilians causes casualties.

Really.

Or do you need photographic proof that unguided bombs are unguided?

Perhaps you could post another Russia-funded video about how their amazing unguided munitions knock politely, confirm that the building only contains jihadists, and only then explodes.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. We are Bombing he Hell out of Daesh.

And Turkey, France, Jordan, England, Australia, and other countries have helped. Even Saudi Arabia helped in at least one bombing raid.

[darkangel218]

9. Turkey obviously is not helping.

How more obvious than that can they be?

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. July 25 "Turkish warplanes bomb ISIS positions in Syria for the first time"

Turkish warplanes bomb ISIS positions in Syria for the first time

[darkangel218]

13. Lol. one time??

Russians are fighting ISIS, and are now being shot down by Turkish military, for flying a few secs over their airspace!! Can you not see what is happening?

[Chan790]

22. Russia is really not fighting Daesh, which is the problem.

They've almost strictly been targeting US and NATO-backed "Free Syrian" proxies, the majority of whom are Turkish and Kurdish...also people Daesh hates as much as they hate us or France or Israel. They're attacking enemies of Daesh that are also enemies of Assad.

So, Russia's not really helping bring about a resolution...they're deepening the crisis by eliminating non-Assad, non-Daesh opposition in an attempt to force us to back their proxy Assad as the lesser evil.

I feel bad about their pilot but let's not pretend Russia is on the same side of this we are.

[Codeine]

32. They're NOT fighting ISIS/Daesh though -- that's the problem.

They're busily waxing all the anti-Assad ethnic minorities and rebels so as to protect their golden boy. ISIS is a pretext.

[CJCRANE]

66. Russia bombed 500 Isis oil tankers. The western coalition then had to play catch up

and bomb some themselves, having had a year to do so.

[rusty fender]

12. Exactly

Turkey will be the death of us (no pun intended)

[darkangel218]

16. They should leave NATO.

it is obvious who and what they are. (at least who and what the people in power of Turkey are)

[CJCRANE]

14. Right, all those countries were bombing them for a year and they got bigger!

It took the western coalition a year to figure out they could bomb the oil trucks...but only after Russia started bombing them!

[Aerows]

122. Which is the biggest

ever if you believe there are clean hands anywhere in this mess. Turkey has been buying oil from ISIS for over a year, a fact admitted by a US Senator.

The oil fairy doesn't come and move millions of barrels of oil - it takes a coordinated effort. Meaning, that if you *wanted* to see oil being moved, you would see it. If our intelligence agencies were unaware of the movement of said oil, they are not worth a penny of anybody's tax dollars.

They were *ordered* to look the other way.

[Chan790]

19. More to the point...Russia isn't.

They've focused the vast majority of their firepower on non-Daesh, non-Al Qaeda anti-Assad forces...the ones we, along with Turkey and other NATO allies, are trying to make viable and Russia views the same as Daesh but more viable primarily because we're backing them.

It's not a two-sided war. It's a three-sided war.
*Russia and Assad.
*The US/NATO and the various factions of the Free Syrian Army.
*Daesh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I would add combatants to your excellent list

You are forgetting the tribal elements, that at times span borders.

And of course AQ that is also at war with Daesh, and at times with itself.

And we have barely started to scratch the surface here.

[jeff47]

52. Don't forget the "sides" within your groups.

The anti-Assad forces are not exactly friendly with each other.

[jeff47]

106. Why don't you post another article from a media source funded entirely by Russia.

President Bashar al-Assad's family is Alawite and Alawites dominate the government of Syria and hold key military positions.

By butchering anyone who opposes him. Including Christians.

One of the triggers of the civil war was Assad's secret police tortured a 13-year-old to death, and returned the body to his parents piece-by-piece.

THAT is the guy you are trying to restore to power.

Now, tell me again how you are SO concerned about the poor Syrian people.

[hifiguy]

10. Both.

FACT: KSA is the money behind virtually EVERY radical Sunni group more or less anywhere in the world.

And as long as the US continues to smooch Saudi/Wahhabi ass, we are complicit in every bit of it and helping to destroy ourselves.

[guillaumeb]

15. Step One: The US destroys a country in the name of whatever.

Step Two: Fighting breaks out in the now destroyed country and the infrastructure collapses.
Step Three: Pundits, the media, and government officials decry the violence and blame terrorism.
Step Four: "Intervention" is necessary to protect US interests. This intervention requires massive military spending and "boots on the ground" that are filled with poor people of all colors.

Find another country and repeat Step One.

