She wanted to arm insurgents (only good thing is that one of the groups she would support would be Kurds) and then during her campaign, stated that she wants a no-fly zone under the guise of protecting civilians. Hmmm.
And to hinder Russian military operations in Syria was to support ISIS and ‘moderate rebels’ (mostly terrorists with exception of the Kurds) by proxy. It was Russian airpower that defeated ISIS as they destroyed ISIS command & control centers and destroyed ISIS ability to project force by destroying all targets that were not Assad’s forces (while many perhaps most of the targets were ‘moderate rebels’, the sheer number of sorties meant that significant damage to ISIS was done) at a time when the Syrian government’s supply lines was cracking.
Damascus would be ISIS controlled territory if Russia didn’t turn half of Syria into a parking lot. Russia did this in support of Assad who is a horrible dictator but them not doing this means ISIS would have defeated Syria which would be a more horrible outcome.
Why is trying to prevent Russian airstrikes on Assad’s behalf triggering doubt that it’s for the benefit of the civilians? The kurds weren’t the ones Exterminating them with chemical warfare
The article you linked once again states her motivations were not what you said… She wanted to support the Kurds, something virtually no progressive should have a problem with doing in the Middle East. She specifically wanted to prevent ISIS from coming to power by arming the kurds and you even acknowledge the airstrikes were mostly used against them and not just from Russia, but Turkey too thanks to Trump fully abandoning our allies. Also, for the people of Syria, Assad may represent stability for the Russian interests there, but horrible outcomes for the people, I find/found him to be the worst of the three options.
Again, you’re free to say you think her motivations were to give ISIS a Senzu bean, but her stated mission was to arm and train the kurds and topple Assad. Something that eventually happened from a less scrupulous group because of a power vaccuum left by Russia, after trying to shore up a US power vaccuum with a cruel dictator and getting distracted by other imperialist interests. If anything, the strong ISIS emergence was directly counter to her plans; If you don’t misleadingly claim the plan and motivations immediately stop after Assad is outsted, anyway.
The article you linked once again states her motivations were not what you said… She wanted to support the Kurds
Something which I stated: (only good thing is that one of the groups she would support would be Kurds)
However historically, efforts to fund ‘moderate rebels’ also benefitted groups such as the Al-Nusra Front.
Jacob Sullivan even stated to Hillary Clinton that, “AQ is on our side in Syria”, in reference to al-Qaeda likely about Al-Nusra Front (whom their successors are currently murdering Alawites in massacres, thankfully 10k is safe hiding in a Russian air base).
Hillary Clinton’s goal was not to have ISIS topple Assad however, America’s previous strategy at least before Russian air power ruined this, was to funnel ISIS concentrations into Assadist forces (in an effort to destroy ISIS) and fund moderate rebels, this however only led to ‘moderate rebels’ and ISIS hitting Assadist forces on both fronts as many of these ‘moderate rebel’ groups did not prioritize fighting ISIS (really the only one that did was the Kurds hence why I support supporting them). Even with America not directly supporting ISIS, one can easily see how this can benefit ISIS.
something virtually no progressive should have a problem with doing in the Middle East.
And nothing I have a problem with, they are the most democratic region in Syria, believers of socialism, and even Russia supported their aims that is federalization of Syria.
SDF barely did anything when Assadist forces were collapsing last year.
Also, for the people of Syria, Assad may represent stability for the Russian interests there, but horrible outcomes for the people, I find/found him to be the worst of the three options.
ISIS, a death cult that wants to start WW3 is a superior outcome according to you or am I not getting what you stating here?
Thankfully by 2024, ISIS was just a blip on a map albeit they remain a cockroach that refuses to die.
I’m not sure multiple post-hoc edits are going to make people trust you more, but better than nothing. Do people who interact with you need to screenshot the goalposts?
As for ISIS being better than Assad, I mean the bar is in hell, but for Syrians I think it’s unmistakable and Others seem to agree. Kurds would result in a much better governance. What we ended up getting with Al-Sharaa seems like the 2nd best scenario of the 4, which almost certainly couldn’t have happened without Ukraine putting up the defense they did.
