As Snoop would say, deserve got nothing to do with it. Large elements of human society, including within the West, do not value or prioritize the kind of individualistic liberalism required to achieve 'democracy'. Indeed many are repulsed by it, and their views are equally shaped and transmitted by the kind of technology which you believe will ultimately secure the triumph of democracy, the ISIS phenomenon being only the most notorious example.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
As Snoop would say, deserve got nothing to do with it. Large elements of human society, including within the West, do not value or prioritize the kind of individualistic liberalism required to achieve 'democracy'. Indeed many are repulsed by it, and their views are equally shaped and transmitted by the kind of technology which you believe will ultimately secure the triumph of democracy, the ISIS phenomenon being only the most notorious example.
Are you serious? you honestly believe the United states has had the minimal involvement that you have stated.
The US has been pulling the strings behind the scenes for years. You would be hard pressed to find a conflict anywhere on the planet that does not have the US someway involved.
Heres a question, why do you believe the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? what do you believe was the motive and plan behind the invasion?
It really pisses me off that so many Americans see their country as a beacon of democracy, when anybody who is educated in the slightest sees their continual interference as counterproductive and illegal.
US training of Syrian rebels a 'total failure'
WASHINGTON: Republicans and Democrats lambasted the Obama administration's strategy to combat the Islamic State group after a top US general admitted that just a handful of US-trained Syrian rebels are still on the battlefield fighting the militants.
The four or five fighters still engaged in the campaign is astonishingly short of the US goal to train and equip 5,400 rebels a year at a cost of $500 million.
"That's a joke," said Republican senator Kelly Ayotte.
Senator Jeff Sessions said: "We have to acknowledge this is a total failure. I wish it weren't so, but that's the fact."
After the first 54 were sent in to fight in July, a Syrian affiliate of al-Qaida attacked the group, killing several and taking others hostage while many fled. Asked how many remain, Gen Lloyd Austin, commander of US Centcom, which oversees the war effort, told the Senate armed services committee: "It's a small number. ... We're talking four or five."
Christine Wormuth, undersecretary of defence for policy, said the US currently was training more than 100 fighters, then later in her testimony said more specifically the number was between 100 and 120.
"If we get to the end of the year with us bragging about the difference between a 100 and a 120, it's time for a new plan," said Democratic senator Claire McCaskill.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...bels-a-total-failure/articleshow/49002830.cms
WASHINGTON: Republicans and Democrats lambasted the Obama administration's strategy to combat the Islamic State group after a top US general admitted that just a handful of US-trained Syrian rebels are still on the battlefield fighting the militants.
The four or five fighters still engaged in the campaign is astonishingly short of the US goal to train and equip 5,400 rebels a year at a cost of $500 million.
"That's a joke," said Republican senator Kelly Ayotte.
Senator Jeff Sessions said: "We have to acknowledge this is a total failure. I wish it weren't so, but that's the fact."
After the first 54 were sent in to fight in July, a Syrian affiliate of al-Qaida attacked the group, killing several and taking others hostage while many fled. Asked how many remain, Gen Lloyd Austin, commander of US Centcom, which oversees the war effort, told the Senate armed services committee: "It's a small number. ... We're talking four or five."
Christine Wormuth, undersecretary of defence for policy, said the US currently was training more than 100 fighters, then later in her testimony said more specifically the number was between 100 and 120.
"If we get to the end of the year with us bragging about the difference between a 100 and a 120, it's time for a new plan," said Democratic senator Claire McCaskill.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...bels-a-total-failure/articleshow/49002830.cms
This story has been doing the rounds:
Isil jihadist Omar Hussain complains of rude Arabs who steal his shoes and can't queue
Former supermarket guard Omar Hussain also moans his fellow Isil terrorists talk loudly, invade his space and use his phone charger
A British jihadist with Isil has moaned that his Arab comrades are rude, do not know how to queue and eat like schoolchildren.
In a bizarre rant, Omar Hussain also complained that his fellow terrorists talk loudly when he is trying to sleep, invade his space and steal his shoes.
Their bad driving, habit of staring at people and using his charger for their mobile phones also come under fire.
Hussain, a former security guard at a Morrison’s supermarket, hit out at his Syrian and other Arab colleagues in an online blog.
