ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Here, just watch this and it should end this needless discussion..



Of course we all know now that that "coalition to fight extremists" was never a reality, and nothing really changed afterwards.
 
Last edited:
:lol: Are you serious? So we use American sources unless the American sources are too American in which they can't be used? The latter source was actually used to refute your source. What you've presented is circular logic, and doesn't really hold much weight.


I'm not denying IS oil being in Turkey, but it's not an overt gov't sponsored trade. There's certainly no where near as much overt evidence as there is for Assad (who's propping up IS with oil funds).

Illegal black market smuggling with 3rd parties and private Turk individuals, yes. With the gov't not quite.

Putin not long ago accused Erdogan jnr of trading directly which was shown to be quite clearly a false accusation. But it is the norm for him to come out with a lot of shite.

To say the regime is propping ISIS up is ludicrous considering the vast majority of ISIS's victims in Syria are regime soldiers. You can't however dismiss why Turkey are bemusedly letting in oil trucks sourcing from ISIS installations into their borders. I mean you'd assume they'd be able to curtail their movement but it doesn't seem to have stopped. Neither has the dirt on Erdogan Jnr, who's tradings have been sketchy to say the least.
 
Last edited:
It's clear I meant Turk gov't/ Turk oil companies etc in my original post. How could anyone account for the nationalities of black market traders? Use your brain.
Either the government is incompetent or they're in on the action. And it takes a remarkable amount of ignorance to think they're this incompetent. We're not talking about dudes hopping the border with a bag full of oil here, we're talking thousands lorries.
 
Five years after the start of Arab Spring.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/01/daily-chart-8


20160109_mam931.png
 
So now the Russian airstrikes are suddenly making a big difference on the ground?

.
Aye... Between assads army, the Russians and Iran there is going to be very little in the way of a so called moderate rebel option (the Kurds will probably be left alone or even backed by Russia to try and carve out a state to piss turkey off)
The choices will then be to back assad Russia and Iran to take out ISIS or to stand back and let them do it.
 
Aye... Between assads army, the Russians and Iran there is going to be very little in the way of a so called moderate rebel option (the Kurds will probably be left alone or even backed by Russia to try and carve out a state to piss turkey off)
The choices will then be to back assad Russia and Iran to take out ISIS or to stand back and let them do it.

That's been Assad's goal all along. He wanted to create a situation where it's him or ISIS. That's why he's focused on getting rid of the non-ISIS/al-Nusra insurgents first. If they're too weak to resist, he can ignore them. Meanwhile, he will benefit from other people attacking and weakening ISIS before they move to actually combat them. Something like 10% of Russian airstrikes are against ISIS. I'd imagine that the numbers are similar for Assad as well.
 
That's been Assad's goal all along. He wanted to create a situation where it's him or ISIS. That's why he's focused on getting rid of the non-ISIS/al-Nusra insurgents first. If they're too weak to resist, he can ignore them. Meanwhile, he will benefit from other people attacking and weakening ISIS before they move to actually combat them. Something like 10% of Russian airstrikes are against ISIS. I'd imagine that the numbers are similar for Assad as well.
yes and the timing is fortuitous as I cant see Obama overly willing to engage any more actively in the region as he sees out his term which basically gives them a year to take the rebels out of the equation and by that point I imagine Russia / Iran will be so embedded that it will either be a case of join them for joint missions (which Im not sure I can see the states doing) or risk bombing Russian forces as they turn on ISIS and escalating the situation even more (again Im not sure that's a likely option either)
So you will probably end up with a Russian client state on the Turkish border giving heavy backing to the Kurds as they seek to carve out a state.
Vlad is pretty good at this kind of diplomacy isnt he
 
yes and the timing is fortuitous as I cant see Obama overly willing to engage any more actively in the region as he sees out his term which basically gives them a year to take the rebels out of the equation and by that point I imagine Russia / Iran will be so embedded that it will either be a case of join them for joint missions (which Im not sure I can see the states doing) or risk bombing Russian forces as they turn on ISIS and escalating the situation even more (again Im not sure that's a likely option either)
So you will probably end up with a Russian client state on the Turkish border giving heavy backing to the Kurds as they seek to carve out a state.
Vlad is pretty good at this kind of diplomacy isnt he

