ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Sharjah isn't that conservative. They don't have bottle shops but non-muslims can drink at home and at the Wanderers Club for example. The UAE works mainly because there is so much cash floating about and the smaller emirates know where the real power lies (Dubai and Abu Dhabi). I'm not convinced that this model would work in Syria which is essentially a civil war.
It's very conservative.

And I wasn't using the UAE as a model, the power is in the hands of one (extended family), and there is an emphasis on Emiratis having more rights. I just used Sharjah as an example of a conservative society existing within a non-conservative one.
 
It's very conservative.

And I wasn't using the UAE as a model, the power is in the hands of one (extended family), and there is an emphasis on Emiratis having more rights. I just used Sharjah as an example of a conservative society existing within a non-conservative one.

I've lived there. It is more conservative than Dubai but it is no Saudi or Kuwait.

The pressures of such an arrangement in a place like Syria would make it unworkable I dtrongly susoect. Then again it is hard to see anythi g working at the moment.
 
On the SNC - yea they have, but I just wanted to draw your attention to their plans for Syria, and their stance because I thought that people either think it's Assad or Jihadi-land, which it isn't. Even so, some of the guys on the board for the SNC decided to stay on as part of the Nat. Coalition, so there is a sinificant 'feel' of the SNC remaining including their policies, and in their membership and representatives, it's heavily weighted with SNC members. So, even though they 'withdrew', they basically haven't totally withdrawn and just want to hold onto some of their own autonomy. Out of 60+ members, 40+ are SNC affiliates. Now, the FSA are also represented within the Nat. Coal. I'm not saying it's their armed wing or anything, but they are represented and they were the first rebel group to be represented. I suppose what I'm trying to say here is that they are a viable alternative and pluralistic entity that can replace the Syrian gov't.

To your bits on Al Nusra, Ahrar - have you been copying 2cents? I had a similar discussion with him a while back. To date, there have been minor struggles for power with the FSA, with minimal casualties, but they are a lot more closely aligned than you think. Most of the fighters joining the ranks of Jaysh, al Nusra etc are ex FSA. The only reason they left the FSA is they were given better wages and benefits from joining. It's the reason why the FSA's numbers began to dwindle as the funding began to lessen, and they couldn't pay their soldiers. There's interviews online of ex-FSA guys saying the reason they joined was to be paid more. The issue with this conflict is that there are now so many different groups involved, some of which hate each other, some don't, some hate the friends of the other etc. and this confuses a simple issue. And the simple issue is that the Syrian people, who are in the middle of this mess don't want Assad.

The problem is: the middle ground between Assad and al-Nusra don’t have the military power to back their position. Anyway, we´d start to argue in circles. I guess I read similar sources to 2cents and that is why we might share a similar outlook.
Joshua landis seems to be one of the most knowledgeable guys in this conflict. Anyone who is interested in this conflict should follow his twitter account.


On a different note: The clashes between kurds and the Turkish government in eastern turkey are escalating. It doesn´t look pretty at all.
 
Last edited:
Obviously, I oppose all instances of minority persecution whether it's in Turkey, Syria, or Iraq. But I hate nationalism. I'm ethnically Pakistani, but 60+ years ago, there was no such thing. It's arbitrary borders. I'm no different to an Indian, but colonial powers came to try and put us in these separate boxes, and for what? My family had to leave their whole life behind in Jalandhar. My great uncle's family were butchered in front of him by Hindu nationalists, he's the only one that managed to escape and we were his only family, so you're preaching to the choir here. These same people were neighbours before and now they're tearing each others throats out.

I dont think they were hindu nationalists...i think they were thugs, unless your accepting the other side were muslim nationalists ? which i also disagree with.
 
I've lived there. It is more conservative than Dubai but it is no Saudi or Kuwait.

The pressures of such an arrangement in a place like Syria would make it unworkable I dtrongly susoect. Then again it is hard to see anythi g working at the moment.
Sharjah is still a conservative emirate. Whichever way you want to look at it. I don't know why that's an issue.

Anyway, this is the model that will have to be implemented. If we carve out new countries in the region, the Eastern areas by default are the poorer regions, and economic attrition will only mean that they are even more prone to self destruct, and again, susceptible to undesirable groups.

The only way to keep the country relatively stable is goal congruence. We know what the Kurds want, we know what the rebels want, we even know what the moderate Islamic Front want, and the smaller groups of Druze, Assyrians, Free Alawis etc. and their needs can be met. Creating different principalities with their allegiance to their greater state but autonomy to run themselves will solve a lot of issues. It stops international powers intervening and it keeps these guys running the same track. It also means these guys have a voice and are fairly represented in governance, wholly different to how the Assad family has held onto power for 40 years and killed any voice speaking out.
 
