I've noticed that this theme hasn't popped up very often in this forum---a Nobel Peace Prize laureate has effectively declared an open-ended, non-declared war---a "generational struggle lasting decades" that has no discernible end, and is slowly creeping towards ground engagements in multiple theatres of war. As the people this war is being fought for, and under whose name this war will carry---what are your thoughts on our new era of "peace is war"? What erosions can we expect in our civil liberties? What will more violence bring? This might provide some context to the discussion. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/09/25/civilian-deaths-mount-us-bombing-syria-expands For additional context, Abu Ibrahim is one of brave cohort of Raqaa residents who are risking their lives to chronicle the damage ISIS is doing to Raqaa. They've entitled their blog "Raqaa is being slaughtered silently". It's a fitting note to an era that will seem increasingly insensitive to death. At last count, 200,000+ people have died in Syria. How many more will die in everlasting war?
The war was not declared by the nobel peace prize winner. Only a deranged mind such as yours could come up with such crap. The war has been started and waged by ISIS.
Given your qualified support for Assad, is it fair to say that you're not very well-balanced when it comes to impartially considering the suffering of civilians? Also, let me know your thoughts on how the previous decade of war America has waged has helped stem extremism in the Middle East.
The usual leftist Pavlov's dog reflex - blame everything on the USA. Indeed, the USA should have just left the dictators like Saddam in place, not because they were decent people - not at all - but at least they kept the Islamist crazies somewhat in check. Still better than what is going on now.
ATW, you've been very nonchalant about a monster like Assad. Given your repeated calls for others to condemn violence in all respects, can more be expected of you with this regards? I think indirectly asserting that Assad is "not at all a decent person" is a step in the right direction---but given how many threads you start about Erdogan's dictatorial tendencies, I do find it puzzling why you don't talk more often about the 200,000 deaths in Syria, largely caused by Assad (who is no friend of America). To finish, your central thesis behind why America should not have engaged in two bloody and pointless wars that increased extremism in the region---and therefore should continue this war---is because of course America should support repressive tyrants? That seems rather pointed. Would you support the everlasting war given what it has helped contribute to? disregard attribution, % of blame---do you honestly believe the War on Terror has had a productive effect on anything? If not, do you support its' continuance?
Assad may be a monster, but he is dealing with monsters as well. You seem to prefer to see ISIS in power rather than Assad. It's a choice between the plague and cholera, the difference being that ISIS, given the same means, is even a lot more ruthless than Assad. The death count if they had the same means would be infinitely higher. There is no other way to deal with ISIS than by crushing them. But maybe you would prefer to cheer them on or invite them to sing Kumbaya with you. Good luck with that.
Questioning policy that civilians on the ground have posited will help ISIS paints me as preferring ISIS in power? Questioning a war that has, if anything, increased the conditions and opportunities for extremism makes me favor ISIS? That seems to be quite the logical leap.
"Assad may be a monster." well, that was strongly phrased. does he become a definite monster at 500,000 deaths? The irony of his position is that he created his own monsters by repressing peaceful protests. It's been well-documented that his strategy all along has been to break the opposition so badly that he would create a bogeyman. is he still maybe a monster?
Do you prefer Assad or ISIS? What other realistic option do you see to gain power in that country at the moment?
I prefer the Syrian people, who rose up peacefully before Assad released ISIS and burned the country to the ground to be king of the ashes. I prefer a world where sociopaths like that don't get rewarded for their actions. There is a viable, democratic sinew that runs in the Syrian people. We know this because they risked death to protest the regime, a regime that has demonstrated time and again that it will stop at nothing to grasp any shred of power. I am very sympathetic to Syrian civilians on the ground who are experiencing first-hand the consequences of never-ending warfare.
http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631 How Syria’s Assad Helped Forge ISIS There, linked up for your curiosity---you would do well to read the excerpt above as well. Especially damning---
Unfortunately none of these groups of people is the problem. The problem lies in radical forms of religion.
Assad let all these thousands of British, French, German terrorists like "Jihadi John" out of jail? Correct. Northside Intern keeps trying to pull wool over people's eyes, but that is the actual problem. And while Assad has a bad human rights record, at least he is not a fanatical maniac Islamist like the ISIS guys Northside Intern seems to prefer.
The leadership and cause for which they could rally around, yes. ATW, how is the never-ending war going to end increasing extremism? What are you prepared to accept? Nuclear bombs? A total surveillance state? At which point does the cost of repeating failed policy outweigh the "benefits"? Current American policy has led Syrians who hate ISIS to consider allying with ISIS. Food for thought.
Maybe because he didn't have anything to do with 9/11 Nor had 'weapons of mass destruction' Rocket River
Spoiler but... Spoiler But seriously, the "anti-war"* people of the US decided that they preferred a new health care law to the end of the wars. That's the US we live in. But, hey, at least health care costs are pretty good for now relative to what they were, so that's something. *This is assuming that a sizable anti-war contingent even exists in the US, but I don't know whether that's true or not.
Not offering a solution here. Just noting that instead of focusing on the individual, let's focus on the true culprit: radical religion. Any form of radical religion.