[Laughing Mirror]

93. You got it, guillaume

The four-step program you outlined is precisely the pattern they always fall back on. Surely it has made for a more harmonious peaceful world especially in the Middle East, since, say, 1990, where some 4 million have been killed in "the name of whatever."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. The enemy of my enemy isn't my friend.

They're just also the enemy of my enemy.

That being said, I'm not in favour of Turkey having shot down the Russian jet.

[CJCRANE]

18. Why is Assad our enemy?

When did Congress or the UN declare war on the Syrian government?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. I'd forgotten about Assad, actually.

I was speaking about ISIS and Russia and Turkey.

[CentralMass]

20. So Turkey, who borders Syria, does not want Assad in power. They have been suporting Syrian

Rebels who Russia is targeting because they want Assad in power. Russia is also hitting ISIS targets.
As far as I know, the U.S.'s official position is that it wants Assad out.

So what just happened ?

I suspect what just happened was Russia pounding the Syrian rebels near the Turkish border and when they violated Turkish airspace , the Turks shot down the Jet. The rebels who have probably been getting pounded by Russian airstrikes probably shot the pilot or rescue crewman on the way down. A horrible situation, no matter why it occurred.


So in that scenario, Putin is 50-50 with U.S. governments position.

If the Russians were targeting ISIS and the Turks shot the jet down to prevent them from doing so and it was Turkish military that shot the aircrew on the way down, that is a completely different situation.

For the records I think the Turks just made a big mistake, but Russia is their for the own purposes.

[CJCRANE]

24. But...if Russia just targeted Isis as the west and our allies want

then the Al Qaeda rebels would grow stronger and take over.

And despite our propaganda, Al Qaeda are not "moderate". Don't forget, these are the guys who attacked America on 9/11 and who we were previously fighting against for over a decade.

[CentralMass]

26. I think that everthing that we do in the ME turns to $h.t.

We are indiscriminately arming he entire region and about to leave another failed state in ruins and chaos.

[Codeine]

33. Anything ANYBODY does in the ME turns to shit.

It's a shitty place full of miserable, hateful people nursing tribal, ethnic, religious, political, economic, and territorial grudges they've built up for centuries. It's a hellhole and any undertaking there is doomed to blowback, failure, and endless expense.

[jeff47]

54. Russia isn't hitting ISIS targets.

At best, they're hitting very, very few ISIS targets.

I suspect what just happened was Russia pounding the Syrian rebels near the Turkish border and when they violated Turkish airspace , the Turks shot down the Jet.

Russia's repeatedly violated Turkish airspace in the past, complete with diplomatic protests from Turkey. Since those diplomatic protests have not stopped Russia from violating Turkish airspace, Turkey decided to start shooting.

[CJCRANE]

68. What about the 500 Isis oil trucks and Isis oil facilities that even PBS showed being bombed by the

Russians?

[HereSince1628]

69. When opponents are killing to get their way, quaint things like borders mean little unless

they can be defended or act as trip-wires to escalation.

In this case, there is concern about both outcomes being realized, but we don't yet know how Russia will deal with this.

[AngryAmish]

23. It appears we are siding with everybody.

[trof]

25. On Tuesdays we're 'anti-ISIS'. Check back on Wednesday.

[840high]

36. yep +100

[SoCalMusicLover]

27. Turkey Are Not Our Friends

ISIS is using Turkey as a route into and out of Iraq, and the government there couldn't care less.

And for those who missed it, in the days after the Paris attacks, they "tried" to have a moment of silence at a soccer match in Turkey. However, there was no silence, only Loud Booing from the fans in the stadium.

A country where that many are willing to BOO a moment of silence for the 130+ lives lost in France, is not a country I have any respect for. I would not feel safe there if I were an American, that's for sure.

[plus5mace]

31. It's not a difficult choice for me.

I oppose ISIS and their supporters in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Until the Obama administration makes the same assessment I don't care much what else they say on the topic.

[Codeine]

34. plus5mace?

Damned clerics.

[plus5mace]

45. Everyone hates Clerics until they need a resurrection spell.

Or some undead turned.

[CentralMass]

37. Russia is bombing two targets, Syrian rebels trying to overthow

Assad, and ISIS. Their focus started with the Syrian rebels.

[killbotfactory]

40. The rebels include al qeada and other Islamic jihadists

If they win the minorities in govt controlled areas face the possibility of genocide.

The FSA is just a western friendly front for the non-isis jihadists.

[CentralMass]

46. Its beyond my scope.Though it seems that Russia is clearly operating to keep Assad in power.

This article discusses the issue and has a map of the region and where Russia has been bombing.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/turkey-caught-between-aiding-turkmen-and-economic-dependence-on-russia

So at this point its appears that the administrations has given Putin carte blanche to clean house.

