Aleppo - continuing bombardments

[Drummond]

Can I open this up for discussion ?

ALEPPO, Syria.

Reports we're getting here (.. which of course are coming primarily from Leftie media, such as the BBC - this may need to be considered) are telling us of how Russian bombardments have resumed, how it therefore is that many innocent civilians are being trapped in the areas being attacked.

On another thread, I picked up on a post of Balu's, where he posted a link from a Russian commander which said that those not escaping the areas being attacked would be regarded as terrorists. Which takes into account no possibility of anyone being TRAPPED there, by injury, infirmity ... whatever.

As I've said before - and will always say - I'm fully in favour of blasting terrorists to hell. Absolutely fine with me !! BUT ... civilian who can't escape a war zone, where the attackers, deliberately so, aren't willing to make any allowance for their true status ?

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before our media (and others here in the UK ?) will accuse Russia of a war crime. I invite opinions here.

[Kathianne]

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/251813/


DECEMBER 14, 2016
RED LINES: Fierce fighting halts Aleppo evacuation. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38314291)

A ceasefire was declared in Aleppo on Tuesday and buses brought in to ferry people out of the devastated enclave.


But fighting resumed on Wednesday. Syrian activists also say air strikes over rebel-held territory have resumed.


The breakdown of the deal, brokered by Russia and Turkey, is being attributed to demands from the Syrian government.


It is said to be seeking the evacuation of its own injured fighters and civilians from nearby towns encircled by opposition forces.

Looks like Assad might have begun his Aleppo reprisals too soon (https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/251711/), while some of his own people are still subject to reprisals of their own.

[fj1200]

Can I open this up for discussion ?

ALEPPO, Syria.

Reports we're getting here (.. which of course are coming primarily from Leftie media, such as the BBC - this may need to be considered) are telling us of how Russian bombardments have resumed, how it therefore is that many innocent civilians are being trapped in the areas being attacked.

On another thread, I picked up on a post of Balu's, where he posted a link from a Russian commander which said that those not escaping the areas being attacked would be regarded as terrorists. Which takes into account no possibility of anyone being TRAPPED there, by injury, infirmity ... whatever.

As I've said before - and will always say - I'm fully in favour of blasting terrorists to hell. Absolutely fine with me !! BUT ... civilian who can't escape a war zone, where the attackers, deliberately so, aren't willing to make any allowance for their true status ?

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before our media (and others here in the UK ?) will accuse Russia of a war crime. I invite opinions here.

Exactly which ones are the terrorists here?

[CSM]

I get the impression that neither Russia nor the Syrian government give a rat's ass about "war crimes" ... and I also think that they will not devise any rules of engagement that favor anyone but their own troops.

[Noir]

Aleppo is pretty a dire situation all round, those trapped and/or unable to leave should probably consider their chance of survival as very low, with little that will be done to help them for fear of helping the rebels.

[Drummond]

Aleppo is pretty a dire situation all round, those trapped and/or unable to leave should probably consider their chance of survival as very low, with little that will be done to help them for fear of helping the rebels.

I'm waiting for later tonight, to see what updated news reports say. What's being said so far (Channel 4) is that there were evacuations scheduled today .. but none have actually been carried out.

I do get the impression that Assad and the Russians are so intent upon crushing any terrorist militancy that the innocents caught up in this aren't going to be allowed to escape themselves.

.. we shall see ..

[Abbey Marie]

Ceasefire already broken.

[Drummond]

Ceasefire already broken.

.. yes. It's from the broken ceasefire that this latest dire situation has developed.

[Drummond]

I have Channel 4 News on as I type (perhaps Noir is also following it ?).

The report shows some harrowing scenes of bombardments, crowds of people still caught up in it, one woman on a hospital stretcher saying that half her family is buried under rubble (presumably dead) .. and an interview with a man who was told to set out to go to a bus which would evacuate him and others .. which never arrived. Channel 4 had pictures of buses parked idly by and not moving.

It seems the main bombardments are coming from Assad's forces. A deal brokered with his regime, factions in the area, and the Russians, had been set up to allow evacuations of civilians to take place. No actual attempt at evacuation happened, though .. those who set out to be bused from the region had to return back.

