ISIS in Iraq and Syria

[PedroMendez]

The hypocrisy thing cuts all ways - I'm now seeing many people who have spent the last 15 years protesting against "foreign intervention" in the Middle East staying silent about or even cheering on the Russian bombing campaign.

that is true. Just a few remarks.
The western media has little influence on Russian foreign policy and Russian media isn´t free. I´d hold the free press in a democracy to a higher standard, than some state run propaganda outfit. There is nothing wrong with criticising Putin/Russia for most of their foreign policy, because for most parts it is dreadful. Still the perception of western interventions in huge parts of the mainstream media is incredibly unbalanced and uncritical. It is very difficult to explain, why big news outlets (e.g NYT) are willing to publish government propaganda without any scrutiny over and over again. They could make a difference in the public debate but fail to apply basic common sense.

No one here is championing the US cause though? (Raoul aside but that's more in the Afghan/Ukraine thread).

I mean, I've been very vocal of my dislike on the US and their interventions on these forums, as have others, so I don't see why we should turn a blind eye to when Russia do it.

You shouldn´t, but that is not what i am trying to say.

 

[LeChuck]

You shouldn´t, but that is not what i am trying to say.

Yea I realised I misread your point so edited my initial post.

 

[antihenry]

The hypocrisy thing cuts all ways - I'm now seeing many people who have spent the last 15 years protesting against "foreign intervention" in the Middle East staying silent about or even cheering on the Russian bombing campaign.

Well, technically, Russia and Iran were asked to intervene by Assad and the Syrian government. Everybody else didn't bother with invitations.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

but does that involve allowing assad to use chemical weapons and barrel bombs on civilians - because if it does thats a tough choice to stomach

War has its casualties. Does it matter one bit the civilians bleed to death from bullets to the body or got incinerated from barrel bombs? Both horrific way to die.

Claiming that 'full intervention' from the US were successful in Germany and Japan is disingenuous. Both largely homogenous country, with a central, official religious authority. Both decimated financially and population-wise by a long war. Of course occupation would be easy. Try putting boots in the ground when there are dozens of factions armed to the teeth with different agendas/religious beliefs and see what happen.

 

[Kaos]

Ok - so we can both agree that to the best of both of our knowledge, the SOHR specifically haven't used fake photos or fake stories etc? And the fact that they explicitly say that it is 'unverified' is surely a good thing right? I mean, it's not their fault that other news outlets will make it seem verified when they themselves say it is unverified.

If its unverified it shouldn't be treated as gospel by the media. That's the crux of the problem.

Do you have evidence for this? (Here we go again...amirite).

He fled Syria when Hafez Assad has died and has claimed he'll go back when the Assad regime falls - thats when the first alarm bells should ring. Furthermore he's often seen directly meeting with William Hague, who's been actively helping the FSA overthrow the regime.

Have a read of this - http://www.silviacattori.net/spip.php?article2593

He's obviously more concerned with selectively undermining the regime while remaining purposely blind to the atrocities committed by the rebels.

I found this press release from SOHR - it might clear some confusion:



The Coventry was literally just uploading the content without any input or opinion or whatnot. They let him go after...well some incident. But tbh, it's irrelevant - the SOHR are literally a news highlighter without any insight or opinion. They highlight incidents/clashes from IS, Assad, + the rebels. I think it's silly arguing over their legitimacy as even from parallel sources similar numbers, and statistics, and things can be found. It's why I don't get your issue with them, because they're not providing anything new or influencing anything different.

It took me a while to find the above btw so it's not exactly all over the net.

Its a press release from the horse's mouth, he's not going to openly admit he's one man in Coventry armed with a phone and some 'contacts' in Syria. Doesn't exactly give his SOHR the sound and feel of an objective observatory

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/uk-britain-syria-idUKTRE7B71XG20111208

Who are you referring to on the bolded?

Agreed - I'm not saying there isn't propaganda out there in this Syrian civil war. Of course it exists, but I don't think the SOHR are part of it.

