Syrian Civil War

Michael90 said:

.

There is one thing i find rather odd though. From what ive observed, its rather puzzling that those people who were clamouring and cheering for Saddam's Sunnis brutal baath party regime to be toppled in Iraq by the US/West are actually the ones now supporting the very same Assad Shia brutal baathist regime in Syria. I understand that there is a sectarian issue(Sunni vs Shia) in the middle east, but still its an interesting thing to see and something to ponder on. Guess everyone has their religious/ideological/cultural bias.

Click to expand...

Assad is not Shia. Alawites are not Shia in any meaningful sense. Somewhat minor nitpick but I mention it because you seem to be inserting in some sectarian solidarity that doesn't exist.

The opinions of internet commentators don't matter but to me it seems normal that people are more hesitant to support these "revolutions" than they were 20 years ago is because they can now evaluate the results of them in Iraq, Libya, Sudan etc.

As for the Iranian government's intentions, they also seem perfectly rational given their known political objectives. They need the corridor to Lebanon, they don't want their ideological opponents to have base, and they have concern about the safety of religious minorities (if you don't believe them at least you believe they are concerned about the Shia minority). Whether this set of objectives is moral is a different dispute. Could they could achieve this while pushing the Assad regime to be more inclusive or leave altogether? I don't think that would be easy and I don't know to what extent they tried.

Syrian rebel media announces sending Uyghur militants in attacks against Latakia, the homeland of Assad's religious group. Quite logical for them to send the foreign jihadists to deal with locals that obviously will resist Salafi insurgents, since PR campaigns are no longer effective there; the Alawites remember well their centuries of serfdom under Sunni majority rule. Naturally the TIP has a lot of experience attacking other religions.

Of course, there will be no democracy in the Middle East. As anyone with the most basic political science knowledge can tell you, those countries do not have any of the socio-economic criteria for it, regardless of whatever ideals that retarded liberals circulate.

sequ said:

I hope they don't let the butcher go like this. He has to face trial

Click to expand...

Will the fall of a 'tyrant' really bring better results? Iraq and Libya have proven that reality is not a fairy tale, and the failure of the 'bad guys' does not necessarily mean a bright ending.
However, we seem to be sure that Turkey is the biggest winner, successfully bringing Syria into the sphere of influence (if HTS is still willing to obey to Turkey).

In any case, in 2024, Israel and Turkey successfully destroyed all efforts of Iran. If Turkey takes action in the direction of the Caucasus, it will give a fatal blow to Russia and Iran at the same time.

Michael90 said:

I think thats your view/wish. However, looking at how China's foreign investment and economic relations has been going on these past decades we can see that China doesn't really care who is ruling which country. China is mostly focused on business first and foremost. Even India who has very bad relations with China and who has clashed and killed chinese soldiers China is still keen to invest and do business with India despite the Indian government trying everything to limit or stop chinese investments in the country. So China is more of a mercantilist and business oriented/pragmatic country as far as there is money to be made then the country will invest there. So it won't change China's investment descisions in Syria just because the ruling party or leadership is more allied with the West/Turkey or whatever. If there is money or opportunities to be made China will get involvef and invest. I have to admit the Chinese leadership is a very rational and pragmatic onone.

Click to expand...

The key word is business. Business means paying for something. And the terms of business depend strongly on relations, the size of the market, the risks, etc.

This is a very strange entitlement where you think China is obligated to do "business" of giving things out for free to random countries.

Ask Lithuania what happened when they fucked around and found out.

Michael90 said:

No, you are wrong. For one, i have no stake in the syrian conflict as it has no bearing on me and the country. I merely making an observation. Assads dysnatsy is to blame 100% for the state of the country nobody else bears that responsibility apart from him and his regime since they have ruled Syria for over half a century. So they had enough time to build an inclusive, free, prosperous and democratic country but instead they choose to maintain a regime of terror,killings and fear over rhe people. So an uprising of this sort was bound to happen one day, was only a matter of time and it did happen with the Arab spring uprisings.

Click to expand...

When you use such words such as "free" and "democratic" to describe politics in the Middle East, I already know your level of understanding of how the world works.

Of course, people like Erdogan, and Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani are such wonderful leaders and are shining champions of freedom, prosperity, and democracy. Then you must also love Netanyahu, Biden, and Modi, for they are the greatest champions of democracy and freedom on this planet. Let's not waste time arguing over Assad. You've already made up your mind about who the dictators are and who are the wonderful leaders of freedom and democracy.

