US government switches 180 degrees, now openly and publicly supports ISIS

[BStrong]

Nr 1. Christians have been living in Syria since shortly after Jesus basically, including under the elder Assad. After the US and UK managed to screw up Iraq in 2003, many christians fled to the then already demonized Syria.
Nr 2. There's a direct difference between ISIS and Assad. ISIS for example has strict sharia law, Assad not. Have you seen Assad cutting off limbs in public?
Nr 3. There ALREADY is western help in bombing ISIS. Your rallying cry already exists and it is doubtful it would increase much.


So let's say you achieve your idealistic goal of eliminating Assad? Then what?

The US overthrew Saddam, no one can rule Iraq, huge mess. NATO overthrew Gaddafi, huge mess and boat refugees all over Europe. Arab crowds overthrew Mubarak, first thing they do is vote in the Muslim Brotherhood. Various other "springs": not much better.

You can keep running with your head against the wall at full speed, yet you expect the outcome to change and the wall to break?

Some of us in Europe are getting fed up of the mess the US creates and which floats all the way over here.

Like most educated modern dictators, Assad does his killing in private.

 

[Giordano]

I think the obvious error in this OP is that the US government switched 180 degrees; I understand that the US government and its allies always supported ISIS and in fact secretly created the group and trained them at CIA bases as a "black op." This was done after the USA planted thermite to bring down the twin towers. The barber of a friend of the wife of my cousin told me.

 

[theprestige]

The Assad regime has killed three times as many civilians as IS has. Exactly how, in any way, shape or form, are they the good guys in this?

The US killed orders of magnitudes more civilians during WW2 than Assad could possibly kill in his entire lifetime. And yet the US are commonly counted among the 'good guys' in that war.

Context matters.

It's not the amount of civilians you kill that makes you the bad guy. It's the how and the why.

This conflict is a little bit more complex than a good side and a bad side.

Agreed.

 

[Ryokan]

Yes, context matters. Unlike the US in WW2, Assad is not at war with another nation state, and the civilian deaths are not collateral damage. On the contrary, his war is against his own population and the civilians are his target.

Poison gas, torture, always delivering second bombs to discourage people to help those hit by the first bomb... Assad is as bad a dictator as you can get.

I know a lot of right wingers are cheering him and Russia on, because they are on the opposite side of IS, and opposition to IS fits in with their clash of civilizations narrative, but if you ask me, supporting him is no better than supporting IS. They're both enemies of mankind.

 

[theprestige]

I know a lot of right wingers are cheering him and Russia on, because they are on the opposite side of IS, and opposition to IS fits in with their clash of civilizations narrative, but if you ask me, supporting him is no better than supporting IS. They're both enemies of mankind.

Enh. I'm a right-winger and my calculus goes something like this: Better the pre-civil war status quo in Syria, than an ISIS caliphate in Syria.

Better a civil war in Syria, than the Assad regime in Syria--if and only if the rebels can win it, and the winners are more friendly to the West than Assad was.

And better NATO embarking on a major war in the Middle East, with the goal of defeating ISIS, ousting Assad, and installing a more friendly and humane government in Syria, than giving Russia an inch of anything, anywhere, anytime.

So no, I'm not cheering on Assad and Russia. As far as I'm concerned they can both die in a fire. That they're actually fighting ISIS and gaining advantage from it is a shameful thing for the West.

I'm curious to know: What major right-wing figures are cheering Assad and Russia right now?

 

[Praktik]

I bet alex jones is cheering Russia

 

[fuelair]

None of which changes the fact that Assad is an extremely nasty dictator, who shouldn't be supported by anyone.

He actually does deserve to be supported - on a sharp stick driven up his rectum and planted firmly in the ground at it's other end. For the curious, look up Vlad the Impaler or Shaka Zulu. A forest of Isis members like that would certainly make my day happier!!!

 

[fuelair]

The Assad regime has killed three times as many civilians as IS has. Exactly how, in any way, shape or form, are they the good guys in this?

This conflict is a little bit more complex than a good side and a bad side.

Mostly bad sides and unaffiliated civilians

 

[fuelair]

Enh. I'm a right-winger and my calculus goes something like this: Better the pre-civil war status quo in Syria, than an ISIS caliphate in Syria.

Better a civil war in Syria, than the Assad regime in Syria--if and only if the rebels can win it, and the winners are more friendly to the West than Assad was.

And better NATO embarking on a major war in the Middle East, with the goal of defeating ISIS, ousting Assad, and installing a more friendly and humane government in Syria, than giving Russia an inch of anything, anywhere, anytime.

So no, I'm not cheering on Assad and Russia. As far as I'm concerned they can both die in a fire. That they're actually fighting ISIS and gaining advantage from it is a shameful thing for the West.

I'm curious to know: What major right-wing figures are cheering Assad and Russia right now?

