[Oxymandias]

Your faction must have a political ideology, an economic ideology, and a political stance towards religion. You can start your faction at any time period between close to the beginning of and the present of the Syrian Civil War. Your faction can be located anywhere in Syria however choose where your located wisely since you have to work with the local resources of the area.

[The Immortal Goon]

Ahmar Shura—The Red Council.

Political ideology: Leninist
Economic ideology: Marxist
Political Stance Toward Religion:

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past...

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an “intellectual” question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party.

The only faction worth aiding would be the YPG, but only then when strictly necessary and always with the secondary objective of brief Entryism. Naturally, the end goal would be international socialism before the state itself dissolves away.

Russia was a backward shithole ravaged by war and full of religious zealots before the revolution. We'd follow Lenin's example and do the same.

[mikema63]

Hmm, I suppose a pro-western secular group. Get some decent economic liberalization and develop capital in the country. Rebuild with foreign aid. That sort of thing.

Political ideology, I guess basically the sort of thing western educated Syrians are liable to believe since that's the most realistic pro-west ideology.

Put them on the coast so they could get support from the US navy and supply lines.

Frankly I think that side winning would be in the long term interests of Syria's rebuilding and modernization.

[MadMonk]

Syria might once have been a civil war but has spiraled into a cluster-fuck proxy war, all sides are at this point despicable.

Complete disarmament of all sides, some form of UN military intervention would be preferable (and that is never going to happen).

[Oxymandias]

@mikema63

I would also prefer a secular group but not a necessarily pro-western one. This group would be highly pragmatic which I think would be very useful both during the Syrian Civil War and afterward. This pragmatism would apply to decisions regarding foreign policy. Therefore whether or not this faction will support the West depends on whether or not their offer is good. The goal is to, at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, to create a sort of "waiting list" for countries and attempt to reach out to as much of them as possible and create incentives to protect the faction's territory from harm. This can be obviously done through waving oil around and creating a plan to distribute that oil. I would also attempt to reach out to Silicon Valley companies for funding (though I doubt that they would fund a faction in Syria).

I think economic self-determination is the first goal in my opinion. Economic liberalization is necessary but it can easily create a situation in which foreign companies and foreign countries can have a large influence over Syria. This is something I want Syria to avoid therefore there would be plans to encourage domestic competition, we would create incentives for citizens to own businesses, build tuition free universities with good entrepreneurship programs, create a government service that can negotiate the price and conditions of technology imports allowing for a quick industrialization and rapid industrial growth, create job-training programs with foreign workers as teachers, and create competition between government services and between government services and the private sector.

I would prefer a vertical technocracy with a swiss canton-esque system and a decentralized corporatist structure. There would be democracy at the bottom (i.e. democracy in villages, towns, large towns, small cities, etc.) which would be applied to communes, experimentation in the middle (i.e. cities, large cities, governance of cantons, etc.) which would be applied to cantons, and technocracy at the top which is dealing with the country as a whole. Of course there won't be strict levels, it would be more of a gradual progression rather a strict and defined level system.

I would locate my faction in the Aleppo state for a multitude of reasons. First, Northern Aleppo has lots of vegetation and a large river. This means we can reclaim the desert of Aleppo through irrigation and de-desertion techniques. The state of Aleppo also has the potentially to be turned into a stronghold and is also surrounded by weak provinces of which are divided this makes it easy to conquer new territories. One of these provinces also has a coast which means my faction can become a naval power. Economic development will start even when I'm a faction in Syria to make economic transition smooth. I like gradual economic progress in contrast to the Big Bang economic systems of the West.

However I personally think that side is very risky and even more risky with a Trump win.

[Decky]

Like ISIS except with Das Kapital instead of the Koran.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

And don't forget The Complete Works of Joseph Stalin, given free to all parents to be the first book their children lay their hands on.

[Oxymandias]

@Bulaba Jones

But how would Syrians be able to read tho? Some of them don't even have parents and lots of their parents don't know how to read.

[Ned Lud]

the only conceivable force to be backed in Syria is the legal government, threatened like so many others by foreign-backed terrorists. It is the only recourse for Christian and other minorities.

[One Degree]

My faction would be as anonymous as possible and we would switch alliance to which ever side was losing. Most of Syria is a barren waste land and the war debris will greatly increase the resources of most areas providing wealth not available otherwise. The war should continue as long as possible and then my faction would build recycling factories.

[Rancid]

I would be the pro-america faction. I would want American business to move in after the war. In particular, this handsom fellow names Rancid. We would make him governor of the new colony.

[Nat Turner]

It would be a Baathist Caliphate movement, Baathist due to secularism and women's rights akin to Libyan economics; Caliphate cause Muslims need a Caliphate if terrorism would end. Who would be the Caliph either someone from the Turks or Jordan.

[Oxymandias]

@Nat Turner

1. Baathist Caliphate is an oxymoron. Baathism is a secular ideology with a different form of government and different political organization than a Caliph. Furthermore a Caliph is essentially an Islamic monarchy. If you secularize it all you get is just your standard monarchy.

