ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Of course the situation benefits Israel.

They have their neighbours killing each other off in a proxy war based in a nation that's historically been a longtime enemy of Israel. Furthermore, having all eyes on Syria/Iraq means Israel can continue their settlement expansion project in Palestinian territories out of the world's spotlight.

Its pretty much a win on all counts for them.
 
@berbatrick

Yes, I have seen that too when I looked it up. These self-advertising corporate histories look impressive at first, but I'm a freelancer myself and my experience is that you have to subtract 75% of the glamour they try to evoke, no matter what field of business. If you read these two people's biographies carefully, everything in them screams 'low level advisers/publicists marketing themselves'. They seem to be reasonably successful academics, that's about it.

Neither of them has his own wikipedia page, but their institute has. And among its few paragraphs is this one:
BESA is one of approximately 35 think tanks in Israel, which, according to Hannah Elka Meyers, typically have little impact on politics or policymaking despite their numbers. She notes in her study that even the heads of Israeli think tanks concede their lack of impact on politics, and quotes Inbar as saying, "We should be modest in our evaluation of the impact of think tanks." Issues that keep Israeli think tanks from being as influential as those in the U.S. include their more academic focus, lack of funding, the nation's political structure, and Israeli citizens' attitudes about government. While BESA staff includes numerous "military men," Meyers notes that the IDF has similar, if not independent research and strategy facilities but with access to classified information.

(Based on this analysis: http://www.meforum.org/2061/does-israel-need-think-tanks )

I could also say something about the article itself and why I think it uses a collage of isolated facts to create a vague impression rather than a stringent argument. But I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a great idea to do it in this thread, since it is detail work on an off topic subject.

So I just restate my impression that these two academics look pretty irrelevant for serious politics, despite the author's efforts to suggest otherwise.

--------------------------

@PedroMendez
That's an accurate description in my view.
 
Fighters emerged too, briefly, before they returned back to their positions in Muadhamiya, an opposition-held suburb close to Darayya, while their future is being negotiated.

Just after they had said their goodbyes to wives, children and parents, they talked in a way that suggested extreme war weariness.

Colleagues who nodded agreement surrounded one of them, an articulate man in his mid-20s.

"We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.

"All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution. Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.

"I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house. Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37315875

Even the BBC (!) is now admitting this.


Pay special attention to the "They lied to us in the name of religion". It really exposes all the propaganda and lies perpetuated in the news for 5 years. It has never been about democracy in Syria. It was just a deliberate lie to cover the real identity of the groups they're backing.
 
Read somewhere that over 80% of the regime's army is made up of Sunnis. There has to be a reason they are still loyal to the regime. My ex girlfriend is a Syrian Christian. The last time I spoke ther well over a year now, she was fully in support of the regime. A lot of the minorities fear what's coming.
 
21 "FSA" fractions (all the main ones including Ahrar Al-Sham, Al-Zinki, Jaish Al-Islam...) released an official statement to announce that they refuse to cut relations or distance themselves from Al-Nusra and that they absolutely oppose and condemn targeting them. :rolleyes: Let's see if Kerry really meant those words now.. They also refused to commit to the ceasefire by the way.

Can't wait for the show the US will put now by pretending to fight Al-Nusra and pretending that they have "defeated them" and that all the remaining fighters in Syria now are "moderate".

This new ceasefire idea is weird. It just doesn´t make any sense. What did Russia and the USA actually agree up on?
Just like in February when the Al-Nusra and co were also on the verge of collapse in Aleppo. The US just want to give them a breather so they can regroup and prevent Aleppo from falling in regime hands, which looked only a matter of time in the last week before the ceasefire.
 
Hope the Russians and Syrian military go all open season on Al Nusra now, the cnuts are no better than ISIS.

I'd wager the Syrian opposite forces would probably collapse without them too, go figure
 
UN says armed Syrian groups blocking Aleppo aid for 'political gain'

The UN has accused armed groups in Syria of blocking the delivery of aid to the besieged city of Aleppo for “political gain” - including rebel factions inside Aleppo itself who say they will reject aid that comes through regime territory.

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-groups-blocking-aid-to-aleppo-for-political/


Another lie busted. This doesn't only expose those crocodile tears but shows you how far those "rebels" are ready to go, even by hurting their own people, just to gain a political advantage.
 
Another glorious week for US involvement in Syria.
 
It's troubling how easily the actions of western nations are glossed over in the western world.
 
The Defense Ministry also confirmed a report by SANA that an ISIL offensive began right after Syrian Army positions were hit from the air.

