Support NeoGAF

[Frozenprince]

Judging by that chart, we should hope that the Fateh Al Sham Front wins the war and seizes power.

On the other hand, they're radical Al-Qaeda Islamists that would likely slaughter, enslave, or oppress every non-Sunni they would rule over, so maybe not.

Casualty figures don't tell an accurate story. Assad is a vicious monster but ultimately would rule Syria much like he did before the war. If an ISIS-like group took over, by contrast, things would be so, so much worse.

They wouldn't be worse, though, that's the thing. ISIS would have extra judicial killing squads. ISIS would have detainment centers encompasing entire families for the sins or crimes against the state that one member may have perpetrated. ISIS will institute draconian laws that are universally awful and result in many deaths.

But Assad was already doing all these things. There's a reason this devolved into civil war in the first place, he ordered the police to exterminate protesters en masse through deadly force. He and his father have exterminated entire cities in order to consolidate power.

Post war Syria with him in control will just be mass deaths that nobody will read or care about because he and his Russian backers will ensure it. They will cull any and all dissidence from the country through force.

I don't see how it's better.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Why do people keep saying we don't know these rebels? Did Trump's dumbass shit spilled over into neogaf as well?

Oh yeah, because the SNC represents the interests of all rebels, both good and bad.

I'm especially grateful for their strong representation of Kurdish interests. Great stuff.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Bashar Al Assad deserves to die, but Russia will never allow it. So, unfortunately, we can't do much more, especially since the rebels continue to fracture.

God its disgusting letting him win though.

Overthrowing shit head dictators has really worked out well.

 

[Frozenprince]

Overthrowing shit head dictators has really worked out well.

Again.

There being no "good" options does not absolve men of their guilt or complicity in their crimes.

 

[GSG Flash]

I didn't realize that the rebels were being backed by Saudi Arabia as well. Man, this has a lot of parallels to Afghanistan in the 80's.

Yup, they're supporting everyone ranging from the moderate rebels to the extremist salafist heart eating(literally) rebels as long as they're against the Syrian government, it's pretty much a parallel of the Soviet-Afghan war from the 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi...pposition_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War?wprov=sfla1

Also, the rebels aren't as innocent or righteous as some folks here are making them out to be. They're currently preventing civilians in Eastern Aleppo from leaving the city, most likely to increase civilian casualties for PR purposes when the dumbass Syrian government and Russians bomb the city to the ground. They're also indiscriminately targeting civilians in government controlled Western Aleppo by firing mortar rounds directly at civilian centers. No matter who wins, the innocent lose.

 

[Hyperactivity]

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/08/13/syrian-opposition-factions-in-the-syrian-civil-war/

Before GAF hurts my head anymore talking about a region they don't live in and probably don't follow

Required reading - from August, but it's pretty in-depth. And yes, I'd like any of you to at least take a cursory glance through ALL of that article

 

[Chairman Yang]

They wouldn't be worse, though, that's the thing. ISIS would have extra judicial killing squads. ISIS would have detainment centers encompasing entire families for the sins or crimes against the state that one member may have perpetrated. ISIS will institute draconian laws that are universally awful and result in many deaths.

But Assad was already doing all these things. There's a reason this devolved into civil war in the first place, he ordered the police to exterminate protesters en masse through deadly force. He and his father have exterminated entire cities in order to consolidate power.

Post war Syria with him in control will just be mass deaths that nobody will read or care about because he and his Russian backers will ensure it. They will cull any and all dissidence from the country through force.

I don't see how it's better.

Assad will kill you if he thinks you might resist. ISIS will do that, but also enslave you if you're not a Sunni, and also indoctrinate future generations, and also spread their terror worldwide.

 

[Frozenprince]

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/08/13/syrian-opposition-factions-in-the-syrian-civil-war/

Before GAF hurts my head anymore talking about a region they don't live in and probably don't follow

Required reading - from August, but it's pretty in-depth. And yes, I'd like any of you to at least take a cursory glance through ALL of that article

No you're right obviously none of us have ever taken the time to educate ourselves on anything about this conflict at all. How could anybody understand anything if they don't live there.

 

[God Dayumm]

Trump is the shit Midas. Everything he touches becomes shit, so it is good he stays out of these conflicts and as far as possible

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Independent Kurdistan or this will happen again.

 

[andythinkpad]

I am sure Putin's agent has sent him the direction.

 

[captainnapalm]

How valid is sn4hr as a source?

Completely and utterly unreliable. We know nothing about these numbers or where they come from. Like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the SYNR is a UK-based organisation run by one man that claims to have a network of people on the ground able to accurately report these numbers. Both those organisations by the way condemn the other as unreliable. They both sprang up in 2011 when the war started.

