At a more profound level, you could argue that a rebellion would never have occurred had the Assad family not shit on the dignity of Syrians for 4 decades, then used chemical weapons on them when they demanded their rights.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
At a more profound level, you could argue that a rebellion would never have occurred had the Assad family not shit on the dignity of Syrians for 4 decades, then used chemical weapons on them when they demanded their rights.
That would be nice, but IMO it's a bit much to expect of them while Assad is dropping barrel bombs randomly on their neighbourhoods.
Kaos said:
Diplomacy is a fantasy right now, no side is going to give up in negotiations what they believe they can win militarily. One side might, with the help of their sponsors, achieve some sort of military victory, but in that event some group is gonna get screwed. Probably the most likely outcome will be for the de facto partition of Syria to be consolidated indefinitely. It's not a 'solution' either, but I think Syria as we've known it is finished anyway, and it at least has the merit of providing safe-havens for all elements of the population. But before that happens, the fate of Aleppo and probably Damascus will have to be definitively settled one way or another, so a lot more blood will be spilled.
On even more profound level, one may argue that if Americans minded their own business and left the Middle East alone or, better yet, were taking into consideration that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily think like them, act like them or want the same things they do, the whole mess could have been avoided. How many more countries in the region does America have to ruin before everyone realizes that their methods are not the solution, but rather are the problem?
Here's another 'what if' scenario. What would have happened if instead of Iraq Bush and his friends decided to invade Saudi Arabia? I mean, Bin Laden was a Saudi and so were fifteen out of nineteen 9/11 hijackers. The ties of Saudi Arabian sponsors to various terrorist networks are also well documented. Their way of ruling is dictatorial, savage and medieval. It would have made as much, if not more sense, to target them instead of Saddam and his imaginary weapons of mass destruction, no? And yet it was Iraq that was turned into a firing pit of hell and as the result, among other things, former Baath party members became an important part of what now is known as ISIS. Well done.
So the poor oppressed Syrians tolerated the Assad family for 4 decades while their dignity was constantly being shit on? What's the alternative then? The decade of violence, blood and death that the US have brought with them since the Iraq invasion? If one had to choose between 40 years of Assad or what's going on there now, I wonder what the choice would be. The same goes for Saddam and Gaddafi. They were terrible dictators, but those countries and its people were in far better shape before the US decided to 'free' them from oppression.
Unless, of course, it was never about democracy or helping people rid of the oppressive regimes. Then everything is starting to make sense.
You probably could but it would be irrelevant to Syria since the civil war there is down to Assad crushing dissent, which happened well before ISIS rolled in. Syrians are apparently fed up with living under a dictatorship, which is precisely why any plan that leaves Assad in power will fail.
The attack on Gaddafi the Europeans are as guilty as US but doesn't matter until people in the west realize "our values" are not the same on those places, they place religion ahead of everything so turning them in a secular country will not work, we take a dictator down and then we have 10 dictators. My opinion on this mess, we made it now we need to clean it, then leave for good.
Pretty much this. Its a cases of you break it, you fix it then move on.
Putin launches first airstrikes to keep Assad in power.....
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/russia-syria-airstrikes-isis/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/russia-syria-airstrikes-isis/
They will attack all the terrorist organizations present in Syria, including the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra.
They will attack all the terrorist organizations present in Syria, including the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra.
That would work if this were WW2 and the opposition were in large formations, but unfortunately it won't in assymetrical warfare. At best, it will keep Assad from getting overrun.
Not safe for work, or possibly life. (Dead bodies including children)
https://twitter.com/search?q=Talbiseh&src=typd
Heartbreaking. GG Russia!
https://twitter.com/search?q=Talbiseh&src=typd
Heartbreaking. GG Russia!
Interesting that the Russians are not bombing ISIS here, but another group. Obviously all a part of the plan to keep Assad alive.
Airstrikes in Talbisa, Rastan, Zaafaraniya and Makramiya close to Homs. Not ISIS-held territory, if you can imagine that.
Rough map of ISIS territory:
http://isis.liveuamap.com/
Not surprising - this isn't about ISIS for Putin, he just needs the Syrian government to say alive to keep his military presence in the Med, as well as distract his domestic public from a rubbish economy.
Most of the airstrikes launched today were against rebels, not ISIS.
Of course. They aren't hiding their intentions.
Of course. They aren't hiding their intentions.