And yea I mean - I agree with you 100% re Iraq and Libya. That is a mess perpetrated by the US/Nato, but like I said earlier, that situation is not analogous to what's going on in Syria. For example, we have non state actors intervening, a legitimate viable opposition force that has been borne from the situation itself etc. I said it before and I'll say it again - if Assad wasn't a beardless, Western educated, secular, individual, he wouldn't be in power at this point. The fact that he fits the West's ideal ME dictator has helped keep him in power for so long. I am no fan of Western intervention, nor of the US (as you know I've been very vocal about that), but if Russia + Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation, are going to go in and start attacking FSA, rebels, etc, then they're going to need some help. Where that comes from whether it's the US or not, is a separate conversation.

I was referring to ISIS in the bolded.

Regarding the part I bolded - you honestly think the west cares about any of that? They were historically happy to help overthrow plenty of beardless and secular leaders in the past to make room for some bearded Islamists who would do their bidding. Its not different here. Assad is being targeted because he's an ally of Iran and Russia and an enemy of Israel. If he were just another one of the US stooges in the middle east then he'd be hailed a secular hero defending his nation from terrorists and it would be the US propping him, just as they currently are with the Saudis who are murdering thousands of Yemeni civilians as we speak.

Its interesting you now call Hezbollah a terrorist organisation, do you consider Hamas and Al Nusra to be the same too?

 

[Ballache]

Totally agree, which is why I'm sceptical of anyone (on any side) trying to frame their position on this conflict in terms of some moral principle like human rights, non-intervention or a 'peaceful solution'. Your own position strikes me as much more honest and understandable.

Oh don't get me wrong, I have no faith in any of them, just happens to be that my interests are in line with the Russians. Lesser of two evils in my eyes.

 

[Ballache]

So you think the opposition are intolerant of minorities? Even though they fight with minorities? The FSA fight with the Syriac Military Council, the premier Syrian Christian organisation, against IS and Assad. So, I'm not sure why you feel that a Christian minority wouldn't be accepted (you're Christian, right?)

95% of Syriacs are fighting with the government not the FSA, you can take my word on that one. And no, I have no trust in the alternative, mainly because moderate opposition simply doesn't exist, remove the likes of ISIS and Al Nusra and the revolution would end in a week. I am Lebanese, so I can never love Assad or his father but honestly, the alternative is a lot worse.

 

[Kaos]

There is no moral principle in any of this, we each have our biases. I will always prefer a secular dictator over Sunni Islamists linked to extremists. Just as I preferred Saddam over the theocratic Shia morons in Iraq night now.

I'm not Putin's biggest fan but I'm glad he's got involved. The Middle East in the last 50 years had been held to ransom by US imperialism with their CIA covert ops and military intervention compromising any real sense of autonomy. At least Russia's involvement acts as a buffer to keep counter the US's aspirations for regional hegemony.

Its amusing that we're all suddenly crying crocodile tears for Al Nusra and Jaish al Fatah, if anything the Russians are doing the world a favour by eradicating the scum, whereas the US seem all too happy to shower them with weaponry.

 

[Ballache]

There is no moral principle in any of this, we each have our biases. I will always prefer a secular dictator over Sunni Islamists linked to extremists. Just as I preferred Saddam over the theocratic Shia morons in Iraq night now.

I'm not Putin's biggest fan but I'm glad he's got involved. The Middle East in the last 50 years had been held to ransom by US imperialism with their CIA covert ops and military intervention compromising any real sense of autonomy. At least Russia's involvement acts as a buffer to keep counter the US's aspirations for regional hegemony.

Its amusing that we're all suddenly crying crocodile tears for Al Nusra and Jaish al Fatah, if anything the Russians are doing the world a favour by eradicating the scum, whereas the US seem all too happy to shower them with weaponry.

Basically this, problem is people have a problem with the word dictator but don't realise that democracy doesn't work for everyone. It sucks, yes, but that's the truth. Besides the west should start with their own allies before trying to liberate the rest of the world.

 

[LeChuck]

Video released by Syrian rebels shooting down a SU-25 fighter jet.

 

[MUFAN79]

95% of Syriacs are fighting with the government not the FSA, you can take my word on that one. And no, I have no trust in the alternative, mainly because moderate opposition simply doesn't exist, remove the likes of ISIS and Al Nusra and the revolution would end in a week. I am Lebanese, so I can never love Assad or his father but honestly, the alternative is a lot worse.

You nailed it.