A nice hot slow fire!!

 

[angrysoba]

Nazi Germany fought the Polish Home Army, who were allied with the British, who fought the Nazis.

The Soviet Union opposed the home Army and refused to support them.

Does Roger Stonechurch think this means that the Soviet Union supported Nazi Germany?

Only until 1941.

But of course, the Soviet Union in WW2 is a good example because it shows the UK and US can have marriages of convenience even if:

1) it furthers Russia's geostrategic position
2) it's with a genocidal murderous dictator

The US and UK not only allied with an army they had previously been at war with, but completely transformed murderous, genocidal tyrant Joseph Stalin into an avuncular pipe-smoking chap, and he was even allowed to keep Poland whose freedom we had ostensibly gone to war to protect.

If by "supporting Assad" it means not bombing him and allowing ISIS to over-run Damascus, then I am in favour of that. Last year there was a vote in the House of Commons to bomb (or to keep options open about bombing) Assad's forces because of his gassing of civilians. I think that would have led to a situation similar to that in Libya when a request for a no-fly zone turned into the overthrow of the dictator there.

As the Home Army itself said (paraphrased), the friend of your friend might not be your friend, and the enemy of your enemy might not be your friend either.

Opposing Assad does not mean supporting ISIS.

Syria is a broken mess, but that does not mean that failing to support one bloodthirsty party equals supporting another bloodthirsty party.

I think part of the trouble with the mess in the Middle East is that all the players in the region are trying to game the situation. ISIS are evil but useful to those who don't want Iran to become a dominant force. And they are useful to Turkey as they are fighting against two of their other enemies - Assad and the Kurds.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nazi Germany fought the Polish Home Army, who were allied with the British, who fought the Nazis.

The Soviet Union opposed the home Army and refused to support them.

Does Roger Stonechurch think this means that the Soviet Union supported Nazi Germany?

Historically they did. See all the trade and such before Operation Barbarossa.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, context matters. Unlike the US in WW2, Assad is not at war with another nation state, and the civilian deaths are not collateral damage. On the contrary, his war is against his own population and the civilians are his target.

Poison gas, torture, always delivering second bombs to discourage people to help those hit by the first bomb... Assad is as bad a dictator as you can get.

I know a lot of right wingers are cheering him and Russia on, because they are on the opposite side of IS, and opposition to IS fits in with their clash of civilizations narrative, but if you ask me, supporting him is no better than supporting IS. They're both enemies of mankind.

And they are the same ones who called for invading Syria to remove Assad a few years ago.

 

[ehcks]

None of which changes the fact that Assad is an extremely nasty dictator, who shouldn't be supported by anyone.

Saddam was an extremely nasty dictator, who shouldn't be supported by anyone.

Removing him was practically the cause of ISIS's creation. :-\

 

[WildCat]

I know a lot of right wingers are cheering him and Russia on, because they are on the opposite side of IS, and opposition to IS fits in with their clash of civilizations narrative, but if you ask me, supporting him is no better than supporting IS. They're both enemies of mankind.

I've only seen left-wingers cheering Assad and Putin on, because they are anti-Israel and anti-Western.

 

[WildCat]

Does Roger Stonechurch think this means that the Soviet Union supported Nazi Germany?

They were allies at the start of WWII, both invaded Poland together and divided it up.

 

[erwinl]

Saddam was an extremely nasty dictator, who shouldn't be supported by anyone.

Removing him was practically the cause of ISIS's creation. :-\

here's a difference between not supporting and actively removing said dictator.

But I think we can agree, that there are only bad choices now in the Middle East.
Actively Intervening, intervening via proxies, just bombing or blockading, or even letting things go and just watch what will happen.
All are bad choices. The trick is looking for the least bad choice, recognizing it as such and going for it, even while knowing it is still not a good choice.

 

[WildCat]

here's a difference between not supporting and actively removing said dictator.

But I think we can agree, that there are only bad choices now in the Middle East.
Actively Intervening, intervening via proxies, just bombing or blockading, or even letting things go and just watch what will happen.
All are bad choices. The trick is looking for the least bad choice, recognizing it as such and going for it, even while knowing it is still not a good choice.

"Now"? When in the last 2,000 years were there good choices?

 

[Aepervius]

"Now"? When in the last 2,000 years were there good choices?

History lesson : between 500 and 800 roughly, maybe 1000, the center of enlightenment, knowledge AND tolerance was not europe. It was the middle east and the moslem world more precisely.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What about ISIS ally turkey? They are providing them with aid by bombing the Kurds after all. When will we start bombing Turkey?

 

[crescent]

They were allies at the start of WWII, both invaded Poland together and divided it up.

Sure - but it seemed obvious to me that I was referring to the later events in the war, after Germany and USSR were at war. The Warsaw Uprising comes to mind.