:drool:
 
yes and the timing is fortuitous as I cant see Obama overly willing to engage any more actively in the region as he sees out his term which basically gives them a year to take the rebels out of the equation and by that point I imagine Russia / Iran will be so embedded that it will either be a case of join them for joint missions (which Im not sure I can see the states doing) or risk bombing Russian forces as they turn on ISIS and escalating the situation even more (again Im not sure that's a likely option either)
So you will probably end up with a Russian client state on the Turkish border giving heavy backing to the Kurds as they seek to carve out a state.
Vlad is pretty good at this kind of diplomacy isnt he

Putin also benefits from bombing the hell out of civilians in Syria because it forces them into Europe where they cause all sorts of problems. Just look at the political fallout from them. It's part of a broader effort to divide Europe, which is why Russia gives support/money to Euro-skeptic parties.
 
Syria 'exterminating detainees' - UN report
_78357043_torture_getty_624.jpg
Image copyrightGetty Images
Image captionTorture, rampant disease and extrajudicial execution claim the lives of many detainees
Displaced Syrians struggle to survive
The Syrian government has carried out a state policy of extermination against thousands of detainees, UN human rights investigators say.

They accuse President Bashar al-Assad's regime of crimes against humanity, in a report for the UN Human Rights Council.

The study says both loyalist and anti-government forces have committed possible war crimes.

Many detainees were tortured, some were beaten to death, and others died from lack of food, water, or medical care.

The findings come from interviews with hundreds of witnesses and cover the period since the start of anti-government protests in March 2011.

The report says thousands of detainees have been killed while in the custody of warring parties during that time.

Syria torture photos 'authentic' - rights group

'How I was tortured in a Syrian jail'

_88165396_09848557-3dac-429e-97d6-4af6d68f0476.jpg
Image copyrightAP
Image captionTorture and executions by so-called Islamic State are routine, the report says
Investigators suspect tens of thousands of people are detained by Syria's government at any one time.

Their report describes the situation of detainees as an "urgent and large-scale crisis of human rights protection".

Survivors' accounts "paint a terrifying picture of the magnitude of the violations taking place," it said.

The civil war in Syria has claimed an estimated 250,000 lives so far.

About 4.6 million people have fled Syria, while another 13.5 million are said to be in need of humanitarian assistance inside the country.

Extract from February 2016 report for UN Human Rights Council

Main detention facilities controlled by the General Intelligence Directorate include Interior Security branch 251 and Investigations branch 285 located in Kafr Soussa, west of central Damascus.

Former detainees described inhuman conditions of detention resulting in frequent custodial deaths.

Officers were observed giving orders to subordinates on methods of torture to be used on detainees.

Corpses were transported by other prisoners through the corridors, sometimes to be kept in the toilets, before being removed from the branch.

Evidence obtained indicates that the superiors of the facilities were regularly informed of the deaths of detainees under their control. Prisoners were transferred to military hospitals before they were buried in mass graves.

Both government and rebel sides are accused of violence against people they detain, the investigators say, but the vast majority are being held by government agencies.

A pattern of arrests since March 2011 targeted Syrian civilians thought to be loyal to the opposition, or simply insufficiently loyal to the government.

Senior government figures clearly knew about and approved of the abuse, says the report entitled Out of Sight: Out of Mind: Deaths in Detention in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Most deaths in detention were documented as occurring in locations controlled by the Syrian intelligence services.

"Government officials intentionally maintained such poor conditions of detention for prisoners as to have been life-threatening, and were aware that mass deaths of detainees would result," UN human rights investigator Sergio Pinheiro said in a statement.

"These actions, in pursuance of a state policy, amount to extermination as a crime against humanity."

