I'm not pro-Putin or pro-Assad. I'm not pro-anything, if it means being biased to the point that I can't see the whole picture. What I'm saying is, if there was a leader or a movement in Sirya that while removing Assad could unite the country and its people and have enough sense and strength to get all warring factions to come to the table and end the bloodshed with a view of rebuilding it into a new better state, I'd be all for it. So far I cannot see it.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
I'm not pro-Putin or pro-Assad. I'm not pro-anything, if it means being biased to the point that I can't see the whole picture. What I'm saying is, if there was a leader or a movement in Sirya that while removing Assad could unite the country and its people and have enough sense and strength to get all warring factions to come to the table and end the bloodshed with a view of rebuilding it into a new better state, I'd be all for it. So far I cannot see it.
Assad is removed in Al-Raqqa. Show us your project there. Show us how removing him there solved the problem.
Also, if you're making this a black-white debate, then you're clearly pro-ISIS.
IS own Raqqa.
I don't know if you know this, but there are other players in the conflict that aren't IS and Assad.
Edit: Also - how have I made it black and white? And, I'd encourage you to read some of my older posts if you think I am 'pro-IS'.
You're not pro anything and yadda yadda yadda, but you have an opinion on it, and you seem to think Assad is not the worst, which is arguable in itself (in this conflict).
So what have the FSA and the moderate opposition rebels done exactly to make you think they are not good for the country? Was it the fact that they fought back when Assad starting killing his own people over a peaceful protest? I'm not trying to paint them as angels here, but I'm failing to see any real logic to anything you've been saying.
Last edited:
Maybe you should read properly what he's saying instead of throwing ridiculous accusations.FSA have committed enough crimes, they're only moderate by comparison, but that's beside the point, they're just too weak, they can't win that war on their own. With all the outside support they couldn't get it done. Their only chance of beating Assad is to join forces with other opposition forces, which is not likely. Even if they do that and Assad is beaten, they won't be able to control most of the country because different groups pursue different interests there. Al-Nusra are basically terrorist organization that wants their own state with sharia laws, Kurds want to be left alone, Islamic Front works for Saudis and ISIL probably works for Satan.
I'd imagine it'd be hard to win a war on your own when your opposition are being propped up by Russia and Iran, both financially and militarily, and IS being backed by very wealthy, but select few individuals in other countries. And they have been joining forces with other factions. At one point in 2012 (or 2013), they had made incredible inroads and were on the path to success before it was hijacked by the likes of IS. Again, the FSA is a large blanket umbrella term that many factions operate under. Saying opposition forces won't unite isn't correct as they all are under the FSA term.
Remarkable how people are still propping Assad up after he launched a chemical weapons attack on his own citizens and continues to drop indiscriminate barrel bombs.
+ paying Shabiha to rape and sexually assault, + napalm, + torture.
It's exasperating, and beggars belief people can defend him.
It's exasperating, and beggars belief people can defend him.
So what? FSA has been supported and trained by the US, it just looks like a big waste of money at the moment. And that large blanket umbrella only means that even if they, by some chance, manage to beat both ISIL and pro-government forces, the minute after they do that, they'll turn on each other and that 'blanket' will look just like those previous 'blankets' in Iraq, Lybia and other places. Not to mention that jihadist factions don't share their views on the country's future and are apparently better fighters than FSA. There are no simple solutions to that problem. By the way, what'll happen to the Christian minority and Alawites if Assad is defeated? Who will guarantee that they won't fall into the hands of Al Nusra, ISIL and the like?
As far as I know, the only place where the FSA is leading the fight is around Dara'a in the south. This is probably because of the area's proximity to the Jordanian border, from where the Americans can aid them directly. They have also helped the YPG in Rojava in the recent advances against ISIS. But the rest of the opposition-held areas are dominated by jihadis.
In Aleppo and the north, it's the Islamic Front/Jaysh al-Fatah coalitions led by Ahrar al-Sham, who are Salafi-Jihadis of the Al-Qaeda admiring type. In Idlib and the areas close to the Lebanese and Israeli borders, it seems Jabhat Al-Nusra is leading the battles, one of which involved completely ousting FSA commander and Western favourite Jamal Marouf from the country last year. In the Damascus suburbs, it's Jaysh al-Islam who are led by Zahran Alloush, son of a Saudi-based cleric and who has also clashed with the FSA. All these groups are being supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
So while the FSA isn't totally irrelevant, it's nowhere near the main opposition faction and I would say they have little hope of shaping things in the country in the event that Assad falls. Things might have been different if they had managed to oust Assad in 2011/2012 when they were still probably the biggest faction, but we'll never know.