The Kurds were abandoned to Turkey, and you’re surprised they’re on the defense? Erdogan wants them dead more than anything. We can talk about alternative timelines, but let’s not ignore what got us to the current set of facts and pretend it was always going to be this way.
I’m not sure multiple post-hoc edits are going to make people trust you more, but better than nothing.
I was quite known for this on Reddit.
As for ISIS being better than Assad, I mean the bar is in hell, but for Syrians I think it’s unmistakable and Others seem to agree.
Yes, a literal apocolyptic death cult that bombs cities across the world and conduct mass shootings across the world is a better option than Assad? We will have to agree to disagree on this.
The Kurds were abandoned to Turkey, and you’re surprised they’re on the defense?
I am not surprised, I was just stating that they were on the defensive, all the way in the corner in fact.
Erdogan wants them dead more than anything.
I mean we can agree. Have you seen Turkish rhetoric on Kurds? It is genocidal.
What we ended up getting with Al-Sharaa seems like the 2nd best scenario of the 4, which almost certainly couldn’t have happened without Ukraine putting up the defense they did.
Well there were definitely far worst options, I can agree with that.
Then again, there are hardly good options when your country could only be described as “a country-sized battlefield that was fought over by the now-deposed murderous dictator Bashar al-Assad, DAESH remnants, Al-Qaeda psychos, proxies of Iran, proxies of Turkey, private military companies like the Russian-controlled Wagner Group, various oppressed minorities fighting to secede, and supposed moderate rebels”.
Lemmy has no edit history, so the only honest way to edit something after a reply has been made is to contain all new text after Edit: or at least add ()* if it’s to fix typos or reword. This should make people feel less like they’re arguing with a bag of water.
Let’s agree to disagree between who’s worse between two nightmare scenarios.
Fair enough, you weren’t surprised. Point stands, though, that Kurds are on the defensive largely because of a lack of support and powerful enemies. Hillary didn’t have recent events to contend with at the time, and her intended actions likely or at least plausibly would have stopped them from needing to behave that way. Erdogan made his move the literal moment Trump announced no more support, US involvement clearly prevented this up to that point.
Honestly, Al-Sharaa has been a great thing so far if stability is the real goal. This will be tested, though, once he tells a single big nation with economic interests in the region, “no” or if Trump/Putin can find something to extort them for.
She wanted to arm insurgents (only good thing is that one of the groups she would support would be Kurds) and then during her campaign, stated that she wants a no-fly zone under the guise of protecting civilians. Hmmm.
And to hinder Russian military operations in Syria was to support ISIS and ‘moderate rebels’ (mostly terrorists with exception of the Kurds) by proxy. It was Russian airpower that defeated ISIS as they destroyed ISIS command & control centers and destroyed ISIS ability to project force by destroying all targets that were not Assad’s forces (while many perhaps most of the targets were ‘moderate rebels’, the sheer number of sorties meant that significant damage to ISIS was done) at a time when the Syrian government’s supply lines was cracking.
Damascus would be ISIS controlled territory if Russia didn’t turn half of Syria into a parking lot. Russia did this in support of Assad who is a horrible dictator but them not doing this means ISIS would have defeated Syria which would be a more horrible outcome.
Why is trying to prevent Russian airstrikes on Assad’s behalf triggering doubt that it’s for the benefit of the civilians? The kurds weren’t the ones Exterminating them with chemical warfare
The article you linked once again states her motivations were not what you said… She wanted to support the Kurds, something virtually no progressive should have a problem with doing in the Middle East. She specifically wanted to prevent ISIS from coming to power by arming the kurds and you even acknowledge the airstrikes were mostly used against them and not just from Russia, but Turkey too thanks to Trump fully abandoning our allies. Also, for the people of Syria, Assad may represent stability for the Russian interests there, but horrible outcomes for the people, I find/found him to be the worst of the three options.