[plus5mace]

44. There is no scenario in which Russia will accept the loss of Syria,

Either to ISIS or Western backed rebels. There is also no chance for the Western backed rebels to succeed, nor much hope that they would be any better than Assad if they did. Given what a nightmare this has turned into I'd think it is time to give up on this part of the project to pick off pieces of the Russian empire.

[killbotfactory]

117. The civil war created the power vacuum that ISIS filled.

The west has been planning for years a way to exploit any popular unrest in Syria to advance the idea of regime change. We've done it to other countries numerous times in the past. There is no way that "moderate rebels" would have started taking up arms unless they had the explicit backing of western aligned nations. The idea that you can have an ongoing civil war, and also a war on ISIS, is absurd. Without a central government to reassert control over the territory, ISIS will run hog-wild for however long they want to.

When the Arab spring happened in Bahrain, a Saudi satellite state, the protesters were tortured and violently put down and the west didn't even give one half of a fuck about it.

When nations are playing realpolitik, human rights concerns are mostly propaganda to gin up support for whatever bullshit they want the public to support.

[MattSh]

128. Well yeah, according to the US press...

The moderates are really more of a myth of the west instead of a force that had any possible chance of overthrowing Assad. Think of the Tea Party in the USA and you start to get an idea just how much a chance those moderates had to accomplish much of anything.

[renegade000]

38. Are we falling for Russian propaganda that everyone that isn't Assad is ISIS?

It's a reasonable debate to have as to who or whether or not we should be backing anyone in this N-sided civil war, but can we cut the "either you're with us or the terrorists" bullshit? It was baloney when Bush trotted it out, it's still baloney.

What's really rich about this clusterfuck of a situation is that Turkey was likely acting (poorly) out of an impulse to defend the ethnic Turkmen in Syria (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34910389). Putin should have some sympathy with that, given that he was oh so concerned about the ethnic Russians/Russian-speakers in Eastern Ukraine, and wanted to help them shoot down a bunch of aircraft...

Cynically speaking, this whole Syria misadventure has been a giant dick-wagging contest of all the regional and world powers...with ISIS as the bogeyman... and it's going to increase in the aftermath of the Paris attacks. I'm sure Hollande means well, but I'm not entirely sure how increased bombing campaigns in Syria is going to solve the problem of people wanting to flee Syria to Europe as well as the problem of disaffected and radicalized European-born Muslims going on shooting sprees in Europe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Not that black and white at all

there are over 100 identified militias, groups whatever you want to call them in Syria. Some are as small as a few dozen heavily armed men who control a patch of land.

Some are clearly allied with DAESH, others clearly allied with Assad, a few fighting Assad, and most making alliances of convenience.

The Free Syrian Army is actually kind of a coalition with many splinter groups, and many of these groups will ally with the stronger militias operating near them for survival sake. So if today it is the Syrian army (wherever remains of it) and tomorrow it is the FSA, guess what? Loyalties are that mercurial.

The problem is that our lovely media has not gone into any of this or the fact that some are Turkmen (like the people who shot the Russian pilots today) who have far more in common with Turkey than Syria, Others are Shia, others are sunni, there are Christian Mennonites, and other Christians.

And then there is the tribal element, and tribes that at times span across international borders. Some have been at war with each other for hundreds of years.

I hope I managed to confuse you even more. Because quite frankly I do not think our news media, and at times I fear our Intel people, understand this. For that matter, this goes for all other Western powers and the Russians themselves.

So who our allies are? Well... it depends.

[underpants]

56. Thank you

I've been looking for some explanation

[ucrdem]

42. Assad was a model head of state, then bang, he was evil dictator du jour.

So we're backing anti-Assad forces, then when they become ISIS we start backing anti-anti-Assad forces, then when we decide Iran and Russia are backing Assad we return to backing anti-Assad forces. Now we're all supposed to fight DAESH and its sophisticated social media network. It's hard keeping up.

[Igel]

47. Assad was a model head of state?

Excuse me? What did they put in your water?

His father was a worse dictator than the chinless eye doctor, but Assad the Lesser was still a dictator. He was only a "model head of state" when it was necessary to fantasize in order to contradict Bush II, who must be contradicted at all times. If Syria's part of the axis of evil (was it?), then the knee-jerk reaction was that Syria was a progressive, egalitarian, enlightened state. Why? Because Bush II decried it, and because by calling it so perhaps it would become so.

Stupid idea. A cesspool filled with pig feces by any other name is still a a pig-feces-filled cesspool and by no means Crater Lake.

