Everyone hates ISIS....So what do you want to do about it ?

[JonLP24]

131. That is because they don't like Assad

No one who is near him likes him, especially Turkey. In fact one of their planes was shot down by Syrian armed forces. In any case, they have accepted many Iraq & Syria refugees but they have a lot of problems in government much like we do.

I don't have an issue with your suggestions except with NATO strong arm tactics and who is or who isn't supposed to be our ally, they have their own interests & that Syria-Turkey border is one of the most dangerous in the world. (CIA also used those Turkey smuggling routes to deliver arms to the rebels). Also teaming up with Iran would be a bad mistake. They back the Shia militias in Iraq & the guy the CIA installed as PM in Iraq was a Shia in exile in Iran & both terrorize Sunni populations, people that don't want war & also don't want to be killed if they don't find their way out of the country. I agreed with John Kerry it was inappropriate for Iran to join discussions but for the same reasons, I felt it was inappropriate for us to be there as well.

Situations are different but I think a lot of what this article mentions applies here as well given that it is an identity politics driven conflict which artocities are being committed by all sides, leading to the current political instability that exists. My problem is the US & or NATO picking a side because whoever is being picked against are massive war crimes waiting to happen. The situation in Syria is incredibly complex & will be like this for years. In Iraq, all that is necessary is for Shia majority elected officials (rather than CIA installed) allow Sunni(as well as Kurds, Mandeaens, etc) participation & protests & inclusion). Don't use an Iraqi Army/Shia militia to raid the homes & kill elected Sunni officials. Not only we shouldn't do it, we're also very bad at it.

-------------

And yet, nagging questions remain. Making the wars even more difficult to grasp is the uncomfortable reality that there were no clear-cut “good guys” and “bad guys” — just a lot of ugliness on all sides. When considering specifically the war between the Croats and the Serbs, it’s tempting for Americans to take Croatia’s “side” because we saw them in the role of victims first; because they’re Catholic, so they seem more “like us” than the Orthodox Serbs; and because we admire their striving for independence. But in the streets and the trenches, it was never that straightforward. The Serbs believe that they were the victims first — back in World War II, when their grandparents were executed in Croat-run Ustaše concentration camps. And when Croats retook the Serb-occupied areas in 1995, they were every bit as brutal as the Serbs had been a few years before. Both sides resorted to genocide, both sides had victims, and both sides had victimizers.

Even so, many can’t help but look for victims and villains. During the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, several prominent and respected reporters began to show things from one “side” more than the others — specifically, depicting the Bosniaks (Muslims) as victims. This reawakened an old debate in the journalism community: Should reporters above all remain impartial, even if “showing all sides” might make them feel complicit in ongoing atrocities?

As for villains, it’s easy to point a finger at Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić, and other political or military leaders who have been arrested and tried at The Hague. Others condemn the late Croatian President Franjo Tuđman, who, it’s now known, secretly conspired with Milošević to redraw the maps of their respective territories. And of course, the foot soldiers of those monstrous men — who followed their immoral orders — cannot be excused.

And yet, you can’t paint an entire group with one brush. While some Bosnian Serbs did horrifying things, only a small fraction of all Bosnian Serbs participated in the atrocities. Travelers to this region quickly realize that the vast majority of people they meet here never wanted these wars. And so finally comes the inevitable question: Why did any of it happen in the first place?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-does-the-u-s-support-saudi-arabia-a-country-which-hosts-and-finances-islamic-terrorism-on-behalf-of-washington/5398408

I know big differences but basically leaders/fascists commit atrocities & people recede to their groups for protections & so many things due their neighborhoods becoming war-torn.