In Aleppo and the north, it's the Islamic Front/Jaysh al-Fatah coalitions led by Ahrar al-Sham, who are Salafi-Jihadis of the Al-Qaeda admiring type. In Idlib and the areas close to the Lebanese and Israeli borders, it seems Jabhat Al-Nusra is leading the battles, one of which involved completely ousting FSA commander and Western favourite Jamal Marouf from the country last year. In the Damascus suburbs, it's Jaysh al-Islam who are led by Zahran Alloush, son of a Saudi-based cleric and who has also clashed with the FSA. All these groups are being supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
So while the FSA isn't totally irrelevant, it's nowhere near the main opposition faction and I would say they have little hope of shaping things in the country in the event that Assad falls. Things might have been different if they had managed to oust Assad in 2011/2012 when they were still probably the biggest faction, but we'll never know.
I think it's more an issue of "let's solve one problem at a time in order of importance".
ISIS represents a bigger problem than Assad does. Sort out ISIS, then sort out Assad. Just blowing up Assad solves nothing. The fighting will continue and will quite possibly open the door for something much worse than Assad.
Out of the three groups right now. Assad is by far the best option. ISIS is looney-tunes. FSA is such a disparate group that has among its different groups blatant terrorist organizations. Deal with ISIS, help FSA sort itself out after ISIS is out of the picture, by helping to purge itself of the radicalized elements, then once FSA doesn't represent a worse option than Assad, help it over throw Assad.
That's what I'd do anyways!
Russian aid flights to Syria carry military equipment
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has confirmed that the country's "humanitarian" flights to Syria carry military equipment as well as humanitarian aid - after the US and NATO warned Moscow over its involvement in the Syrian conflict.
"Russian planes are sending to Syria both military equipment in accordance with current contracts and humanitarian aid," Lavrov told reporters on Thursday.
Russia's Kommersant daily newspaper said earlier on Thursday that Moscow's advanced BTR-82A armoured personnel carriers were among arms supplied to Damascus.
Moscow has previously insisted in public that its flights to Syria were only for humanitarian purposes.
Al Jazeera's Peter Sharp, reporting from Moscow, said that nothing has changed and the Russians have been supplying the Syrian government for years now.
"Going back 60 years, Russia has been supplying Syria with arms, advisors, military equipment. Nothing much has really changed.
"Between 2009 and 2011 Russia was supplying 71 percent of Syria's miltiary needs - everything from jets to military equipment to air defense systems.
"Russian foreign minister says this continues to take place but he did make a distinction: there has been additional air traffic coming into Latakia's airbase and he says miltiary equipment and humanitarian aid are being delivered," Sharp said.
"As far as boosting up boots on the ground, he said Russian military specialists are working on training Syrians on using Russian weapons and no additional steps have been taken."
The Kremlin declined to comment on Thursday on whether Russian troops were fighting in Syria, after sources in Lebanon told the Reuters news agency that Russian forces had begun participating in military operations there.
"The threat coming from Islamic State [ISIL] is evident... The only force capable of resisting it is the Syrian armed forces," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, reiterating Russia's position that its longtime ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, should be part of international efforts to combat ISIL.
Washington has put pressure on Greece and Bulgaria in recent days to deny Russia's requests to use their airspace for its Syria flights.
During a press conference with the Solavakian prime minister, Ukrainian Prime Minister, Arseny Yatsenyuk, announced the country will close its airspace to Russian planes flying to Syria.
On Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry expressed his concern over reports of Russian military activities in Syria, warning that it could fan more violence, a state department spokesman said.
Aerial imagery indicated that Russia is focusing on Bassel al-Assad International Airport, south of Latakia on Syria's Mediterranean coast, and on the Russian naval facility in Tartus, the AFP news agency reported.
Jens Stoltenberg, NATO secretary-general, expressed a similar reaction to Kerry, saying the move "will not contribute to solving the conflict".
