No counter argument? I'll take the concession

Assad was not a good man but he kept a lid on radicals. Very similar with Gadaffi in Libya and dozens of these other authoritarian shit holes. Many of us explicitly said deposing would lead to this kind of instability. You don’t need to be Nostradamus to know Sunni extremists will eventually start killing the ‘others’.

Of course you won’t see this on front page CNN or BBC, the ones that cheered and programmed their audiences to think Assad being deposed was some great objective good.

Yeah I kinda think it’s pointless to argue about this.
I do acknowledge that our politicians are constantly lying to us and who knows what twisted stuff we are doing abroad.

This post was edited by WhiteSouned on Mar 7 2025 12:13pm

It's in your best interest to argue your point, because what happens when your country loses support?

No one can actually explain why Assad is bad. They'll reference his father, who is NOT Assad (we are referring to Bashar here) and who has been dead for 25 years.

He oppressed other groups but in that region that’s basically the standard and has been for a very long time. The obvious truth is when you get rid of the strongman rarely if ever anything good comes.

Removed Saddam and Isis was created

Removed Gaddafi and you have a civil war for over a decade and one of the biggest human trafficking hubs in the world.

Removed Assad you’ll get a very similar negative outcome. The Sunni HTS fundamentalist have no interest in a representative Syria, they want Sunnis in power to lord over Alawites Druze, Christians Assyrians, Kurds, etc. if you disagree you end up in a field with a bullet in your head, maybe they’ll do it to a few villages filled with civilians to send the message.


Before with Assad in power at least these minorities had some understanding with Assad and largely lived peacefully. They’d obviously preferred autonomy but sure as fuck not the Al Qaeda rebrand taking over.

Let's remove Zionsky and see what happens

Your response here is incoherent - you first level a nebulous (and hence meaningless) accusation that he oppressed other groups - which groups and how? Do you mean he disarmed radical Islamists? Or that he restricted the levers of power to Alawites? That's just sensible policy is it not, given we now have the benefit of hindsight.

You then write that he had a peaceful understanding with minority groups. So which one is it? The latter is of course true.

And how is he a strongman? The guy is a mild mannered eye doctor educated and cultured in the West who tried his best to protect the people of his country that he inherited as a birthright. He never rose to power on his own. Very much not a strongman, even though being a strongman is hardly a bad thing.

Everyone will always say "but Hama"

1) the crushing of the Hama radical Islamist revolt was done by his father

2) why all the love and care for subhuman Islamist terrorists? Hafez did the world a huge favour by saying enough is enough and getting rid of them, just as Israel is doing now

We live in a grey world someone can be the ‘best’ option yet still not be a saint. To say he’s innocent is nonsensical.