It was the same with Qaddhafi. He had a number of firm supporters here as long as he fought Western imperialism and helped the right left-wing dictators on the continent. As soon as he turned tail and went all Bushie, his supporters suddenly discovered his torture chambers and how horrible it was that Bush II had against found a dictator that he liked.

For the record, I've thought straight along that Assad the Lesser was just a lesser dictator, never a good guy. Still, supporting those who sought to overthrow him was also, in my opinion, no less foolish than calling him a "partner for peace" and "reformer," as some did during Bush II's tenure.

[ucrdem]

48. But the fact is he was a friend and ally until about four years ago.

Now he's persona non grata and the proof is that he's fighting a civil war. Well, that's his job. And the evidence that he's used gas or other proscribed weaponry against the insurgents shipped into Syria has not been compelling.

[jeff47]

55. Do you need me to post pictures of US officials "being nice" to Saddam and Gadaffi?

The dictators in the region are our friends, only as long as it is convenient. When it is no longer convenient, our government starts caring about their crimes against humanity.

Assad was "our friend" when he could be helpful. But we'd prefer someone else. Both because they aren't a brutal dictator (yet), and because they would not be allied with Russia.

[ucrdem]

58. "we'd prefer someone else" is not a reason to be complicit in a humanitarian catastrophe. nt

[jeff47]

59. There already was a humanitarian catastrophe. It had been going on for decades.

When rebels overthrew Assad, we threw our weight behind them in order to 1) hopefully get someone who isn't a brutal dictator in charge of Syria, and 2) get someone who isn't an ally of Russia in charge of Syra.

[ucrdem]

60. Assad is supported by the Syrian populace and regime change is anti-democratic and despotic.

There's no good reason for US involvement and it was never our war. We're basically providing cover for allies.

[jeff47]

62. Um...no. See, the Syrian populace rebelled against Assad. That's who the "rebels" are.

Assad was in power because he was a brutal dictator. Not quite as brutal as his father, but that's not exactly a high bar to jump over.

[ucrdem]

63. Oh baloney. The insurgents were shipped in by the planeload and that's still the case. nt

[jeff47]

65. Not baloney. Assad was in power just like Saddam and Gaddafi were - kill the opposition.

In Syria, the combination of the drought and the "Arab spring" brought enough people willing to fight to the rebel groups for open rebellion to start.

[ucrdem]

71. Yeah that Arab spring thing didn't go so well so here come the air strikes.

Very democratic.

[jeff47]

76. Well, it's hard to vote when the local dictator has killed you for rebelling.

Seriously, do you think this is a movie where "the good guys" are 100% noble and the bad guys are 100% evil?

This is a 5-sided civil war. Every single group has blood on their hands.

[ucrdem]

79. It's a failed regime change op and we need to get out of that business. nt

[jeff47]

80. So that Assad can go back to torturing and killing his enemies. (nt)

[CJCRANE]

72. It was an Islamist rebellion funded and armed by outside sources. nt

[ucrdem]

73. Thank you. nt

[jeff47]

75. It isn't a monolithic rebellion. That's why the rebels are fractured.

Most of the rebels are "home grown". A small portion are not.

All are funded and armed by outside sources, because the dictator kept all the arms for himself.

[CJCRANE]

77. Many of them are foreign jihadis. Hence why the Pentagon ended up with only 5 moderate rebels.

The peopling funding the rebels are salafists/islamists who want to implement the most extreme form of sharia law.

Christians and minorities will be persecuted if our guys win.

[jeff47]

78. No, most of the foreign jihadis are going to ISIS.

The peopling funding the rebels are salafists/islamists who want to implement the most extreme form of sharia law.

Christians and minorities will be persecuted if our guys win.

Yes.

Your alternative?

Go back to Assad persecuting the Christians?

[ucrdem]

81. "Assad persecuting the Christians?" Let me guess, CNN?

Relying on RW talking points is not exactly a winning strategy.

[jeff47]

82. No, he basically slaughtered anyone who got in his way. Just like any other dictator.

You seriously want to claim Assad is a good guy?

[ucrdem]

84. See above. nt

[CJCRANE]

86. Not even the RW believes that. In fact many of them know that Assad accepts Christians

because many conservative christians are concerned about seeing their coreligionists wiped out by the invading jihadis.

[CJCRANE]

83. Gaddafi, Saddam, Mubarak, Assad accepted Christians. Syrian Christians have asked the west to stop

supporting the rebels. They want to stay in their homeland not be pushed out by jihadis.

[jeff47]

85. "Accepted" as in "only killed some of them".

