Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-held-province
    Has Islamic fundamentalism and sectarian infighting led to the failure of the Syrian revolution?
    If the rebellion had operated on secular lines and put all their religious issues on the back burner, would they have been successful in removing a regime that deserved to go?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by QE2)
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-held-province
    Has Islamic fundamentalism and sectarian infighting led to the failure of the Syrian revolution?
    If the rebellion had operated on secular lines and put all their religious issues on the back burner, would they have been successful in removing a regime that deserved to go?
    No, because of the influence of strong international players and not religion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-held-province
    Has Islamic fundamentalism and sectarian infighting led to the failure of the Syrian revolution?
    If the rebellion had operated on secular lines and put all their religious issues on the back burner, would they have been successful in removing a regime that deserved to go?
    Even if religion did not play a factor in this there is still a heavy detrimental aspect of fundementalisim in which it opposes each sides.

    Therefore I conclude that it's more to do with the influx of influence rather then the religious aspect of the failure of the Syrian revolution.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously yes. The Kurds are the only people who are secular
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    No, because of the influence of strong international players and not religion.
    But would the international element have found the justification to get involved without the excesses of some rebel elements? Would there have been more international support for the rebels?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MiszShortee786)
    Even if religion did not play a factor in this there is still a heavy detrimental aspect of fundementalisim in which it opposes each sides.
    Sorry? :confused:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by QE2)
    But would the international element have found the justification to get involved without the excesses of some rebel elements? Would there have been more international support for the rebels?
    No. It was based on a strategic geo-political decision by the West.

    They did not care about the “freedom” of the rebels, it was just an opportunity for regime change that fell flat when it was found out that the rebels used similar heinous tactics that the Assad forces used.

    There was no longer the “moral platform” that the West normally uses to invade nations. Besides, Russia was able to play them at their game.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Sorry? :confused:
    Religion or no religion there is still going to be a war, regardless.

    Put it this way, humanity does not have a value any longer. Syrian blood means nothing to an ordinary individual therefore it becomes an easier tactic for these individual to get rid of them all.

    Until Assad does not come out of power then nothing will obviously be resolved. They were basically played out of their own tactics as such due to their aboherrent strategies.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    No. It was based on a strategic geo-political decision by the West.

    They did not care about the “freedom” of the rebels, it was just an opportunity for regime change that fell flat when it was found out that the rebels used similar heinous tactics that the Assad forces used.

    There was no longer the “moral platform” that the West normally uses to invade nations. Besides, Russia was able to play them at their game.
    That is my point though!
    If the rebels had presented a united, secular front, would they have been more successful.
    I believe that they would.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by QE2)
    That is my point though!
    If the rebels had presented a united, secular front, would they have been more successful.
    I believe that they would.
    No, they would not because it was not their war. It was a proxy for US/Russia display of strength.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MiszShortee786)
    Religion or no religion there is still going to be a war, regardless.

    Put it this way, humanity does not have a value any longer. Syrian blood means nothing to an ordinary individual therefore it becomes an easier tactic for these individual to get rid of them all.

    Until Assad does not come out of power then nothing will obviously be resolved. They were basically played out of their own tactics as such due to their aboherrent strategies.
    Still no clearer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    No, they would not because it was not their war. It was a proxy for US/Russia display of strength.
    No it wasn't! The US didn't bomb Assad or send troops to support the rebels against the regime. The international community were happy to allow the Russins to get involved because they saw the emerging alternative to Assad to be the worse of two evils. The US coalition actually bombed rebel elements, not Assad.
    *smh*
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Still no clearer.
    Never mind.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Its a complex issue... personally I take the view that religion has played a relatively minor role in the whole mess and has played little more than a PR role. The bigger issue here was the Russian perception of another US backed regime change such as in Libya and that was completely beyond the pale. The Russians had no especial love for Assad or his regime but the strategic and moral reasons behind their propping up of his regime are unassailable.
    This isnt to soft peddle religion though, one of the key reasons the Iranians got involved aside from to prop up an ally, seems to have been to keep an unfriendly Sunni government coming in. The Russians equally feared the ramifications of battle hardened terrorists returning from Syria and running amok and carpet bombingthem solves everybodys problems.