It is not the first time the 27-year-old, from High Wycombe, has complained about life under Isil.
Earlier this year he bemoaned having to peel potatoes without a peeler, having trouble washing his clothes and how he hadn’t been able to find a jihadi bride.
His latest blog, written under the Islamist name Abu Saeed al Britani, warns other Western fanatics thinking of going to Syria of “inevitable clashes in cultures”.
“Arabs as a whole have a unique culture, which differs dramatically from the western lifestyle,” he wrote.
“If one is unaware of these cultural differences then it could be quite peculiar, annoying and, at times, somewhat stressful to interact and associate with them.”
Under a series of subject headings, he goes on to criticise all those annoying habits.
Having attacked their administration skills, he said: “Another ‘great’ feature of Arabs in administration is that there is no queue in any of their offices.
“You could be waiting in line for half an hour and then another Arab would come and push in the queue and go straight in.”
On eating etiquette, he said “our Arab brothers, or Syrians to be more precise, lack these basic manners”.
He said when he was serving food he refused to give any out until “every single one of them was sitting down in their seat” adding: “Unfortunately I had to treat them like primary school students”.
“The difference between an Arab and a non-Arab in their manners in like the difference between the heavens and the earth.”
Under a heading “the staring competition”, he said: “Syrians love to stare at foreigners, maybe because no tourist has ever visited Syria.”
He said being stared at by children was “no problem” but “it can be quite uncomfortable to have a fully grown man stand a few metres away from you staring at you”.
The lack of privacy also annoyed Hussain, who lived with his mother before leaving for Syria last year.
He said his Arab colleagues would rummage through his belongings without asking and “they see no issue in unplugging your mobile phone to charge their own phone, even if it is your own charger”.
“Arabs in general do not know where the red line is in giving another brother his space.”
Syrians are also “very childish in their dealings and mannerisms”, he said, and also have a habit of borrowing his shoes when he takes them off.
He said it can be “quite irritating” to then have to wait for them to return.
Hussain is not alone in complaining about aspects of jihadist life.
British jihadist Imran Khawaja, who was jailed earlier this year, complained to friends when he was in Syria that he could not obtain moisturiser or soft toilet paper.
Hussain concluded: "We have many European battalions which one can join if he finds it problematic.
"In fact, I would strongly advise my Western brothers to join a non-Arab battalion if the above traits are something one cannot live with."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Arabs-who-steal-his-shoes-and-cant-queue.html
Isil jihadist Omar Hussain complains of rude Arabs who steal his shoes and can't queue
Former supermarket guard Omar Hussain also moans his fellow Isil terrorists talk loudly, invade his space and use his phone charger
A British jihadist with Isil has moaned that his Arab comrades are rude, do not know how to queue and eat like schoolchildren.
In a bizarre rant, Omar Hussain also complained that his fellow terrorists talk loudly when he is trying to sleep, invade his space and steal his shoes.
Their bad driving, habit of staring at people and using his charger for their mobile phones also come under fire.
Hussain, a former security guard at a Morrison’s supermarket, hit out at his Syrian and other Arab colleagues in an online blog.
It is not the first time the 27-year-old, from High Wycombe, has complained about life under Isil.
Earlier this year he bemoaned having to peel potatoes without a peeler, having trouble washing his clothes and how he hadn’t been able to find a jihadi bride.
His latest blog, written under the Islamist name Abu Saeed al Britani, warns other Western fanatics thinking of going to Syria of “inevitable clashes in cultures”.
“Arabs as a whole have a unique culture, which differs dramatically from the western lifestyle,” he wrote.
“If one is unaware of these cultural differences then it could be quite peculiar, annoying and, at times, somewhat stressful to interact and associate with them.”
Under a series of subject headings, he goes on to criticise all those annoying habits.
Having attacked their administration skills, he said: “Another ‘great’ feature of Arabs in administration is that there is no queue in any of their offices.
“You could be waiting in line for half an hour and then another Arab would come and push in the queue and go straight in.”
On eating etiquette, he said “our Arab brothers, or Syrians to be more precise, lack these basic manners”.
He said when he was serving food he refused to give any out until “every single one of them was sitting down in their seat” adding: “Unfortunately I had to treat them like primary school students”.
