| |
Discussion: Worse: Assad or ISIS?
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Let's talk Syria!  Hope this remains a civil, fact-based, and calm discussion about the ongoing crisis in the Middle-East, in particular Syria, and the warring factions--> ISIS and President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 14,234
|
They're both the same amount of bad.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 13,482
|
what's assad? no shade no tea I genuinely don't know what assad is
I'm so ignorant when it comes to the middle east 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
So, to kick things off, here is a nice summary of what's going on in Syria, courtesy of a nice Reddit post
Quote:
People started protesting against Assad as part of the whole Arab Spring thing (remember that? That's how long this civil war has been going on).
Eventually, the government cracked down on the protesters with violence, which prompted people to fight back against the government. Originally, it really was a civil war: there were people (separatists as well as army defectors) who were trying to remove Assad from power and install a new government, but over time, as the government lost the ability to enforce laws in most parts of the country, there was a power vacuum.
As the civil war got going and rebels took more ground, the Syrian government abandoned most of the country, and focused on defending and controlling certain areas of interest, namely large cities such as Homs and Damascus, and the region of the country where Assad, and the ruling party, comes from: the Latakkian Highlands.
Some important history: Assad is part of a minority group, the Alawites, from the Latakkian Highlands, the mountainous area along the coast. The Alawites came to power in the 1960s, with Assad's father, General Hafez al-Assad, seizing power in a coup. The Assad family has remained in power since then.
Anyway, as the civil war progressed, the government abandoned some areas of the country and focused on Alawite areas and large urban centers. When they abandoned these areas, it allowed extremist groups to take over. Any time there is a civil war or anything like this, chances are extremist groups (even those from outside the country) are going to come in and fight against the government, because they want to take advantage of what happens after the revolution. They usually want to use their position as fighters in the revolution to help secure a voice in the government, or to get protection from the government.
Over time, various separatist groups got more and more radicalized. A lot of the original pro-democracy protesters and rebels have been killed, but they have been replaced by radicals from various terrorist groups and other organizations.
At a certain point, there was a problem: there was going to be no good ending to the civil war. Either Assad wins and stays in power after brutally putting down a revolution, or, as the fighting has radicalized, the rebels would win and there would likely be an ethnic cleansing of the Alawite people. Neither is a good option.
Russia backs the government because they are a key ally in the region, and Russia has a large naval base at Tartus. The US eventually started to back select rebels because of the public pressure to do something about the civil war, since the US is looked to as a global policeman. Innocent people are dying, so obviously something has to be done. The US wasn't going to go full in and start a ground war (or even an air war, since the Syrian government has Russian supplied air defense systems), because A) it would be costly plus nobody would really want it, but the public pressure was there to do something.
The US could arm certain rebel groups so it could say it was doing something, without really dealing with the problems of getting involved in the war itself. Plus, the structure of the assistance (mandatory training courses, documentation of each missile being fired, and regular check ins with the people running the program) meant that it was never going to really run a risk of toppling the government, which would likely lead to the aforementioned slaughter of Alawites.
Anyway, during this whole thing, ISIS popped up. ISIS is a splinter group that was kicked out of al-Qaeda for being too radical. The senior leadership of ISIS is made up of seasoned terrorists and former Iraqi army officers after the army was purged and recreated following the invasion of Iraq. This left a lot of trained military people out of jobs, so they created their own jobs. Anyway, the Iraqi army is more of a way to get a paycheck for most of the people than something you fight and die for, so when ISIS started taking territory, the Iraqi army more or less melted away. The areas that ISIS focused on in Iraq are predominantly Sunni, whereas the government is mostly Shia, so the Sunni people don't really care that much to fight against other Sunni on behalf of the Shia government.
This led to ISIS getting tons of military equipment that the US left with the Iraqi army that the people in the army just abandoned.
So now ISIS controls a large part of eastern Syria and northwest Iraq, has a lot of money, and a lot of former US weapons and military equipment that they stole from the Iraqi army, not to mention all the stuff that they stole from the Syrian army. ISIS comes from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They see themselves as a new state, not just a force to install a new government in an existing state (like the original rebels). So now you have the original rebels still fighting against the Syrian government, and ISIS fighting against Syrian rebels, Syrian government, Iraqi government, as well as Kurds in both Syria and Iraq.
ISIS stepped into the power vacuum caused by the Syrian government pulling back and consolidating the territory that it held, and established itself as a third party in the ongoing war. Like I said earlier, it doesn't want to change the government of the existing state of Syria, it wants to create a new state, and more or less establish a worldwide Islamic theocracy.
ISIS largely leaves alone the government held areas and targets the more loosely organized rebel groups, and the Syrian government mostly leaves ISIS alone while it tries to maintain control of its areas of interest against the rebels. The US bombs ISIS because of what ISIS did in Iraq, and now Russia is bombing the rebels on behalf of the Syrian government, because they want the current government to stay in power.
