Watching the situation developing in Syria (granted that is an arduous task between repression in Syria, a biased Western press, and a flummoxed American State Department), it dawned on me today that we hear no stories of "foreign fighters" rushing to conduct "holy war" on the authoritarian government.

No belly bombs, belt bombs, butt bombs, underwear bombs, sneaker bombs, fuel truck bombs, blah-blah-blah.

Which leads me to one of two conclusions.  Either (a) Assad has done a side deal to keep the Islamists quiet or (b) the Islamists fear a wholly disproprotionate response if they start their nonsense in Syria.

Note that the Hama massacre in the 80's was a response to Islamic militants who didn't know their place.

I wonder which situation this is?

Anybody got any insight on this? ???

Which leads me to one of two conclusions.  Either (a) Assad has done a side deal to keep the Islamists quiet or (b) the Islamists fear a wholly disproprotionate response if they start their nonsense in Syria.


You forgot (c) the stories of it happening in other countries were also pretty much bogus, and Assad was smart enough not to try a strategy that failed in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.

You forgot (c) the stories of it happening in other countries were also pretty much bogus, and Assad was smart enough not to try a strategy that failed in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.


I dunno.  With a reported 2000 protesters dead (although this figure has no verification one way or the other) it would seem that Assad is kicking some ass, as was attempted in those other three countries.

But I wonder, where are all those "foreign fighters" who are usually all to eager to do their thing? ???

But I wonder, where are all those "foreign fighters" who are usually all to eager to do their thing? ???


We're both wondering the same thing.  Our difference of opinion is that I don't think they ever existed in significant numbers in any of the tinpot dictatorships you've been defending lately.

In case I wasn't clear the first time: ficticious "foreign agitators", "subversives" and "fifth columns" have been a favorite ploy of tinpot dictators since the Victorians invented the process whereby pots were first made out of tin.  The reason your "agitators" are "missing" from Syria's body count is because they were never there to begin with.

We're both wondering the same thing.  Our difference of opinion is that I don't think they ever existed in significant numbers in any of the tinpot dictatorships you've been defending lately.

In case I wasn't clear the first time: ficticious "foreign agitators", "subversives" and "fifth columns" have been a favorite ploy of tinpot dictators since the Victorians invented the process whereby pots were first made out of tin.


Oh, I'm not defending the tinpots.

All I am saying is that Western powers have no business intervening, and no moral high ground from which to do it.  Quadaffi was the creation of Libya, not the West.  So let Libya fix their own problem. In the end they'll still hate the West either way.  Except if you do it my way, fewer people will be killed.

The Western intervention is counterproductive and silly.  If I'm gonna spend good money on bullets and bombs, I at least want to get something for my troubles... other than more torubles...

Which leads me to one of two conclusions.  Either (a) Assad has done a side deal to keep the Islamists quiet or (b) the Islamists fear a wholly disproprotionate response if they start their nonsense in Syria.

Note that the Hama massacre in the 80's was a response to Islamic militants who didn't know their place.

c) has been used up already..

d) The "foreign extremists" (if, as FooBar points out, they actually exist) are actually controlled by the Syrian government

e) Islamic extremists are actually quite happy with the status quo in Syria


All I am saying is that Western powers have no business intervening, and no moral high ground from which to do it.

+1

Oh, I'm not defending the tinpots.

All I am saying is that Western powers have no business intervening, and no moral high ground from which to do it.  Quadaffi was the creation of Libya, not the West.  So let Libya fix their own problem. In the end they'll still hate the West either way.  Except if you do it my way, fewer people will be killed.

The Western intervention is counterproductive and silly.  If I'm gonna spend good money on bullets and bombs, I at least want to get something for my troubles... other than more torubles...


Fair 'nuff.  While we're on the subject, for anyone who missed it the first time, I was wrong on the Libyan gambit.  Just like Bush II's war of opportunity, it's taken way longer than it was supposed to, cost more, and by now it's done more damage to the oil infrastructure it was supposed to secure than it was worth.

The good news is that the Syrians don't have enough oil to make 'em worth bombing, so at least we won't be repeating that mistake.