“The difference between an Arab and a non-Arab in their manners in like the difference between the heavens and the earth.”
Under a heading “the staring competition”, he said: “Syrians love to stare at foreigners, maybe because no tourist has ever visited Syria.”
He said being stared at by children was “no problem” but “it can be quite uncomfortable to have a fully grown man stand a few metres away from you staring at you”.
The lack of privacy also annoyed Hussain, who lived with his mother before leaving for Syria last year.
He said his Arab colleagues would rummage through his belongings without asking and “they see no issue in unplugging your mobile phone to charge their own phone, even if it is your own charger”.
“Arabs in general do not know where the red line is in giving another brother his space.”
Syrians are also “very childish in their dealings and mannerisms”, he said, and also have a habit of borrowing his shoes when he takes them off.
He said it can be “quite irritating” to then have to wait for them to return.
Hussain is not alone in complaining about aspects of jihadist life.
British jihadist Imran Khawaja, who was jailed earlier this year, complained to friends when he was in Syria that he could not obtain moisturiser or soft toilet paper.
Hussain concluded: "We have many European battalions which one can join if he finds it problematic.
"In fact, I would strongly advise my Western brothers to join a non-Arab battalion if the above traits are something one cannot live with."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Arabs-who-steal-his-shoes-and-cant-queue.html
To be fair, someone who's quite content with burning another person alive doesn't seem like the type who's going to be overly civil when it comes to maintaining phone charger etiquette.
That whole paragraph reads like something you'd see in a sequel to Four Lions, though.
So then, Kerry said Assad will have to go and it's only a question of time. I was wondering if Keery also knows exactly what will happen after Assad is gone and if Syria can expect a similar fate to Libya, whose transition to liberal democracy was a great success.
Syria is already in a far worse predicament than Libya ever was.
Did the West ignore a Russian offer for Assad to step down as President?
A story published in the Guardian on 16 September entitled “West ‘ignored Russian offer for Assad to step down as President’” has evoked considerable excitement on both sides of the Atlantic. The story is based on a claim by former Finnish President and UN Diplomat Martti Ahtisaari that the West failed to respond to an overture made in February 2012 by Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin. According to Ahtisaari, Churkin, in a private conversation suggested a means for resolving the Syrian crisis:
He said: ‘Martti, sit down and I’ll tell you what we should do.’ “He said three things: One – we should not give arms to the opposition. Two – we should get a dialogue going between the opposition and Assad straight away. Three – we should find an elegant way for Assad to step aside.”
The Guardian seems to have felt the need to “sex up” these comments, turning them into a “3-point plan”. (Of course this plan already existed, in the form of the Arab League initiative of 22 January 2012, of which more below).
Ahtisaari states that he communicated this conversation to the western missions at the UN but “the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.” Ahtisaari says he is convinced that Churkin was making his suggestion “on behalf of the Kremlin” and describes this incident as “an opportunity lost”.
This latter contention has been latched on to by various commentators to suggest that the West’s failure to respond to this initiative is responsible for the subsequent humanitarian crisis that unfolded in Syria. Even the Guardian’s usually reliable Julian Borger (co-author of the article) seems to gives credence this notion, reciting the terrible events that followed February 2012. Borger at least (somewhat contradictorily) notes that “Officially, Russia has staunchly backed Assad through the four-and-half-year Syrian war, insisting that his removal cannot be part of any peace settlement.” And notes that Kofi Anan’s 2012 peace plan of “soon fell apart over differences on whether Assad should step down.” (i.e. over Russia’s refusal to consider Asad’s removal.)
Other commentators, ranging from the right-wing Daily Mail to American left-wing “policy analyst” Phyllis Bennis, have been more explicit in connecting these events , arguing that the current wave of refugees fleeing Asad’s barrel bombs could have been avoided if the west had listened to Vitaly Churkin in February 2012.
Here is Bennis’s sweeping claim (rather undermined by the welter of conditionals she feels obliged to introduce into her argument)
But what we now see very visibly with these new revelations from Martti Ahtisaari is how in the case of the rise of ISIS … and the war in Syria which is at the root of the rise of ISIS, the refusal of the United States and its allies to take seriously the possibility of negotiating an end to that conflict before it ever reached this horrific level, to negotiate the stepping down, maybe the stepping down, potentially the stepping down, possibly, of Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, would have dramatically changed the situation there.
