Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
After reading into it a bit more, it sounds like this is playing out close to how Assad's regime in Syria was hoping.
Apparently they allowed ISIS to get funding through state allowed oil sales in order to strengthen their abilities, allowing them to become the dominant rebel group in Syria. End result is that they become the enemy, and instead of Syria quashing a popular democratic revolution, they are fighting an Islamic jihadi force hellbent on destruction, and the international community won't be against them anymore.
Worked like a charm too. No one seems to be condemning Syria much since ISIS started gaining notoriety as the cheif rebel group and its barbaric practices became more publicly known.
I mean, just go look back to the articles about the Syrian civil war back when we were fresh off the Arab Spring, everyone wanted to support the rebels and take out Assad, but a few smart people were warning that if you do that, you're handing the country over to extremists, and not "the people". Thank god the intervention in Syria was minimal.
Dictator Assad > ISIS rule.
|
I strongly disagree on the bolded part. I would argue that not backing the right rebels when "we" had the chance is a large reason for the situation we have now. In fact, many predicted that if we don't back the west-leaning pro-democracy rebels, it will only lead to more religious extremism in the area, not less, and it seems that prediction has become true.
For a while there was a chance to back a fairly legitimite people's revolution in Syria, that seemed to have a very good chance of toppling a local dictator in a relatively short war and making the country decisively more pro-western (due to them getting all-important aid from the west at a time of need) and pro-democracy (due to the original revolution being largely about democracy, among other things). All this would have almost inevitably made them less prone to religious extremism. We could also have a relatively well-armed, well-organized national army fighting the islamists in Syria right now.
(even a shaky) democracy >>> Assad >>> ISIS
Despite vague promises from politicians and vapid social media support, the west never trusted the rebels in Syria and never really came to their aid. IMO the fear that the rebels would turn out to be jihadists thus became a self-fullfilling fear. This didn't need to happen.
As the Arab Spring demonstrated, the jihadists are not actually nearly as popular as they pretend to be and as popular as many in the west think they are. When people have alternative rebellious movements, they will mostly flock under a different banner.
The problem is, nobody wants to back the non-violent pro-democracy movements in the area or armed rebellions of that sort. Only the jihadists have financial backing.
So if you're a rebellious young man that is angry and frustrated with everything that's wrong in the area (and we know there's a lot that's wrong), the jihadists can easily seem like the only game in town that actively fights "the system". The jihadists will then turn those emotions into generalized racial and religious hatred.
In effect the jihadists are a vent through which the anger of arab youth is directed towards innocent bystanders and a distorted view of "The West".
But, part of the problem is that what the jihadists are telling them is not all BS. The west does have a history of pretty much only backing dictatorships. This makes us genuinely a part of their problem, and makes it much easier to tell the local youth that their enemy is anybody who is "pro-west", instead of, say "the cold-hearted, power-hungry ####### bigot right in front of you" or "that cold-hearted, power-hungry ####### that is leading the country".
Religious extremism is much like crime. The best way to stop it is not with violence, but fixing the problems that drive people towards it.
(It's often the same problems too; poverty, misery and lack of options for the future.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
It wouldn't have mattered what we did, the Shia hate the Sunni, have for millennia.
|
That kind of talk really only serves the extremists, it has very little to do with reality. Most sunni and shia live peacefully as neighrbours, have for millennia.
It always makes me cringe when people say "these things can't be settled", because it goes so strongly against what history has shown.
Wars are not inevitable, but some will happen. Every war will also end, and very often people who actively try to negotiate peace help the process significantly.
Even religious wars always end. Like the wars between catholics and protestants.
(Which were largely not about religion either, but let's not go there now.)