Jump media player
Media player help

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Media caption"Sami" recounts the horror of prison in Syria
Torture 'routine'
The report also accused opposition forces of killing captured Syrian soldiers.

Both so-called Islamic State militants and another group, al-Nusra Front, had committed crimes against humanity and war crimes.

IS, the report said, was known to illegally hold a large, unknown number of detainees for extended periods in multiple locations.

It had set up detention centres in which torture and execution are "routine".

Detainees were frequently executed after unauthorised courts issued a death sentence.

Extract from February 2016 report for UN Human Rights Council

In 2014 Syrian authorities informed a woman from Rif Damascus that her husband and two of her sons were dead, all known to have been held in a detention facility controlled by the Military Security.

The family obtained death certificates from Tishreen military hospital, stating that the cause of death of all the three victims was heart attack.

A third son remains unaccounted for.
 
I wouldn´t get my hopes up. Assad already said, that autonomy is not in the cards. Obviously talk is cheap and all, but I wouldn´t be surprised, if the USA and Russia both sell out on the kurds in syria once they don´t have any use for them.

Oh the US had already sold us out decades ago and I wouldn't for minute be naive enough to trust the Russians, but now is as good a time as any to push for statehood. The Iraqi government is in shambles and Assad can barely control most his territory nevermind stop a Kurdish autonomy movement. The only credible threat here are the Turks, but the Russian presence may hopefully act as a buffer to that.
 
Putin also benefits from bombing the hell out of civilians in Syria because it forces them into Europe where they cause all sorts of problems. Just look at the political fallout from them. It's part of a broader effort to divide Europe, which is why Russia gives support/money to Euro-skeptic parties.

Yeah, it was clearly Putin who created the refugee problem in Europe. Those millions of refugees that had already been in various camps in Turkey and other places by the time Russians started their military operation in Syria four moths ago, it's obviously all his fault. Of course, there may be an argument to be had that freeing the towns and cities from terrorists that Syrian army is currently doing with Russian help will actually allow thousands of people to go back to the places they had to flee. But no, it's all about horrible Putin and terrible Russians. If only they didn't interfere, everything was going to work itself out in Syria.
 
Oh the US had already sold us out decades ago and I wouldn't for minute be naive enough to trust the Russians, but now is as good a time as any to push for statehood. The Iraqi government is in shambles and Assad can barely control most his territory nevermind stop a Kurdish autonomy movement. The only credible threat here are the Turks, but the Russian presence may hopefully act as a buffer to that.

I more or less agree. Turkey shooting down the Russian jet was the best thing that could have happened for the Kurds (quite cynical, I know). I am just not sure how long Russia cares about Turkey´s actions once Assad is in control of the majority of the country.
 
Yeah, it was clearly Putin who created the refugee problem in Europe. Those millions of refugees that had already been in various camps in Turkey and other places by the time Russians started their military operation in Syria four moths ago, it's obviously all his fault. Of course, there may be an argument to be had that freeing the towns and cities from terrorists that Syrian army is currently doing with Russian help will actually allow thousands of people to go back to the places they had to flee. But no, it's all about horrible Putin and terrible Russians. If only they didn't interfere, everything was going to work itself out in Syria.

I don't think sir Matt is saying that everything is Putin's fault, but you can't deny that the actions are exasperating an already fecked situation.

Don't take those words out of context, I know and accept that there are many actors who are making the situation for refugees worse, that includes opposition forces and European nations and gulf arabs as well.
 
That's been Assad's goal all along. He wanted to create a situation where it's him or ISIS. That's why he's focused on getting rid of the non-ISIS/al-Nusra insurgents first. If they're too weak to resist, he can ignore them. Meanwhile, he will benefit from other people attacking and weakening ISIS before they move to actually combat them. Something like 10% of Russian airstrikes are against ISIS. I'd imagine that the numbers are similar for Assad as well.
I love it when you post in this thread. Try to watch the video I posted above. Can you find it or should I post it again?