So let’s try and evaluate this story by looking at exactly what was happening on the diplomatic front with respect to Syria at this point in time.
Ahtisaari reports his conversation with Vitaly Churkin as taking place on or about 22 February. In the week leading up to 4 February Churkin was in New York where negotiations were taking place on a draft resolution on Syria. Sponsored by a group of western and Arab governments this condemned the Syrian government’s brutal repression of the democratic opposition and, among other things, called for the implementation of the Arab League’s very“elegant proposal” that Asad should hand over to his Vice-President while negotiations on the formation of a transitional government took place.
We know something about the negotiation process for this resolution, because of a number of leaks. Churkin, on behalf of Russia, insisted on a number of changes to the initial draft:
Explaining his vote Churkin invoked purely spurious arguments: “ Nor has account been taken of our proposals that along with the withdrawal of the Syrian armed forces from the cities, there should be an end to attacks by armed groups on State institutions and neighbourhoods”. In fact the resolution condemned “all violence, irrespective of where it comes from, and in this regard demands that all parties in Syria, including armed groups, immediately stop all violence or reprisals, including attacks against State institutions”
Churkin went on to underline his opposition to any suggestion that Asad might be edged out of power – despite the fact that the resolution contained none ‑ complaining “some influential members of the international community … have undermined any possibility of a political settlement, calling for regime change”.
In effect Churkin’s role in this episode was to provide cover for the Asad regime (its noteworthy that although the Russians had a resolution of their own they never sought to move it at the Security Council, as members of the UN press corps noted. What Russia really wanted was no UN Resolution.)
Churkin’s stand was supported 4 days later by a statement from Russian President, Dimitri Medvedev, who endorsed the Russian veto; and at about the same time Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov visited Asad in Damascus (with the Russian security chief in tow) reporting at the conclusion of his visit that everything was going to be fine – Asad would rein in the regime’s violence and launch political reforms. (A thousand civilians were killed by the regime’s security forces in the following 3 weeks)
This scenario was rerun on 16 February when the vetoed Security Council Resolution was put to the General Assembly (where it was not subject to the veto but also had no legal force). There it received wide support and was adopted with 137states voting for, 20 abstaining and only 12 against – one of which was Russia.
Perhaps we can understand why UN diplomats, who had spent over two weeks wrestling with Churkin, trying unsuccessfully to get him to at least say boo to Asad, were sceptical when a week later they were informed that he had suddenly become a convert to “regime change”.
So how to explain this discrepancy between the historical record and Ahtisaari’s account? I have no idea (although my suspicion is that Churkin was just having a little joke)
An issue of no consequence
One reason for not dwelling any longer on this issue is that it is really a storm in a teapot. (Although in the age of the internet teapot-storms ignored can readily become disinformation cyclones). What’s really important here is not what Vasily may have said to Martti back in 2012, but what practical consequences the incident had – the simple answer is absolutely none.
Claims à la Bennis that failure to seize this alleged “missed opportunity” is responsible for subsequent events in Syria are simply absurd. They are predicated on an assumption that international policy makers ignored Ahtisaari’s chat with Churkin and went to sleep for the next three years. What exactly was this “policy analyst” doing in the period March ‑ June 2012 – one of the most intense periods of international diplomacy of the whole Syrian conflict?
Kofi Annan was appointed joint UN / Arab League Special Envoy almost at the precise moment Churkin was having his chat with Ahtisaari, drawing his authority from the General Assembly Resolution Russia had opposed. A month later Annan launched a 6-point plan to end the conflict. (Annan even tried to include an “elegant formula” for the removal of Asad but that was blocked by Russia). From April to August UN monitors were stationed in Syria. But the initiative was effectively dead by June, because of Assad’s failure to comply with a single one of the 6-point plan’s requirements.
Western governments tried to provide Annan with some leverage by proposing a Security Council resolution demanding that the Assad regime comply with its obligations under the Plan. On the 19th of July Russia (along with China) vetoed it. In a thoroughly duplicitous statement Churkin claimed that the resolution would have opened the way to military intervention – but in fact it only raised the possibility of enforcement under Article 41 (“measures not including the use of armed force.”