The actions of the coalition “clearly paved the way for ISIL terrorists to attack the position and take control of it,” the agency said citing the General Command of the Army and Armed Forces.
Excellent work yet again.
 
Seems like a fair and balanced perspective.

Oh come on, the US's intention here has always been to funnel Islamic State towards regime targets. Let's be honest, if they wanted to they'd have destroyed them in a heartbeat, but doing so would strengthen the government's position.

Just like how Turkey has only decided to intervene now to bomb Kurdish targets (under the guise of fighting IS) now that the Kurds are close to completing their northern corridor, the US are equally nervous about the regime taking back Deir Ezzur so low and behold - woops, 80 government troops taken out.
 
Oh come on, the US's intention here has always been to funnel Islamic State towards regime targets. Let's be honest, if they wanted to they'd have destroyed them in a heartbeat, but doing so would strengthen the government's position.

Just like how Turkey has only decided to intervene now to bomb Kurdish targets (under the guise of fighting IS) now that the Kurds are close to completing their northern corridor, the US are equally nervous about the regime taking back Deir Ezzur so low and behold - woops, 80 government troops taken out.
If it's as simple as you claim, this would've been over by now.

Yes, the US played the long game in hoping to bleed the regime dry in Syria. That's one of the worst kept secrets in geopolitics. But actively assisting IS currently when their symbolism is the single most destabilizing force in the West? You're smarter than that.
 
Oh come on, the US's intention here has always been to funnel Islamic State towards regime targets. Let's be honest, if they wanted to they'd have destroyed them in a heartbeat, but doing so would strengthen the government's position.

Just like how Turkey has only decided to intervene now to bomb Kurdish targets (under the guise of fighting IS) now that the Kurds are close to completing their northern corridor, the US are equally nervous about the regime taking back Deir Ezzur so low and behold - woops, 80 government troops taken out.

I think the Iraqi govts decision to ask US forces to leave put a spike in the wheels of their intentions.
 
assalaamu alaykum.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all......It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share....honest accident. ooops. We only had the best intentions. shit happens. We are sorry (really!!). Will happen again, but others are far worse (something human-shields something).
From Washington with love. yours truly.
Obama.
 
If it's as simple as you claim, this would've been over by now.

Yes, the US played the long game in hoping to bleed the regime dry in Syria. That's one of the worst kept secrets in geopolitics. But actively assisting IS currently when their symbolism is the single most destabilizing force in the West? You're smarter than that.
I'm not some conspiracy nut suggesting the US are in cahoots with ISIS, rather that they still consider their presence a necessary evil in the country, if not to destabilise the Iranian and Russian backed Syrian regime. It may be a different matter in Iraq where there are more vested interests in weakening them but I don't think it's outlandish to suggest they're allowed to persist in Syria, until the US backed opposite forces gain some momentum that is.
 
The Russian and the US representatives to the UN exchanged pleasantries at the Security Council meeting, it's getting ugly. Of course I'm biased, but it seems Obama has completely lost the plot.



 
Americans should have just 'accidentally ' bombed assads palace and got it over and done with.
 
*Imagine how often this council would be meeting if we´d gather every-time the USA or its allied nations struck a hospital or a school or a breadline. Imagine we met every time they block vital aid from reaching children that are eating leaves, so that they do not starve to death or who block medicine (...)*

well, probably almost every single day. The pk from Samantha Powers is a disgrace. The amount of cynicism is painful.

*Russia has build itself as the worlds defender against terrorism (...) Assad´s antics, his tactics, his strategy have been a gift to terrorists in Syria and well-beyond*. :wenger::wenger::wenger: Is there any ounce of self-awareness left? How can she have the cheekiness to say something like that in public? She is either schizophrenic, insane or truly evil.

Sometimes I wish she and the rest of these cnuts get hit by a drone-strike. It is so predictable how the USA is bringing up these human-rights phrases. It is mind-boggling that this actually works.
Complaining about double-tap strikes? Complaining about hitting markets or hospitals? Are you fecking insane?

How about making the agreement public. That would be a good start.
 
Last edited:
At least now I know why Americans are the good guys and Russians and Syrians aren't. Americans apologize after the airstrikes that kill the wrong people. Granted, they tend to do it much more often than everybody else but you have to respect such a civilized approach.
 
As much as I'm fine with criticizing the US for their massive contribution to the Syrian bloodbath, the outrage about their conduct seems to hamper the ability to see the whole picture at times.

