The difference between Aleppo and Mosul?

recedite

I see Russia has been voted off the UN human Rights Council, with their alleged actions in Aleppo cited as a major reason.

Their place has been taken by Saudi Arabia. Apparently mass beheadings and bombing the $hit out of neighbouring Yemen is not a problem, so long as they keep professing to be a US ally.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Elmer Blooker

There are more important things than human rights you know!
number three
The UN has been heading in the same direction as Amnesty International for a long time.

KingBrian2

recedite wrote: »

I see Russia has been voted off the UN human Rights Council, with their alleged actions in Aleppo cited as a major reason.

Their place has been taken by Saudi Arabia. Apparently mass beheadings and bombing the $hit out of neighbouring Yemen is not a problem, so long as they keep professing to be a US ally.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

The west don't believe in human rights. It's all for show. the Syrian civilians who are being targeted by ISIS and their accomplices in Damascus, Aleppo, Latakia and elsewhere are quickly forgotten.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The west don't believe in human rights. It's all for show. the Syrian civilians who are being targeted by ISIS and their accomplices in Damascus, Aleppo, Latakia and elsewhere are quickly forgotten.

Just another helpful reminder that the west doesn't actually support ISIS.

recedite

IS, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra, Al Sham... its difficult enough to tell one from the other, especially with name changes, shifting alliances and overlapping membership.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Just another helpful reminder that the west doesn't actually support ISIS.

No they only support those as bad when it suits them like the MB. http://europe.newsweek.com/muslim-brotherhood-backers-jail-cairo-riot-515005

Timberrrrrrrr

alastair wrote: »

Just another helpful reminder that the west doesn't actually support ISIS.

They just arm them

Skommando

It's the same play, different actors . . . .
As usual in most wars it's innocent civilians that suffer, while those who crave power and wealth will do anything deplorable they can think of to achieve and hold onto it.

KingBrian2

Skommando wrote: »

It's the same play, different actors . . . .
As usual in most wars it's innocent civilians that suffer, while those who crave power and wealth will do anything deplorable they can think of to achieve and hold onto it.

What is lunacy is blaming the side doing actual counter-terrorism activity and calling them murderers.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

No they only support those as bad when it suits them like the MB. http://europe.newsweek.com/muslim-brotherhood-backers-jail-cairo-riot-515005

ISIS are a terrorist organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood are not.

ISIS seize territory by force, the Muslim Brotherhood put themselves up for election.

Different situations altogether.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

ISIS are a terrorist organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood are not.

ISIS seize territory by force, the Muslim Brotherhood put themselves up for election.

Different situations altogether.

The MB are in all matters terrorist. They called on a Jihad, opposed making peace with Israel to the point of being involved in assassinating Sadat and disillusioned followers joined the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. They call for the overthrow of gvt across the Arab world and desire Islam to return to its true origin in Saudi Arabia. Don't take my word for it look at the sermons and ideology they preach. Pretty hard core ****. Another thing for all you admirers of the MB they absolutely despise Shia Islam.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The MB are in all matters terrorist. They called on a Jihad, opposed making peace with Israel to the point of being involved in assassinating Sadat and disillusioned followers joined the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. They call for the overthrow of gvt across the Arab world and desire Islam to return to its true origin in Saudi Arabia. Don't take my word for it look at the sermons and ideology they preach. Pretty hard core ****. Another thing for all you admirers of the MB they absolutely despise Shia Islam.

They're not a terrorist group. Not proscribed here, not in the UK, not in the EU, not in the USA, not in Israel. Don't take my word for it, look at the list of terrorist groups and see if they show up.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

They're not a terrorist group. Not proscribed here, not in the UK, not in the EU, not in the USA, not in Israel. Don't take my word for it, look at the list of terrorist groups and see if they show up.

And that's the problem is it not. Why are we not proscribing it as a terrorist organization when it most clearly is. People complain about Hamas when it calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. The MB is exactly the same. It would appear it is being used by the USA, UK, EU and Israel in order to inflame Iran, blatantly backing a political party that calls on violence against non Muslims.