Sharjah is still a conservative emirate. Whichever way you want to look at it. I don't know why that's an issue.

It is conservative in comparison to Dubai but that isn't saying much. And the reason it is an issue is that the gulf between the various factions in the Syrian conflict is so huge that even if they stop killing each other I severely doubt that any UAE style arrangement would be workable. I wish it weren't so but I just don't see it.


Anyway, this is the model that will have to be implemented. If we carve out new countries in the region, the Eastern areas by default are the poorer regions, and economic attrition will only mean that they are even more prone to self destruct, and again, susceptible to undesirable groups.

The only way to keep the country relatively stable is goal congruence. We know what the Kurds want, we know what the rebels want, we even know what the moderate Islamic Front want, and the smaller groups of Druze, Assyrians, Free Alawis etc. and their needs can be met. Creating different principalities with their allegiance to their greater state but autonomy to run themselves will solve a lot of issues. It stops international powers intervening and it keeps these guys running the same track. It also means these guys have a voice and are fairly represented in governance, wholly different to how the Assad family has held onto power for 40 years and killed any voice speaking out.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that but how will that happen with ISIS and similar groups in the mix?
 
The operation to take back the center of Ramadi has started. A part of the city (West of the river) has already been liberated by the Iraqi forces in the last few days.
 
I don't understand USA, they know for sure Turkey is helping ISIS so why they don't do anything? Germany started losing the war when they were short on resources and man power, so lets destroy the oil fields and any trucks moving near the border, this war would be done really fast.

maybe becuase they dont want to destroy isis but cant be so blunt about it ?
 
I don't understand USA, they know for sure Turkey is helping ISIS so why they don't do anything? Germany started losing the war when they were short on resources and man power, so lets destroy the oil fields and any trucks moving near the border, this war would be done really fast.
The US didn't/doesn't want to destroy ISIS. ISIS was created by US's allies (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar) with the US "indirect" support to achieve their political goal. The US only wants to contain ISIS so they don't spiral out of control (i.e. attack targets they were not meant to attack, like the Kurds).

However, Russia's intervention has changed the game a bit now, and has put more pressure on the US to act, because otherwise the US is risking to lose their control in the area, with everybody fighting ISIS turning to Russia for help instead of the US. It's why the US for the first time is now serious about fighting ISIS in Iraq (in Anbar). It's still not serious about fighting it in Syria though.
 
It is conservative in comparison to Dubai but that isn't saying much. And the reason it is an issue is that the gulf between the various factions in the Syrian conflict is so huge that even if they stop killing each other I severely doubt that any UAE style arrangement would be workable. I wish it weren't so but I just don't see it.

Again - it's not the UAE model. I simply used Sharjah as an example of conservative society within a non-conservative one. They are by all accounts conservative. I was there just over 2 weeks ago. You have pockets of non-conservative areas in places like Saudi as well (nothing like Dubai though). Compound areas in Riyadh are liberal, but the greater Riyadh area is similar to Sharjah. Even places in Turkey like Konya are like Sharjah.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that but how will that happen with ISIS and similar groups in the mix?
IS are diminishing rapidly. They're future is looking bleaker by the day and they're getting more and more desperate. I don't see a long future for them.
 
Report: Hundreds of civilians killed in US-led airstrikes on ISIL
August 3, 2015 6:00PM ET

by Jenifer Fenton
A new report by a nonprofit news project found that hundreds of civilians may have been killed in airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, contradicting U.S. authorities, who have acknowledged only two confirmed civilian deaths in the last year.

In 57 incidents, there were as many as 591 reported civilian deaths, according to Airwars, a not-for-profit project by a team of independent journalists. In the report, Airwars counted only deaths in which there was “sufficient publicly available evidence to indicate coalition responsibility.” In addition to noncombatant deaths, some 48 to 80 allied, or friendly, forces may have been killed, according to Airwars.

The Airwars reports said that, according to local news agencies and social media reports, the number of civilians killed is more than 1,000 but there was insufficient detail about those claims to include those deaths in its total.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...ilians-dead-us-coalition-airstrikes-isil.html



U.S.-Led Air Strikes Targeting ISIS Kill 26 Civilians in Syria, Activists Say
Nash Jenkins Dec. 8, 2015

At least 26 Syrian civilians were killed Monday in an air strike suspected to have been conducted by the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), a monitoring group has said.

The U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the strike on the village of al-Khan in Hasakah province killed only civilians, including seven children.
http://time.com/4140046/syria-airstrikes-coalition-civilians/



However, what those articles don't tell is how many civilians those airstrikes saved (collectively), now or in the long term.
 
