First of All I use a metaphor to help explain things. You can't argue against me using the fact that the Syrian civil war is not an exact replica of WW2. Of course it isn't. Do you know what a metaphor is?
Metaphors (or rather, analogies) should work though. The al-Nusra - Soviet Communist analogy is poor, and as I pointed out, doesn't really convey your point well.
Second there is no way to deal with Al Nusra now without creating more problems. That is why America's timing in declaring them terrorists is wrong. No one is arguing the merits of the designation. War is always about priorities.
Well, I don't know. I'm open to believing you here, but supporting, or arming, or ignoring certain groups while they do certain things has caused trouble further down the line, whether for the nation in question or for later foreign interference.
Third Alawites are technically Shia. Really they are Pagans. They are older than Christianity and Islam. When Christianity came along they adapted by incorporating the Trinity into their beliefs. They also celebrate Christmas. From Shia Islam the incorporate the cult of Ali into their Trinity. They don't pray 5 times a day and they don't fast in Ramadan. The Alevis in Turkey live in less fear of discrimination and have only recently allowed outsiders into their temples. CNN's Ivan Watson I believe did a report in one of their temples. I suggest you watch it. Sunni's don't consider them Muslims Shias don't either. However, it was Musa Al Sadr, a Shia cleric in Lebanon, who in 1976 I believe, issued a religious edict classifying them as Shia. This was done for political reasons. The Alawites control Syria since the 1963 coup. It was advantageous for Iran and Lebanon to add Syria as an ally. This only got more pronounced with the Iranian revolution and creation of Hezbollah.
Woah. First of all, who are you to declare the Alawites are pagans? Indeed, that Sunnis and Shias don't consider them Muslims is irrelevant - Sunnis don't consider Shias to be Muslims, for example, and different schools of jurisprudence have a habit of branding this sect or that sect or some schools of jurisprudence as non-believers (i.e. non-Muslims). But the right to consider oneself a Muslim is not bestowed by you or some scholar. Nor is it valid for you to say, with no evidence whatsoever, that no Alawites pray frequently or fast (I should point out here that in somewhere like Turkey, for example, not many Muslims do pray frequently or fast for all of Ramadhan … it's like saying that liberal Jews are not Jews, for example, because they don't keep the Sabbath strictly). Moreover, quick research yields that the Alevis of Turkey and the Alawites of Syria are completely different things, but just have similar etymology. Additionally, I find that Alawite origins are a point of contention, either from the Eleventh Imam's time - as they consider themselves to have originated - or from ancient groups like the Canaanites. And as to the strong Christian practices in the group? I don't know, but a Muslim sect celebrating significant Christian events does not seem extraordinary. The Trinity in Alawite doctrine seems to me to be distinctly different from that of (Western) Christian Doctrine.
Regardless of origins, or a doctrine that might leave many Muslims uncomfortable, they cannot so simply be branded as non-Muslim. That's a very bigoted view.
Fourth, about the war of Britain rolls eyes this is again an approximation to clarify. Of course the Germans bombed military targets as well. The British Also had Radar, which helped! But concentrating on London is what lost them the campaign. And everyone knows the Allies bombed Dresden. They also bombed Berlin which made stupid Hitler veer off course and start bombing London in the first place. Comparing Hitler and Assad in this point of military stupidity is legitimate.
So Hitler's war in the air was stupid, because he did the same thing, more or less, as his enemies? Anyway, approximating the Battle of Britain to a simple terror bombing is to ignore a large part of it. And approximating should never be misrepresenting.I don't need to vilify Assad he is already a comic book villain. Hitler, too!
Which brings me to fifth, what is your point? What is the over all message you are trying to deliver? Are you an Assad apologist? Frankly, the last parts hint at Hitler apologist, too. If so you are way beyond my powers of reasoning.
I only know one type of creature that can be both an Assad and Hitler apologist. The old fashioned anti-imperialist Arab Leftist. Are you one? I thought they were extinct?
Comic book villain? Hitler, sure. Assad? No. He seems like a pretty ordinary and nice family man. Except for the brutal regime. Makes him a lot more sinister and understated.
Just bringing out a few points from your superpost. You sneakily ignored my Vietnam War comparison … shouldn't we be labelling the US command 'comic book villains' who have no need to be further villified? I mean, the situations are unavoidably comparable. You also shied away from addressing on what basis you believe Assad 'doesn't follow any tactical or strategic plan'.