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

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.