If you’re calling national socialists “stable”, then I do not understand where you are coming from.
Assad did use chemical weapons; now if that’s the act of a “stable” autocrat, then I wonder what your standards for an unstable autocrat are.
You mean false flag (foiled) chemical weapons used by FSA to trigger an intervention by Obama?
I’m not saying ‘stable’ in universal terms but they are clearly more responsible than alternatives which is ISIS and alikes.
It is clearly visible, isn’t it and growing Christian deaths is an indicator you can’t ignore.
And you are still unable to point at any alternative other than clearly hypothetical to ‘defeat Islam’ though you don’t have any idea how to really do it.
Do you want to nuke Mecca or kill a billion muzzies or what? What is ‘ to defeat Islam’?