    Anyway i ramble slightly. Key premise is religion was one of a multitude of factors in this war but in ones considered view it was far from the main one. As other posters have mentioned this largely became a proxy war and a general push back against American influence by Moscow, Tehran and to a degree Beirut. Not to mention other actors strategic considerations namely Tel Aviv, The Gulf states and Ankara who all have had varying vested interests that superseded any potential religious issues.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    No it wasn't! The US didn't bomb Assad or send troops to support the rebels against the regime. The international community were happy to allow the Russins to get involved because they saw the emerging alternative to Assad to be the worse of two evils. The US coalition actually bombed rebel elements, not Assad.
    *smh*
    In fairness there wasnt a dicky bird they could do about the Russians coming in and on the bombing Assad issue, the US most definitely has bombed Assad's forces? A prime example would be when they slaughtered around 100 Syrian troops in 2016.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by QE2)
    No it wasn't! The US didn't bomb Assad or send troops to support the rebels against the regime. The international community were happy to allow the Russins to get involved because they saw the emerging alternative to Assad to be the worse of two evils. The US coalition actually bombed rebel elements, not Assad.
    *smh*
    You have been misinformed.

    At the beginning (circa 2011) during the so-called Arab Spring, the US and the West thought that the Syrian regime would fall like other arab nations.

    As things progress, they tried to use international instruments to enable the rebels win the war, just like they did in Libya. Do you remember Obama’s redline against the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime?

    Soon after, it was reported in the media that both Assad and the rebels had used chemical weapons against each other, which forced the West to back away from defending the rebels.

    As things moved on, it seemed that Assad was losing due to the rise of Islamic State in the region. This coupled with originally western-backed rebels created a big problem for Assad, which caused Russia and Iran to step in. Do you remember the accusations that Putin was killing innocent Syrians? Russia supported Assad and helped them to push the rebels and IsIs fighters back.

    During that time, there was a change in Western policy in Syria to fighting ISIS rather than Assad since ISIS had become a bigger enemy and causing home-based terror attacks in Europe and the US.

    Do you remember the accusations against Turkey for supporting ISIS by purchasing their oil in the black market?

    With the US and West reducing its attacks against Assad, Russia was able to fight better to reduce rebel insurgency, thereby neutralising Assad’s main enemies.

    You need to research the Syrian war and fight against misinformation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    You have been misinformed.

    At the beginning (circa 2011) during the so-called Arab Spring, the US and the West thought that the Syrian regime would fall like other arab nations.

    As things progress, they tried to use international instruments to enable the rebels win the war, just like they did in Libya. Do you remember Obama’s redline against the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime?

    Soon after, it was reported in the media that both Assad and the rebels had used chemical weapons against each other, which forced the West to back away from defending the rebels.

    As things moved on, it seemed that Assad was losing due to the rise of Islamic State in the region. This coupled with originally western-backed rebels created a big problem for Assad, which caused Russia and Iran to step in. Do you remember the accusations that Putin was killing innocent Syrians? Russia supported Assad and helped them to push the rebels and IsIs fighters back.

    During that time, there was a change in Western policy in Syria to fighting ISIS rather than Assad since ISIS had become a bigger enemy and causing home-based terror attacks in Europe and the US.

    Do you remember the accusations against Turkey for supporting ISIS by purchasing their oil in the black market?

    With the US and West reducing its attacks against Assad, Russia was able to fight better to reduce rebel insurgency, thereby neutralising Assad’s main enemies.

    You need to research the Syrian war and fight against misinformation.
    Yes, yes, I am aware of all that. The point is, why did it change? The "west" was unashamedly pro-rebel at first. It is pretty clear that as the rebellion morphed from a united popularist uprising against an unpleasant regime to something entirely different, support waned. Had that change not taken place, not only would they have been a more effective fighting force, but they would have retained international support.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    They would have been more effective, but they were never going to beat Russia who changed the course of the war.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by QE2)
    Yes, yes, I am aware of all that. The point is, why did it change? The "west" was unashamedly pro-rebel at first. It is pretty clear that as the rebellion morphed from a united popularist uprising against an unpleasant regime to something entirely different, support waned. Had that change not taken place, not only would they have been a more effective fighting force, but they would have retained international support.
    Again, No.

    The original act was a protest which was disunited and scattered around the country. Even when the war begun, there were still several distinct groups which fought the Assad regime. The West just supported the biggest group, who had the highest likelihood of winning, which was strategic rather than anything.

    It lost international support because the West were, at first, supporting a side that was as bad as the regime they wanted to change and then were involved in defeating ISIS.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    With the US and West reducing its attacks against Assad, Russia was able to fight better to reduce rebel insurgency, thereby neutralising Assad’s main enemies.
    .
    The Coalition has never been at war with Assad. The House of Commons voted against the UK getting involved in air strikes back in 2013 & the USA only punished Assad militarily for using chemical weapons once - last year in April.

    There have been Coalition strikes on Syrian forces entering zones where Western special forces are threatened such as the tank convoy & the shooting down of a Syrian Su-22 but only on two occasions that I'm aware of.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.