 

[2cents]

So you think the opposition are intolerant of minorities? Even though they fight with minorities? The FSA fight with the Syriac Military Council, the premier Syrian Christian organisation, against IS and Assad. So, I'm not sure why you feel that a Christian minority wouldn't be accepted (you're Christian, right?)

I've Christian relatives in the region, they're all very much on Team Assad, like Ballache. They rightly have absolutely zero faith in the FSA either to ensure the safety of minorities or even to win out against the jihadists who make up the larger and more effective elements of the opposition. Seriously, put yourself in the shoes of a Syrian Christian living in Damascus and hearing Zahran Alloush warning the city's Muslims (and Muslims only) that he's about the start lobbing rockets randomly on your neighbourhood. Or take a look at the background of Ahrar al-Sham, or what al-Julani recently said about the Druze and Alawites to al-Jazeera. These are the groups setting the opposition agenda far more than the FSA, I hold no hope that whatever moderate elements in the FSA still exist will be able to impose their own agenda on these guys if Assad falls.

 

[LeChuck]

If its unverified it shouldn't be treated as gospel by the media. That's the crux of the problem.

This isn't the fault of SOHR though, is it?

He fled Syria when Hafez Assad has died and has claimed he'll go back when the Assad regime falls - thats when the first alarm bells should ring. Furthermore he's often seen directly meeting with William Hague, who's been actively helping the FSA overthrow the regime.

Have a read of this - http://www.silviacattori.net/spip.php?article2593

He's obviously more concerned with selectively undermining the regime while remaining purposely blind to the atrocities committed by the rebels.

Why exactly is that a bad thing? Assad is a mad dog. Overthrowing him is the correct thing to do. His father was just as bad.

The regime needs to go.

Its a press release from the horse's mouth, he's not going to openly admit he's one man in Coventry armed with a phone and some 'contacts' in Syria. Doesn't exactly give his SOHR the sound and feel of an objective observatory

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/uk-britain-syria-idUKTRE7B71XG20111208

Did you read that article you linked? It's actually quite informative and reinforces what I've been saying all along. A couple of snippets:

With infiltration attempts by Syrian agents, misinformation from rival opposition groups, threats from Assad supporters and even pressure from pro-Assad members of his own family, Abdulrahman's mission to document the violence is no easy task.

"We want accuracy and transparency in the news," he said.

"We have had many infiltration attempts by the Syrian intelligence services, but we don't put any news out until we are 100 percent certain about our source. If the source is new, we have to verify the information with other sources," he added.

His sources, some cultivated over many years, risk their lives to investigate incidents and call him with information.

Abdulrahman, a Sunni Muslim, is acutely sensitive that his reports are seen as free from bias, given accusations against him of sectarianism, of being in the pay of foreign agents or of being swayed or infiltrated by Assad's security services.

Sunnis are the majority in Syria, but the country has long been dominated by Assad's Alawite minority sect.

"I have Alawites phoning and complaining, Sunnis phoning and complaining. I'm between two fires. But it shows I'm being neutral if both sides complain," he said, insisting he accepts no funding and runs the observatory on a voluntary basis.

Members of Abdulrahman's wife's family have been arrested and beaten, he said, while he receives threatening text messages. Some of Abdulrahman's family refuse to speak to him, supporting Assad out of what he said was fear or ignorance.

I was referring to ISIS in the bolded.

Regarding the part I bolded - you honestly think the west cares about any of that? They were historically happy to help overthrow plenty of beardless and secular leaders in the past to make room for some bearded Islamists who would do their bidding. Its not different here. Assad is being targeted because he's an ally of Iran and Russia and an enemy of Israel. If he were just another one of the US stooges in the middle east then he'd be hailed a secular hero defending his nation from terrorists and it would be the US propping him, just as they currently are with the Saudis who are murdering thousands of Yemeni civilians as we speak.

Its interesting you now call Hezbollah a terrorist organisation, do you consider Hamas and Al Nusra to be the same too?

How quick were NATO in removing Qadaffi? Why have they dilly dallied for so long over Assad? It's because he's Western educated, secular, suit wearing, his wife from the UK etc etc. guy. If it was a Islamic gov't with a beard sporting, thawb wearing individual at the top, killing his own people, using chemical warfare, and sexual assaults and rapes etc do you think the West would have let it last this long? Of course not.