Seriously, where are all the "Brutal dictators are great guys!!" posters coming from?

[CJCRANE]

89. Saddam's second in command was a Christian. Attacks against Coptic Christians increased under

the western-backed Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi.

I think the question should be where did the people come from who apologize for neocon PNAC regime change policies?

(We never had that on DU in the Bush era).

In terms of protecting Christians, the Arab Nationalist dictators were better than the Islamist regimes and rebels the west supports.

Look at our staunch allies - the gulf monarchies - try being a christian or other minority there. It ain't pretty.

[jeff47]

91. As I keep saying, everyone involved has blood on their hands.

I think the question should be where did the people come from who apologize for neocon PNAC regime change policies?

Little problem with your claim: We didn't kick off this rebellion.

In terms of protecting Christians, the Arab Nationalist dictators were better than the Islamist regimes and rebels the west supports.

And who cares about the non-Christians, right?

Look at our staunch allies - the gulf monarchies - try being a christian or other minority there. It ain't pretty.

Never claimed it was pretty.

[CJCRANE]

95. So you prefer to ally with the islamist gulf monarchies to spread democracy?

The DIA issued a memo that it was an islamist rebellion from the start supported by other regional countries.

And by saying they accept Christians doesn't mean they don't accept non-Christians.

[jeff47]

100. Nope. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd get us the fuck out of the region.

But even that has it's own horrific, mostly genocidal, downsides.

This is a situation where there is no good way forward. There are only varying degrees of bad ways forward. Just abandoning the area is no better than trying to "steer" things towards a less violent course, because both will cause massive horrors.

[cemaphonic]

43. Syria is way too complicated to reduce to simplistic us vs. them thinking.

There's at least a dozen major states and wannabe states (plus assorted splinter groups) pursuing what they see as their strategic interests in the area, and while some goals overlap, others are in direct conflict. In Russia's case, propping up Assad appears to be a higher priority than fighting Daesh. Likewise, Turkey cares more about supporting its proxies in Syria (and keeping a lid on Kurdish ambitions) than fighting Daesh. It's all a big chaotic mess, and the lines between ally and enemy are pretty tenuous.

As far as this specific incident, Russia has been extremely aggressive about these sorts of airspace violations over the last couple of years. In stable areas, it's dealt with with interceptors and diplomatic badmouthing. In this case, violating Turkish airspace in a warzone, after repeated warnings to cut that out, on a mission to bomb Turkomen ethnic nationals is pretty much asking for it. Especially since Russia has been playing the "protecting Russian ethnic groups" card in Ukraine.

[tblue37]

51. Yes. nt

[Aria36]

53. Both!! nt

[libdem4life]

88. Who knows? No one. We just feel better about our collective selves

when we're out Empirin' and bombin' brown and black folk. I mean really, who cares or what does it matter?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

90. Hope this helps ...

A highly restricted briefing paper on Syria :

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin (who is bad, 'cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks (including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but lets face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice man Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm...might have a point...) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good/bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

I hope that helps clears things up!😃

[darkangel218]

96. Thank you, I finally understand whats going on.

Much appreciated.

[Chemisse]

105. I love this!

And it really is that complex. (Ugh!) And good and bad are really that fluid.

[eissa]

124. This needs to go viral

Best summation of this clusterfuck I've read so far.

[darkangel218]

129. +1

[abakan]

102. As usual we will side with...

Whoever is expedient to do so, friend or foe.

[Bradical79]

108. It's not a binary war

Thinking one party's version of events is more plausible than another isn't the same thing as supporting all other actions from that government.

[ucrdem]

109. It's a bs propaganda war on Assad.

Assad did nothing to offend anyone but had the bad luck of being next on somebody's list and now we can't seem to break the place fast enough.

[Bradical79]

119. Lol, nonsense

[LittleBlue]

111. We're actively supporting terrorism

Giving money and weapons to Islamist militants who kill children for blasphemy is supporting terrorism in my book.

[Matrosov]

114. We <3 ISIS

As long as the terrorists of either the Free Syrian Army or ISIS overthrow Al Assad, who is standing in the way of the Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline, the US and most of the West will be happy.

[ucrdem]

116. Welcome Matrosov

[killbotfactory]

115. Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria

It seems we are fine with them so long as they only fuck up Syria.

[NobodyHere]

118. Probably both

[TheFarseer]

125. I don't think we have any fucking idea

Which is why we don't need to rush into another conflict in the area.

[cheapdate]

126. Easy, both.

But regarding Turkey, defending a country's territorial integrity is among the most basic obligations of a legitimate, sovereign state, wouldn't you say?