AV277

Of course the MB is a terrorist organisation. Can't believe this is being disputed. Their slogan contains 'jihad is our way' and they've proven themselves time and time again to be a very violent organisation. They're not for democracy either. A very unknown fact is that 2 years ago when running for election in Libya they lost out but took control through violent means. This is by all means a dangerous, vile and intolerant group.

alastair

AV277 wrote: »

Of course the MB is a terrorist organisation. Can't believe this is being disputed. Their slogan contains 'jihad is our way' and they've proven themselves time and time again to be a very violent organisation. They're not for democracy either. A very unknown fact is that 2 years ago when running for election in Libya they lost out but took control through violent means. This is by all means a dangerous, vile and intolerant group.

Are you terrorised by their slogan? Because that's not really the criteria for determining whether a group is designated terrorist, or not.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

And that's the problem is it not. Why are we not proscribing it as a terrorist organization when it most clearly is. People complain about Hamas when it calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. The MB is exactly the same. It would appear it is being used by the USA, UK, EU and Israel in order to inflame Iran, blatantly backing a political party that calls on violence against non Muslims.

They're not a proscribed terrorist group in Iran either. I guess they must be in on this conspiracy too?

AV277

Of course I'm 'terrorised' by their slogan. If you actually understand their slogan you will know that their aim is to implement violent, harsh rules on EVERYONE including non Muslims. Some examples include amputating limbs of thieves, whipping of fornicators and death for apostates. These folks are practically a less violent ISIS (to put it nicely).

It's difficult to tell if you're trolling or not because I can't believe there's a MB apologist... I don't waste my time with trolls.

alastair

AV277 wrote: »

Of course I'm 'terrorised' by their slogan. If you actually understand their slogan you will know that their aim is to implement violent, harsh rules on EVERYONE including non Muslims. Some examples include amputating limbs of thieves, whipping of fornicators and death for apostates. These folks are practically a less violent ISIS (to put it nicely).

It's difficult to tell if you're trolling or not because I can't believe there's a MB apologist... I don't waste my time with trolls.

I'm no apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood, but neither am I someone who pretends that they're a terrorist organisation. They're not - and that's a fact reflected in their absense from the proscribed terrorist group listings in the vast majority of nations worldwide. They're an Islamist organisation who use the electoral system to attain their goals.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

I'm no apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood, but neither am I someone who pretends that they're a terrorist organisation. They're not - and that's a fact reflected in their absense from the proscribed terrorist group listings in the vast majority of nations worldwide. They're an Islamist organisation who use the electoral system to attain their goals.

Use the electoral system in order to impose Islamism onto the rest of the population more like it. Their ideology is in total contrast with how an electoral system works. Under them minorities and non pure Muslims would face discrimination and a worldwide Jihad would be called for against enemies of the prophet.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Use the electoral system in order to impose Islamism onto the rest of the population more like it. Their ideology is in total contrast with how an electoral system works. Under them minorities and non pure Muslims would face discrimination and a worldwide Jihad would be called for against enemies of the prophet.

Still doesn't make them a terrorist group though. How did that theory of yours work out in Egypt, when they won the election and drafted a constitution protecting the rights of minority religions?

BorneTobyWilde

Can someone tell me who Russia and Syria are fighting in Alleppo. I see no one fighting back, I just see a slaughter of defenceless people.

wigsa100

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Can someone tell me who Russia and Syria are fighting in Alleppo. I see no one fighting back, I just see a slaughter of defenceless people.

Eastern Aleppo is under rebel control. Although many people, including one moderator in this thread, will say that 'there are no clear bad guys in Aleppo', that is complete nonsense. The single largest rebel group in Aleppo is Jabhat Fatah al Sham, formerly Jabhat Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate. People seem to disregard this fact when discussing Aleppo,

As Robert Fisk put it in his article yesterday:

"This was the last great confrontation between the Syrian army and the Jabhat al-Nusrah fighters (yes, they are the Al-Qaeda of 9/11 infamy, although we have quite put that aside in our coverage of the Syrian war)"

If you do even a small amount of digging you can find plenty of footage of the so called heroes of Aleppo, the White Helmets, celebrating and singing alongside fighters from Jabhat Fatah al Sham, being present at executions, etc. This an organisation that the US has given 23 million dollars in funding to thus far.

Eastern Aleppo is not solely occupied by innocent civilians, and Western Aleppo has not been immune from indiscriminate shelling either. Plenty of civilians are being killed by rebel forces there too, but you won't see much coverage of that in the press. It's all Russia and Assad.

