Should we be backing Assad in the Syrian conflict.

[Mecky]

No, we shouldn't be backing anyone

[angos]

I note that western leaders have softened their attitude to Assad in recent weeks. It seems linked to his co-operation over chemical weapons but also to the build up of Islamist forces in Syria.

In recent days Islamist forces have attacked the Free Syrian Army and taken towns they were holding and captured leaders who have disappeared without trace.

Al Qaeda linked forces are now spending as much time fighting moderate opposition forces as they do fighting Assad.

Should the west turn its attention now to supporting Assad as the alternative to Assad seems increasingly to be an Islamic state run by groups linked to Al Qaeda?

 

We should do everything in our power to keep the opposing sides equal, it matters not which side we help as long as we don't give them an unfair advantage.

[WeX]

The more I see the more I think Assad is the best of a bad bunch. We were right not to take military action and if you didn't notice, when we stood back the world followed.

[cressida]

No, we shouldn't be backing anyone

 

I agree, we should just be helping the refugees and the aid agencies

[cuttsie]

In a word, no.

In a word yes .

 

---------- Post added 23-11-2013 at 18:36 ----------

 

Using guns and bombs against those using guns and bombs usually means violence. The Assad regime has also used chemical weapons against civilians. Normally vinyl and his ilk would be condemning the uncivilised Muslims for such violence. But times change.

What proof have you got please share it with the World.

[tonkatoy]

The more I see the more I think Assad is the best of a bad bunch. We were right not to take military action and if you didn't notice, when we stood back the world followed.

 

Assad is providing a very good meat grinder that is sucking in the Islamic nut jobs from around the globe. The more of them that sacrifice themselves for the greater glory of their god the less there are to blow up buses and planes in the rest of the world.

[SevenRivers]

Flood the country with weapons, enough guns for every man, woman and child. A political settlement doesn't look likely, we may as well oil the wheels a bit for a military victory one side over the other.

[Jason Bourne]

I note that western leaders have softened their attitude to Assad in recent weeks. It seems linked to his co-operation over chemical weapons...

 

Now that Assad has used up / destroyed his chemical weapons stockpiles, I think we should sell Assad some more chemical weapons before the Russians do

[Zamo]

Using guns and bombs against those using guns and bombs usually means violence. The Assad regime has also used chemical weapons against civilians. Normally vinyl and his ilk would be condemning the uncivilised Muslims for such violence. But times change.

 

Is the lack of chemical weapon attacks by the Islamists because they are more principled or because they don't have any to use?

 

Assad is probably the lesser of the evils but it is irrelevant really. We need to learn to keep our noses out unless there is a direct threat to us... and there isn't.

[Mr Gobby]

In a word, no.

 

Yep agree.Not our business.