I love how when your plans go tits up, you still have the nerves to try and blame it on on your political opponents. ISIS was created by your allies to topple Assad (with you secretly helping/hoping that it will work), and then the moment it fails and spirals out of control (like it did in Afghanistan before) now you have the nerve to try and blame it on Assad?! The propaganda dose is pretty high in this one Sir Matt, even for you.

By the way, have you now absorbed the shock of realising that Assad is making a lot of progress against ISIS too? Did you dare to check any other sources other than the one-sided propaganda you're used to following? Or you still think I'm posting wrong maps from a random twitter guy? ;)

Also, "not attacking Al-Nusra"? You're hilarious.
 
Aye... Between assads army, the Russians and Iran there is going to be very little in the way of a so called moderate rebel option (the Kurds will probably be left alone or even backed by Russia to try and carve out a state to piss turkey off)
The choices will then be to back assad Russia and Iran to take out ISIS or to stand back and let them do it.
We can discuss the "moderate" rebels "options"/joke if you want *ahm division 30 ahm*, but that's not the point I was making in the post you quoted. A month ago the propaganda was going with "No progress on the ground as the Russian airstrikes prove futile", and now suddenly "How can we have negotiations when the Russian airstrikes is routing the "rebels" like that?!!". That's the sudden change I was referring to.
 
Either the government is incompetent or they're in on the action. And it takes a remarkable amount of ignorance to think they're this incompetent. We're not talking about dudes hopping the border with a bag full of oil here, we're talking thousands lorries.
Lol - so we've gone full circle now. Another example of your circular logic - reread my first post on the matter.

Also - can you validate your claim on 'thousands of lorries'?

Here's some additional information so you don't come across so foolish:

Almost all oil is transported via the use of oil tankers. Do you know what an oil tanker looks like?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=o..._ejKAhWFnQ4KHYUYDp8Q_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=667
Now, the only way oil can be transported into Turkey is via the use of bus or cargo trucks. Do you want to wager a guess between the difference in litre capacity between an oil tanker and a cargo truck? In fact, here's a link to what cargo trucks look like: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=o...IBygB&biw=1366&bih=667#tbm=isch&q=cargo+truck
The use of trucks is the only way it can be smuggled into Turkey.

Let me help you out: oil tankers traditionally carry 26-28 tonnes of oil. A truck can carry maximum 1500 litres. The reason why this is important information is that even if the govt was benefiting from the black market oil trade (which it isn't), it would be the most stupidest thing to do it in such a minute and insignificant quantity. It would make no real tangible difference to their trade or profits as the amount is to tiny. Also - due to oil regulation in Turkey,

So - to be clear - there is smuggling of black market oil, but no way near on the scale you've mentioned. And in no way shape or form are the Turkish govt profiting off of it, or 'in the know', or whatever other baseless allegation you want to make. In fact, IS prefer selling to Jordan and Iran as they are able to ship via oil tankers there and it's more profitable for them then a few lorries of 1500 litres of oil. Secondly, IS oil is low quality oil. The amounts we're talking here do not make it viable for Turkey when you have to factor in the cost of refining, and purification. It's just not economically viable. Turkey buys 99% of its energy (oil included) from Russia anyway but are looking towards Qatar and Azerbaijan now that the relationship isn't as good. And if Turkey was buying IS oil by the shedload (which it isn't), don't you think there would be some concrete proof? Most of the oil sold is to the Syrian govt anyway. The only oil that Turkey is buying from that region is from the Kurdish Regional Govt via the Kirkuk Ceyhan pipeline. And going back to smuggling - the black market oil trade / smuggling has been going on for decades, it's not a nascent thing.

Here's some more info for you to chew on:

The militants control around half a dozen oil-producing oilfields. They were quickly able to make them operational and then tapped into established trading networks across northern Iraq, where smuggling has been a fact of life for years. From early July until late October, most of this oil went to Iraqi Kurdistan. The self-proclaimed Islamic caliphate sold oil to Kurdish traders at a major discount. From Kurdistan, the oil was resold to Turkish and Iranian traders. These profits helped Isis pay its burgeoning wages bill: $500 (£320) a month for a fighter, and about $1,200 for a military commander.