 

[Ballache]

The whole situation is hopeless whatever happens. People have no idea how things are down there at the moment. This past summer I went to Lebanon as I usually do but for the first time I gave up any hope our region will see relative peace and stabilitu and it's absolutely depressing. No matter who people support, at the end of the day I feel like our lives as Levantines have no worth in the eyes of the major powers and it's a very chilling realisation. This is why I stay away from politics and discussions because honestly I can't be bothered.

 

[adexkola]

Does the West have an end game for Syria once Assad is removed? Because, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't looking too end gamey right now.

I can't say I endorse Russia's recent aggression, but Assad looks like the least worst option right now.

 

[adexkola]

I wonder if there is any parallel between the thermodynamics of closed vs open systems and civil war.

Edit: The more I think about it the more I think it kind of makes sense. Only had 3 hours sleep in the last 2 days though.

I'm off today, so I'm officially bored. Let's take a stab at this analogy.

 

[Ballache]

Does the West have an end game for Syria once Assad is removed? Because, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't looking too end gamey right now.

I can't say I endorse Russia's recent aggression, but Assad looks like the least worst option right now.

Why would they? They profit from this, arms sales must be through the roof. Israel is loving this too (not that anyone can realistically threaten them). This war has achieved its objectives the only problem is that the West can't look like fools with Assad staying in power.

 

[Shamwow]

I'm off today, so I'm officially bored. Let's take a stab at this analogy.

I'm still at work but sort of starting with a hypothesis that in a "closed" war (i.e. civil war with no outside intervention) the system will generally reach equilibrium more quickly than a conflict where outside influences are introducing energy into the system.

3 hours sleep.

 

[2cents]

If the Americans wanted Assad out he'd have been gone years ago, they had the perfect pretext in 2013 with Obama's 'red-line' nonsense and since then have done nothing to speed up Assad's departure. Meanwhile they've strengthened Iran via the nuclear deal and restricted their own bombing campaign in Syria to hitting IS targets while apparently giving Putin the all clear to save the regime.

 

[Raoul]

Does the West have an end game for Syria once Assad is removed? Because, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't looking too end gamey right now.

I can't say I endorse Russia's recent aggression, but Assad looks like the least worst option right now.

"The West" doesn't really exist. What you have is one country, backed by several smaller countries attempting to impose various outcomes on Syria. The same can be said of the Axis of Russia and Iran.

 

[antihenry]

Why exactly is that a bad thing? Assad is a mad dog. Overthrowing him is the correct thing to do. His father was just as bad.

The regime needs to go.

I know you're very much pro-FSA, so let me ask you. Let's say, Assad is gone tomorrow. Who's supposed to take over? Is there a leader among so-called 'moderates' who's capable of uniting the country? I haven't heard of any, but perhaps you know of one or two? Could the FSA guarantee safety of minorities, such as Christians and Alawites, once they don't have Assad to protect them? Can the FSA realistically defeat ISIS and every other radical group fighting in Syria because that's what they'll have to do?

From what I can tell, no one can say with distinction what FSA really is. How big is their support base and better yet, how united are they within their own network? Everyone knows what Assad and Co represent, and it's pretty clear what ISIS and other extremist organizations are about. What is FSA? I don't want to offend you, but it sounds more like a nice idea for the West - the 'good guys', the 'moderate guys' fighting the 'bad guys', meaning Assad and ISIS. Now that their 'good guys' are failing, the Western media are struggling to come up with the right bullshit to explain the situation. How they must be thanking Putin for a welcome distraction.

 

[Raoul]

This is obviously not about combating ISIS since all the airstrikes have been on Syrian forces closing in on Assad controlled territory.

 

[Kaos]

This isn't the fault of SOHR though, is it?


Why exactly is that a bad thing? Assad is a mad dog. Overthrowing him is the correct thing to do. His father was just as bad.

The regime needs to go.

You're missing the point. If an allegedly 'independent' observatory organisation is aligned with one side in a civil war, it compromises its impartiality.

Did you read that article you linked? It's actually quite informative and reinforces what I've been saying all along. A couple of snippets:

I did, but I'm not referring to the overarching situation. Rather it reinforces the point the SOHR is mostly a one-man setup, or at least it relies on one man as the sole harbinger of what is and isn't released to the media.