All in all it's a pretty ****** situation. There isn't really a good solution: either ISIS wins and you have to deal with ISIS, an oppressive authoritarian government wins and stays in power, or the separatists win and there are almost certainly mass scale reprisal killings against the Alawite people because of the old government. For most world leaders, the least bad solution is to allow the war to just keep going (because any of the likely end points of the war are bad, as I have discussed). So civilians keep dying, which leads to lots of refugees, and directly fuels the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe (people from all over the Arab world are faking Syrian documents so they can get refugee status, plus all of the actual refugees trying to get out of this ongoing civil war).
|
To date, there have been around 500,000 people killed in Syria, with around 70% of them being civilians (women, children, non-combat men), according to the Syrian center for combat research.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 4,477
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cherish
They're both the same amount of bad. |
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 428
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cherish
They're both the same amount of bad. |
stop
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Both need to go. That's all I will say.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 3,396
|
On the one hand, Assad is secular and simply defending his own power. On the other hand, he's far more deadly than any other dictator. IS have less casualties, but their ideology is actually extremely ****ed up.
I'd say IS is worse, because if they could they would murder more than Assad has done.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yndda
what's assad? no shade no tea I genuinely don't know what assad is
I'm so ignorant when it comes to the middle east |
it's ok, I'll try to give you an objective picture.
Bashar Al-Assad is the current President of Syria who became President largely thanks to his father. He's known to be a very cold person who some would characterize as murderous. In Syria, a good majority of civilian deaths (in the civil war which has kinda morphed into a proxy war with ISIS) has been caused by Assad and his strikes on civilian targets. He is an ally of and friend of Putin. He has used chemical weapons, torture, and other terrible ways of killing on his own citizens.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 1,311
|
It is hard to compare. One is acting on ideology and religion - the other is meant to be a leader of a country but is using chemical weapons on his own people.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 13,482
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
it's ok, I'll try to give you an objective picture.
Bashar Al-Assad is the current President of Syria who became President largely thanks to his father. He's known to be a very cold person who some would characterize as murderous. In Syria, a good majority of civilian deaths (in the civil war which has kinda morphed into a proxy war with ISIS) has been caused by Assad and his strikes on civilian targets. He is an ally of and friend of Putin. He has used chemical weapons, torture, and other terrible ways of killing on his own citizens.
|
oh.
this alone just makes him as bad as daesh then 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Both need to go. That's all I will say.
|
So how would that happen?  i feel like the only way that's possible is if the United States gets into a ground war to take out both sides, but then Russia would step in to defend Assad and their interests in the Mediterranean.
Quote:
Originally posted by Swine
On the one hand, Assad is secular and simply defending his own power. On the other hand, he's far more deadly than any other dictator. IS have less casualties, but their ideology is actually extremely ****ed up.
I'd say IS is worse, because if they could they would murder more than Assad has done.
|
The thing about IS, though, is that they spout the religious crap to get followers, but how much of it do they believe? They seem to be just as secular as Assad in actions, as in taking brides, rape, watching ****, etc.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 1,840
|
Assad is the lesser of two evils and needs to be back in power.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by EtherealCat
Assad is the lesser of two evils and needs to be back in power.
|
isn't he still in power?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/23/2006
Posts: 20,355
|
Assad is the lesser of two evils
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 1,840
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
isn't he still in power?
|
I meant in power across the whole country.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/23/2006
Posts: 20,355
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Swine
On the one hand, Assad is secular and simply defending his own power. On the other hand, he's far more deadly than any other dictator. IS have less casualties, but their ideology is actually extremely ****ed up.
I'd say IS is worse, because if they could they would murder more than Assad has done.
|
exactly. IS simply doesn't have the power or armoury to murder as many.
and they're steadily pushed back, i think the liberation of Mosul is basically only weeks away
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/22/2011
Posts: 2,549
|
Assad is an incredibly intelligent man and great leader. This smear campaign by the west against him is just there to further their own agenda.
It's right there in the first chapter of "How to dismantle an Arab nation by the United States":
Step 1. Introduce a terror organization and arm them with weapons.
Step 2. Label the leader a dictator & incite war. Run a scathing campaign to deflect blame & questioning.
Step 3. Overthrow dictator. Occupy land/Appoint own leader.
Step 4. Drain resources.
How dare you compare him to a terrorist organization.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 7,248
|
ISIS is far worse. Assad is a ruthless dictator yes, but if ISIS was in control of the entire country they'd do **** like state sponsored terrorism and they'd wage war on neighbouring nations 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FOCK
Assad is an incredibly intelligent man and great leader. This smear campaign by the west against him is just there to further their own agenda.
How dare you compare him to a terrorist organization.
|
mmkay...imma need evidence for Assad being a "great leader"
intelligent maybe, but so is Putin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