In summary, chat shit get banged.
 
Watch the video I posted above.

Wait wait wait wait...

You should be well aware that there's a difference between what governments say officially (about their allies in this case, you really think they're gonna be blunt about it?) and what the truth is, especially in war scenarios.

Yea, Danny boi.
 
Lol - so we've gone full circle now. Another example of your circular logic - reread my first post on the matter.

Also - can you validate your claim on 'thousands of lorries'?

Here's some additional information so you don't come across so foolish:

Almost all oil is transported via the use of oil tankers. Do you know what an oil tanker looks like?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=o..._ejKAhWFnQ4KHYUYDp8Q_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=667
Now, the only way oil can be transported into Turkey is via the use of bus or cargo trucks. Do you want to wager a guess between the difference in litre capacity between an oil tanker and a cargo truck? In fact, here's a link to what cargo trucks look like: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=o...IBygB&biw=1366&bih=667#tbm=isch&q=cargo+truck
The use of trucks is the only way it can be smuggled into Turkey.

Let me help you out: oil tankers traditionally carry 26-28 tonnes of oil. A truck can carry maximum 1500 litres. The reason why this is important information is that even if the govt was benefiting from the black market oil trade (which it isn't), it would be the most stupidest thing to do it in such a minute and insignificant quantity. It would make no real tangible difference to their trade or profits as the amount is to tiny. Also - due to oil regulation in Turkey,

So - to be clear - there is smuggling of black market oil, but no way near on the scale you've mentioned. And in no way shape or form are the Turkish govt profiting off of it, or 'in the know', or whatever other baseless allegation you want to make. In fact, IS prefer selling to Jordan and Iran as they are able to ship via oil tankers there and it's more profitable for them then a few lorries of 1500 litres of oil. Secondly, IS oil is low quality oil. The amounts we're talking here do not make it viable for Turkey when you have to factor in the cost of refining, and purification. It's just not economically viable. Turkey buys 99% of its energy (oil included) from Russia anyway but are looking towards Qatar and Azerbaijan now that the relationship isn't as good. And if Turkey was buying IS oil by the shedload (which it isn't), don't you think there would be some concrete proof? Most of the oil sold is to the Syrian govt anyway. The only oil that Turkey is buying from that region is from the Kurdish Regional Govt via the Kirkuk Ceyhan pipeline. And going back to smuggling - the black market oil trade / smuggling has been going on for decades, it's not a nascent thing.

Here's some more info for you to chew on:



In summary, chat shit get banged.
http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/isis-oil/

So you're telling me the Financial Times know more about the Turkish borders than the Turkish government?
 
Point is the Turkish government is fine with ISIS. That's really beyond any doubt at this point.
So, when I said inaction ages ago, and you decided to try and point out that the Turkish govt trades directly with IS, and then you were proven wrong, but instead of just having a bit of humility you scrambled to glibly type any thought that came across your mind...

you know what, forget it. I accept your apology.
 
So, when I said inaction ages ago, and you decided to try and point out that the Turkish govt trades directly with IS, and then you were proven wrong, but instead of just having a bit of humility you scrambled to glibly type any thought that came across your mind...

you know what, forget it. I accept your apology.
I'm really not sure why you're finding it so difficult to accept that a government as corrupt as Turkey's would want it's finger in the oil pie. Here's yet more non-Russian allegations, compiled by a Columbia University researcher who knows even more about the region than you do (as hard as your almighty self will find that concept): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-turkey-isi_b_8808024.html
 
I'm really not sure why you're finding it so difficult to accept that a government as corrupt as Turkey's would want it's finger in the oil pie. Here's yet more non-Russian allegations, compiled by a Columbia University researcher who knows even more about the region than you do (as hard as your almighty self will find that concept): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-turkey-isi_b_8808024.html
From the opening paragraph:

Researchers focus on secondary media sources. This research paper cites relevant reports.
lol

It is apparent, however, that Turkey turned a blind eye to ISIS oil trade.
This is literally (not quite literally) what I said ages ago. But you couldn't accept that. And now you want to try and move the goalposts to fit your narrative...your old narrative was the Turkish govt is explicitly trading with IS.
There is no "smoking gun" linking the Government of Turkey or Erdogan directly to ISIS oil sales.