K-9

AV277 wrote: »

Of course I'm 'terrorised' by their slogan. If you actually understand their slogan you will know that their aim is to implement violent, harsh rules on EVERYONE including non Muslims. Some examples include amputating limbs of thieves, whipping of fornicators and death for apostates. These folks are practically a less violent ISIS (to put it nicely).

It's difficult to tell if you're trolling or not because I can't believe there's a MB apologist... I don't waste my time with trolls.

Mod:
Do not call others trolls please.

Btw just for information purposes, alastair is banned from the forum (not related to this thread) so do not expect replies from him for a few days.

K-9

Btw, I don't know what a moderator posts has anything to do with the price of spuds! Mods when posting outside forums are ordinary posters, and myself or another politics mod posting as a normal user is the same as everybody else, they are just giving their opinion.

recedite

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I see no one fighting back, I just see a slaughter of defenceless people.

You're probably only looking at BBC/US news sources (and RTE which is a lazy rehash of those). You would need to open your eyes a bit more by looking at a wider range of sources. I'm not even going to mention RT here; that would be too easy.
Here's Al Jazeera

Shells fired by Syrian rebel groups have killed at least 28 civilians in southwestern districts of the battleground city of Aleppo over the last 24 hours

KingBrian2

It was reported on RT that the rebels used poisoned gas on Syrian civilians and army officers in Aleppo. The true test that shows how these terrorist organizations are engaging in war crimes. Do the rebels surrender and end the fighting and bloodshed, no they continue to put the lives of the cities inhabitants in jeopardy and make it impossible to allow aid into the besieged areas.

Gatling

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It was reported on RT that the rebels used poisoned gas on Syrian civilians and army officers in Aleppo. The true test that shows how these terrorist organizations are engaging in war crimes. Do the rebels surrender and end the fighting and bloodshed, no they continue to put the lives of the cities inhabitants in jeopardy and make it impossible to allow aid into the besieged areas.

Just happens to come a week after the UN said the Assad regime used chemical weapons coincidence from RT think not

KingBrian2

Gatling wrote: »

Just happens to come a week after the UN said the Assad regime used chemical weapons coincidence from RT think not

The UN has abrogated responsibility on all this. They can't stop Saudi Arabia from bombing the Yemeni capital San'a nor prevented Israel from ending the settlements in the West Bank.

Gatling

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The UN has abrogated responsibility on all this. They can't stop Saudi Arabia from bombing the Yemeni capital San'a nor prevented Israel from ending the settlements in the West Bank.

Whole different thread don't you think

wigsa100

Gatling wrote: »

Whole different thread don't you think

I wouldn't think so really. Saudi Arabia is, without a shadow of a doubt, committing war crimes on an almost daily basis in Yemen. It's disgusting. Unfortunately we're not getting any exposure to the facts on the ground there. Thankfully we now have twitter and can get our news from other sources.

They happen to be the current chair(I believe?) of the UN Human Rights Council. That says it all really. It's laughable that the UN would make unverifiable accusations of war crimes against Assad when there are dozens, if not hundreds, of verifiable instances of the Saudis committing war crimes in Yemen.

It's also laughable to see the UK and US condemning anything Assad or Putin does in Syria while they refuse to cease the sale of weapons to the Saudis. The war crimes being committed in Yemen are being carried out with US and UK manufactured weapons. The UN is a bastion of hypocrisy, and little else it seems.

Gatling

wigsa100 wrote: »

It's laughable that the UN would make unverifiable accusations of war crimes against Assad when there are dozens,

Unfortunately not true why would the UN come out and directly blame Assad if nothing was verified ,

johnp001

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It was reported on RT that the rebels used poisoned gas on Syrian civilians and army officers in Aleppo. The true test that shows how these terrorist organizations are engaging in war crimes. Do the rebels surrender and end the fighting and bloodshed, no they continue to put the lives of the cities inhabitants in jeopardy and make it impossible to allow aid into the besieged areas.

Gatling wrote: »

Just happens to come a week after the UN said the Assad regime used chemical weapons coincidence from RT think not

The UN envoy for Syria has reported that the rebels are indiscriminately attacking civilians in Western Aleppo and it is on all the media, not just RT

The Guardian wrote:

Syrian rebels' Aleppo offensive could amount to war crimes, UN envoy warns
The United Nations envoy for Syria has said he is “appalled and shocked” by indiscriminate rocket warfare targeting civilians in Aleppo after three days of a fresh rebel offensive in which dozens have died.

