4 ms·

Great news! I'm sure when the students had an uprising (funded by US spy agencies) to overthrow Asad, this is exactly who they wanted- an Al Queda fundamentalis

Great news! I'm sure when the students had an uprising (funded by US spy agencies) to overthrow Asad, this is exactly who they wanted- an Al Queda fundamentalist to rule over them! Another win for the West!

orwin 22d ago
Please let's wait and see a bit before judging him a 'fundamentalist'. He joined Al-Qaida when he was young, during the US invasion of Iraq, and spent years in a US prison where he grew his network, link to a particular faction of Al-Qaida that isn't that religious (ok, Islam is weird and way too hard to explain in a digression, let's leave it at 'not that religious' to avoid a 500 lines tunnel). Kurds were extremely skeptical at first, but it seems at least some are happy with how things are proceeding (they are more involved than expected in drafting the new constitution that will take place in 2030). It might sadly go to a dual government like Iran use to have before 2026, which is hurting my atheist self, but let's be honest, a dual government in the region is way, way more democracy than expected.
- eckelhesten 22d ago
  Ahhh yes, he was just a little boy. And boys will be boys. Even when they later go on to create terrorist organizations such as Jabhat al Nusra (Al Nusra Front). Boys will be boys. Even when he got sent to Syria by Al Qaedas AQI (Which later became ISIS) It baffles me that people like you justifies this man as a legitimate leader. Kurds and other minorities in Syria suffer immensely from this US and Turkish-forced government. Why don't you tell the people of HN about the absolute massacre and manhunt of thousands of Alawites after Al-Julani came to power in Syria?
  - orwin 22d ago
    He won the civil war, that's where he gets his legitimity. No terrorist attacks since 2015, and even then the terrorist group leaders said it wasn't on their orders. No transnational terrorism is also a good sign. The Kurds were very skeptical a year ago, and probably afraid too, but from the little I heard, they seem relieved about what is currently happening (Lebanese too, I don't have close friends in other related communities). I know the SDF would be a better winner overall, but you have to make with what you get. Also the Kurd I know have family in the Hatay province and around idil, so he is _very_ confident that economically at least it will be a success. And like I said elsewhere, you can see the Turkish/ottoman Sunni influence in his religion (in islam culture and religion are extremely close), which is a very good sign. And concerning the massacre: we mostly forgot about Smyrna, and even Dersim isn't cited when we talk about Atatürk (both at least one order of magnitude bigger). It is very sad, but at the time European powers wanted stability in the area, and Atatürk gave them that. I only wish for the war to end and to have the area stabilise, and unlike Iran or even Irak, I see a slight chance that that it might end correctly for the minorities (10%?). Which isn't much, but I would rather wait a year or two before casting judgment.
    - eckelhesten 21d ago
      That makes him a defacto leader, not legitimate by any democratic means. He is not chosen by the people, but by external governments such as the turkish dictatorship and the american oligarchic government. Stability can be achieved without murdering and cleansing out Alawites, Kurds, christians and Druze. Only a barbaric mindset would think otherwise. And somehow trying to whitewash them with "No terrorist attacks since 2015" shows me that you are clearly of different mindset than me. Have a good day!
      - orwin 21d ago
        I'm not saying Atatürk stabilized his country by genociding and massacring, I'm saying the league of nations decided that it was an acceptable cost for a leader who seemed stable to avoid a second balkanization. My point is that I would rather have the current leader in Syria than an Isis that use it as a base for transnational terrorism (like lybia was under Ghadafi) or a group of uneducated cunts like the current Taliban leadership that terrorise most of the population. The best would have been no civil war at all, and a democratic transition. We don't have that. The current leader is violent and undemocratic, he doesn't deserve the position he have. Nevertheless, cutting Syria off, or worse, triggering a new civil war because we don't like him and we are afraid of his politics before we actually see his politics is idiotic. Especially since his policies have evolved to something way less integrist and way more legalist (hence my comment on no terror attacks), which, imho and maybe I'm wrong, is probably the best chance for an islamic administration to be part of the modern world (the best scenario would be a secular government: we wouldn't have that in Syria even if the SDF won). Let's give Syrians a chance.