Russian authorities have put out propaganda to say that Western calls for a cessation of shelling and bombardments were just their attempts to 'save terrorists'. So from this, I infer that the Russians were ultimately against allowing any ceasefire to happen.

Well .. I wonder if Balu has any input to offer ? Can he confirm the anti-Western propaganda as being issued from his own people ? Can he also confirm that the ceasefire didn't happen as planned because, at least in part, the Russians didn't want it to ?

If Assad's forces are strong enough to take the lead in the current attacks on Aleppo, why can't they put troops on the ground, to ensure that ONLY terrorists suffer or die ? Why indiscriminate bombing, instead ?

I don't care if terrorists are killed -- they don't even count as human beings, after all. But civilians are obviously caught up in this, and an effort that COULD have been made to save their lives was NOT made.

I say this: if terrorists and innocents are considered equally 'killable' ... then, why even kill terrorists ? Isn't the WHOLE POINT of taking anti-terrorist measures to SAVE INNOCENT LIVES ???

From the BBC --

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38319707


US Ambassador Samantha Power, who made her name with a memorable book about genocide, compared what was happening in Aleppo to other scenes of slaughter "that define modern evil, that stain our conscience decades later. Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica and, now, Aleppo".

No journalist or diplomat has been able so far to investigate what is happening in Aleppo. But the reports coming from the city, if true, are horrifying.

Ambassador Power asked Syria and its allies Russia and Iran a series of questions: "Are you truly incapable of shame? Is there literally nothing that can shame you? Is there no act of barbarism against civilians, no execution of a child that gets under your skin, that just creeps you out a little bit? Is there nothing you will not lie about or justify?"

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin was scornful, accusing Ms Power of speaking "as if she was Mother Theresa".

He told her to remember the record of the United States, suggesting that she had no right to the moral high ground.

[Drummond]

Nothing from Balu about this ? No defence of his Administration's conduct ? No representation of his country on this matter .. ?

Well .. Balu suits himself, of course, it's his decision. I understand.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I get the impression that neither Russia nor the Syrian government give a rat's ass about "war crimes" ... and I also think that they will not devise any rules of engagement that favor anyone but their own troops.

Why should any nation create rules of engagement that favors anybody other than their own troops (seems only we do)?
One fights a war to win it, not to give any advantage to the enemy as that is detrimental to the goal of winning..
This damn idea of a softer, gentler kind of war is just another insane liberal fantasy.
If its a war, the entire goal is to win as effectively, as quickly and with as little casualties as possible..
Anything that , -is negative to that agenda is insane IMHO.
War is killing people and blowing up things, which these idiot liberals thinks can be done in a more human way and/or not at all.
Well, the damn - "not at all part" has passed- when a damn shooting war has begun. From that point forward its the nation's
primary goal to win with as little sacrifice as necessary..
Myself, I dearly want to slap the ever loving hell out of anybody that is stupid enough to suggest a kinder, gentler war..
For such is insanity born from abject ignorance and/or self induced delusions coming from the damn insane liberal ideology IMHO.

Besides, does anybody think that the ffing terrorist muzzies give a rats-ass about being kinder, gentler and giving advantage to their enemies?

Myself, I dont do fantasy games as do the damn libs.....
In war civilians die, history repeatedly shows that as a reality. Of course, some deliberately target civilians(muzzies do) , best we can do is not join in on that but hindering success by doing more than that is a very bad idea in my opinion, as was the obama self defeating ROE'S.. -TYR

[Noir]

I reckon you're pretty far off the path if you think what is happening is in anyway acceptable Tyr, but I guess that's just my liberal-lefty-terrorist-brainwashed brain talkin'

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I reckon you're pretty far off the path if you think what is happening is in anyway acceptable Tyr, but I guess that's just my liberal-lefty-terrorist-brainwashed brain talkin'