Yep, as I've said before, ISIS doesn't control any territory that could be said to be strategically vital to the regime. The real threat to Assad comes from the Jaysh al-Fatah coalition (which includes Nusra and Ahrar) in Aleppo, Idlib and Homs provinces, and Zahran Alloush's Jaysh al-Islam around Damascus. So I'd expect the Russians to concentrate on these targets rather than ISIS.
Well they sort of are in that Putin has been banging on about the threat of ISIS.
Reports coming out that Assad apparently requested the Russian strike on those areas. Nothing to do with ISIS, just a hit on the forces that are closing in on his territory. Illustrates how weak he is if he can't even use his own air force to hit nearby areas.
All his air force is good for is dropping barrel bombs from a height well out of range of any stinger-type missiles on the ground that can take out a plane.
Can someone tell me, has Putin said that Russia is in Syria to fight "ISIS" or "terrorism"?
He claims terrorism, which is a bit odd since the non-ISIS anti-Assad rebels have little to do with Russia, whereas there are about 1700 or more Russian ISIS fighters running around Syria.
In fairness there's plenty of Russian citizens, including an entire Chechen brigade, fighting with Nusra. But in any case, "terrorism" gives him leeway to target any and all anti-Assad forces.
Do they deny Russians membership to other radical organizations? I had no idea Russian radicals were joining ISIS exclusively. Please, tell me more.
Haven't the US led coalition launched thousands of air trikes in Syria by now? Was there any collateral damage? Where are all the pics and videos of killed women and children? Or they were so precise that only terrorists were hit?
Then there is a first air strike launched by Russians and before you know it the videos and photos of killed and wounded civilians are all over the net. Interesting.
Then there is a first air strike launched by Russians and before you know it the videos and photos of killed and wounded civilians are all over the net. Interesting.
The Russian government won't be able to control the media on the ground in Syria like they do in occupied Crimea, Donbass, and Russia - so you should expect all the dead babies to be fully publicized.
Another weak excuse to prop Assad up.
Yeah, you never see anything from that region that would show America in a negative light.
Putin is Mother Teresa compared to the American leadership. The amount of civilian casualties your country caused directly or indirectly in the Middle East alone is staggering.
Dead babies in Crimea? Are you high?
No drugs here, must be your English comprehension.
I fear for your sanity with these statements, never mind my English comprehension.
Putin is a rogue dictator and professional liar, whose desperation to remain in power has led him to steal the land of another country and lie to the mothers of dead Russians whose sons he sent there to die, a process he will likely repeat in Syria.
You obviously misunderstood what I was saying and inferred something else due to your English comprehension.
Then you should be very clear with what you're saying when you start talking about dead children and Crimea in the same sentence.
Dead Children in Crimea ? Not sure what you're on about.
@antihenry, you any thoughts on what Russia's endgame is here? How deeply involved is Putin willing to become do you think? It strikes me as a perfect opportunity for Russia's enemies to drain Moscow's resources, although I'm not sure Obama considers Russia an enemy the way a Republican president likely would.
Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed they launched first air strikes in Syria and posted the video of it.
They claim to have hit ISIS armories, POL storages, military equipment, command posts, communication centers and vehicles.
https://www.facebook.com/Ministry-of-Defence-of-the-Russian-Federation-1492252324350852/timeline/
They claim to have hit ISIS armories, POL storages, military equipment, command posts, communication centers and vehicles.
https://www.facebook.com/Ministry-of-Defence-of-the-Russian-Federation-1492252324350852/timeline/
USA is in over a year into the war against ISIS with nothing to show for it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/isis-us-led-airstrikes-civilian-deaths-claimed
Speaking of civilian deaths, they’ve barely gotten mention in the media over the past twelve months, likely because the US military has,
somewhat incredibly, only admitted to two civilians casualties in an entire year of airstrikes spanning multiple countries.
A new report by journalists and researchers in the region argues that the real number is probably around 500 civilians.
Good luck getting the US military to come close to acknowledging that, though.
Despite credible reports about civilian casualties almost immediately after the war started, it took the US nearly six months to admit
there were any at all.
And it’s tougher than ever for members of the media to travel into these war zones, and even when they head over with military officials, they are tightly restricted.
Do any of you seem to realise that the cold war ended a couple of decades ago ? ffs
Anyone bombing the isis should be applauded and that includes nato.
Anyone bombing the isis should be applauded and that includes nato.
Russia as out manoeuvred the rest of the west.