orwin 22d ago

Please let's wait and see a bit before judging him a 'fundamentalist'. He joined Al-Qaida when he was young, during the US invasion of Iraq, and spent years in a US prison where he grew his network, link to a particular faction of Al-Qaida that isn't that religious (ok, Islam is weird and way too hard to explain in a digression, let's leave it at 'not that religious' to avoid a 500 lines tunnel). Kurds were extremely skeptical at first, but it seems at least some are happy with how things are proceeding (they are more involved than expected in drafting the new constitution that will take place in 2030). It might sadly go to a dual government like Iran use to have before 2026, which is hurting my atheist self, but let's be honest, a dual government in the region is way, way more democracy than expected.

eckelhesten 22d ago
Ahhh yes, he was just a little boy. And boys will be boys. Even when they later go on to create terrorist organizations such as Jabhat al Nusra (Al Nusra Front). Boys will be boys. Even when he got sent to Syria by Al Qaedas AQI (Which later became ISIS) It baffles me that people like you justifies this man as a legitimate leader. Kurds and other minorities in Syria suffer immensely from this US and Turkish-forced government. Why don't you tell the people of HN about the absolute massacre and manhunt of thousands of Alawites after Al-Julani came to power in Syria?
- orwin 22d ago
  He won the civil war, that's where he gets his legitimity. No terrorist attacks since 2015, and even then the terrorist group leaders said it wasn't on their orders. No transnational terrorism is also a good sign. The Kurds were very skeptical a year ago, and probably afraid too, but from the little I heard, they seem relieved about what is currently happening (Lebanese too, I don't have close friends in other related communities). I know the SDF would be a better winner overall, but you have to make with what you get. Also the Kurd I know have family in the Hatay province and around idil, so he is _very_ confident that economically at least it will be a success. And like I said elsewhere, you can see the Turkish/ottoman Sunni influence in his religion (in islam culture and religion are extremely close), which is a very good sign. And concerning the massacre: we mostly forgot about Smyrna, and even Dersim isn't cited when we talk about Atatürk (both at least one order of magnitude bigger). It is very sad, but at the time European powers wanted stability in the area, and Atatürk gave them that. I only wish for the war to end and to have the area stabilise, and unlike Iran or even Irak, I see a slight chance that that it might end correctly for the minorities (10%?). Which isn't much, but I would rather wait a year or two before casting judgment.
  - eckelhesten 21d ago
    That makes him a defacto leader, not legitimate by any democratic means. He is not chosen by the people, but by external governments such as the turkish dictatorship and the american oligarchic government. Stability can be achieved without murdering and cleansing out Alawites, Kurds, christians and Druze. Only a barbaric mindset would think otherwise. And somehow trying to whitewash them with "No terrorist attacks since 2015" shows me that you are clearly of different mindset than me. Have a good day!
    - orwin 21d ago
      I'm not saying Atatürk stabilized his country by genociding and massacring, I'm saying the league of nations decided that it was an acceptable cost for a leader who seemed stable to avoid a second balkanization. My point is that I would rather have the current leader in Syria than an Isis that use it as a base for transnational terrorism (like lybia was under Ghadafi) or a group of uneducated cunts like the current Taliban leadership that terrorise most of the population. The best would have been no civil war at all, and a democratic transition. We don't have that. The current leader is violent and undemocratic, he doesn't deserve the position he have. Nevertheless, cutting Syria off, or worse, triggering a new civil war because we don't like him and we are afraid of his politics before we actually see his politics is idiotic. Especially since his policies have evolved to something way less integrist and way more legalist (hence my comment on no terror attacks), which, imho and maybe I'm wrong, is probably the best chance for an islamic administration to be part of the modern world (the best scenario would be a secular government: we wouldn't have that in Syria even if the SDF won). Let's give Syrians a chance.