Two very basic facts are missing in several posts, implicitly or explicitly:
  • It's absolutely impossible to say which attacks are mistakes and which are made on purpose. People usually decide this question according to their personal political agenda. Or simply ignore more inconvenient incidents.
  • Neither Russia nor the Syrian Government are any better, really. Both regarding their actions in this war and the accompanying propaganda. Maybe they are even worse, who's to say?
The level of anti-Americanism in this thread is currently at a level where it seems necessary to remind people of simple truths like that.

Is there any ounce of self-awareness left? How can she have the cheekiness to say something like that in public? She is either schizophrenic, insane or truly evil.

Sometimes I wish she and the rest of these cnuts get hit by drone-strikes. It is so predictable how the USA is bringing up these human-rights phrases.
These guys are professionals. They advertise their wars like a car company would conduct a PR campaign. It's a kind of evil for sure, but nothing new under the sun and no different from everybody else. It's just that every side has their own custom-made justifications.

At least now I know why Americans are the good guys and Russians and Syrians aren't. Americans apologize after the airstrikes that kill the wrong people. Granted, they tend to do it much more often than everybody else but you have to respect such a civilized approach.
Of course they don't.
 
Last edited:
Holding the USA to the same standard, that they apply to other nations is not anti-Americanism. Nowadays even questioning the incredible toxic double standards in international relations, that western countries developed, is considered lunacy.
I have also no idea why anyone would defend war-propaganda of its own government. Do you even realize that this public relations exercise is directed at us and not the world? Nobody the world outside the Western-bubble believes Samantha Power a single word. She is lying to her own citizens to justify actions, that the US government can´t justify by telling the truth. Great.
Now, I have very little sympathy for the Russian government - actually non at all - , but in the case of Syria they are a lot more honest. They want Assad to win at any cost. I have great sympathy for Syrians, who fancy one side or the other regardless of what that might mean for the country. If you are in the country that can be a perfectly reasonable opinion.
The USA on the other hand has contradicting goals (get rid of Assad; fight jihadists) and the consequences is that they don´t want that either side wins. They are doing their best to foster a stalemate. That policy is extremely harmful for everyone who is involved.

The bigger picture is, that the USA with their global war against terrorism, completely failed to achieve their goals and are very much part of the reason why violent Islamic extremism takes roots everywhere. They accidentally helped to spread a local phenomenon around the world with their misguided actions in the last 20 years. The are obviously completely unwilling to admit what they have done; instead they go back to good old cold-war rhetoric and blame Russia.

The thing is:
1) Unless the US government changes its foreign policy, the problem of "global terrorism" will continue to spread
2) The USA won´t change their policy until their own citizens wake up and see what their country has done
3) As long as the US citizens are blind enough to buy into the US propaganda ("just wars to help poor oppressed people around the world"), they will accept these stupendous wars (unless too many GIs die, but with drones they dont).


The mind-bending dishonesty of SP in this press conference really is a new low point.
 
Now, I have very little sympathy for the Russian government - actually non at all - , but in the case of Syria they are a lot more honest. They want Assad to win at any cost. I have great sympathy for Syrians, who fancy one side or the other regardless of what that might mean for the country. If you are in the country that can be a perfectly reasonable opinion.
The USA on the other hand has contradicting goals (get rid of Assad; fight jihadists) and the consequences is that they don´t want that either side wins. They are doing their best to foster a stalemate. That policy is extremely harmful for everyone who is involved.

This is the heart of the current issue. America has no idea what side it's on in Syria, but it's intervening anyway, which means every action, mistake or not, has the effect of prolonging the conflict - and unless you fall for this "aw shucks, we missed" nonsense, that is the only logical policy the US can and is pursuing in Syria.

They're opposed to ISIS, but can't stand to see Iran and Russia achieve some kind of victory, so have to also oppose Asad. They support the Kurds, but are tied to the Kurds' greatest enemy. Due to that alliance and their opposition to Iran and Russia they support the FSA while claiming to oppose their Al-Qaeda allies (overlords might be a better description there).

Every other actor involved knows exactly what its primary interest in Syria is. Five years in, what is America's if not to prolong this?
 
It is very unlikely that the attack was a mistake. The circumstances and the details of the airstrike leave little doubt in that regard.

But anyway, it's ironic that the US is asking Russia to differentiate between Al-Nusra and co (when they're merged together to a degree they gave the US the middle finger when it asked them to distance themselves from them), but they "can't differentiate between two enemies in a stable frontline" (the area they bombed has been under the army control since July).

The bigger picture is, that the USA with their global war against terrorism
:rolleyes:

What global war on terrorism? They (and their allies) created or at least helped create all these groups, and they still openly support the countries and the groups that support and help these terrorist groups. What global war on terrorism?