Given the lack of backing from the Security Council, Annan then resigned. His parting statement included the message “It is clear that President Bashar al-Assad must leave office.” –a message that no Russian diplomat has ever shown the slightest readiness to act on ‑ then or since.
http://pulsemedia.org/2015/09/20/di...an-offer-for-assad-to-step-down-as-president/
A story published in the Guardian on 16 September entitled “West ‘ignored Russian offer for Assad to step down as President’” has evoked considerable excitement on both sides of the Atlantic. The story is based on a claim by former Finnish President and UN Diplomat Martti Ahtisaari that the West failed to respond to an overture made in February 2012 by Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin. According to Ahtisaari, Churkin, in a private conversation suggested a means for resolving the Syrian crisis:
He said: ‘Martti, sit down and I’ll tell you what we should do.’ “He said three things: One – we should not give arms to the opposition. Two – we should get a dialogue going between the opposition and Assad straight away. Three – we should find an elegant way for Assad to step aside.”
The Guardian seems to have felt the need to “sex up” these comments, turning them into a “3-point plan”. (Of course this plan already existed, in the form of the Arab League initiative of 22 January 2012, of which more below).
Ahtisaari states that he communicated this conversation to the western missions at the UN but “the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.” Ahtisaari says he is convinced that Churkin was making his suggestion “on behalf of the Kremlin” and describes this incident as “an opportunity lost”.
This latter contention has been latched on to by various commentators to suggest that the West’s failure to respond to this initiative is responsible for the subsequent humanitarian crisis that unfolded in Syria. Even the Guardian’s usually reliable Julian Borger (co-author of the article) seems to gives credence this notion, reciting the terrible events that followed February 2012. Borger at least (somewhat contradictorily) notes that “Officially, Russia has staunchly backed Assad through the four-and-half-year Syrian war, insisting that his removal cannot be part of any peace settlement.” And notes that Kofi Anan’s 2012 peace plan of “soon fell apart over differences on whether Assad should step down.” (i.e. over Russia’s refusal to consider Asad’s removal.)
Other commentators, ranging from the right-wing Daily Mail to American left-wing “policy analyst” Phyllis Bennis, have been more explicit in connecting these events , arguing that the current wave of refugees fleeing Asad’s barrel bombs could have been avoided if the west had listened to Vitaly Churkin in February 2012.
Here is Bennis’s sweeping claim (rather undermined by the welter of conditionals she feels obliged to introduce into her argument)
But what we now see very visibly with these new revelations from Martti Ahtisaari is how in the case of the rise of ISIS … and the war in Syria which is at the root of the rise of ISIS, the refusal of the United States and its allies to take seriously the possibility of negotiating an end to that conflict before it ever reached this horrific level, to negotiate the stepping down, maybe the stepping down, potentially the stepping down, possibly, of Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, would have dramatically changed the situation there.
So let’s try and evaluate this story by looking at exactly what was happening on the diplomatic front with respect to Syria at this point in time.
Ahtisaari reports his conversation with Vitaly Churkin as taking place on or about 22 February. In the week leading up to 4 February Churkin was in New York where negotiations were taking place on a draft resolution on Syria. Sponsored by a group of western and Arab governments this condemned the Syrian government’s brutal repression of the democratic opposition and, among other things, called for the implementation of the Arab League’s very“elegant proposal” that Asad should hand over to his Vice-President while negotiations on the formation of a transitional government took place.
We know something about the negotiation process for this resolution, because of a number of leaks. Churkin, on behalf of Russia, insisted on a number of changes to the initial draft:
- The removal of a phrase expressing “ grave concern at the continued transfer of weapons into Syria” (could be seen as criticising Russia for arming the regime)
- The removal of the provision that specifically proposed Asad handing over to his Vice President.
- Removal of a call for “transparent and free elections under Arab and international supervision” (Russia preferred to put faith in Asad’s promises of reform)
Explaining his vote Churkin invoked purely spurious arguments: “ Nor has account been taken of our proposals that along with the withdrawal of the Syrian armed forces from the cities, there should be an end to attacks by armed groups on State institutions and neighbourhoods”. In fact the resolution condemned “all violence, irrespective of where it comes from, and in this regard demands that all parties in Syria, including armed groups, immediately stop all violence or reprisals, including attacks against State institutions”
Churkin went on to underline his opposition to any suggestion that Asad might be edged out of power – despite the fact that the resolution contained none ‑ complaining “some influential members of the international community … have undermined any possibility of a political settlement, calling for regime change”.