Try to find any reliable information about the SYNR other than what they claim on their websites. You won't.

That graph is a joke.

 

[Macam]

Good. We had no dog in the fight and just letting assad end it would be best for everyone at this point.

We've been fucking inept at interfering in the Middle East. Let's just stop.

"Best for everyone" is a pretty barbaric thing to say considering the human atrocities Assad has committed (e.g., chemical weapons, torture, intentionally targeting civilians, including double and triple tapping medical facilities).

Ceasing support won't stop anything on the ground, or end the human suffering, and it sure won't curry us any favors with Russia.

 

[Sinfamy]

"Syrian rebels" are mostly Al-Nusra Front, a branch of Al-Qaeda.
Supporting "rebels" like the Mujahideen to fight proxy wars is exactly how we got into such huge messes.
Good.

 

[TheRealTalker]

Yup. Syria is so far beyond reason its really a shame. Every time I hear the country I see that little boy with the glazed over look on his face. I hope somebody stop the fighting.

except Assad did that

heck Assad is responsible for more then 90% of civilian deaths


people keep and saying that Syrians need to be dammed and ignored because they should've just never resisted


or you wish for a end in the fighting, yet ignore the whole reason it is happening


or try to blame them for rebelling against a maniac that shot at them when they demanded rights


the whole factor that Assad needs foreign paid militia, plus Iran, Hezbollah and Russia to run this war for him, showcases that his legitimacy ending a long time ago

 

[Frozenprince]

"Syrian rebels" are mostly Al-Nusra Front, a branch of Al-Qaeda.
Supporting "rebels" like the Mujahideen to fight proxy wars is exactly how we got into such huge messes.
Good.

So you're just ignoring the dozens of defected army companies that make up the actual rebel groups in most of the country huh.

 

[sphagnum]

My primary concern honestly is that the Kurds don't get fucked over, but of course they will.

 

[kittenbreath]

Judging by that chart, we should hope that the Fateh Al Sham Front wins the war and seizes power.

On the other hand, they're radical Al-Qaeda Islamists that would likely slaughter, enslave, or oppress every non-Sunni they would rule over, so maybe not.

Casualty figures don't tell an accurate story. Assad is a vicious monster but ultimately would rule Syria much like he did before the war. If an ISIS-like group took over, by contrast, things would be so, so much worse.

This is a false choice, of course, because there are more than two options available. For instance, Assad could agree tomorrow to a truce with remaining moderate rebels (and by extension, their Arab and Western patrons), setting a timetable for Syria's transition to democratic elections in exchange for unity against the extremists. He won't do that, however, because he has no intention of ever surrendering power.

And Assad's leadership before the war is what led to the war breaking out in the first place.

 

[Mohonky]

This is a false choice, of course, because there are more than two options available. For instance, Assad could agree tomorrow to a truce with remaining moderate rebels (and by extension, their Arab and Western patrons), setting a timetable for Syria's transition to democratic elections in exchange for unity against the extremists. He won't do that, however, because he has no intention of ever surrendering power.

And Assad's leadership before the war is what led to the war breaking out in the first place.

We did that with Saddam (though Saddam didnt get an option).

The people elected a new government via democratic vote.

It immediately went to shit. Immediately. Have a look at Iraq now.

 

[Sinfamy]

So you're just ignoring the dozens of defected army companies that make up the actual rebel groups in most of the country huh.

I support the Kurdish Peshmerga and anyone who wants to fight alongside them.
Just because you don't like Assad or ISIS doesn't mean you get US aid and weapons.
The Iraqi army, who the US spent billions training and equipping left their weapons behind and fled the moment ISIS was a real threat.

 

[RainForce]

Just so you guys know who the real bad guys are in Syria

Link

Wait, ISIS has really only killed 3000 people? Are these numbers accurate?

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Whether or not he's doing this with Russia's blessing is irrelevant. Arming faceless rebels isn't good practice and you'd think America of all countries would know this by now.

 

[Mohonky]

What? Afghanistan is an objectively better place now than under the taliban.

Ummm.....we're (multiple nations) STILL there because it cant survive under its own governance.

We've put pedophiles into charge. We put in forces on control of some provinces that are no better than the Taliban. The Taliban are still incredibly active in many areas, and when the coalition forces leave, you think the Taliban wont just move back in with a vengeance? Thats why we're still bloody there after all this time.

 

[Damerman]

so trump is going to keep assad because putin wants it?

 

[Mohonky]

Wait, ISIS has really only killed 3000 people? Are these numbers accurate?

Dunno, we'll have to get the ISIS speakers to confirm at the next UN council meeting...obvious sarcasm.