How quick were NATO in removing Qadaffi? Why have they dilly dallied for so long over Assad? It's because he's Western educated, secular, suit wearing, his wife from the UK etc etc. guy. If it was a Islamic gov't with a beard sporting, thawb wearing individual at the top, killing his own people, using chemical warfare, and sexual assaults and rapes etc do you think the West would have let it last this long? Of course not.

If the beard-sporting Islamic govt was compliant with regional US policy then I guarantee they'd be left alone. Look at Saudi Arabia - the Wahabi capital of the world which exports the most vile and oppressive take on the Islamic faith, killing their own people for the most trivial of reasons, covertly supporting Islamic extremists and have been involved in violently stopping democratic movements in Bahrain via military intervention, and are currently razing Yemen to the ground as we speak. Care to hazard a guess as to why they're being left to their own devices?

Remember how in the 50s-70s the US was covertly supporting radical Islamists to undermine the secular pan-Arab nationalist governments and of course how they helped the Mujahadeen fight the soviets. Another fun fact for you - did you know that in the 50s the US had backed the Iranian clergy (specifically Khomeini's mentor) to help antagonise the secular, democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh.

Bottom line is they don't care whether you wear a suit, beard or even kill scores of your own people. So long as you abide by script, antagonise Iran, Russia, Syria or any country the US dislikes at any given opportunity and allow the US to build a base or two on your territory for good measure, you'll be left to your own devices.

As to why Bashar hasn't fallen yet. Well for starters he's had the Russians helping him, vetoing any UN resolution that could be used as mission creep for regime change (as was the case in Libya), and there's the fact that like it or not he has a considerable part of the population supporting him, or at least preferring him to the alternative at hand.

 

[Kaos]

If the Americans wanted Assad out he'd have been gone years ago, they had the perfect pretext in 2013 with Obama's 'red-line' nonsense and since then have done nothing to speed up Assad's departure. Meanwhile they've strengthened Iran via the nuclear deal and restricted their own bombing campaign in Syria to hitting IS targets while apparently giving Putin the all clear to save the regime.

They've been trying to invoke regime change in Syria for close to a decade. Its been more difficult because the regime boasts support from Iran, Russian and China to a lesser extent.

Iraq was less of a struggle since Iran was obviously not going to support Saddam, and the Arab league had betrayed them by voting to endorse an invasion. So they were pretty much left alone and were hence easy prey.

 

[Raoul]

They've been trying to invoke regime change in Syria for close to a decade. Its been more difficult because the regime boasts support from Iran, Russian and China to a lesser extent.

Iraq was less of a struggle since Iran was obviously not going to support Saddam, and the Arab league had betrayed them by voting to endorse an invasion. So they were pretty much left alone and were hence easy prey.

The Arab league wasn't going to stop an invasion by the US in any case. In fact, had the US wanted to invade Syria and get rid of Assad, it would've done so a long time ago. Just so happens that we're dealing with Obama and not Bush or Clinton.

 

[adexkola]

I'm still at work but sort of starting with a hypothesis that in a "closed" war (i.e. civil war with no outside intervention) the system will generally reach equilibrium more quickly than a conflict where outside influences are introducing energy into the system.

3 hours sleep.

The entropy of the equibrilium state will be higher than the entropy of the starting state, assuming the system is closed but not isolated. That equibrilium will be more tenuous for the ruling regime, increasing the possibility of an overthrow. I think.

"The West" doesn't really exist. What you have is one country, backed by several smaller countries attempting to impose various outcomes on Syria. The same can be said of the Axis of Russia and Iran.

That's fair.

 

[Kaos]

The Arab league wasn't going to stop an invasion by the US in any case. In fact, had the US wanted to invade Syria and get rid of Assad, it would've done so a long time ago. Just so happens that we're dealing with Obama and not Bush or Clinton.

US troops launched their attacks from neighbouring Arab states. Considering that Turkey had refused to allow the US to attack from their bases, the Arab league would have made the invasion very difficult if they too refused.

I do think the US learnt the costly lesson of Iraq, so a full on military intervention was never on the cards. Rather they've been trying to covertly fund and support elements from within to overthrow the government. The start of the riots in 2011 served as their ample opportunity to extend this.