In effect Churkin’s role in this episode was to provide cover for the Asad regime (its noteworthy that although the Russians had a resolution of their own they never sought to move it at the Security Council, as members of the UN press corps noted. What Russia really wanted was no UN Resolution.)
Churkin’s stand was supported 4 days later by a statement from Russian President, Dimitri Medvedev, who endorsed the Russian veto; and at about the same time Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov visited Asad in Damascus (with the Russian security chief in tow) reporting at the conclusion of his visit that everything was going to be fine – Asad would rein in the regime’s violence and launch political reforms. (A thousand civilians were killed by the regime’s security forces in the following 3 weeks)
This scenario was rerun on 16 February when the vetoed Security Council Resolution was put to the General Assembly (where it was not subject to the veto but also had no legal force). There it received wide support and was adopted with 137states voting for, 20 abstaining and only 12 against – one of which was Russia.
Perhaps we can understand why UN diplomats, who had spent over two weeks wrestling with Churkin, trying unsuccessfully to get him to at least say boo to Asad, were sceptical when a week later they were informed that he had suddenly become a convert to “regime change”.
So how to explain this discrepancy between the historical record and Ahtisaari’s account? I have no idea (although my suspicion is that Churkin was just having a little joke)
An issue of no consequence
One reason for not dwelling any longer on this issue is that it is really a storm in a teapot. (Although in the age of the internet teapot-storms ignored can readily become disinformation cyclones). What’s really important here is not what Vasily may have said to Martti back in 2012, but what practical consequences the incident had – the simple answer is absolutely none.
Claims à la Bennis that failure to seize this alleged “missed opportunity” is responsible for subsequent events in Syria are simply absurd. They are predicated on an assumption that international policy makers ignored Ahtisaari’s chat with Churkin and went to sleep for the next three years. What exactly was this “policy analyst” doing in the period March ‑ June 2012 – one of the most intense periods of international diplomacy of the whole Syrian conflict?
Kofi Annan was appointed joint UN / Arab League Special Envoy almost at the precise moment Churkin was having his chat with Ahtisaari, drawing his authority from the General Assembly Resolution Russia had opposed. A month later Annan launched a 6-point plan to end the conflict. (Annan even tried to include an “elegant formula” for the removal of Asad but that was blocked by Russia). From April to August UN monitors were stationed in Syria. But the initiative was effectively dead by June, because of Assad’s failure to comply with a single one of the 6-point plan’s requirements.
Western governments tried to provide Annan with some leverage by proposing a Security Council resolution demanding that the Assad regime comply with its obligations under the Plan. On the 19th of July Russia (along with China) vetoed it. In a thoroughly duplicitous statement Churkin claimed that the resolution would have opened the way to military intervention – but in fact it only raised the possibility of enforcement under Article 41 (“measures not including the use of armed force.”
Given the lack of backing from the Security Council, Annan then resigned. His parting statement included the message “It is clear that President Bashar al-Assad must leave office.” –a message that no Russian diplomat has ever shown the slightest readiness to act on ‑ then or since.
http://pulsemedia.org/2015/09/20/di...an-offer-for-assad-to-step-down-as-president/
So the trend of bombing markets full of civilians continue, and some people think this inhuman dog is a better alternative. Both Assad and IS needs to be annihilated for this bloodshed to end.
Last edited:
So this happened again:
US-trained Division 30 rebels 'betrayed US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html
US-trained Division 30 rebels 'betrayed US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html
The incompetence is hilarious.
This is where Western countries need to stop acting like pussies and just hunt down both Assad and IS like they used to hunt Nazis down.
Russia is now propping Assad up, so he isn't likely going anywhere anytime soon.
The Western countries are the main reason behind the whole mess in general, and appearance of ISIL among them.
No worries, the new US trained Syrian 'freedom fighters' are on the way. The world is holding its collective breath.
Another brilliant idea from the US administration, and $500 million later they have 4-5 people in Syria fighting the IS. They better be modern Rambos.
God bless America.
