Does anyone on this forum actually care about Syria?

[clubgop]

Le Pen and her father before her have been stirring up hatred for Muslim nationals for decades. We have been aware of the Front National for a long long time in Europe. Just because you never heard the name Le Pen till recently doesn't mean we didn't know all about their hateful shit stirring.
When you are treated as a second class citizen and can't get a job or decent housing you are going to get angry and when getting angry does you no good it leads to violent protests.
Add to that the invasion and destabilising of the region and you have perfect conditions for creating terrorists.

Just keep talking that in order to save western civilization we have to surrender western civilization mess. You lost, people chose to fight. So nut up buttercup.

[clubgop]

Just remind me who destabilised the region and created a power vacuum which led to the rise of ISIS? Oh yeah I remember George W fucking Bush.
Oh and where were most of the terrorists in France born? In France that's where. Who would have thought that raving anti-Islamic fucktards like Le Pen would turn French nationals into terrorists.
Good luck with that policy in the US clubby, how many Muslims do you have as natural born citizens?
Lots, that's how many, see how much you can piss them off why don't you.

/yawn

Obama created ISIS when he bailed on Iraq, knowing what would happen, and then armed rebels that became ISIS. One of the weapons in the Paris attack was sold to Mexican drug cartels by Obama. Muslims in Paris were rioting more than ten years ago under a leftist government, a decade before anyone knew who Le Pen was.

Never ceases to amaze how liberals can blame the consequences of the actions of their leaders on people who haven't been in office for nearly a decade.

Not only that, but history lesson an Assad, brutally putting down a Islamic extremist rebellion isnt anything new. Want to scream about Aleppo but have no idea about Hama.

[BjornP]

Not only that, but history lesson an Assad, brutally putting down a Islamic extremist rebellion isnt anything new. Want to scream about Aleppo but have no idea about Hama.

The Civil War in Syria began as and is "an Islamic extremist rebellion"? That's your "history lesson"? That's as "historical" as Chariots of Fire or Protocols of Elders of Zion. I don't begrudge anyone wishing the US didn't get involved in Syria, but ffs guys... you don't need to create elaborate, safe space alt-reality fantasy worlds in order to justify that non-interventionism. "Don't want to spend money" may not be enough for bleeding hearts, but if you're not a bleeding heart, why the hell do you need to the sorts of justification they think they need?

Seriously, people: It's ok to simply say: "Yeah, the Syrian Civil War was part of the wider Arab Spring revolts, and the US/NATO supported democratic anti-Assad opposition groups, but our government STILL shouldn't have gotten involved. They want democracy, they can make that for themselves, without our help. Best of luck to them, but our taxes should go to improving our ownsociety."

Go on, clubby and others: Try and repeat the words in asterisk above out loud. I'm not messing around, not being sarcastic or ironic. It's ok to simply reject helping Middle Eastern countries or factions, no matter their goals, based on no more motivation than: "We don't wanna spend our taxes on that". You know that Assad's been fighting rebels that have nothing to do with ISIS or al-Nusra or any other Islamist radicals (the Rojava Kurds being the opposition faction most heralded in US media for example). This idea that you somehow need to fabricate an excuse for pulling out that completely rewrites history, and makes you (in your head) "look good" is both beyond pathetic, but it's also completely un-needed. Leave always trying to "look good (TM)" up to your liberals and progressives, who show up at Saudi kings funeral praising him for his record on women's rights while being "concerned" for women's rights in Israel*.

*http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16023010

You really, seriously, honestly, feel the need to say about Syria: "Well....uhmm... we should be checking out of Syria because everyone who fights against Assad is a radical Islamic terrorist", as if you needed to say that as if that's the only legitimate justification? You don't. Stop buying into that shit. I don't want my tax-money go to my government funding uprisings, even democratic, potentially friendly-to-us- democracies everywhere in the world if that same government has a terrible track record of those same uprisings blowing up in our faces. So why should you, and why should you, any of you, need to excuse that fact with painting all of Assad's opposition as "Islamic radicals"?

[Smitty-48]

According the BBC;

The report, due to be published on Monday, says the greatest danger to the international community are groups who share the IS ideology but are currently being ignored - they number about 100,000 fighters.

"Current Western efforts to define 'moderate' and 'extremist' rebels are bound to fail, because the groups themselves rarely make the distinction", the centre says.

"Some 60% of Syria's major rebel groups are Islamist extremists, and many of the groups share the same aims", the study finds.

"Fewer than a quarter of the rebels surveyed were not ideological, and many were willing to fight alongside extremists and would probably accept an Islamist political settlement to the civil war."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... tank-finds

75% Islamic extremist, with the remaining non-ideological 25% willing to subjegate themselves to the extremists?

Sounds pretty Islamic extremist.

For all intents and purposes; a Sunni Islamist uprising against the secular pan-Arab national socialist Alawite-Baathist regime in Damascus, said insurgency being backed by Saudi Arabia and associated Wahhabist monarchies, and being fought predominantly by Islamic Jihadists, who would, upon the defeat of the Assad regime, end up in control of the country; Islamic extremist uprising if there ever was one.

Pretty naive/wishfull to think that the Free Syrian Army secular type insurgents are the ones driving the bus here, they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, and they can't stand up to the Islamists, the only insurgents who are capable of taking the regime down and then ruling in its wake, are Al Qaeda and Islamic State affiliates, although no doubt they would probably fight it out to see who was in charge once Damascus fell.

What you're likely to end up with if the Baathists fall, is a failed state divided up between fiefdoms alternately run by AQ and IS affiliated Jihadists, who knew?

[BjornP]

FSA may be wet paper bag fighters and didn't say they or the rjova kurds are "driving the bus", but my point is that it is ok to acknowledge that even if they wanted democracy, its ok to not want to bilaterally support them. Without feeling any social pressure to just dismiss them as jihadi fanatics like isis when they're not.

[Montegriffo]

The thing that grinds my gears the most about the way these threads usually go is that one bunch of devout believers use religion to attack another bunch of devout believers and it takes a devout atheist to point out that we are all Gaia's children......

[TheReal_ND]

FSA may be wet paper bag fighters and didn't say they or the rjova kurds are "driving the bus", but my point is that it is ok to acknowledge that even if they wanted democracy, its ok to not want to bilaterally support them. Without feeling any social pressure to just dismiss them as jihadi fanatics like isis when they're not.

Better to let Assad rule m8. He's not even that bad tbh.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Never ceases to amaze how liberals can blame the consequences of the actions of their leaders on people who haven't been in office for nearly a decade.

So, after 8 glorious years of MAGA, I can assume no one will be blaming Obama for whatever fails to be great again?

[Speaker to Animals]

At least half of America does not elect a leader in order to explain how past leaders' failures or mistakes led to current crises. We elect leaders to successfully run the nation they inherited and solve the problems therein. We must conclude that failure to overcome those problems stems from failure to lead. Blaming other people for it only worsens it.

This is yet another reason why democrats are on the cusp of losing all political power outside of the cities.

[TheReal_ND]

Never ceases to amaze how liberals can blame the consequences of the actions of their leaders on people who haven't been in office for nearly a decade.

So, after 8 glorious years of MAGA, I can assume no one will be blaming Obama for whatever fails to be great again?

Who's Obama?