 

[2cents]

Here's an informative piece on Ahrar al-Sham, the largest rebel faction in Syria:

AHRAR AL-SHAM’S REVISIONIST JIHADISM

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/ahrar-al-shams-revisionist-jihadism/

Here's a speech by Jaysh al-Islam leader Zahran Alloush - they're the largest faction in the Damascus area. Note you won't see a single Syrian flag flying, nor does Alloush mention Syria once in his speech:

 

[Kaos]

Here's an informative piece on Ahrar al-Sham, the largest rebel faction in Syria:

AHRAR AL-SHAM’S REVISIONIST JIHADISM

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/ahrar-al-shams-revisionist-jihadism/

Here's a speech by Jaysh al-Islam leader Zahran Alloush - they're the largest faction in the Damascus area. Note you won't see a single Syrian flag flying, nor does Alloush mention Syria once in his speech:

I'm sure the millions of Syrian minorities would feel perfectly comfortable with power being in the hands of these types. I'm sure we can also expect Syria's secular principles on religious freedom and womens' rights to be reasonably upheld by the likes of AaS.

 

[Kaos]

Also @Uzz

Don't think you answered, but do you regard Hamas and Al Nusra to be terrorist organisations?

 

[Shamwow]

The entropy of the equibrilium state will be higher than the entropy of the starting state, assuming the system is closed but not isolated. That equibrilium will be more tenuous for the ruling regime, increasing the possibility of an overthrow. I think.

I was viewing equilibrium as the point at which the war is over whatever the outcome is.

 

[Raoul]

US troops launched their attacks from neighbouring Arab states. Considering that Turkey had refused to allow the US to attack from their bases, the Arab league would have made the invasion very difficult if they too refused.

I do think the US learnt the costly lesson of Iraq, so a full on military intervention was never on the cards. Rather they've been trying to covertly fund and support elements from within to overthrow the government. The start of the riots in 2011 served as their ample opportunity to extend this.

Nope. The US had great relations with Kuwait, having just liberated them a decade earlier and of course with the Saudis as well, and that's not to include aircraft carriers in the Gulf, which collectively made it easy to invade. And that's not including the northern ground invasion which missed out by a hair in the Turkish parliament.

 

[2cents]

They've been trying to invoke regime change in Syria for close to a decade.

I think this was absolutely true up until around 2013. Since then I think there's been a shift and tilt in favour of the Iranian bloc in the region - not a complete turnaround, but a drawing back from full on support for the Saudi agenda and an increasing willingness to accept Iran as a legitimate regional player.

In general I think Obama is happy to take a back seat in the Middle East and let others blow their resources away on these wars. Everything he does there is half-arsed, which I think is deliberate but has the effect of making the Russians and others look much more decisive in comparison. All this will likely change if a Republican gets the White House next year, or perhaps even with Clinton.

 

[Raoul]

I think this was absolutely true up until around 2013. Since then I think there's been a shift and tilt in favour of the Iranian bloc in the region - not a complete turnaround, but a drawing back from full on support for the Saudi agenda and an increasing willingness to accept Iran as a legitimate regional player.

In general I think Obama is happy to take a back seat in the Middle East and let others blow their resources away on these wars. Everything he does there is half-arsed, which I think is deliberate but has the effect of making the Russians and others look much more decisive in comparison. All this will likely change if a Republican gets the White House next year, or perhaps even with Clinton.

He's definitely an non-interventionist. If McCain or Romney won the election, there would almost certainly be boots on the ground in Syria, in fact it would've happened immediately after Assad's first WMD attack on his own citizens in 2013.

 

[Vato]

Here's an informative piece on Ahrar al-Sham, the largest rebel faction in Syria:

AHRAR AL-SHAM’S REVISIONIST JIHADISM

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/ahrar-al-shams-revisionist-jihadism/

Here's a speech by Jaysh al-Islam leader Zahran Alloush - they're the largest faction in the Damascus area. Note you won't see a single Syrian flag flying, nor does Alloush mention Syria once in his speech:

How many times did he mention Islam and god? It's like the rest of the people aren't worthy in these people's eyes. They profit of that siege mentality of 'us against them'.

Nothing will ever change until religious people stop seeing everything as an attack on their religion.

 

[Kaos]

I think this was absolutely true up until around 2013. Since then I think there's been a shift and tilt in favour of the Iranian bloc in the region - not a complete turnaround, but a drawing back from full on support for the Saudi agenda and an increasing willingness to accept Iran as a legitimate regional player.