What does this have to do with propping up Assad to obfuscate from domestic Russian economic ruin ?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 10 times (or more), nobody is fooling anybody.
What does this have to do with propping up Assad to obfuscate from domestic Russian economic ruin ?
That's just your opinion, not a fact, you don't know the reasons behind Putin's actions. There are cheaper and easier ways to distract the public attention from economic problems than that. Assad, like his father before him, has always enjoyed a close relationship with Soviet and then Russian leadership. Putin probably wants Russia to regain influence in that part of the world (that Soviet Union used to have) and considering how much damage Americans and their allies have already done to it, it's probably a welcome change. At the very least, it's not going to make things worse than they already are, because it's impossible.
None of what you said is inconsistent with what I said. Foreign conquest to distract from domestic woes. Apparently Russian troops are also rebelling against their new "secret orders".
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/23/russian-soldiers-don-t-send-me-to-syria.html
Yes, I've read that. The story itself needs to be checked out, and even if it's true, I wouldn't call 20 soldiers 'Russian troops'. Google 'generalization' and 'exaggeration'.
As much as the Soviets' actions in the 1979-1989 Afghanistan war didn't give rise to anything there. Russia's strong support of Milosevic also ripped the Balkans apart for a long time. But hey, it's always easy to blame the West rather than throw an equal share of shit to Russian because the latter is so fecking poor.
Assad started his own mess in his own country. Djihadists only saw the opportunity to gain some experience there long before it they became merged into ISIS.
I've already mentioned the grave mistake on part of Soviet leadership to get involved in Afghanistan. As for the rise of something bad down there....
Russia's strong support of Milosevic also ripped the Balkans apart for a long time. But hey, it's always easy to blame the West rather than throw an equal share of shit to Russian because the latter is so fecking poor.
Russia were too weak and didn't have the means to offer real support to anyone at the time. They didn't, however, bomb anyone in the middle of Europe. If Soviet Union was still around, that wouldn't have happened.
Djihadists were bankrolled by the Gulf countries with the full support of the West, because the US wanted, and still wants, Assad out. Just like they wanted Saddam and Gaddafi out. It turned out so well for those countries.
The reality here is that the United States has one of the most pragmatic and you could argue sinister foreign policies out there.
If people actually believe the United States didn't know what the likely outcome of ousting Saddam was, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. There are extremely intelligent people that are guiding this foreign policy and that foreign policy is to defuse large scale conflicts before they become large scale. How is that accomplished? By keeping these flash points at a low boil. This might not be documented or part of a doctrine you can wikipedia like the Monroe, but it's there all the same.
There are always going to be multiple facets to things like this. On the PR front, you have the "yay we brought freedom" on the ulterior motive front you have the "ya, that's pretty much what we expected would happen"
I mean really, they had to know Iraq would blow up, Afghanistan would achieve little, Syria would be a shitfest, Libya would be a shitfest, etc etc. The alternative is just too unbelievable to accept. That they are all just shit sipping fritattas. I'm not sure what is more frightening, that our (US) government could be as clueless and handicapped as that would make it, or its just devious enough to do all this knowing full well what the likely outcome would be.
At the end of the day it's all done indirectly for my benefit so while I can see the moral issues that this presents, I can always say "it could be worse, they (another power) could be doing it to us. And if they could they would.
#realpolitik.
If people actually believe the United States didn't know what the likely outcome of ousting Saddam was, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. There are extremely intelligent people that are guiding this foreign policy and that foreign policy is to defuse large scale conflicts before they become large scale. How is that accomplished? By keeping these flash points at a low boil. This might not be documented or part of a doctrine you can wikipedia like the Monroe, but it's there all the same.
There are always going to be multiple facets to things like this. On the PR front, you have the "yay we brought freedom" on the ulterior motive front you have the "ya, that's pretty much what we expected would happen"
I mean really, they had to know Iraq would blow up, Afghanistan would achieve little, Syria would be a shitfest, Libya would be a shitfest, etc etc. The alternative is just too unbelievable to accept. That they are all just shit sipping fritattas. I'm not sure what is more frightening, that our (US) government could be as clueless and handicapped as that would make it, or its just devious enough to do all this knowing full well what the likely outcome would be.