"I think it is important to now support all efforts to find a political solution to the conflict in Syria. We support very much the efforts by the UN."
One US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the AFP news agency that two tank-landing ships have recently arrived at Tartus and about a dozen Russian armoured personnel carriers are now at the Bassel al-Assad airport, named after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's older brother.
The official said dozens of Russian naval infantry had arrived in Syria, but their role was likely to protect incoming military hardware rather than a boots-on-the-ground deployment.
In addition, another giant Antonov-124 Condor military transporter had flown into the airport, bringing the total number of transport flights to at least four in recent days.
The developments further complicate the deadly crisis in Syria, where the conflict has claimed nearly 250,000 lives since 2011 and triggered a massive outflow of refugees - many of whom are fleeing to Europe.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Mamoun Abu Nowar, a retired Jordanian air force general, said on Thursday that Russia is sending fighter jets to support the Syrian military.
"It is clearly obvious that Assad's forces have faced setbacks. So this Russian movement sends a great signal that Assad must not go," he said, adding that an estimated 1,000 "prefabricated" houses have been built in Syria to accommodate Russian troops.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has confirmed that the country's "humanitarian" flights to Syria carry military equipment as well as humanitarian aid - after the US and NATO warned Moscow over its involvement in the Syrian conflict.
"Russian planes are sending to Syria both military equipment in accordance with current contracts and humanitarian aid," Lavrov told reporters on Thursday.
Russia's Kommersant daily newspaper said earlier on Thursday that Moscow's advanced BTR-82A armoured personnel carriers were among arms supplied to Damascus.
Moscow has previously insisted in public that its flights to Syria were only for humanitarian purposes.
Al Jazeera's Peter Sharp, reporting from Moscow, said that nothing has changed and the Russians have been supplying the Syrian government for years now.
"Going back 60 years, Russia has been supplying Syria with arms, advisors, military equipment. Nothing much has really changed.
"Between 2009 and 2011 Russia was supplying 71 percent of Syria's miltiary needs - everything from jets to military equipment to air defense systems.
"Russian foreign minister says this continues to take place but he did make a distinction: there has been additional air traffic coming into Latakia's airbase and he says miltiary equipment and humanitarian aid are being delivered," Sharp said.
"As far as boosting up boots on the ground, he said Russian military specialists are working on training Syrians on using Russian weapons and no additional steps have been taken."
The Kremlin declined to comment on Thursday on whether Russian troops were fighting in Syria, after sources in Lebanon told the Reuters news agency that Russian forces had begun participating in military operations there.
"The threat coming from Islamic State [ISIL] is evident... The only force capable of resisting it is the Syrian armed forces," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, reiterating Russia's position that its longtime ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, should be part of international efforts to combat ISIL.
Washington has put pressure on Greece and Bulgaria in recent days to deny Russia's requests to use their airspace for its Syria flights.
During a press conference with the Solavakian prime minister, Ukrainian Prime Minister, Arseny Yatsenyuk, announced the country will close its airspace to Russian planes flying to Syria.
On Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry expressed his concern over reports of Russian military activities in Syria, warning that it could fan more violence, a state department spokesman said.
Aerial imagery indicated that Russia is focusing on Bassel al-Assad International Airport, south of Latakia on Syria's Mediterranean coast, and on the Russian naval facility in Tartus, the AFP news agency reported.
Jens Stoltenberg, NATO secretary-general, expressed a similar reaction to Kerry, saying the move "will not contribute to solving the conflict".
"I think it is important to now support all efforts to find a political solution to the conflict in Syria. We support very much the efforts by the UN."
One US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the AFP news agency that two tank-landing ships have recently arrived at Tartus and about a dozen Russian armoured personnel carriers are now at the Bassel al-Assad airport, named after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's older brother.
The official said dozens of Russian naval infantry had arrived in Syria, but their role was likely to protect incoming military hardware rather than a boots-on-the-ground deployment.
In addition, another giant Antonov-124 Condor military transporter had flown into the airport, bringing the total number of transport flights to at least four in recent days.
The developments further complicate the deadly crisis in Syria, where the conflict has claimed nearly 250,000 lives since 2011 and triggered a massive outflow of refugees - many of whom are fleeing to Europe.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Mamoun Abu Nowar, a retired Jordanian air force general, said on Thursday that Russia is sending fighter jets to support the Syrian military.
