As opposed to a responsible government finding other ways to engage against guerilla type action than bombing its own citizens?
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
As opposed to a responsible government finding other ways to engage against guerilla type action than bombing its own citizens?
Fascinating insight to the inner workings of er your mind there, it's great watching folk write bs as they try to pretend to believe the war criminal government explanations of what is going on in Syria and the ME.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Do you have any workable suggestions for alternatives that the military commanders could employ?
Counter insurgency is a massive topic way beyond a post here.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Well the guerilla and Isis movement are using the people as a human shield. The rebels are responsible for turning off the water, which is going to cost many lives.
If the rebels somehow won, how would they stop Isis? They are partnering with factions of them as it stands. They are working with the al nusra front they are so intertwined that on the one hand giving rebels any kind of power would put Isis in charge of the country.
We have seen how other countries in the area are failing at the moment after the removal of a strong leader. Do we want that again? The rebels need to accept that they have lost, that their attack will ill timed and that they were unable to do what they wanted to achieve.
At the moment the civilians would probably prefer stability under Assad than years of gun toting milita fighting across the country for power provincially.
"accept that they have lost" like it is so simple - most of them are in an insurgency because of the treatment/repression or fear of treatment/repression real or imagined by the Syrian government and giving in would put them straight back into the position they were in - its a lose, lose situation for them so they aren't exactly going to back down.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
So what are they going to do fight forever and ruin the country so that there is nothing left for them to go back to after it has all finished?
Are they going to take power and open another front against Isis? What exactly is their end game here?
Turn Syria into an oppressive Islamic regime and get rid of the al awaites?
Oh, OK, it's just that you seemed to make it sound as if alternatives were two a qirsh
There are plenty of potentially viable alternatives - there is a nice long wiki article on the subject.
It would take a very long post exploring the root causes to come up with anything meaningful rather than just name drop a few of the established methods.
Maybe for many of them the going out fighting is better than the alternative under the Syrian regime? you are putting too much hard logic on a situation that has messy human elements.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Maybe they thought the west would support them and it wouldn't be so messy. But they didn't and now they are too far gone and it's too deep for this to end any other way than their execution as terrorists so they won't give up?
Life in Syria was stable, people had jobs. No it wasn't perfect, but it was a darn sight better than it is now. Only someone ignoring the news could think otherwise.
What happens if they took power and the Isis members took over Aleppo, how would the rebels get rid of them?
The facts are that with Russia supporting Assad, he isn't getting removed from power any time soon. The revolution is over.
Thing is - life was good for those who fit into the mould, those that didn't whether that was just a difference of opinion or something with more sinister roots like extreme Islamism found a very different story and I'm not even gonna try and go into the rights and wrongs of it.
Syria became a melting pot for those displaced all over the region - initially I believe taken in with open arms maybe with the hope for largely assimilation - which is why I've always considered i.e. the stuff with immigrants and Germany to be utterly daft.
Many of the rebel factions have external links so I assume the thinking would be - dispose the government then turn to the world for help against ISIS and the likes (that is far from a straightforward story though as you have all types of disposition with the rebel groups from moderate through to hardline Islamists).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
But you haven't made much of a case for the rebels here because if you think they will offer a more secular constitution like Assad then I believe that you are misguided. Therefore anyone who doesn't fit the new mould will be persecuted and subject to extreme Islamic law, which is dangerous.
Because I'm no more on the side of the rebels than I am on the side of the Syrian government. I just understand that it is far more messy than the hard logic you are trying to apply to it.
EDIT: Personally I don't see a way forward that doesn't involve breaking Syria up into smaller states and huge deployment of UN troops, etc. even if the Syrian government is largely successful militarily the conflict will just change shape nothing has really be resolved in terms of the underlying issues whether those issues are people under oppression or those with extreme Islamist desires, etc. etc.
Last edited:
That would be a more pertinent point of Syria wasn't a proxy war. It's difficult to find other ways when the opposition is having weapons and other support channeled to them by outside entities that will only accept capitulation by the countries leaders - and only an idiot would capitulate when they know the only option mooted at the table is life imprisonment or execution of they do.
There is little that they can do to solve this without looking bad unfortunately, while the US and other entities just stand at the sidelines throwing mud (while feeding weapons to the rebels to continue the fighting).
In civil war generally all sides are as bad as each other in the end. There are no sides we should be on as such, except potentially the one of stability - which in this case is the government.
And that's generally the problem with civil wars. It's a lose lose situations for all sides, so no one wants to capitulate. It's one of the reason so many civil wars last such long times and are so barbaric.
Got a link to that wiki, would be an interesting read.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
So we have all this with the UN decrying this proxy war and slaughtering the Russians for their role.
Where is the condemnation of the Syrian Rebels after they have turned off the water in an act of sheer terrorism against their own people?
It's no wonder that the Assad forces are having to hurry up and push the rebels back, how else are they going to turn back on the water?