Staffan de Mistura said: “Those who argue that this is meant to relieve the siege of eastern Aleppo should be reminded that nothing justifies the use of disproportionate and indiscriminate weapons, including heavy ones, on civilian areas and it could amount to war crimes.”

Syrian insurgents on Sunday kept up their shelling of government-controlled areas of the city, killing at least seven people, including three children, state TV reported, and used car bombs and tanks to push into new territory in western areas. The Syrian government claimed the opposition fighters used toxic gas.

The attacks raised the death toll in the three-day old offensive to at least 41 civilians, including 16 children, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The observatory said hundreds of mortars were lobbed.
More...

recedite

johnp001 wrote: »

The UN envoy for Syria has reported that the rebels are indiscriminately attacking civilians in Western Aleppo...

Amazing how quick he changed his tune after this happened

A tank shell hit the United Nations office in western Aleppo on Sunday, damaging the top floors of a building that is well known to be the U.N. base in the contested Syrian city, a U.N. statement said on Monday. “It is appalling that the building that houses the U.N. offices was directly targeted...

Before that it was all "Assad and The Russians are committing war crimes in Eastern Aleppo"
The cynic in me suspects that govt. forces have relaxed their protection of Western Aleppo recently, just to show what happens when they do.
I have a feeling that when the Russian naval convoy arrives, there will be a big push against the Al Sham rebels who have taken over the eastern parts of the city.

Elmer Blooker

The propaganda has reached a new level of absurdity it seems!
The Russians for some reason haven't bombed the mercenaries for over a week now so now it's Aleppo "could" be bombed!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/31/aleppo-syria-john-kerry-russia-diplomacy

Amazing how quick he changed his tune after this happened

I would be very interested to know if the UN has an office in east Aleppo, and if not WHY not?
Surely UN staff would have nothing to fear? The moderates are hardly going to take them hostage and chop their heads off are they?

johnp001

recedite wrote: »

Amazing how quick he changed his tune after this happened

Before that it was all "Assad and The Russians are committing war crimes in Eastern Aleppo"
The cynic in me suspects that govt. forces have relaxed their protection of Western Aleppo recently, just to show what happens when they do.
I have a feeling that when the Russian naval convoy arrives, there will be a big push against the Al Sham rebels who have taken over the eastern parts of the city.

It could possibly be in Russia's interest to relax protection of Western Aleppo but the government forces would have a vested interest in protecting those civilians. The Syrian government's intent seems to be to drive the foreign militants out, end the insurrection and to carry on governing the population with their consent. It therefore needs to protect the civilians in areas it controls in order that the population see the government as providing more safety than if they chose to rebel and live under Al Nusra or ISIS.

wigsa100

Question for those who think Assad and Russia are the big baddies here and want Assad to step down immediately:

What do you think is going to happen in the aftermath of such a move? If Assad were to step down and concede defeat, calling off the SAA and Putin in the process, let's have a think about what candidates would be there to step into the power vacuum.

The Free Syrian Army have progressively had a weaker and weaker influence on the conflict as time has passed. The larger groups fighting in the Syrian opposition, albeit labelled 'moderate' rebels, are Islamist groups who make it very clear why they are fighting against the Assad regime - they want Syria to be an Islamic state, where Shariah is the law of the land. This is very much the case for the aforementioned Jabhat Fatah al Sham. If Assad were to step down and leaders of the Free Syrian Army were to to attempt to take power and get something democratic in place, you would very quickly see the Islamist groups turn against them.

Islamist groups and their fighters have not given years of fighting and thousands of their friends and comrades' lives to simply walk away when the war is won. They will continue to participate in Jihad until their goal is realised.

In such a scenario, Islamic State would be able to regroup to the levels they were at before Russia began their intervention. The US campaign against them in Syria was visibly ineffective. Only when Russia began to assist the SAA and Kurdish forces did we see meaningful gains against IS in the East and North of the country.

If Assad and Putin were to step away, you can be fairly certain that IS would become stronger than ever. The Turks, a US ally and member of NATO(WTF like) who are battering the Kurds non stop despite the fact that have been protecting the Turkish border from ISIS for years now, aren't going to change their tune if Assad steps down. They want to eliminate the Kurds, end of story.

Thoughts?

alastair

Thoughts?