Well Noir, ponder this for a minute if you will. That which is acceptable to you means nothing to the guys there getting shot at and blown up.
What is acceptable to them is surviving and any --unnecessary-- thing that hampers that goal is not acceptable..
And limiting ones own troops from being more effective and making it harder for them to do their tasks(by dumbass enemy aiding ROE'S) definitely qualifies as--- UNNECESSARY!
You sitting safely at home can ponder such mythical luxuries but they that are dying and being maimed have not that luxury nor that inclination..
And if it was your as being hot at-you change your mind on this methinks.
I had rule when working as a bouncer, no matter the bar owner I told them- don't try to tell me when to be kind and gentle, as that is my call. If you dont trust me on making the' correct decision on that- then don't hire me.
Now had any of them given me some stupid ROE'S that would have further endangered my body and soul I'd stomped their ass as son as they tried to lay such trash on me! And that is with me not even being shot at on the job!
Which I have been shot at before, but it was away from any bouncing gig..
And I am still these 40+ years later trying to find out who those two guys were... because I want to stomp the living hell out of them both even now!
ALL TOTAL THEY FIRED ABOUT 7/8 RIFLE SHOTS AT ME , FROM LONG RANGE.
--Tyr

[Gunny]

I reckon you're pretty far off the path if you think what is happening is in anyway acceptable Tyr, but I guess that's just my liberal-lefty-terrorist-brainwashed brain talkin'

Violence is an acceptable answer when all other means are exhausted or the long term consequences are not worth the risk. The latter is what you can't deal with. You turn on your what-iffery machine, then let the elephant in the rook trample you. Then you cry no one saved you and why weren't we prepared.

You are your own worst enemy and too dumb to get it. Your sentiments do not matter. They will kill or convert you. Is that A-B choice too hard?

You kill them first or die, simpleton.

[Noir]

Well Noir, ponder this for a minute if you will. That which is acceptable to you means nothing to the guys there getting shot at and blown up.
What is acceptable to them is surviving and any --unnecessary-- thing that hampers that goal is not acceptable..
And limiting ones own troops from being more effective and making it harder for them to do their tasks(by dumbass enemy aiding ROE'S) definitely qualifies as--- UNNECESSARY!
You sitting safely at home can ponder such mythical luxuries but they that are dying and being maimed have not that luxury nor that inclination..
And if it was your as being hot at-you change your mind on this methinks.
I had rule when working as a bouncer, no matter the bar owner I told them- don't try to tell me when to be kind and gentle, as that is my call. If you dont trust me on making the' correct decision on that- then don't hire me.
Now had any of them given me some stupid ROE'S that would have further endangered my body and soul I'd stomped their ass as son as they tried to lay such trash on me! And that is with me not even being shot at on the job!
Which I have been shot at before, but it was away from any bouncing gig..
And I am still these 40+ years later trying to find out who those two guys were... because I want to stomp the living hell out of them both even now!
ALL TOTAL THEY FIRED ABOUT 7/8 RIFLE SHOTS AT ME , FROM LONG RANGE.
--Tyr

Reports of children being murdered in their homes, where they are trapped, good thing there aren't any unnecessary "ROE's" to stop these murders, yeah?

[Drummond]

Why should any nation create rules of engagement that favors anybody other than their own troops (seems only we do)?
One fights a war to win it, not to give any advantage to the enemy as that is detrimental to the goal of winning..
This damn idea of a softer, gentler kind of war is just another insane liberal fantasy.
If its a war, the entire goal is to win as effectively, as quickly and with as little casualties as possible..
Anything that , -is negative to that agenda is insane IMHO.
War is killing people and blowing up things, which these idiot liberals thinks can be done in a more human way and/or not at all.
Well, the damn - "not at all part" has passed- when a damn shooting war has begun. From that point forward its the nation's
primary goal to win with as little sacrifice as necessary..
Myself, I dearly want to slap the ever loving hell out of anybody that is stupid enough to suggest a kinder, gentler war..
For such is insanity born from abject ignorance and/or self induced delusions coming from the damn insane liberal ideology IMHO.

Besides, does anybody think that the ffing terrorist muzzies give a rats-ass about being kinder, gentler and giving advantage to their enemies?

Myself, I dont do fantasy games as do the damn libs.....
In war civilians die, history repeatedly shows that as a reality. Of course, some deliberately target civilians(muzzies do) , best we can do is not join in on that but hindering success by doing more than that is a very bad idea in my opinion, as was the obama self defeating ROE'S.. -TYR

I'm all for showing terrorist scum no leniency. To take an alternative line is madness (&/or Leftieism in action).

That said ... Aleppo is (or WAS, if it's too bombed to hell to qualify, now, as one) a CITY. There will be people there whose only interest was to get on with living their lives.