U.S. Pursued Secret Contacts With Assad Regime for Years.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-pursued-secret-contacts-with-assad-regime-for-years-1450917657

The Obama administration pursued secret communications with elements of Syria’s regime over several years in a failed attempt to limit violence and get President Bashar al-Assad to relinquish power, according to U.S. and Arab officials.

Early on, the U.S. looked for cracks in the regime it could exploit to encourage a military coup, but found few.

The efforts reflect how President Barack Obama’s administration has grappled to understand and interact with an opaque Middle East dictatorship run for 45 years by the Assad family.

Unlike the secret White House back channel to Iran, however, the Syria effort never gained momentum and communication was limited. This account is based on interviews with more than two dozen people, including current and former U.S. officials, Arab officials and diplomats. Most of these contacts haven’t been previously reported.

U.S. officials said communications with the regime came in fits and starts and were focused on specific issues. At times, senior officials spoke directly to each other and at others, they sent messages through intermediaries such as Mr. Assad’s main allies Russia and Iran.

Mr. Assad tried at different times to reach out to the administration to say the U.S. should unite with him to fight terrorism.

In 2011, as the regime began to crack down on protests and soldiers began to peel away from the army, U.S. intelligence officials identified officers from Mr. Assad’s minority Alawite sect who potentially could lead a regime change, according to former U.S. officials and current European officials.

“The White House’s policy in 2011 was to get to the point of a transition in Syria by finding cracks in the regime and offering incentives for people to abandon Assad,” a former senior administration official said.

But regime cohesiveness held, and the crackdown continued.

In August 2011, Mr. Obama publicly called for Mr. Assad to step down.

The administration’s core message never strayed from the U.S. line that Mr. Assad ultimately has to step down. But instead of persuading Mr. Assad to exit, the covert communications may have fed his sense of legitimacy and impunity.

That helped fuel the current wrangling among world powers over the Syrian leader’s future in any settlement. It also hampered the effort to consolidate the international fight against Islamic State.

“We have had times where we’ve said: ‘You could create a better environment for cease-fires if you stop dropping barrel bombs,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “There’s communicating on specific issues,” the official added. “It’s not like Cuba or Iran, where we thought that we would essentially, in a secret bilateral negotiation, resolve the issue.”

Questions sent to the office of Assad adviser Bouthaina Shaaban about communication with the Obama administration were unanswered.

Throughout the conflict, two core elements of the administration’s Syria strategy—political and military pressure on the Assad regime—often hit a wall, forcing repeated shifts in tactics.

“This is a regime that is very supple politically. They’re very smart,” said Robert Ford,former U.S. ambassador to Damascus. “They’re always testing for weaknesses and pushing the envelope.”

By the summer of 2012, the White House strategy of orchestrating regime change had failed. The U.S. moved to support the rebels, but the effort ramped up too slowly.

“Russia doubled down and Iran doubled down, and it didn’t really have an effect,” a former administration official said.

In the summer of 2012, the administration sent warnings, through Russian and Iranian officials, to Mr. Assad not to use chemical weapons on a large scale, U.S. officials have said.

U.S. officials also talked to Syrian counterparts directly. Deputy Secretary of StateWilliam Burns, who retired last year, made two phone calls to Syrian foreign ministerWalid al-Moallem to relay the warnings, U.S. officials said.

Fearing Mr. Assad would still escalate, Mr. Obama drew a public red line on chemical weapons in August 2012. Despite the warnings, sarin attacks in August 2013 killed an estimated 1,400 people. And while Mr. Obama threatened military action in response, he instead cut a deal with the regime to remove its chemical weapons stockpile.

For the next two years, Washington shifted its messaging to Damascus to focus on containing the conflict.

There was another reason to keep communication lines open: Five American citizens remain missing or in detention in Syria. Assistant Secretary of State Anne Patterson has talked with Syrian deputy foreign minister Faisal Mekdad at least twice about their fate.

The Obama administration later shifted gears back to diplomacy to get the Syrian government to the negotiating table.

At the center of that effort was a businessman and confidante of Mr. Assad, Khaled Ahmad, who has served as the Syrian leader’s main interlocutor in recent years with Western officials, including U.S. diplomats. Mr. Ahmad didn’t respond to questions sent by The Wall Street Journal.

“Assad was looking for ways to talk to the White House,” said Joshua Landis, a Syria expert and professor at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Ahmad, a businessman from Homs province, was his point man.