We're done here.
 
From the opening paragraph:


lol


This is literally (not quite literally) what I said ages ago. But you couldn't accept that. And now you want to try and move the goalposts to fit your narrative...your old narrative was the Turkish govt is explicitly trading with IS.


We're done here.
That's one of the allegations, plenty more if you keep reading. It's the minimum wrong they've done, like saying Tony Blair didn't outright lie about WMD's, when everyone knows he did.
 
That's one of the allegations, plenty more if you keep reading.
A baseless allegation, that is easily refuted...but you're too obstinate to just stop, right? This just highlights you're bias, trying to force a make believe narrative, and your misreading of quite a clear subject (which you've done before, remember?) Anyway, as always, this conversation as far as I'm concerned is done.
 
A baseless allegation, that is easily refuted...but you're too obstinate to just stop, right? This just highlights you're bias, trying to force a make believe narrative, and your misreading of quite a clear subject (which you've done before, remember?) Anyway, as always, this conversation as far as I'm concerned is done.
Not to mention allegations that Turkey helps ISIS smuggle weapons. Reuters a good enough source for you? But no, it's just a blind eye. Definitely nothing else happening.
 
America’s Syrian Shame.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/opinion/americas-syrian-shame.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Putin policy in Syria is clear enough as the encirclement of rebel-held Aleppo proceeds and tens of thousands more Syrians flee toward the Turkish border. It is to entrench the brutal government of Bashar al-Assad by controlling the useful part of Syrian territory, bomb the moderate opposition into submission, block any possibility of Western-instigated regime change, use diplomatic blah-blah in Geneva as cover for changing the facts on the ground and, maybe fifth or sixth down the list, strengthen the Syrian Army to the point it may one day confront the murderous jihadist stronghold of the Islamic State.

The troubling thing is that the Putin policy on Syria has become hard to distinguish from the Obama policy.

Sure, the Obama administration still pays lip service to the notion that Assad is part of the problem and not the solution, and that if the Syrian leader survives through some political transition period he cannot remain beyond that. But these are words. It is President Vladimir Putin and Russia who are “making the weather” in Syria absent any corresponding commitment or articulable policy from President Obama.

Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, is now virtually encircled by the Syrian Army. A war that has already produced a quarter of a million dead, more than 4.5 million refugees, some 6.5 million internally displaced individuals and the destabilization of Europe through a massive influx of terrorized people is about to see further abominations as Aleppo agonizes.

Aleppo may prove to be the Sarajevo of Syria. It is already the Munich.

By which I mean that the city’s plight today — its exposure to Putin’s whims and a revived Assad’s pitiless designs — is a result of the fecklessness and purposelessness over almost five years of the Obama administration. The president and his aides have hidden at various times behind the notions that Syria is marginal to core American national interests; that they have thought through the downsides of intervention better than others; that the diverse actors on the ground are incomprehensible or untrustworthy; that there is no domestic or congressional support for taking action to stop the war or shape its outcome; that there is no legal basis for establishing “safe areas” or taking out Assad’s air power; that Afghanistan and Iraq are lessons in the futility of projecting American power in the 21st century; that Syria will prove Russia’s Afghanistan as it faces the ire of the Sunni world; and that the only imperative, whatever the scale of the suffering or the complete evisceration of American credibility, must be avoidance of another war in the Middle East.

Where such feeble evasions masquerading as strategy lead is to United States policy becoming Putin’s policy in Syria, to awkward acquiescence to Moscow’s end game and to embarrassed shrugs encapsulating the wish that — perhaps, somehow, with a little luck — Putin may crush ISIS.

