Russia accuses U.S. of backing Syrian rebels who use poison gas on civilians

Reuters ^ | Thursday August 4, 2016August 6th, 2016 | By Andrew Osborn

[fieldmarshaldj]

I know what you mean. But if it’s a choice between ISIS and Assad, it’s a no-brainer (except to Zero, of course).

[Cronos]

In the case of Syria, there is a right side -- Assad.

Why? Assad and his father have protected Christians -- Christians have thrived, been allowed to worship and build Churches. Under Hafez Al Assad (Bashir's father), he tried to change the constitution to allow non-Moslems to become PResident of Syria, but there were wide protests in Homs etc.

Why did Assad try to do this? Because he is an Alawite -- this secretive religion is not considered Moslem by Sunnis and by many Shia. They are called Nusariya as they are considered crypto-Christians (Christians who hid from Moslem persecution) - which they probably are, but after years of secrecy, have developed differently.

Assad can contain the inbred psychos and we should be supporting him

Instead the USA, UK, France are allied with the Saudis and Qataris who are sending jihadis to syria

IF Obama had not removed troops from Iraq in 2011 and not clandestinely supported the "moderate jihadis" in Syria, then 250,000 to 300,000 people would not have died. OBama has their blood on his hands.

[antidisestablishment]

You are preaching to the choir to a degree. Yes, Assad is preferable to the “rebels” AKA ISIS, ISIL, DAESH, or just plain bloody terrorists. Obama/Clinton’s support of terrorism is despicable and should be prosecuted.

We could have/should have maintained the peace, but it’s too late. Unless you want to spin up the entire war again, the time for intervention has passed.

We have no national interest in the Middle East and even less in Syria. We should pack up and come home. All we need is a couple of standoff weapons to ensure they stay in their own sandbox. Anything beyond that is a waste of time and resources.