In late 2013, the former ambassador to Damascus Mr. Ford—then a special administration envoy on Syria—met Mr. Ahmad in Geneva ahead of planned peace talks there. Mr. Ford told Mr. Ahmad the U.S. was still seeking a political transition away from Mr. Assad’s rule.

Mr. Ahmad countered that the U.S. and the West should help the Syrian government fight terrorism.

The rise of Islamic State in 2013 caught the U.S. administration off guard. Mr. Assad found in it a better opening to position himself as a partner in a fight against terror consuming the region, and rippling to the West.

By 2014, when the U.S. expanded airstrikes against the militants from Iraq to Syria, State Department officials were making phone calls to their counterparts at the Syrian foreign ministry to make sure Damascus steered clear of U.S. jets in Syrian skies, U.S. officials and others familiar the communications said.

Today, when Washington wants to notify Damascus where it is deploying U.S.-trained Syrian fighters to battle Islamic State so the fighters aren’t mistaken for rebels, Samantha Power, the U.S. envoy to the U.N., dispatches a deputy to talk to the Syrian envoy, Bashar Jaafari, these people said.

The White House says the notifications are not collaboration with the regime. But Mr. Assad has used them to his advantage.

“The regime was re-legitimized,” said Ibrahim Hamidi, a Syrian journalist who until 2013 ran the Damascus bureau for Al Hayat, a major pan-Arab newspaper. “Any communication with the U.S.—even the perception of it—gives them the upper hand.”

This spring, a former senior White House official, Steve Simon, met Mr. Assad in Damascus in a visit initiated and arranged by Mr. Ahmad.

Mr. Simon, who left the White House in 2014, had met Mr. Ahmad at least twice before the Damascus trip, which he portrayed to former colleagues and others as an individual initiative, not made on behalf of the government, according to several people familiar with the meetings.

Mr. Simon portrayed the trip to his former colleagues and others as an individual initiative, made in no formal administration capacity, in response to an invitation by Damascus, those familiar with the meetings said.

He notified former colleagues at the White House and State Department officials of his plans to meet the Syrian leader, these people said. He met former colleagues from the National Security Council, including senior director Robert Malley, before and after his meeting with Mr. Assad.

Mr. Simon outlined steps the regime could immediately take to generate goodwill with the international community: stop dropping barrel bombs; do more to fight Islamic State rather than antigovernment rebels; and cooperate with a United Nations-led effort for local cease-fires.

Mr. Assad responded with familiar talking points, focusing on his fight against terrorism. He showed some openness to local cease-fires on the government’s terms, two people familiar with the meeting said.

In the months that followed, a debate within the White House emerged on whether to redouble U.S. opposition to Mr. Assad or prioritize the Islamic State fight at the expense of the mission to go after the regime.
 
Russia says they have given evidence of Turkey's dealing with IS to France.
 
Another deal will see the 'rebels' (ISIS) evacuate two areas south of Damascus. If completed it will be another big step in the right direction after the deal in Al-Waer.
Hundreds of families of Islamic State militants and some injured fighters are expected to leave rebel-held areas of southern Damascus under a U.N.-brokered deal, a monitoring group said on Thursday.

Safe passage would be given from the Palestinian refugee camp of Yarmouk on the outskirts of Syrian capital and neighbouring Hajar al Aswad, said Rami Abdulraham, head of the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The families and some fighters will be taken to Raqqa in northern Syria, the stronghold of the militant Sunni Islamist group, and other IS-controlled areas over several months, eventually ending the group's presence near Damascus.

Islamic State has had a significant foothold in Hajar al Aswad, just a few kilometres from President Bashar al Assad's seat of power.


Syria's minister for national reconciliation, Ali Haidar, told Reuters that efforts were under way to get militants out of the Yarmouk camp but gave no details.

A U.N. spokesman told reporters in New York: "The U.N. is an observer to the agreement concerning Yarmouk, but not part of it, which we understand should come into effect in the coming few days."

Several local ceasefires and safe-passage agreements have been concluded elsewhere in Syria recently. One, brokered with support from Iran and Turkey, halted fighting in the town of Zabadani on the Lebanese border, and in two villages in northwestern Syria.

A deal was also reached in the last rebel-held district of the Syrian city of Homs that allowed rebels and their families to leave the besieged area. The U.N. said the agreement could help pave the way for a nationwide truce.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-truce-idUKKBN0U713K20151224
 
Last edited:
Here are a few details about the deal in Al-Waer by the way.
The belated evacuation of the al-Waer quarter of the central Syrian city of Homs amounts to a military, political and public relations boost for the Syrian government. It comes as opposition politicians and commanders of mainly fundamentalist armed groups meet in Saudi Arabia for discussions on a ceasefire and creation of a transition authority.