Those number charts are often hard to relate though, the difference between them is more opportunity and capability than it is relevant. Give ISIS or some other fundamentalist group the same capabilities and I doubt you'd find much difference in the figures.

 

[DragonSworne]

Don't kid yourselves if you think Trump is doing it for the right reasons.

This decision is coming from Russia. More signs that he is just a puppet.


Understanding why Trump is doing this is the craziest thing.

 

[Frozenprince]

I support the Kurdish Peshmerga and anyone who wants to fight alongside them.
Just because you don't like Assad or ISIS doesn't mean you get US aid and weapons.
The Iraqi army, who the US spent billions training and equipping left their weapons behind and fled the moment ISIS was a real threat.

And now that same Iraqi army s charging into one of the most fortified and well defended strongholds on earth in order to root out ISIS.

So what exactly is the point you are trying to make.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

You guys celebrating this are crazy.

 

[captainnapalm]

Wait, ISIS has really only killed 3000 people? Are these numbers accurate?

Absolutely not. They come from a totally unreliable and almost certainly biased source.

The United Nations stopped providing casualty figures for Syria back in 2014, because there were no trustworthy sources.

 

[Peter Ian Staker]

The situation clearly can't be salvaged anymore. Any credible opposition that can replace Assad is long gone.
Cutting your losses as far as the war against Assad in Syria proper is probably the best option right now.
Cutting support from the Kurds on the other hand is a recipe for disaster. It will just embolden the Turks to go for a land grab in north Syria(maybe even Iraq) to prevent a possible Kurdish state.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Wait, ISIS has really only killed 3000 people? Are these numbers accurate?

We have no idea.

 

[Hyperactivity]

We did that with Saddam (though Saddam didnt get an option).

The people elected a new government via democratic vote.

It immediately went to shit. Immediately. Have a look at Iraq now.

Iraq struggling post-Saddam does not somehow mean Iraqis preferred it under Saddam by any means. Just because the media heavily covered the Iraq War but weren't able to heavily do so when Saddam was in power, meaning that you had the benefit of not having to see article about Iraq as often, doesn't mean Iraqis today would somehow advocate Saddam era Iraq as being better somehow

 

[Torokil]

I am totally ok with this.

 

[OldMan]

You have 12 different Wars going on in Syria, let alone the Middle East, at once, and there's solutions to end those said wars over a 24hr period.


Best regards,

OM

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Just so you guys know who the real bad guys are in Syria

Link

ISIS is on that list, and it shows they've killed less civilians than government forces, so just going off this graphic I wouldn't exactly be compelled to label ISIS as less bad than the government forces. I really don't disagree with ending support for rebels. Far too many times we end up helping these groups that we have absolutely no idea who they are and what they believe, and it just ends up becoming a major headache for us years down the road. By doing what we're doing now, maybe we're giving Syria, and especially Russia, a valid excuse not to somehow find an end to the hostilities over there. This doesn't mean it ends the way we want it to, but I think we at least need to put Russia and Syria on the spot as it relates to that conflict, and not allow them to so easily use us as a scapegoat for why the fighting is continuing.

 

[Nokagi]

Whether or not he's doing this with Russia's blessing is irrelevant. Arming faceless rebels isn't good practice and you'd think America of all countries would know this by now.

Agree. I'm fine with this.

 

[HighResTomato]

Wait, ISIS has really only killed 3000 people? Are these numbers accurate?

Nah the SNHR and SOHR are known for cooking up false numbers, that's why the UN stopped using them.

However western media still loves to quote the SOHR as fact even though it's a one man operation run out of England that somehow has better info than western intelligence agencies.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Current US support of Syrian rebels is too little too late; wars are fought over momentum. Had the US provided more support to rebels earlier, they would have consolidated a victory over Assad. They did not, and now the opening of many fronts and the infiltration of opposition groups by a variety of sources has complicated matters, as well as foreign support for Assad's side, and wars of attrition are almost bad for rebels. So setting aside the normative question of which side we ought have taken, it seems to me that on some strategic level Assad's prospects of continued rule and survival are higher than ever. Along those lines, Trump may have stumbled into a pragmatic position backwards by starting from an ideological one.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Good. We had no dog in the fight and just letting assad end it would be best for everyone at this point.

We've been fucking inept at interfering in the Middle East. Let's just stop.

This. The Syrian rebels aren't exactly the good guys.

 

[Gaz_RB]

Honestly for the best.

 

[Frozenprince]

Current US support of Syrian rebels is too little too late; wars are fought over momentum. Had the US provided more support to rebels earlier, they would have consolidated a victory over Assad. They did not, and now the opening of many fronts and the infiltration of opposition groups by a variety of sources has complicated matters, as well as foreign support for Assad's side, and wars of attrition are almost bad for rebels. So setting aside the normative question of which side we ought have taken, it seems to me that on some strategic level Assad's prospects of continued rule and survival are higher than ever. Along those lines, Trump may have stumbled into a pragmatic position backwards by starting from an ideological one.

