CH86 wrote:Assad salivates when thinking of Idlib much the same way a Lion Salivates when it sees a wounded Antelope. The Problem regarding the boomer interpretation of these events is the boomers denial of large segments of humans natural instincts. That is the problem with the Boomber, the notion that Assad Razing Idlib or other cities automatically makes him a monster beyond the pale. Xers and Millies however are capable of Acknowledging the other side of human nature as well as the fact that Assad was provoked by the rebels. Qaddafi died brutally because He lacked the courage to do what Assad is doing. Assad is preventing Syria from going under into Islamist barbarism.
You're quite right.
Lions kill to eat their victims and survive, and Assad kills to eat his victims and survive.
The difference being, of course, that humans are not food.
Cannibalism is not a very good "governing principle". It tends to induce massive "resentments", among other things (such as revulsion and hatred in the surrounding populations).
Millies and Xers don't (in even a tiny minority) "acknowledge the other side of human nature" consisting of "human cannibalism" as acceptable behavior (in other than Donner Party circumstances).
You may object that my "equivalency" of Assad's tactics and "human cannibalism" is nonsense, but what IS your point in using the salivating lion and the wounded antelope if not to draw the predator/prey analogy?
Qaddafi died brutally because he remained in proximity to people who REALLY wanted him dead without proper "walls" to keep them from doing their killing.
Assad IS being very "effective" in remaining in power, but not in a "good person" kinda way.
I judge him overall (at this point) on his "good person"-ness, and not on his effectiveness at holding onto power and fending off Islamist Barbarism.
There are (most probably) many ways that he could have been "effective enough" at holding off Islamist Barbarism without his being such a "not good person".
Striving to be an effective enough good person is generally considered more heroic than being an overly effective bad person.
..but once again,.. only history will tell. Even "not good people" can be heroes to those with a reason to call them heroes in retrospect. (ie. Vlad Țepeș, Chinggis Khaan, etc.)