Again, you’re free to say you think her motivations were to give ISIS a Senzu bean, but her stated mission was to arm and train the kurds and topple Assad. Something that eventually happened from a less scrupulous group because of a power vaccuum left by Russia, after trying to shore up a US power vaccuum with a cruel dictator and getting distracted by other imperialist interests. If anything, the strong ISIS emergence was directly counter to her plans; If you don’t misleadingly claim the plan and motivations immediately stop after Assad is outsted, anyway.
Something which I stated: (only good thing is that one of the groups she would support would be Kurds)
However historically, efforts to fund ‘moderate rebels’ also benefitted groups such as the Al-Nusra Front.
Jacob Sullivan even stated to Hillary Clinton that, “AQ is on our side in Syria”, in reference to al-Qaeda likely about Al-Nusra Front (whom their successors are currently murdering Alawites in massacres, thankfully 10k is safe hiding in a Russian air base).
Hillary Clinton’s goal was not to have ISIS topple Assad however, America’s previous strategy at least before Russian air power ruined this, was to funnel ISIS concentrations into Assadist forces (in an effort to destroy ISIS) and fund moderate rebels, this however only led to ‘moderate rebels’ and ISIS hitting Assadist forces on both fronts as many of these ‘moderate rebel’ groups did not prioritize fighting ISIS (really the only one that did was the Kurds hence why I support supporting them). Even with America not directly supporting ISIS, one can easily see how this can benefit ISIS.
And nothing I have a problem with, they are the most democratic region in Syria, believers of socialism, and even Russia supported their aims that is federalization of Syria.
SDF barely did anything when Assadist forces were collapsing last year.
ISIS, a death cult that wants to start WW3 is a superior outcome according to you or am I not getting what you stating here?
Thankfully by 2024, ISIS was just a blip on a map albeit they remain a cockroach that refuses to die.
I’m not sure multiple post-hoc edits are going to make people trust you more, but better than nothing. Do people who interact with you need to screenshot the goalposts?
As for ISIS being better than Assad, I mean the bar is in hell, but for Syrians I think it’s unmistakable and Others seem to agree. Kurds would result in a much better governance. What we ended up getting with Al-Sharaa seems like the 2nd best scenario of the 4, which almost certainly couldn’t have happened without Ukraine putting up the defense they did.
The Kurds were abandoned to Turkey, and you’re surprised they’re on the defense? Erdogan wants them dead more than anything. We can talk about alternative timelines, but let’s not ignore what got us to the current set of facts and pretend it was always going to be this way.
I was quite known for this on Reddit.
Yes, a literal apocolyptic death cult that bombs cities across the world and conduct mass shootings across the world is a better option than Assad? We will have to agree to disagree on this.
I am not surprised, I was just stating that they were on the defensive, all the way in the corner in fact.
I mean we can agree. Have you seen Turkish rhetoric on Kurds? It is genocidal.
Well there were definitely far worst options, I can agree with that.
Then again, there are hardly good options when your country could only be described as “a country-sized battlefield that was fought over by the now-deposed murderous dictator Bashar al-Assad, DAESH remnants, Al-Qaeda psychos, proxies of Iran, proxies of Turkey, private military companies like the Russian-controlled Wagner Group, various oppressed minorities fighting to secede, and supposed moderate rebels”.
Lemmy has no edit history, so the only honest way to edit something after a reply has been made is to contain all new text after Edit: or at least add ()* if it’s to fix typos or reword. This should make people feel less like they’re arguing with a bag of water.
Let’s agree to disagree between who’s worse between two nightmare scenarios.
Fair enough, you weren’t surprised. Point stands, though, that Kurds are on the defensive largely because of a lack of support and powerful enemies. Hillary didn’t have recent events to contend with at the time, and her intended actions likely or at least plausibly would have stopped them from needing to behave that way. Erdogan made his move the literal moment Trump announced no more support, US involvement clearly prevented this up to that point.
Honestly, Al-Sharaa has been a great thing so far if stability is the real goal. This will be tested, though, once he tells a single big nation with economic interests in the region, “no” or if Trump/Putin can find something to extort them for.