Assad is never going to have legitimacy to govern the entire country again. That's a simple reality. He, or at least the Allawite secularish system retain support amongst a significant number, but there's also considerable opposition to Assad, that's never going to be assuaged. The future for the country is either going to be split governance, or a compromise arrangement that actually allows opposition and democracy, where islamic parties can put their platform to the electorate, and 'normal' politics is allowed run it's course. The primary appeal of Jabhat etc is that they offer the best military defence against Assad's forces. Whether they would retain the same support in a post-war negotiated settlement is moot, but the solution for the future is not going to be a single Syria Assad or Islamist autocracy - there's simply not sufficient public support for either option.

The Turks don't want to 'eliminate' the Kurds. They simply want to ensure that they don't gain enough traction to form an independent state within the territory of Turkey. So it's in their interest to avoid a fragmented Syrian State, which would provide the core for an independent Kurdistan.

johnp001

alastair wrote: »

Thoughts?

Assad is never going to have legitimacy to govern the entire country again. That's a simple reality. He, or at least the Allawite secularish system retain support amongst a significant number, but there's also considerable opposition to Assad, that's never going to be assuaged. The future for the country is either going to be split governance, or a compromise arrangement that actually allows opposition and democracy, where islamic parties can put their platform to the electorate, and 'normal' politics is allowed run it's course. The primary appeal of Jabhat etc is that they offer the best military defence against Assad's forces. Whether they would retain the same support in a post-war negotiated settlement is moot, but the solution for the future is not going to be a single Syria Assad or Islamist autocracy - there's simply not sufficient public support for either option.

The Turks don't want to 'eliminate' the Kurds. They simply want to ensure that they don't gain enough traction to ensure an independent state within the territory of Turkey. So it's in their interest to avoid a fragmented Syrian State, which would provide the core for an independent Kurdistan.

Is that your statement that "Assad is never going to have legitimacy to govern the entire country" based on any empirical evidence or just your opinion? The most relevant statistic that I am aware of would be that in the 2014 Syrian presidential elections he received 88.7% support.

alastair

johnp001 wrote: »

Is that your statement that "Assad is never going to have legitimacy to govern the entire country" based on any empirical evidence or just your opinion? The most relevant statistic that I am aware of would be that in the 2014 Syrian presidential elections he received 88.7% support.

The empirical evidence is that a massive population in Syria demanded he stand down, and then have been subjected to a campaign of war crimes by his regime. There's no going back from that. The Syrian elections are a joke. Assad runs an autocratic regime, and consequently gets autocracy style ballot figures.

Dohnjoe

wigsa100 wrote: »

Question for those who think Assad and Russia are the big baddies here and want Assad to step down immediately:

What do you think is going to happen in the aftermath of such a move? If Assad were to step down and concede defeat, calling off the SAA and Putin in the process, let's have a think about what candidates would be there to step into the power vacuum.

The Free Syrian Army have progressively had a weaker and weaker influence on the conflict as time has passed. The larger groups fighting in the Syrian opposition, albeit labelled 'moderate' rebels, are Islamist groups who make it very clear why they are fighting against the Assad regime - they want Syria to be an Islamic state, where Shariah is the law of the land. This is very much the case for the aforementioned Jabhat Fatah al Sham. If Assad were to step down and leaders of the Free Syrian Army were to to attempt to take power and get something democratic in place, you would very quickly see the Islamist groups turn against them.

Islamist groups and their fighters have not given years of fighting and thousands of their friends and comrades' lives to simply walk away when the war is won. They will continue to participate in Jihad until their goal is realised.

In such a scenario, Islamic State would be able to regroup to the levels they were at before Russia began their intervention. The US campaign against them in Syria was visibly ineffective. Only when Russia began to assist the SAA and Kurdish forces did we see meaningful gains against IS in the East and North of the country.

If Assad and Putin were to step away, you can be fairly certain that IS would become stronger than ever. The Turks, a US ally and member of NATO(WTF like) who are battering the Kurds non stop despite the fact that have been protecting the Turkish border from ISIS for years now, aren't going to change their tune if Assad steps down. They want to eliminate the Kurds, end of story.

Thoughts?

