Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You suspect that the FSA and al-Nusra will separate in radical ways like the MNLA and Ansar al-Dine did in Mali?

I think it is pretty much inevitable, if it hasn't reached that point already. ISIL is the most crazy of all the radical Islamist groups involved in this conflict, and they just pretty much declared open season on the FSA and al-Nusra (and of course, the Loyalists aren't out of the fight yet either). al-Nusra and the FSA are quite simply not going to be able to cooperate. The FSA started desiring greater political freedom, al-Nusra murders religious minorities and is proud of it.

I think it would still be wise for the FSA to approach the issue of so many of the rebels turning to radical Islam in an attempt to find something to believe in as the conflict drags on and becomes more and more hopeless for everyone.

Certainly they should try to deal with it, but the alliance with al-Nusra isn't even holding when they have a common enemy in Assad. What do you think is going to happen when the Loyalists finally rout?

[Owlbread]

I haven't been suggesting that the FSA should keep trying to court al-Nusra, I've been suggesting that they should target those who are thinking of joining or have joined based on fairly weak reasons. Win hearts and minds and all that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You could do that without having an Islamist government. Hell, you'd probably be better off not doing it. Secularism has its advantages, mainly in that the majority of people don't care all that deeply about religion, and by nullifying that issue you can appeal to all non-crazies.

[Owlbread]

You could do that without having an Islamist government. Hell, you'd probably be better off not doing it. Secularism has its advantages, mainly in that the majority of people don't care all that deeply about religion, and by nullifying that issue you can appeal to all non-crazies.

But secularism will not be popular in a "free" Syria. There simply aren't enough of them. Have you heard that old saying "there's no such thing as an Atheist in a foxhole"? Basically the entire Syrian population are in a foxhole at the moment and people are turning to Islam for emotional support.

The goal is to try to keep the growing number of Islamists in the country happy whilst maintaining a generally secular state that does not discriminate against religious or ethnic minorities.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You could do that without having an Islamist government. Hell, you'd probably be better off not doing it. Secularism has its advantages, mainly in that the majority of people don't care all that deeply about religion, and by nullifying that issue you can appeal to all non-crazies.

But secularism will not be popular in a "free" Syria. There simply aren't enough of them. Have you heard that old saying "there's no such thing as an Atheist in a foxhole"? Syria is in a dark place at the moment and people are turning to Islam for emotional support. The goal is to try to keep the growing number of Islamists in the country happy whilst maintaining a generally secular state that does not discriminate against religious or ethnic minorities.

Which won't happen if you have an Islamist government. You don't have to emphasize the secularism, you just need to do it. "Soft secularism", as it were.

I really don't want to get into bigoted conventional wisdom like the foxhole thing, but suffice it to say what the people truly desire is to avoid suffering. The FSA can do that. They can provide security and supplies without even bringing religion into it, and that will degrade the radicalization, especially once they inevitably end up fighting al-Nusra. As I have said before, acting rationally has a habit of making Islamist groups self-destruct.

[Owlbread]

Which won't happen if you have an Islamist government. You don't have to emphasize the secularism, you just need to do it. "Soft secularism", as it were.

Even soft secularism that does not pay lip service to Islam will be seen as hard secularism. If the FSA become top dog again and are more respected than they currently are (al-Nusra in contrast seem like brave, intelligent fighters with a clear plan to a lot of rebels) then they could afford to be "soft secularists". Lip service is necessary, the degree to which remains to be seen i.e. if al-Nusra do something really silly like gas civilians then there won't be as much of a contest between the two groups.

I really don't want to get into bigoted conventional wisdom like the foxhole thing, but suffice it to say what the people truly desire is to avoid suffering.

I merely wanted to show that people have a tendency to flock to clear, simple ideas, put forth by strong leaders in times of crisis. Religion, specifically radical Islam, is playing that role in Syria, just as Communism once played in many world conflicts.

The FSA can do that. They can provide security and supplies without even bringing religion into it, and that will degrade the radicalization, especially once they inevitably end up fighting al-Nusra. As I have said before, acting rationally has a habit of making Islamist groups self-destruct.

But in order for the FSA to provide security and supplies "without bringing religion into it" (as if that's a problem for most Syrians with rebel sympathies) on the scale that is necessary, they need a lot more support than we're currently giving them. Until then the FSA are watching as their fighters and supporters are defecting in growing numbers to Islamist groups, unable to do anything about it. Maybe when the war is over and the FSA are hopefully successful people will want stability and an end to suffering, but I fear the effects of prolonged exposure to the kind of doctrines al-Nusra are espousing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

All I'm laying out is a viable gameplan to make this end in a non-horrible manner. Realistically though, this is pretty likely to end in genocide no matter who wins. Ironically, it won't be the Kurds for once.

[Owlbread]

All I'm laying out is a viable gameplan to make this end in a non-horrible manner. Realistically though, this is pretty likely to end in genocide no matter who wins.

I think though that the gameplan isn't viable until the FSA get much more support. I don't know what that support is yet but they certainly need it.

Ironically, it won't be the Kurds for once.

Unless Turkey becomes involved and tramples over them as part of a "peacekeeping" mission, it is interesting that the Kurds will hold the most stable regions in Syria.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't see Turkey going for it. Syrian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan have a common purpose, and no reason not to unite as fully as possible. Iraqi Kurdistan is by proxy in the US bloc. Turkey is also in the US bloc. It could lead to one of the two leaving the US bloc, but most likely they'll just both end up endlessly complaining and threatening instead.

[Owlbread]

I don't see Turkey going for it. Syrian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan have a common purpose, and no reason not to unite as fully as possible. Iraqi Kurdistan is by proxy in the US bloc. Turkey is also in the US bloc. It could lead to one of the two leaving the US bloc, but most likely they'll just both end up endlessly complaining and threatening instead.

Endlessly complaining and threatening is a good way of putting it. The Turks are also hopelessly under-prepared for becoming the main peacekeeping force in Syria, as they would undoubtedly be in the event of an intervention that does not include the USA or France. Anything that Erdogan has said to the contrary is simply posturing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I also think Erdogan lacks the support to politically weather something like that. We saw what happened when he tried to tear down a park, and he got lucky on that. There is definitely a non-zero chance that the military will seriously kill him if he tries to make them suppress foreign Kurds.

[Owlbread]

I also think Erdogan lacks the support to politically weather something like that. We saw what happened when he tried to tear down a park, and he got lucky on that. There is definitely a non-zero chance that the military will seriously kill him if he tries to make them suppress foreign Kurds.

Yes. Or do something similarly extreme. The deep state will see him as an unmanageable liability and remove him from his position somehow, whether that is covert or out in the open like Egypt I don't know. It will probably be covert.

[misko27]

All I'm laying out is a viable gameplan to make this end in a non-horrible manner. Realistically though, this is pretty likely to end in genocide no matter who wins. Ironically, it won't be the Kurds for once.

Still, no matter how badly the options look, whatever is the best worst option.

[10ebbor10]

I also think Erdogan lacks the support to politically weather something like that. We saw what happened when he tried to tear down a park, and he got lucky on that. There is definitely a non-zero chance that the military will seriously kill him if he tries to make them suppress foreign Kurds.

Said protests are still going on, I believe.

[Baffler]

They seem to have lost a lot of their steam though, or maybe the news sites I check have just stopped reporting on them beyond a token mention here and there, because as someone said earlier, there is only one camera available in the entirety of the Middle East.