People always say Islamist this, Islamist that, but Starwatcher is right, Assad's killed far more than ISIS. The latest estimates for the death toll of the Syrian civil war is 191,000.
"Who killed more people" is beside the point, frankly. It's like saying Stalin was worse then Hitler because he had a higher raw body count. You're completely handwaving the fact that IS would probably kill even more if they had the capability.
It all started when Assad ordered his police forces to open fire on peaceful demonstrations. Ironic, considering what the left is screaming about in Ferguson now, demonstrations over one guy who robbed a convenience store and physically assaulted a police officer. But in Syria they're on the other side.
Because the situation in Syria is much, much more complicated. The two don't even compare. It's not like people were supporting the Assad Regime during the initial uprisings, just more recently as the only plausible alternative to the Islamic State.
It's always "but oh no the Islamists." But as I said last year, if you look at Middle Eastern history, it's the secularists who have killed the most:
Again, this is ultimately beside the point.
It's funny you mention the Afghan communists, considering what happened after they lost. The communists losing that war was probably the worst thing that's happened to Afghanistan in a long time.
The West always think secular = Western-style liberal democracy, but that's no so.
Except that's not what anybody said. Pure strawman.
The Middle East is a difference place, if you give people democracy, they will vote in one form of Islamist government or other. That's why "secularists" always end up supporting the military thugs with the guns. And that's why they'll continue to lose support in the Middle East, because that will not win any hearts and minds.
Well, sometimes that's just the way it goes. The Arab world needs an Ataturk.
ISIS is not a threat for one reason: no one likes them. Not even the people who live under them like them. It's sort of like communism: they may retain power for a long time through the barrels of their guns, but if they are too oppressive, eventually the people will rise up and demand change.
I don't think the concept of just crossing our fingers, hoping for this outcome while launching military strikes against Assad that will
directly correlate to an increase in IS power and influence is a good foreign policy.
Sorry, but the idea of launching strikes against Assad at this time is just beyond absurd. I can't think of a bigger free lunch we could possibly give the Islamic State.