A cessation of hostilities to let civilians escape, HAD been arranged by all Parties. But it didn't hold. We in the UK saw a report of people who left an Aleppo hospital, acting on advice to go to a checkpoint where buses were waiting to ferry them away from the war zone. None ever arrived, and after waiting hours, they all returned to where they'd come from.

Latest reports say that some evacuations HAVE now, finally, been undertaken (because the warring powers were shamed into it ??). Which is fine.

My thinking on this is that if there was no way of moving innocent civilians from the area, then OK, they had to meet their fate at the hands of the anti-terrorist forces, because at all costs, those terrorists had to be neutralised. That was the first and most important order of business. But if evacuations of civilians was possible - and everyone considered it was - then, why not arrange it ?

This is in stark contrast to something I pointed out in post #1 at the beginning of the thread .. that of a military decision taken, by a Russian, to classify all civilians in the rebel-held area AS TERRORISTS.

Noir, you'd be unwise to interpret my posting as agreement with you. We all know that the Left fights for all it's worth to be Muslim apologists, and to see to it that THEIR rights - even those 'claimed for' captured terrorists ! - are paramount in Leftie thinking. Noir, you and I will never come within light years of agreeing on that. Which is why I say that warfare which IRREMEDIABLY involves civilian casualties (and most do) become no less necessary to fight and to win than otherwise.

'Neat and tidy' warfare is basically a fiction. You do what you can, so long as the goal you're fighting for undergoes no extent of compromise.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Reports of children being murdered in their homes, where they are trapped, good thing there aren't any unnecessary "ROE's" to stop these murders, yeah?

If true, perhaps you can prove which group is doing that, eh?
Otherwise it could be the muzzy attackers are killing these civilians that are not co-operating enough with them.
Or any number of other reasons people are being murdered but first one needs proof that its actually occuring -then the all important truth of exactly who is doing it?
Have you got that info or are you going with the muslim loving flow and crying out against Assad(Syrian goverment forces) and Russia just because the obama/dems/libs /leftists are doing so?

And please do not bother me with the --"why would they murder their own(?)" as if the muzzies havent done so many times over for propaganda purposes.--Tyr

[Elessar]

Syria is a mess...

Look back to all the lines in the sand Obama drew and did nothing with.

Got a pu*** (un)Commander, (un)Leader of the Free World...Now look at the chaos.

[Drummond]

Reports of children being murdered in their homes, where they are trapped, good thing there aren't any unnecessary "ROE's" to stop these murders, yeah?

... yes, well !! This is where your Leftie enthusiasm for propaganda has gotten the better of you - clearly.

'Reports of children being murdered in their homes'. Rather specific, isn't it ? Reports of civilians being trapped in a war zone, unable to escape it, and that of a senior Russian declaring that everybody remaining in the war zone would be classified as 'terrorists' is one thing (as highly reprehensible as that was). But to single out CHILDREN as being 'murdered' in 'their homes' .. that's far more specific. NOT their parents, then ? And their HOMES are where it's happening ? Not in some other place of refuge ? Not in hospitals, maybe ?

Tyr has a point, I think ... also to the point that if such murders are happening, how can you know that it isn't terrorist 'rebels' doing much if not most of the 'murdering' ? Such 'reports' you allege exist, should be shown to us, don't you think ? Let us assess their worth. I mean ... you CAN back up your statement ... CAN'T YOU, Noir .. ??

[Noir]

In all, as of yesterday evening, we have received reports of pro-Government forces killing at least 82 civilians (including 11 women and 13 children) in four different neighbourhoods -- Bustan al-Qasr, al-Ferdous, al-Kallaseh, and al-Saleheen.

We hope, profoundly, that these reports are wrong, or exaggerated, as the situation is extremely fluid and it is very challenging to verify reports. However, they have been corroborated by multiple reliable sources.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21022&LangID=E

Tyr was quite clear, he believes in no ROE's so even if I were able to convince him with 0% doubt that this was the reality of the situation, presumably he would be fine with it.

[Drummond]

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21022&LangID=E

Tyr was quite clear, he believes in no ROE's so even if I were able to convince him with 0% doubt that this was the reality of the situation, presumably he would be fine with it.

Very good, Noir. Thank you. You've gone some way to making your case. This is acknowledged.

