Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Dayuhan]

Next time I'm there and happen to run over any kind of US tourists (is unlikely to happen any time soon, of course, but you ought to be patient when things are about Syria), I'll ask them for their telephone numbers or e-mail addresses. Then I'll forward these to you so you can ask them - and hear with your own ears - what they've been told by their family, friends etc. when informing them they're about to do a trip to Syria.

So now you're jumping from "so we've been taught in the last 60 years" to a few comments heard by the miniscule handful of people that have contemplated traveling to Syria? People say all kinds of things about all kinds of places... I've heard people say the country I live in is full of crazy terrorists. That hardly equates to "so we've been taught in the last 60 years". Scuttlebutt from the ignorant doesn't constitute "teaching". Neither does random internet ranting from self-proclaimed authorities, something you might want to remember before embarking on lectures.

Tell me: Syria didn't become 'an irresistible and accessible magnet for crazy terrorists'?

Of course it has... but the terrorists that flock there are shooting at each other, not at us or our proxies. Because we don't have a proxy, we don't face that question of whether to abandon the proxy or provide direct support when our proxy predictably fails to accomplish what we hoped for. The assorted "crazy terrorists" don't have that "expel the infidel from the land of the faithful" mantra to fall back on, and they don't have a clear reason to urge attacks on the West... of course they'll still try, but we aren't handing them the narrative on a silver platter.

There's nothing that empowers the radical Islamic fringe quite so effectively as Western boots on the ground in Islamic countries, especially in countries in conflict. Western proxies aren't as good, but they'll do. Why supply your enemies with something they thrive on?

And this didn't happen precisely because of....what idiotic reason is now going to come to your mind...?

It happened because some of the Syrians tried to overthrow their dictator, the dictator declined to be overthrown, and a civil war ensued that emerged as a proxy showdown between Sunni and Shi'a. That showdown has drawn militants from both sides from around the region. I don't see any credible argument suggesting that the influx of militants would have been reduced by inserting Western intervention, directly or by proxy, into that picture.

Ah, you - the very person that is so much in love with complaining about anybody trying to 'guess the future' - is now predicting the future, and say 'it will'?

I was asked what I thought the impact of Western intervention on militant inflow would have been. I answered. That's an opinion, not a prediction. What do you think would have been the impact of Western intervention on militant inflow?

Oh, anybody trying to say 'this is what caused the war' is simply stupid. That's sure. But, sigh... well somebody like you, somebody who is trying to discuss the developments in Syria, and especially somebody doing that and being from the USA, sigh.... gosh, this is so boring to explain for XYth time, especially to people so insistent on proving completely unable to think and learn... might want to recall all the BS caused by Bush Sr.'s calls for Iraqis to raise against Saddam, back in March-April 1991, and then what has his failure to support the Iraqis that rose caused over the time.

Yes, that was dumb. Do you suggest that Bush Sr's irresponsible comments to Iraqis in 1991 are a reason for the US to intervene in Syria?

Ah, yes: there are no 'civilians' in Syria. 'Terrorists parking only' there...

When did the protection of Syrian civilians become an American responsibility?