Stump gets it.

The US waited far too long to get involved in any way. Intervention right when the civil war started was the only way that any result other than a clusterfuck would have been possible. Now, each side is entrenched in a major city and arming the rebels does little to accomplish anything other than perpetuating the stalemate.

The US fucked up this situation by waiting far too long because of the backlash they got over Libya. This is one of, if not the, biggest and worst mistake of the Obama Administration.

Edit: Also the idea that we just throw a gun at anybody with a grudge against the government is laughable. Contrary to popular belief, the US actually does vet these groups.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

What? Afghanistan is an objectively better place now than under the taliban.

Right now child rape is rampant among forces backed by the US tho with the complicity of the Americans, atleast the taliban had that banned.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/2...ld-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html

 

[Hyperactivity]

I support the Kurdish Peshmerga and anyone who wants to fight alongside them.
Just because you don't like Assad or ISIS doesn't mean you get US aid and weapons.
The Iraqi army, who the US spent billions training and equipping left their weapons behind and fled the moment ISIS was a real threat.

The Iraqi army has also been among the most key in fighting ISIS, and while their fleeing was an embarrassment, it was also facilitated by locals that didn't support stationed personnel along with key betrayals by regional commanders who had Baathist connections iirc.

The fact that the Iraqi army is so unfairly maligned and made fun of despite making so many pushes against ISIS (http://isis.liveuamap.com/) is a damn travesty. You're insulting the same people that are actually out there fighting ISIS on the ground, that have made the effort to reform and reorganize post 2014.

EDIT: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 (map that shows the difference in ISIS territorial control between 2015 and 2016 alone)

 

[Frozenprince]

The Iraqi army has also been among the most key in fighting ISIS, and while their fleeing was an embarrassment, it was also facilitated by locals that didn't support stationed personnel along with key betrayals by regional commanders who had Baathist connections iirc.

The fact that the Iraqi army is so unfairly maligned and made fun of despite making so many pushes against ISIS (http://isis.liveuamap.com/) is a damn travesty. You're insulting the same people that are actually out there fighting ISIS on the ground, that have made the effort to reform and reorganize post 2014.

They are quite literally the primary fighting force against ISIS right now, Mosul is a fortified ISIS stronghold that the Iraqi army is spearheading an assault against. The fact that the retreated in 2014 does not diminish what they are doing now.

 

[Sinfamy]

The Iraqi army has also been among the most key in fighting ISIS, and while their fleeing was an embarrassment, it was also facilitated by locals that didn't support stationed personnel along with key betrayals by regional commanders who had Baathist connections iirc.

The fact that the Iraqi army is so unfairly maligned and made fun of despite making so many pushes against ISIS (http://isis.liveuamap.com/) is a damn travesty. You're insulting the same people that are actually out there fighting ISIS on the ground, that have made the effort to reform and reorganize post 2014.

I support the Iraqi army, my example was to demonstrate that if a US backed army fled ISIS, blacking "rebels" may not be such a good idea, considering we have decades of examples where it ended up hurting us.

 

[Gallbaro]

Even though Asad is a bad man I am OK with this.

Also that graphic is bullshit.

 

[Azih]

Current US support of Syrian rebels is too little too late; wars are fought over momentum. Had the US provided more support to rebels earlier, they would have consolidated a victory over Assad.

This is speculation without merit. Large portions of the Syrian army and civilian population supported and still support Assad. It was always going to be a civil war and all the regional powers (Gulf, Iran, Turkey, regional Kurds) were always going to get involved.

 

[Azih]

What? Afghanistan is an objectively better place now than under the taliban.

It is much more lawless and chaotic and the Taliban are in charge of portions of it and fighting to get more.

Pederasty and opium production are also on the rise.

 

[Astaleview]

This is the right call.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Current US support of Syrian rebels is too little too late; wars are fought over momentum. Had the US provided more support to rebels earlier, they would have consolidated a victory over Assad. They did not, and now the opening of many fronts and the infiltration of opposition groups by a variety of sources has complicated matters, as well as foreign support for Assad's side, and wars of attrition are almost bad for rebels. So setting aside the normative question of which side we ought have taken, it seems to me that on some strategic level Assad's prospects of continued rule and survival are higher than ever. Along those lines, Trump may have stumbled into a pragmatic position backwards by starting from an ideological one.

And then there's this.

It's just that saying "let Assad finish this shit, the sooner, the better" sounds as if I was evoking Henry fucking Kissinger. But yeah, this seems to be the most pragmatic choice.