But ... there are problems, nonetheless ....

A couple of quotes from the link you've posted .... for the sake of balance, I'll start with one that favours your own argument ...


We have been receiving reports that many civilians have been detained by pro-Government forces. We have also been informed that pro-Government forces have been entering civilian homes and killing those individuals found inside, including women and children.

Multiple sources have reports that tens of civilians were shot dead yesterday in al-Ahrar Square in al-Kallaseh neighbourhood, and also in Bustan al-Qasr, by Government forces and their allies, including allegedly the Iraqi al-Nujabaa armed group.

... h'mm. You see, even this attempt at balance has its own problem, Noir. Who are the 'Iraqi al-Nujabaa armed group' .. ? This statement seems to lump both its assessment of civilians being 'shot dead' with this Iraqi 'armed group'. Well .... according to the statement, that group was allied to the 'Government forces' .. which means what, in real terms ? That those fighting on the 'Government' side aren't all troops who are controlled BY that Government ??

Just how loose is that alliance ? What is true of that Iraqi group ? How professional a group are they ? How reputable a group ? To what extent do they differ from those they're allied to ?

Confusing, isn't it, Noir ?

Perhaps a part of the problem is one of identifying civilians AS civilians ? Maybe, on the so-called 'rebel' side, some civilians are co-opted into supporting the terrorists who are around ? In which case, 'murders' might effectively become acts of self-defence, or self-preservation.

Maybe the issues involved aren't as simple as you'd like us to think.

Continuing with another quote, then ....


In all, as of yesterday evening, we have received reports of pro-Government forces killing at least 82 civilians (including 11 women and 13 children) in four different neighbourhoods -- Bustan al-Qasr, al-Ferdous, al-Kallaseh, and al-Saleheen.


We hope, profoundly, that these reports are wrong, or exaggerated, as the situation is extremely fluid and it is very challenging to verify reports.

It goes on to claim corroborations ... which can't mean a whole lot, IF there's still doubt as to the accuracy of the 'reports'. Since such doubt exists, WHAT EXACTLY CAN BE BELIEVED WITH ANY EXTENT OF CERTAINTY ?

Here's the thing, Noir. Wars are messy, by their very nature. War zones may have good lines of communication (or they may not), but even so, clear-cut assessments and judgments are hard to come by when you're bombing and demolishing the hell out of a territory. It wouldn't help, either, if communication facilities are destroyed, or if reporters are killed, or if those forces fighting in a region don't want news to spread out of it !

So you see, Noir, the best time to make specific claims as to what's happened to specific people, is after the air has cleared, so-to-speak .. AFTER the fighting is over, AFTER the chaos is over, and clear assessments CAN be made. Better that than to have Leftie propagandists come along and make their inflammatory statements which may OR MAY NOT be true, OR, be explainable in terms other than those known about.

It certainly doesn't help, either, when you consider that Aleppo is a CITY (or 'was'). Cities are, by their very nature, civilian areas where civilians live. Enter 'rebels' (aka, for the most part, TERRORISTS) .. who take over, entrench themselves there, and turn these civilian areas into something else other than living areas.

So, who's done what in Aleppo ? Who are the terrorists, and who are the civilians ? Who has cooperated with who ? Who has had to, under duress ? Who has been 'turned' to the 'rebel' cause ? All of this needs to be considered, Noir. There WILL be innocents involved in all of this, and their safety matters. But ... it's just not quite that simple, Noir. Unfortunately ... it can't be ...

[Kathianne]

Worth reading.

Proxies and bad neighborhoods, can make things very difficult for US going forward.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/fall-aleppo


Dispatches
Michael J. Totten
The Fall of Aleppo

The Syrian city of Aleppo has fallen. Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Bashar al-Assad’s Arab Socialist Baath Party regime have won.


Long known as Syria’s Stalingrad, the Battle of Aleppo has raged since July, 2012, when the Free Syrian Army opened fire on Assad’s security forces in the Salaheddine district.

Four and a half years later, after being held by checkboard of various rebel factions, Assad’s army has retaken the city with a rogue’s gallery of international allies.

It’s just about the last place on earth you’d want to be right about now.

