7 ms·
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 dictato
by 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 agoI'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.