The evacuation of al-Waer, once a populous district of Syria’s third city, should have taken place in May 2014 at a time when elements of the Free Syrian Army and al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra pulled out of the besieged old city of Homs. This did not happen. Government forces could not exert enough pressure on the insurgents to force them out.

The situation has changed since Russia’s war planes began striking insurgent targets in the Homs region on September 30th, enabling the army to exercise greater control of this central province and its major city, dubbed the “hub of the revolution” when unrest erupted in 2011.

Consequently, the first evacuations in the two-month withdrawal plan have been hailed as a victory for Damascus and Moscow. This plus other territorial gains near Aleppo and in the northwest and south could strengthen the government in talks with the opposition due to begin on January 1st.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...-waer-a-boost-for-syrian-government-1.2460810

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said people were leaving in stages under the supervision of the Red Crescent, starting at 4am on Wednesday. Most of the departing fighters are members of Jabhat al-Nusra, Syria’s al-Qaeda branch, and groups sympathetic to Isis, the group said.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65486536-9e6d-11e5-8ce1-f6219b685d74.html#axzz3vH4TNdOm
 
Reports emerging that Zahran Alloush (the leader of Jaysh Al-Islam and a prominent figure in the conflict) and other Jaysh Al-Islam commanders were killed today by a Russian airstrike on Eastern Ghouta (near Damascus).
 
His death has been confirmed now together with 12 other commanders from Jaysh Al-Islam and 7 commanders from Ahrar Al-Sham and Faylaq Al-Rahman (including their leader). They were in a meeting held in a secret location East of Damascus.

It's still unclear though if it was a Russian or a Syrian airstrike, as more sources are stating now that it was actually a Syrian airstrike.

This footage is reported to be for the airstrike.

 
Al-Nusra are also "fighting" IS.

By the way, Zahran Alloush was also one of the "extremists that Assad freed in 2011 to taint the revolution". So damned is you release him, and damned if you kill him... Jeez.
 
IS cheering his death as much as they have done tells you everything. JAI were the biggest group fighting IS.

Just compounds the stupidity of Russia's strategy.

What were their differences with ISIS? They cut infidels' heads from different angles?
 
What were their differences with ISIS? They cut infidels' heads from different angles?
Here is him commending Jabhat Al-Nusra, and explaining how close they're to them and how there are no real ideological differences between them..



By the way, both Al-Nusra and Ahrar Al-Sham has mourned his death. Nice bunch.
 
Change in Electricity Usage in Syria During the Civil war

9u7G6Un.gif
 

What's confusing? He did release a large number of jihadis intent on ensuring the pro-democratic revolution became tainted with radical Islamists. Just like he released prisoners previously to go fight in Iraq with training or assistance from his security services to destabilize Iraq further.
 
What's confusing? He did release a large number of jihadis intent on ensuring the pro-democratic revolution became tainted with radical Islamists. Just like he released prisoners previously to go fight in Iraq with training or assistance from his security services to destabilize Iraq further.
... yet once he kills them, they magically become "moderate".

Also, wasn't "releasing all political prisoners" one of the demands of the protests?
Thousands gathered in and around the Omari mosque in Dara’a, chanting their demands: the release of all political prisoners; trials for those who shot and killed protesters; the abolition of Syria’s 48-year emergency law; more freedoms; and an end to pervasive corruption. “No fear after today,” the crowd chanted, according to witnesses and human rights activists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/middleeast/21syria.html
 
... yet once he kills them, they magically become "moderate".

Also, wasn't "releasing all political prisoners" one of the demands of the protests?


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/middleeast/21syria.html

Terrorists are political prisoners? He was arrested for weapons possession and as a radical Islamist. Is that really a political prisoner? And who said he was moderate? The intent behind releasing Islamist prisoners was to ensure that the world has to choose between Assad or ISIS/Al Nusra/etc. Not between Assad, more moderate groups, and ISIS/Al Nusra/etc.
 
Terrorists are political prisoners? He was arrested for weapons possession and as a radical Islamist. Is that really a political prisoner? And who said he was moderate? The intent behind releasing Islamist prisoners was to ensure that the world has to choose between Assad or ISIS/Al Nusra/etc. Not between Assad, more moderate groups, and ISIS/Al Nusra/etc.
It's what the same Kenneth Roth was implying in his second tweet... In case you missed it, the second tweet said "Killing" him is part of "that strategy".

Besides, his group is one of the main groups the US is trying to include in the negotiations and exclude from the terrorists list, while it's Russia that actually insists on listing them as terrorists.

Glad to see you (finally) agree with Russia on something.