"It is clearly obvious that Assad's forces have faced setbacks. So this Russian movement sends a great signal that Assad must not go," he said, adding that an estimated 1,000 "prefabricated" houses have been built in Syria to accommodate Russian troops.
A dictator propping up another dictator. Sounds fairly predictable.
I have a feeling the Syrians were better off with Assad, European countries are paying with all the thousands of refugees coming from Syria and Iraq for the US foreign mistakes which are too many. ISIS will not be defeated without troops on the ground and Turkey helps ISIS and NATO won't do anything about it.
Unfortunately, the Syrians rejected him as shown by the Arab Spring style protests that started all of this in the south. Once he started murdering his own citizens who were protesting for more rights and better living conditions, the contagion that ensued has led us to where we are, which has also allowed ISIS a vast territory to headquarter their faux-caliphate.
ISIS and their likes (Al-Nusra ...etc.). will own every piece of ground safely out of Assad's hands.
As for you second statement, who? Al-Nusra? Whom are you kidding here??
In 2015.
May be you should debate the points instead of throwing accusations against the posters.
That's a bit rich coming from you considering your country's alliance with the worst dictatorship in the world, who is, at this very moment, still busy bombing civilians in another country, side by side with the same Al-Qaeda you pretend to be fighting.
Ehh? What does this have to do with Syria and Assad using WMDs on his own citizens. It's not as if he was aiming these weapons at troops, they were specifically aimed at civilian population centers, which you seem to not mind.
Al Nusra are fighting IS aswell. I don't think you know much.
TBH, everybody is fighting everybody, and anybody with the slightest understanding of Syrian history or Syria, could have told you before the uprising that this would be a bloody mess, simply due to the complexity of the Syrian demographic .
Dividing a country amongst such diverse groups, whom neither trust each other or respect each other was always going to lead to conflict. (genocide).
knowing full well that Russia and Iran backed Assad, should have been a valid enough reason for the west to stay out of it. Not to tell us what a bad man Assad was, (we already knew that) same as we did with Saddam /Gaddafi. Although lot of us knew what the alternative could bring and warned against interference, this included Putin, but the west had to poke its big arrogant nose in, blaming everybody but itself for the disaster that has followed.
Yemen is next.
First of all, you know you're clutching at straws when you resort to opinions/allegations and try to pass them as "facts". Everything that has happened since then actually proved that Al-Qaeda does possess chemical weapons, and it's been since reported to have been used by them many times by many other sources including the Kurds and the Iraqis among others. Besides, Assad (your 'biggest enemy') has since then agreed to give up all of his chemical weapons, good luck trying that with Al-Qaeda now!
Second, we've been through this over and over again. I don't think I need to explain my points anymore. Things have become too clear for everybody now in 2015. Your position about Syria has nothing to do with "your emotions" and "your feelings" towards anybody in the conflict. It's strictly a political stance because of your alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Or else can you tell me why you're against the Houthis as well who are also fighting Al-Qaeda in Yemen? Did they use chemical weapons too?
Third, the discussion here, ever since it has started 4 years ago, was never about Assad being a good president. You can read back all my posts (and even the posts of other posters who had a similar stance). It was always about taking Syria (and the world) to a terrible path that puts everybody at risk, including the Syrians, who are now suffering far more under the "opposition" than under Assad, something you try to avoid mentioning for obvious reasons.
Are you serious?
Ok, I'll play along.. Great! Let's then back Al-Nusra!
Until 2017, and then we'll pick another name because only in 2017 will we realise that Al-Nusra is actually also bad! (can you imagine that?)
Why do I feel I had this discussion before?
US official: 'IS making and using chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria'
There is a growing belief within the US government that the Islamic State militant group is making and using crude chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria, a US official has told the BBC.
The US has identified at least four occasions on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border where IS has used mustard agents, the official said.
The official said the chemical was being used in powder form.
A BBC team on the Turkey-Syria border has seen evidence backing these claims.
The US believes the group has a cell dedicated to building these weapons.
"They're using mustard," the individual said of IS. "We know they are."
The mustard agent was probably being used in powder form and packed into traditional explosives like mortar rounds, the official said.