Assad has been a key driver and component since the beginning of the conflict. His refusal to accept any transition plans or peace plans is one of the main reasons the conflict has grown into what it is today

Critics and apologists with hindsight often carefully ignore this part of the conflict.. however it's crucial to understand the present situation and where particular nations stand and why

At this stage in the conflict it's obvious his removal is simply not enough, but it's a very key part in any future "solution" or plan

Remember, there is no "good" solution to any of this, it's only a choice of the least worst option (which has gotten worse and worse as time has gone on)

Assad's removal would significantly change the dynamic and open the gates and deadlock for international and regional countries to actually form a viable post-conflict plan for Syria (as opposed to now where that is virtually impossible) - it would be politically far more difficult for nations like Russia to obstruct/scupper these plans

Of course if Assad were to be removed, the country would still be in a far more severe situation than Libya (or even Iraq) post conflict,there are still massive issues with ISIS (who are on the back foot and will take several years at least to deal with fully), extremist brigades (like Al Nusra), and any other entities that are hijacking the situation to pursue their sectarian agendas

Assad was slaughtering his own people long before ISIS/Islamists arrived, it was that slaughter which was the largest funding and recruiting tool for those groups (previously the US invasion of Iraq had a similar effect)

It's a weak argument that if Assad is gone, then ISIS will take over - that's precisely what happened when Assad refused to leave power - they grew and took over large parts of the country

Virtually every dictator who faces mass protests claims that those arrayed against him are terrorists - if the regime uses violence - that trope turns into a reality

Few countries would flipflop and start supporting him, they don't see this as "sides", they see Assad as illegitimate and guilty of severe war crimes, they also see ISIS as an entity which needs to be destroyed - both are not mutually exclusive

Which leaves us in the present situation - it's a meatgrinder with Assad, potentially less of a meat-grinder if he can be removed - as the one figurehead most responsible for all this violence, logically he needs to go

Elmer Blooker

alastair wrote: »

Thoughts?

Assad is never going to have legitimacy to govern the entire country again. That's a simple reality. He, or at least the Allawite secularish system retain support amongst a significant number, but there's also considerable opposition to Assad, that's never going to be assuaged. The future for the country is either going to be split governance, or a compromise arrangement that actually allows opposition and democracy, where islamic parties can put their platform to the electorate, and 'normal' politics is allowed run it's course. The primary appeal of Jabhat etc is that they offer the best military defence against Assad's forces. Whether they would retain the same support in a post-war negotiated settlement is moot, but the solution for the future is not going to be a single Syria Assad or Islamist autocracy - there's simply not sufficient public support for either option.

The Turks don't want to 'eliminate' the Kurds. They simply want to ensure that they don't gain enough traction to form an independent state within the territory of Turkey. So it's in their interest to avoid a fragmented Syrian State, which would provide the core for an independent Kurdistan.

The "appeal" of Jabhat al-Nusra? Whats appealing about a Salafist jihadist terrorist organisation?
At this very moment the appealing Jabhat group are indiscriminately shelling west Aleppo but its not making the news as the population of government controlled Aleppo have no propaganda value so therefore don't exist.
I'm not sure how the targeting of civilians can be interpreted as "defence"

Assad has been a key driver and component since the beginning of the conflict. His refusal to accept any transition plans or peace plans is one of the main reasons the conflict has grown into what it is today

I don't believe that. Before 2011 the population of Syria would have looked on in horror at the sectarian bloodbath next door in Iraq, do you seriously think Syrians wanted their country turned into another Iraq?
People want political stability wherever they live, the vast majority of Syrians supported the government in 2011 and that's why Assad is still in power.

At this stage in the conflict it's obvious his removal is simply not enough, but it's a very key part in any future "solution" or plan

Face up to reality, there is NO plan for a post Assad Syria other than a sectarian bloodbath.

alastair

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The "appeal" of Jabhat al-Nusra? Whats appealing about a Salafist jihadist terrorist organisation?

The appeal I clearly pointed to, and that you subsequently referenced in your response to the post. That appeal.

recedite

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Assad's removal would significantly change the dynamic and open the gates and deadlock for international and regional countries to actually form a viable post-conflict plan for Syria (as opposed to now where that is virtually impossible) - it would be politically far more difficult for nations like Russia to obstruct/scupper these plans

And what do you think gives these undisclosed outside countries the right to implement "regime change" and implement their own plans for Syria and its people?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a weak argument that if Assad is gone, then ISIS will take over - that's precisely what happened when Assad refused to leave power - they grew and took over large parts of the country.