Michael90 said:

So it won't change China's investment descisions in Syria just because the ruling party or leadership is more allied with the West/Turkey or whatever. If there is money or opportunities to be made China will get involvef and invest. I have to admit the Chinese leadership is a very rational and pragmatic one.

Click to expand...

You're right. The Chinese leadership are very rational and pragmatic. That is why they are not gonna invest in a terrorist state that is harbouring tens of thousands of people who want to kill Chinese. The Chinese government are also restricting FDI into Turkey. Because Erdogan had backstabbed China too (surprise x2) for far too many times. Chinese private companies are also not in the mood to invest in treacherous snakes that produces no economic ROI. They might even get their visiting personnel kidnapped or beheaded instead.

Just look at Libya as the example. That is what your beloved Caliphate of Syria will get: Nothing. The only "investment" they might get is black money from those familiar three-letter agencies for breeding more terrorists. They'll be spending most of their time killing each other and trying to kill other people their masters are pointing at. Absolutely nobody in the business world would be interested to invest in a Terrorist Wildlands.

zhangjim said:

Will the fall of a 'tyrant' really bring better results? Iraq and Libya have proven that reality is not a fairy tale, and the failure of the 'bad guys' does not necessarily mean a bright ending.

Click to expand...

Correct

zhangjim said:

However, we seem to be sure that Turkey is the biggest winner, successfully bringing Syria into the sphere of influence (if HTS is still willing to obey to Turkey).

Click to expand...

Don't call it early; we're only a few days into this. Small countries absolutely need the element of surprise and they need things to finish fast (like Japan at Pearl Harbor) but big countries have lasting power to turn things around long after small countries have run out of steam.

zhangjim said:

In any case, in 2024, Israel and Turkey successfully destroyed all efforts of Iran. If Turkey takes action in the direction of the Caucasus, it will give a fatal blow to Russia and Iran at the same time.

Click to expand...

What is a fatal blow? To Russia? Russia's going to die? LOL By these 2 midgets attacking... not Russia?

I think SAA is defunct at a strategic level, there seems to be no general staff of any sort coordinated defense on a strategic basis.

The bridge at Rastan is a very simple case study. Engineering teams should have blown the bridge upon approach by the enemy, instead they did it from the air. The road on the dam can be destroyed by collapsing the road above the floodgate sections, but was also not done.

These plans should have been made even before the possibility of withdraw from Hama, definitely carried out the moment Hama withdraw begun.

Imo Al-Julani or a Syrian Islamic state would be deeply anti-American.

Let's look at his personal history.

1. Family ethnically cleansed from Syrian land by Israel.
2. Literally former al-Qaeda.
3. Literally moved to another country to fight American occupiers in Iraq.
4. Imprisoned by the American military.
5. Wants all foreign troops out of Syria in his most recent interview.

To me, this guy looks like he will get into a dispute with America over its illegal troops in northeast Syria.

I don't believe that an Islamist who moved to another country to kill American occupiers, and whose family was ethnically cleansed by Israel, could somehow make Syria pro-American.

On a more philosophical level, I don't believe that Western democracy is correct for every country. Communism suits China, and I have come to believe that Islam suits deeply devout countries like Afghanistan and Syria. Obviously the people of Syria and Afghanistan want an Islamic government and Islamic law. And given the disaster that color revolutions and attempted Western democracy have proven in that region of the world, I have slowly come to the conclusion that Islamic governance is indeed the correct choice for them.

China has a non-Western democracy, and Afghanistan has an Islamic democracy. These are not Western, but their forms of democracy suit their societies.

I have also noticed a correlation between strongly Islamic governments and very good relationships with China.

Enestori said:

Imo Al-Julani or a Syrian Islamic state would be deeply anti-American.

Let's look at his personal history.

1. Family ethnically cleansed from Syrian land by Israel.
2. Literally former al-Qaeda.
3. Literally moved to another country to fight American occupiers in Iraq.
4. Imprisoned by the American military.
5. Wants all foreign troops out of Syria in his most recent interview.

To me, this guy looks like he will get into a dispute with America over its illegal troops in northeast Syria.

I don't believe that an Islamist who moved to another country to kill American occupiers, and whose family was ethnically cleansed by Israel, could somehow make Syria pro-American.

Click to expand...

This is nothing new for America: