Explain the Syrian Civil War

[DavidFirth]

So, does anyone wish to propose a solution for peace that might work?

 

[Nathan Malone]

That people who were part of the Baath Party (which was everybody on the government payroll) later joined ISIS does not mean they were 'socialists'. Maybe many of them would have been in the 1970s, but in more recent times there was a significant move towards Islamism as it true in many places since the end of the Cold War. Those who joined ISIS (not founded it) were likely those who were already Islamist.

You say they were likely Islamists, but are you sure? Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi, known in ISIS circles as Haji Bakr, was a former military leader in Saddam's Iraq, and was considered mastermind of the formation of ISIS, and he was killed by rebels in January 2014 in Raqqa. Papers later found of his plans, and other captured documents of ISIS show what they were trying to do and how. Bakr did not believe he could win the war by religious fanaticism alone. He was actually not very religious. He carried no Koran. His, and all Baathists had secular motives. They used Islamic extremists to help them achieve their goal of controlling the masses by using tools exactly like communists did and still do. His written plans were very clear. Socialism is a means to control communities, and it was their goal to use that means with the power of fear. It is not something 30 years ago. The Cold War never ended, it's just named something else.

 

[England my lionheart]

I voted other,apart from the influences of Russia America etc this was always going to happen.

Assad and his people are Alawites a branch of Shia twelvers and Isis are sunnis,like Iraq and Saddam hussiens government were Sunni bathist and a minority so it is with Assads government.

Imo Shia and sunnis were always going to clash and all the other religious sects like druze,ishmailism, yatzidis,alevism would and have been attacked.

As has been seen ISIS care for nothing,not even other sunnis,anybody not ISIS are open season so this heady mix of Islam and outside posturing by Russia Iran turkey Hezbollah America Britain keep it all simmering nicely.

 

[Augustus]

You say they were likely Islamists, but are you sure?

Well compared to the alternative that ISIS is a Baathist front organisation, it is by far the more plausible. He had been a member for not too far short of a decade.

Saddam had been 'Islamising' the Baath Party since the mid 90s due to the decline of socialism and pan-Arab nationalism see From Militant Secularism to Islamism: The Iraqi Ba’th Regime 1968-2003). There is a good chance this was self-serving, but thinking of the Baath Party in 2000 as being the same as it was at is origin ignores the changing realities.

Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi, known in ISIS circles as Haji Bakr, was a former military leader in Saddam's Iraq, and was considered mastermind of the formation of ISIS, and he was killed by rebels in January 2014 in Raqqa. Papers later found of his plans, and other captured documents of ISIS show what they were trying to do and how. Bakr did not believe he could win the war by religious fanaticism alone. He was actually not very religious. He carried no Koran. His, and all Baathists had secular motives. They used Islamic extremists to help them achieve their goal of controlling the masses by using tools exactly like communists did and still do. His written plans were very clear. Socialism is a means to control communities, and it was their goal to use that means with the power of fear. It is not something 30 years ago. The Cold War never ended, it's just named something else.

ISIS was an evolution of a group that started as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in the late 90's, and Haji Bakr joined in 2003 when it was still run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Shortly after that it became affiliated with al-Qaeda before later splitting due to their refusal to follow orders (not as is sometimes reported for being 'too extreme').

Bakr didn't rise to a position of authority until after a period of imprisonment and the deaths of several other key figures in the ISIS leadership.

So I'm very sceptical of a long-term member of Salafi-Jihadi organisations who rose through the ranks being motivated by purely secular ideology and being 'not very religious'. And, for the sake of discussion, if he was only a Baathist pretending to be an Islamist, his internal thoughts make very little difference if his external actions were entirely consistent with being a Salafi-Jihadist. The organisation was Jihadist before him and after him.

 

[Crypto2015]

Pretend that you are interested in improving the quality of life of other nations. Use this as an excuse for toppling leaders that you dislike, even if they are democratically elected leaders. If you cannot do it yourself, create a proxy army. Steal the oil.

 

[Ponder This]

Syria has a history of instability.
Hafez al-Assad died.
The involvement of foreign powers has prolonged the conflict.

 

[Nathan Malone]

The organisation was Jihadist before him and after him.

The jihadist organisation was a vehicle used by the secular element as I mentioned, so yes it was always a jihadist movement, but did not have such an impact until Bakr used his communist practises of infiltration, fear, manipulation, propaganda, murder, and so forth, to gain cities. You can call it what you want but his methods were very communist. It seems that you think communism was a thing of the 70s, well you are wrong. Just look at South America. To believe that is rediculous. Why do you have that hang up? John Bachtell, the American Communist Party leader is very open upon communist efforts in America. Why the disbelief?

 

[Grumpuss]

No research needed, The facts are overwhelmingly available that USA government has consistently supported oppressive militaristic dictatorial governments at their convenience and allowed the associated drug traffic to flourish.