In general I think Obama is happy to take a back seat in the Middle East and let others blow their resources away on these wars. Everything he does there is half-arsed, which I think is deliberate but has the effect of making the Russians and others look much more decisive in comparison. All this will likely change if a Republican gets the White House next year, or perhaps even with Clinton.

Possibly, the Iran deal was somewhat of a curveball. I'll be interesting to see how his successor steers the ship in these waters.

 

[LeChuck]

You're missing the point. If an allegedly 'independent' observatory organisation is aligned with one side in a civil war, it compromises its impartiality.

No - again, you said they make fake stories/photos but there was no evidence. Then you said they have unverified photos which other news outlets use (which isn't SOHR's fault as they explicitly state that they are unverified), so now we're changing the goalposts again? In the interview I posted earlier he says himself he gets grief from both sides for reporting without bias.

I did, but I'm not referring to the overarching situation. Rather it reinforces the point the SOHR is mostly a one-man setup, or at least it relies on one man as the sole harbinger of what is and isn't released to the media.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. It's definitely not that way any more, anyway.

If the beard-sporting Islamic govt was compliant with regional US policy then I guarantee they'd be left alone. Look at Saudi Arabia - the Wahabi capital of the world which exports the most vile and oppressive take on the Islamic faith, killing their own people for the most trivial of reasons, covertly supporting Islamic extremists and have been involved in violently stopping democratic movements in Bahrain via military intervention, and are currently razing Yemen to the ground as we speak. Care to hazard a guess as to why they're being left to their own devices?

Remember how in the 50s-70s the US was covertly supporting radical Islamists to undermine the secular pan-Arab nationalist governments and of course how they helped the Mujahadeen fight the soviets. Another fun fact for you - did you know that in the 50s the US had backed the Iranian clergy (specifically Khomeini's mentor) to help antagonise the secular, democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh.

Bottom line is they don't care whether you wear a suit, beard or even kill scores of your own people. So long as you abide by script, antagonise Iran, Russia, Syria or any country the US dislikes at any given opportunity and allow the US to build a base or two on your territory for good measure, you'll be left to your own devices.

As to why Bashar hasn't fallen yet. Well for starters he's had the Russians helping him, vetoing any UN resolution that could be used as mission creep for regime change (as was the case in Libya), and there's the fact that like it or not he has a considerable part of the population supporting him, or at least preferring him to the alternative at hand.

Well, the US can't take on Saudi as they rely on them too much.

Look - we both know full well the duplicity of the West/US. We can spend all night discussing that they do one thing here and another there. There whole meddling has led to IS, and their whole meddling has led to the ME being in the situation it is now. I get that and take your point completely.

But the reason Assad has stayed for so long is as he is thought of as a typically progressive secular ideal for the West/US. Just in the same way people will think of Sisi in the same way, and he will prove to be as inhumane and depraved as Assad (mark my words), the West will be loathe to move in as he espouses a lot of the rhetoric they want the ME to espouse.

I'll get onto Al Nusra on a longer post I'm typing up to antihenry.

 

[Kaos]

Nope. The US had great relations with Kuwait, having just liberated them a decade earlier and of course with the Saudis as well, and that's not to include aircraft carriers in the Gulf, which collectively made it easy to invade. And that's not including the northern ground invasion which missed out by a hair in the Turkish parliament.

The fact remains - if the Gulf Arab states had refused, the US would find it close to impossible to invade. Naturally Kuwait and the Saudis were happy to see Iraq destroyed so they weren't going to hold fire, but they'd easily be able to halt an invasion if none of them were compliant.

 

[Raoul]

The fact remains - if the Gulf Arab states had refused, the US would find it close to impossible to invade. Naturally Kuwait and the Saudis were happy to see Iraq destroyed so they weren't going to hold fire, but they'd easily be able to halt an invasion if none of them were compliant.

So basically what you're saying is if no one ever wanted to participate in a war, then there wouldn't be a war. Very profound.

 

[2cents]

I'm sure the millions of Syrian minorities would feel perfectly comfortable with power being in the hands of these types. I'm sure we can also expect Syria's secular principles on religious freedom and womens' rights to be reasonably upheld by the likes of AaS.

Makes you wonder why Assad released all these guys from prison in 2011.