"We've seen them use it on at least four separate occasions on both sides of the border - both Iraq and Syria."
When these weapons explode the mustard-laced dust blisters those who are exposed to it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34211838
I don't know what you're going on about. You've chimed into a discussion I was having with someone else and taken what I said out of the topic it was in and turned it into something else. For my position on this conflict, read my earlier posts.
Yep I agree - it's what I've been saying on these boards for ages. But in this conflict particularly, Assad needs to go. If he goes, then IS goes.
Also - the west are barely involved atm (compared to other certain actors).
And Egypt is next.
That's very bad too. Which highlights the need for an intervention since neither Assad nor ISIS can be trusted not to gas the residents.
They're both murderous scum. Assad is worse imo, but no one here is pro IS...but there are those who are pro Assad which I just don't get. It boggles my mind.
It seems to be split down sectarian lines - I'm guessing Assad's apologists in here are generally Shi'a.
People were debating here before you jumped in and accused Uzz of being Pro IS. Seems irony is lost on you.
It's not my problem that you're too thick to understand the difference between a direct accusation, and using an example to make a point.
It does seem that way. Either they're shia or Russian.
I'm an agnostic Kurd who wouldn't be able to explain the difference between Sunnis and Shias. What's your reasoning there then?
No one here is an Assad apologist either, you can harbour negative views towards Assad and oppose intervention in Syria. Crazy I know.
There are Shias who probably support Assad out of sectarian loyalty, but it works both ways. A lot of Sunnis who despise Assad will idolise Saddam and turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed in Bahrain and Yemen.
@Kaos - you didn't reply to my earlier post.
Also you did accuse me of being pro IS. So it's a bit ironic you're calling someone else thick when you join this discussion half way throwing random, wild accusations about.
Never got round to replying to this, my bad had a busy week, but here goes anyway.
I knew the second you were quoting facts that you were going to quote them from the SOHR, which is essentially one man in his Coventry appartment. Ignoring the fact they (or he?) have been notoriously known for selective in what they report and also for fabricating stories to suit their clear anti-regime agenda. But even if these figures we're somewhat genuine what do they actually tell us? Are those deaths caused by Assad just civilians? Or do they include ISIS and FSA casualties too? And what about the deaths caused by the FSA and their allies - why no mention of them anywhere?
Saddam and Qadaffi were called monsters because they largely were, as is Bashar. In the former two examples forced regime change was a bad idea that produced terrible consequences, yet people advocate the same for the latter. That's the only laughable thing really. Speaking of which I find it very peculiar how you're vehemently opposed to the US's war on Iraq and their involvement in Afghanistan, yet you seem to genuinely believe that they've suddenly decided to turn over a new benevolent leaf in Syria by promoting democracy via their FSA conduit. Its utterly bizarre. The fact of the matter is the US has been trying to force regime change in Syria since 2006, and their involvement to this date is an extension of that.
I hate to break it to you but they're not interested in creating a stable, progressive democracy in Syria. Iraq, Libya, Afghansitan and the dozens of other countries they've intervened in the last half century or so have been testament to that.
To add to that - your idea of dealing with Bashar first and IS afterwards is insane. When Saddam was forced out, it took Iraq years to set up elections and even longer to form a tenuous excuse of a government, which to this day cannot function in a coherent way. This has only been in ISIS's favour who now benefit due to Iraq's inability to deal with internal quarrells. You yourself admitted that the FSA were an umbrella of loosely aligned organisations, so going by the Iraq precedence, what makes you think they'll become structured and coherent enough to deal with the IS threat?
That might have been true up until about 2013. But it's been pretty clear since then that Obama has no interest in getting rid of Assad for the moment, and what resources the US have committed to Syria in that time have been directed against ISIS - and, of course, have failed miserably.
Directly they've stuck to bombing only ISIS for the time being, I'd imagine lagrely because of trying to avert a stand off with Russia and Iran. Covertly though its still pretty much their mission creep - they're still working alongside the Gulf Arab states to ensure that millions of dollars of heavy-grade weaponry makes its way to FSA hands, including some pretty unsavoury Islamist elements.
ISIS is obviously the bigger problem at the moment, but long term there is no realistic future for Assad in Syria. He's an unelected, minority dictator and his continued presence will only keep the fighting going irrespective of whether ISIS exists or not.