At the end of the day it's all done indirectly for my benefit so while I can see the moral issues that this presents, I can always say "it could be worse, they (another power) could be doing it to us. And if they could they would.
#realpolitik.
Russia announces naval drills in 'east Mediterranean'
Moscow (AFP) - Russia's defence ministry on Thursday said it would hold naval drills in the "east Mediterranean" region in September and October, as the West frets over a military buildup by Moscow in Syria.
The drills will involve "40 combat exercises" using three warships and include firing missiles, the ministry said. Russia officially alerted Cyprus last week to divert aircraft from the area.
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-announces-naval-drills-east-mediterranean-082138678.html
Moscow (AFP) - Russia's defence ministry on Thursday said it would hold naval drills in the "east Mediterranean" region in September and October, as the West frets over a military buildup by Moscow in Syria.
The drills will involve "40 combat exercises" using three warships and include firing missiles, the ministry said. Russia officially alerted Cyprus last week to divert aircraft from the area.
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-announces-naval-drills-east-mediterranean-082138678.html
Which was exactly what we expected them to do.
Why exactly do they want Assad out?
The West should join with Putin to defeat Isil.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...st-should-join-with-Putin-to-defeat-Isil.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...st-should-join-with-Putin-to-defeat-Isil.html
Russian 'visitors' receive warm welcome in coastal Syria.
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-visitors-receive-warm-welcome-coastal-syria-102147094.html
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-visitors-receive-warm-welcome-coastal-syria-102147094.html
You're Russian right? Is the possibility of mission creep/ getting further entangled in an absolute clusterfeck of a conflict in the world's most volatile region being discussed much right now?
This is little more than a half thought out attempt at international relevance by Putin. ISIS is a transnational group that is entrenched among civilian populations in multiple countries and can't be removed by airstrikes. The Russians will basically do what they did in eastern Ukraine - agitate for a frozen conflict where their interests (here Assad) are allowed to survive in a limited enclave of land.
Russians for obvious reasons care far more about what's going on in Ukraine than Syria. It appeals to most of them that Putin is apparently bringing Russia back as a major player in world affairs after being ignored or dismissed for the good part of the last two decades, but I doubt there'll be many supporters to get heavily involved, like putting Russian troops on the ground.
I personally prefer that to the American way - get involved in somebody else's business, feck everything up, let the world deal with the consequences.
As opposed to the Russian way of stealing land from another country and lying about it to the mothers of dead Russian troops who were never in Ukraine ? That's some moral compass you have.
As opposed to the Russian way of stealing land from another country and lying about it to the mothers of dead Russian troops who were never in Ukraine ? That's some moral compass you have.
That annexation was bloodless and I'm not going to even bother with Crimean history and the overwhelming desire of its residents to be a part of Russia which they declared. If you want to complain about Crimea, try justifying Kosovo independence which was forced upon Serbia by the West.
Anyway, back to the subject. I'm glad to see that US taxpayers fund training and arming terrorist groups in Syria. Next time they should just just send the money and ammunition straight to Al Qaeda, no need to bother with the training.
Just pointing out your corrupt moral compass - happy to look the other way when Russian troops are dying in eastern Ukraine, while their families are being lied to by Putin ? You're quite the ultranationalist aren't you.
A poor attempt at distracting from Ukraine. Putin doesn't have the military or will to do what's necessary to defeat ISIL, which can only be done by an UNSCR and peacekeeping force alongside a military campaign. Not by one off air strikes by a military seeking to remain relevant on the world stage.
Not to mention all the civilian deaths in the Russian created War there.
I haven't said anything about fighting in the eastern Ukraine, so no need to put words in my mouth. This is a different thread, so stop changing the subject. Just admit that the US approach failed in the Middle East once again instead of embarrassing yourself with these lame attempts to divert attention from the matter at hand.
The real problem here is what is it that they actually teach in those US military training camps. I imagine, running is a major exercise. US trained Iraqi army fled from the ISIS, Georgian Army fled from the Russians, and only recently US trained Syrian "freedom fighters" got destroyed in their first encounter with the enemy before they'd managed to do any damage themselves . Now they seem to employ a different method, which involves teaching the recruits that the most effective way of fighting terrorists is...well, joining those very same terrorist groups once deployed. Very impressive and yet puzzling at the same time.