We already observed the process working in Libya and Iraq. Even Syria is an example. With Assad half deposed, half the country has gone under the control of IS and/or Al Sham. Assad is not responsible for the part of the country in anarchy, he is responsible for the part that is still functioning.
Who has provided the artillery being used by Al Sham rebels in eastern Aleppo to shell the citizens of western Aleppo? Therein lies the blame for the problems. The outsiders who have made their plans. Like the Martians in War of the Worlds; "they viewed this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us".

alastair

Assad is responsible for the entirety of the problems in Syria, as it was his mismanagement and subsequent state violence that drive the country into a civil war and opened up the place to the various proxy power plays we now see. A tad less dictatory response to genuine civil calls for more accountable governance would have avoided all of this.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

The empirical evidence is that a massive population in Syria demanded he stand down, and then have been subjected to a campaign of war crimes by his regime. There's no going back from that. The Syrian elections are a joke. Assad runs an autocratic regime, and consequently gets autocracy style ballot figures.

Turkey and Saudi's were backing the protestors on the streets in Syria as they don't want a secular Arab state in the region with good relations with Iran. They encouraged the rise of sectarianism in the country and as you call Syria an autocratic state the leader of the Kurds who are fighting against the Islamists is rotting in a Turkish prison cell a much worse position. The crime that has been committed is the support of terrorism in Syria. Political parties exist in Syria unlike in either Turkey or Saudi Arabia now I know that is not good enough greater enfranchisement is needed but to suggest Assad's rule has been particularly brutal is nonsense. The people he has suppressed are the Islamists who oppose democracy and the rule of law.

wigsa100

alastair wrote: »

Thoughts?

Assad is never going to have legitimacy to govern the entire country again. That's a simple reality. He, or at least the Allawite secularish system retain support amongst a significant number, but there's also considerable opposition to Assad, that's never going to be assuaged. The future for the country is either going to be split governance, or a compromise arrangement that actually allows opposition and democracy, where islamic parties can put their platform to the electorate, and 'normal' politics is allowed run it's course. The primary appeal of Jabhat etc is that they offer the best military defence against Assad's forces. Whether they would retain the same support in a post-war negotiated settlement is moot, but the solution for the future is not going to be a single Syria Assad or Islamist autocracy - there's simply not sufficient public support for either option.

The Turks don't want to 'eliminate' the Kurds. They simply want to ensure that they don't gain enough traction to form an independent state within the territory of Turkey. So it's in their interest to avoid a fragmented Syrian State, which would provide the core for an independent Kurdistan.

I'm not sure how you can claim the Turks don't want to eliminate the Kurds when they are the primary obstacle between IS and the Turkish border and the Turks, who they are defending, are bombing them to bits as they fight off the most evil terror group in the history of mankind.

alastair

wigsa100 wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can claim the Turks don't want to eliminate the Kurds when they are the primary obstacle between IS and the Turkish border and the Turks, who they are defending, are bombing them to bits as they fight off the most evil terror group in the history of mankind.

There are over 20 million Kurds living in Turkey. The Turks are not about to eliminate them, nor are they trying to eliminate Syrian Kurds.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

There are over 20 million Kurds living in Turkey. The Turks are not about to eliminate them, nor are they trying to eliminate Syrian Kurds.

The Kurds want autonomy a form of self rule and they operate all across the region. To date Turkey stands opposed to the leaders of the Kurdish community. The Kurds are risking their lives fighting side by side with the Iraqis and part of the Syrian army which is fighting ISIS on the ground.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Kurds want autonomy a form of self rule and they operate all across the region. To date Turkey stands opposed to the leaders of the Kurdish community. The Kurds are risking their lives fighting side by side with the Iraqis and part of the Syrian army which is fighting ISIS on the ground.

Yes. None of which suggests the Turks are looking to eliminate the Kurds.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Turkey and Saudi's were backing the protestors on the streets in Syria as they don't want a secular Arab state in the region with good relations with Iran. They encouraged the rise of sectarianism in the country and as you call Syria an autocratic state the leader of the Kurds who are fighting against the Islamists is rotting in a Turkish prison cell a much worse position. The crime that has been committed is the support of terrorism in Syria. Political parties exist in Syria unlike in either Turkey or Saudi Arabia now I know that is not good enough greater enfranchisement is needed but to suggest Assad's rule has been particularly brutal is nonsense. The people he has suppressed are the Islamists who oppose democracy and the rule of law.

Assad's regime has been particularly brutal. To pretend otherwise is a bit strange.