2. You seem to not understand what Baathism is.

3. How is a political ideology connected to Libyan economics?

4. How is a form of economics encouraging secularism and women's rights?

5. WTF is Libyan economics?

6. You do realize that, even when there were Caliphs, there wasn't just one but several competing Caliphs all claiming that they are the true Caliphate. Just creating a Caliph isn't enough to stop ISIS and other terrorist groups. They would simply just claim that your Caliph is illegitimate.

7. I find this to be by far one of the most stupid and racist statements every made. First off, I think you mean from Turkey not Turks. "Turks" is an ethnicity while Turkey is the nation. Furthermore why would it be from Turkey or Jordan? What difference does it make? Are you going to throw away a perfectly good leader simply because they're not from Turkey or Jordan? Not only that but Syrians will definitely not trust some guy from Turkey especially the Kurds given Turkey's role in the Syrian Civil War.

Your entire post shows a clear ignorance of any of the politics of not just Syria but of the entirety of the Middle East and it's history. I recommend that you refrain from posting on this topic. There is no reason for you to post on something that you have no knowledge about.

[Nat Turner]

@Nat Turner

1. Baathist Caliphate is an oxymoron. Baathism is a secular ideology with a different form of government and different political organization than a Caliph. Furthermore a Caliph is essentially an Islamic monarchy. If you secularize it all you get is just your standard monarchy.

The Caliphates throughout history were secular, I'm surprise you think it won't work. Look at the Christianity as state religion in Europe. Also Monarchies have different political organizations. Baathist is just a vanguard state, with a Leader above it a Caliph.

2. You seem to not understand what Baathism is.

I do?

3. How is a political ideology connected to Libyan economics?

Gaddafi have always use the Quran as a bit of his bases for economics.

4. How is a form of economics encouraging secularism and women's rights?

Name one socialist society that did neither?

5. WTF is Libyan economics?

The economics Libya used.

6. You do realize that, even when there were Caliphs, there wasn't just one but several competing Caliphs all claiming that they are the true Caliphate. Just creating a Caliph isn't enough to stop ISIS and other terrorist groups. They would simply just claim that your Caliph is illegitimate.

It's a start and better than nothing.

7. I find this to be by far one of the most stupid and racist statements every made. First off, I think you mean from Turkey not Turks. "Turks" is an ethnicity while Turkey is the nation. Furthermore why would it be from Turkey or Jordan? What difference does it make? Are you going to throw away a perfectly good leader simply because they're not from Turkey or Jordan? Not only that but Syrians will definitely not trust some guy from Turkey especially the Kurds given Turkey's role in the Syrian Civil War.

One: Ottoman History shows they held the position of Caliph.

Two: Hashemite linage.

Three:It has to be from those descendant of Mohammad(not necessarily but in this case is important)

Your entire post shows a clear ignorance of any of the politics of not just Syria but of the entirety of the Middle East and it's history. I recommend that you refrain from posting on this topic. There is no reason for you to post on something that you have no knowledge about.

Which is why this whole topic is based on ignorance, everyone making up factions, so why I'm getting grilled here?

[Oxymandias]

@Nat Turner

WTF are you talking about? The Caliph is inherently Islamic. The Caliph is supposed to be the successor to Mohammed and the leader of the Muslim community. Because of this it can't be secular. It even says it on the wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate

The organization of government itself is inherently Islamic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate#Government

Tell me what is Baathism's ideal government and what Baathism's thoughts on socialism, democracy, capitalism, Arab nationalism, and struggle is. Also tell me what Baathism's name is derived from. You can't understand Baathism at all if you don't know any of these things. Baathism isn't just secularism and women's rights. Women's rights isn't even a tenant.

Baathism isn't Islamic, it's secular. It cannot have a connection with Libyan economics.

That is not due to the economics themselves but due to socialism's association and alignment with liberalism.

And what are these economics? Would it trouble you to describe what school of economics Libya uses?

A "secular" Caliph as you are proposing will do nothing to mitigate Islamic terrorism. It may increase Islamic terrorism in fact. If terrorist groups see that not only is there a Caliph but what they deem an insult to Caliphates, they will form their own competing Caliphates earlier than before or increase their terrorist operations in order to reach their quota for their Caliphate.

ISIS will especially be doing both given that your faction is also in Syria and therefore competing with ISIS.

So? Just because some noblemen were Caliphs before doesn't mean that they were good rulers. The Ottomans were actually very bad and corrupt rulers who were besieged by constant revolutions and uprisings against them. Furthermore just because the Ottomans were Turks and they were rulers doesn't mean that any old Turkish person who has no political history at all would be better than an Arab who has a good history with politics.

You do realize that there are tens of millions of Sayyids (descendants of Mohammed) right? Any average joe could be a descendant of Mohammed. There are descendants of Mohammed in the West that eat bacon, drink wine, have pre-martial sex, and smoke weed. It's honestly not a big deal and isn't enough to exclude countless other very good political rulers just because the only fucking Sayyids you know are Turkish and Jordanian. Also the average Turkish person is not a Sayyid.

Many of the answers here are realistic and don't even delve into the politics of the Middle East. You are getting grilled for portraying a viewpoint based on ignorance and lack of understanding of the Middle East. Your post is like me saying that the rulers of Africa should either be White or Arab and that Africa should be united under a Caliphate and that Africa should be westernized.

Do you see the problems with that statement? It shows a clear ignorance, stupidity and racism that is obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit about Middle Eastern and Islamic history.