“Mass murder by chlorine gas,” Terry Glavin writes in Canada’s National Post. “Massacres of innocents. Bombardments by Russian jet fighters. The deliberate targeting of hospitals and clinics. The firing of mortar rounds into crowded neighbourhoods. The terror of barrel bombs dropped from Syrian army helicopters. The starvation siege that followed the city’s encirclement by Shia death squads and Assadist militias on Sept. 8.”

It’s not fashionable to care about Aleppo anymore or even anything that happens in Syria aside from the eradication of ISIS. Even so, millions of people all over the world not named Gary Johnson believe that the Assad regime and the Russians have been fighting ISIS in Aleppo, but nope. ISIS is not in Aleppo. ISIS has never been in Aleppo. ISIS is just about the only armed group in the entire country that hasn’t been fighting in Aleppo.

Aleppo is, however, the epicenter of foreign involvement in Syria. Which brings us to Hanin Ghaddar’s excellent point in the Washington Post. We should stop calling the Syrian war a “civil war.” I’ve been calling it that for years, but I take her point. Yes, various factions inside Syria are fighting each other, but the overwhelming majority of the dead are on the anti-Assad side. The governments of three different countries, plus a Lebanese terrrorist army, are fighting in Syria. The war is basically a war against all waged by the government with assistance from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Assad has managed to transform himself from a totalitarian Baathist into a what we might call a brutalitarian like Vladimir Putin when he laid waste to Grozny in Chechnya.

Here’s Ghaddar:


According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, Assad’s forces have killed 95 percent of Syrian victims. Additionally, Assad controls the army, including tanks, planes and barrel bombs. He has shelled areas that witnessed peaceful protests. Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people. He controls the intelligence, security and military apparatus that have diligently and systematically worked since 2011 to arrest, torture and kill all nonviolent activists.

Assad also released dangerous Islamists from prison and allowed them to organize and build armed groups. He did this not by accident, but as a part of a strategy to create a civil war and radicalize what remained of the revolution. His strategy has been to shift the narrative from reform to sectarianism by emphasizing Islamic terrorism, thereby presenting himself as a partner in the global war on terror.

Assad can never be a partner in the global war on terror. He’s the biggest state sponsor of international terrorism in the Arab world, and his staunchest ally is the Iranian regime, which is the biggest state sponsor of international terrorism in the entire world.

And ultimately, this is Iran’s victory.

“Aleppo was liberated thanks to a coalition between Iran, Syria, Russia, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah,” says Iranian defense minister Seyed Yahya Rahim-Safavi. “Iran is on one side of this coalition which is approaching victory and this has shown our strength. The new American president should take heed of the powers of Iran.” [Emphasis added.]

“The Syrian army as a fighting force is largely spent,” writes Michael Weiss in the Daily Beast. “Without Russian air support and the some 6,000 to 8,000 Iranian-run paramilitaries Assad now relies on to wage war for him, Aleppo would never have been recaptured.”

An Iranian victory against ISIS would be one thing. We could plausibly shrug and take Henry Kissinger’s view of the Iran-Iraq War. It’s too bad they can’t both lose.

We could take a half step toward the point of view in Aleppo. Many of the rebels are Islamic extremists. Some of them, like the Nusra Front, are aligned with Al Qaeda, though as of two months ago they only had 1,000 fighters in all of Aleppo.

The truth is that rebels aren’t even “the rebels.” There are more factions than most of us can keep track of, and many of them are mutually hostile.

And they aren’t all Islamists. Secular leftist Kurds have been fighting in Aleppo, too, alongside non-political elements in the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian Turkmen Brigades, and the Syrian Democratic Forces that advocate a democratic, secular and federal Syria.

If the Assad regime were to fall instead of Aleppo, the war wouldn’t end. Everyone left standing would still have to battle it out. Lord only knows what would happen or how long that would last. It would depend in part on whether or not “the international community,” such as it is, felt motivated enough to do anything to prevent the worst factions from seizing power. In the worst-case scenario, the entire country could become a Sunni Islamist terrorist state, which is why so many people are rooting for an Assad victory even though he is a monster.

An Islamist-controlled Syria would be only one possible outcome, however, if Assad were to fall. I’ll go out on a limb and say it would be the most likely outcome. Terrorists thrive in failed states, after all, and Syria is drawing them from all over the world.

...