Obama’s Syrian agonizing, his constant what-ifs and recurrent “what then?” have also lead to the slaughter in Paris and San Bernardino. They have contributed to a potential unraveling of the core of the European Union as internal borders eliminated on a free continent are re-established as a response to an unrelenting refugee tide — to which the United States has responded by taking in around 2,500 Syrians since 2012, or about 0.06 percent of the total.

“The Syrian crisis is now a European crisis,” a senior European diplomat told me. “But the president is not interested in Europe.” That is a fair assessment of the first postwar American leader for whom the core trans-Atlantic alliance was something to be dutifully upheld rather than emotionally embraced.

Syria is now the Obama administration’s shame, a debacle of such dimensions that it may overshadow the president’s domestic achievements.

Obama’s decision in 2013, at a time when ISIS scarcely existed, not to uphold the American “red line” on Assad’s use of chemical weapons was a pivotal moment in which he undermined America’s word, incurred the lasting fury of Sunni Persian Gulf allies, shored up Assad by not subjecting him to serious one-off punitive strikes and opened the way for Putin to determine Syria’s fate.

Putin policy is American policy because the United States has offered no serious alternative. As T.S. Eliot wrote after Munich in 1938, “We could not match conviction with conviction, we had no ideas with which we could either meet or oppose the ideas opposed to us.” Syria has been the bloody graveyard of American conviction.

It is too late, as well as pure illusion, to expect significant change in Obama’s Syria policy. Aleppo’s agony will be drawn out. But the president should at least do everything in his power, as suggested in a reportprepared by Michael Ignatieff at the Harvard Kennedy School, to “surge” the number of Syrian refugees taken in this year to 65,000 from his proposed 10,000. As the report notes, “If we allow fear to dictate policy, terrorists win.”

Putin already has.
 
Canada set to cease air strikes against Isis as Justin Trudeau says Syrians ‘need our help – not our vengeance’
'The people terrorised by Isil every day don't need our vengeance, they need our help'
blank.gif



Canada is set to cease air strikes against Isis by the end of February but will increase its humanitarian aid contributions to the region instead.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who was elected to office in November, said his government will end its bombing missions in the war-torn region by 22 February with six fighter jets being withdrawn. Canada will, however, keep two surveillance planes in the region and triple the number of soldiers training Kurdish troops in northern Iraq.

"In any mission, you need to make choices. We can't do everything. In our decision, we were guided by our desire to do what we could do best to help in the region and to do it in the right way," Mr Trudeau said during a news conference in Ottawa.

"The people terrorised by Isil every day don't need our vengeance, they need our help."

The Conservative opposition leader Rona Ambrose accused the Liberal administration of "taking a shameful step backward" from the fight against "the greatest terror threat in the world." Canadian bombing of the region began in April 2015 while the Canadian Conservatives were in power.

The Liberal leader had pledged during his election campaign last year to end the air strikes against the so-called Islamic State. He described the decision on Monday to cease bombing as being good for achieving “short-term military and territorial gains” but not for “long-term stability for local communities”.

In doing so, however, Mr Trudeau is going against public opinion. Two-thirds of Canadians polled recently supported or wanted to extend its support in the US-led bombing coalition, in the wake of extremist attacks in Jakarta and in Bukina Faso that killed seven Canadians in January.

The Liberal government will also contribute more than $1.6bn over three years to bolster security, stabilization and humanitarian aid to the region, including increasing counterterrorism efforts in neighbouring Lebanon and Jordan.

Justin Trudeau: Canada's next Prime Minister
The Prime Minister added: “We know Canada is stronger, much stronger, than the threat posed by a murderous gang of thugs who are terrorizing some of the most vulnerable people on Earth.

"Call us old-fashioned, but we think that we ought to avoid doing precisely what our enemies want us to do. They want us to elevate them, to give in to fear, to indulge in hatred, to eye one another with suspicion and to take leave of our faculties.”

President Barack Obama "welcomed Canada's current and new contributions to coalition efforts and highlighted Canada's leadership in the coalition," the White House said in a statement.