The main issue has been described in detail that the colonial European countries and the post-colonial European powers and the USA are the ones responsible for the violence and bloodshed and the conflicts and wars that plague the region as well as Syria.

The USA and the European powers has played the Middle East like a power broker chess game with the main motive is self interest and oil resources.

So, were things so much better for the region and Syria when the Ottoman Turks were running things, or is this just a whiny case of what-have-you-done-for-me-lately?

 

[shunyadragon]

So, were things so much better for the region and Syria when the Ottoman Turks were running things, or is this just a whiny case of what-have-you-done-for-me-lately?

You can go back in history at your pleasure to justify any agenda, but I presented a fairly accurate description of what has happened in the last 400+ years with the spread of Western colonialism, and the reasons why Syria is involved with the bloody conflict in recent history.

 

[Grumpuss]

You can go back in history at your pleasure to justify any agenda, but I presented a fairly accurate description of what has happened in the last 400+ years with the spread of Western colonialism, and the reasons why Syria is involved with the bloody conflict in recent history.

Well, it's a poll, not an opportunity to call others' opinions wrong.

I'm just surprised that so many would blame the West for Middle Eastern countries' killing their own people in what is largely still a civil war. The degree to which this conflict, the Saudi/Yemeni conflict, Sudanese strife and the preceding Iraq implosion have created a massive influx of people to the West that have no interest in assimilating Western culture is a related and disturbing issue.

Taking a peek into the future, Assad's government will most likely win out over the resistance groups. The new, harsher police state will probably favor a large presence by Iran, that will disturb Israel. Perhaps another war will be prompted in 5-10 years.

 

[Augustus]

The jihadist organisation was a vehicle used by the secular element as I mentioned, so yes it was always a jihadist movement, but did not have such an impact until Bakr used his communist practises of infiltration, fear, manipulation, propaganda, murder, and so forth, to gain cities.

Why are these distinctly 'communist practices'? They are as old as the hills and have been used across the spectrum.

Jihadi strategy has long been articulated in terms of such things, see The management of savagery for example.

I think you are vastly overstating the 'secular' motives of jihadi organisation, run by long term jihadis, following well defined jihadi tactics and preaching a radical Islamist ideology.

It is true though that ideological forefathers of the Jihadi movement such as Sayyid Qutb were influenced by Western totalitarian movements, especially Leninism, in terms of tactics and revolutionary philosophy. Such ideas were incorporated into a revolutionary Islamist philosophy that also drew heavily on the narratives regarding the emergence of Islam in the 7th C.

You can call it what you want but his methods were very communist. It seems that you think communism was a thing of the 70s, well you are wrong. Just look at South America. To believe that is rediculous. Why do you have that hang up? John Bachtell, the American Communist Party leader is very open upon communist efforts in America. Why the disbelief?

What's South America got to do with ISIS and the Baath Party? I said your view of the Baath Party as being secular leftist was outdated as the document I linked to explained in detail.

In general though, revolutionary leftist movements have been in decline since the end of the Cold War as they lost their major source of funding. This is especially true in the ME where the 'secular' movements largely failed to benefit most people and Gulf States filled the 'not the West' gap by using petrodollars to spread Wahhabi teachings

Also socialist/leftist =/= communist

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, it's a poll, not an opportunity to call others' opinions wrong.

I'm just surprised that so many would blame the West for Middle Eastern countries' killing their own people in what is largely still a civil war. The degree to which this conflict, the Saudi/Yemeni conflict, Sudanese strife and the preceding Iraq implosion have created a massive influx of people to the West that have no interest in assimilating Western culture is a related and disturbing issue.

At the root of every conflict you mentioned above lies with the western colonial artificial boundaries that divided ethnic and religious groups in separate countries and mixing within the same country. This was a deliberate divide and conquer, control and manipulation for colonial benefit, and after independence this manipulation continued with supporting authoritarian dictatorial military governments to protect western economic benefit of Western countries.

Taking a peek into the future, Assad's government will most likely win out over the resistance groups. The new, harsher police state will probably favor a large presence by Iran, that will disturb Israel.

Probably

Perhaps another war will be prompted in 5-10 years.

I consider the war? an ongoing war.

 

[Grumpuss]

At the root of every conflict you mentioned above lies with the western colonial artificial boundaries that divided ethnic and religious groups in separate countries and mixing within the same country. This was a deliberate divide and conquer, control and manipulation for colonial benefit, and after independence this manipulation continued with supporting authoritarian dictatorial military governments to protect western economic benefit of Western countries.

Given the time frames involved, that seems to be a ridiculous assumption. Stating a historical claim or historical injustice at the hands of old colonial oppressors can be a shameless attempt to avoid assigning responsibility where it is properly due.

It would be like blaming present-day streetcrime in Brazil on Cabral and the Portuguese monarchies of 400 years ago.

I consider the war? an ongoing war.

Only if you consider the causes and belligerents to be the same. The next war will likely involve Iran conducting provocative attacks into Israel.