Of course, but not in Syria, it's not a major oil state.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Of course, but not in Syria, it's not a major oil state.
Dr. Dwayne
Self proclaimed tagline king.
Of course, but not in Syria, it's not a major oil state.
There was some talk once about pipelines and Mediterranean (read Syrian) ports but I don't know if that was the tinfoil hatters or a legitimate idea in the region.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
There was some talk once about pipelines and Mediterranean (read Syrian) ports but I don't know if that was the tinfoil hatters or a legitimate idea in the region.
Yeah that is actually one of the reasons the state of Jordan exists today. But I don't thinkanyway, the Americans tend to divide the Middle East between the Levant and the Gulf in their heads. Since the 70s, the Gulf has been far more important for them because, as you say, of the oil. That's where they've committed their troops and money and gone about their 'regime change' adventure. In contrast, in the Levant they've relied on Israel and its alliance with Egypt to maintain stability - which is the extent of their interest there - and have never really considered the Assad regime anything more than irritating. Syria just doesn't come close to being as vital an interest for the Americans as Iraq, Iran or Saudi Arabia, the major players in the Gulf.
antihenry
CAF GRU Rep
http://in.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idINKCN11W2NZ
The collapse of the latest Syria ceasefire has heightened the possibility that Gulf states might arm Syrian rebels with shoulder-fired missiles to defend themselves against Syrian and Russian warplanes, U.S. officials said on Monday.
....................
One consequence of the latest diplomatic failure may be that Gulf Arab states or Turkey could step up arms supplies to rebel factions, including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, something the United States has largely prevented until now.
One U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss American policy, said Washington has kept large numbers of such man-portable air defence systems, or MANPADS, out of Syria by uniting Western and Arab allies behind channelling training and infantry weapons to moderate opposition groups while it pursued talks with Moscow.
But frustration with Washington has intensified, raising the possibility that Gulf allies or Turkey will no longer continue to follow the U.S. lead or will turn a blind eye to wealthy individuals looking to supply MANPADS to opposition groups.
"The Saudis have always thought that the way to get the Russians to back off is what worked in Afghanistan 30 years ago – negating their air power by giving MANPADS to the mujahideen," said a second U.S. official.
"So far, we’ve been able to convince them that the risks of that are much higher today because we’re not dealing with a Soviet Union in retreat, but a Russian leader who’s bent on rebuilding Russian power and less likely to flinch," this official said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The collapse of the latest Syria ceasefire has heightened the possibility that Gulf states might arm Syrian rebels with shoulder-fired missiles to defend themselves against Syrian and Russian warplanes, U.S. officials said on Monday.
....................
One consequence of the latest diplomatic failure may be that Gulf Arab states or Turkey could step up arms supplies to rebel factions, including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, something the United States has largely prevented until now.
One U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss American policy, said Washington has kept large numbers of such man-portable air defence systems, or MANPADS, out of Syria by uniting Western and Arab allies behind channelling training and infantry weapons to moderate opposition groups while it pursued talks with Moscow.
But frustration with Washington has intensified, raising the possibility that Gulf allies or Turkey will no longer continue to follow the U.S. lead or will turn a blind eye to wealthy individuals looking to supply MANPADS to opposition groups.
"The Saudis have always thought that the way to get the Russians to back off is what worked in Afghanistan 30 years ago – negating their air power by giving MANPADS to the mujahideen," said a second U.S. official.
"So far, we’ve been able to convince them that the risks of that are much higher today because we’re not dealing with a Soviet Union in retreat, but a Russian leader who’s bent on rebuilding Russian power and less likely to flinch," this official said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Organic Potatoes
Full Member
And as a sidebar, decreasing reliance on Saudi oil is part of what's driving US policy in the region. Neither the Sauds nor Israel are very happy about thatYeah that is actually one of the reasons the state of Jordan exists today. But I don't thinkanyway, the Americans tend to divide the Middle East between the Levant and the Gulf in their heads. Since the 70s, the Gulf has been far more important for them because, as you say, of the oil. That's where they've committed their troops and money and gone about their 'regime change' adventure. In contrast, in the Levant they've relied on Israel and its alliance with Egypt to maintain stability - which is the extent of their interest there - and have never really considered the Assad regime anything more than irritating. Syria just doesn't come close to being as vital an interest for the Americans as Iraq, Iran or Saudi Arabia, the major players in the Gulf.
MoBeats
Conspiracy Buff
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2005
- Messages
- 3,074
Why can't America just, I don't know, buy oil from the countries that own it?
I know it's pretty "out there" as a concept, but what's with the "having to fecking steal it" all the time, thing?
I know it's pretty "out there" as a concept, but what's with the "having to fecking steal it" all the time, thing?
PedroMendez
Acolyte
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
http://mobil.ksta.de/politik/interv...amerikaner-stehen-auf-unserer-seite--24802176
Interview with Abu Al Ezz from the Al-Nusra. "The Americans are on our side and are supporting the governments which then provide support to us."
Die sind alle mit uns. Wir alle sind die „Al Nusra-Front“. Eine Gruppe wird gebildet und nennt sich „Islamische Armee“, oder „Fateh Al Scham“. Jede Gruppe hat einen eignen Namen, doch der Glaube ist einheitlich. Der generelle Name ist „Al Nusra-Front“. Eine Person hat z.B. 2000 Kämpfer. Dann bildet sie aus dieser eine neue Gruppe heraus und nennt diese „Ahrar Al Scham“. Brüder, deren Glaube, Gedanken und Ziele identisch mit der „Al Nusra-Front“ sind.
Basically what you mentioned earlier, 2cents, in regards to their structure, various groups with their own leaders but operating under the Al Nusra umbrella.
Is this the same interview? - https://www.rt.com/news/360690-us-arms-nusra-syria/
Apparently it's fake, the Nusra member is a regime actor. At least that's what some credible enough (IMO) figures are saying on Twitter.
PedroMendez
Acolyte
2mufc0
Everything is fair game in capitalism!
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,936
- Supports
- Dragon of Dojima
Why would Russians be worried about that then? They've been arming their own rebels with anti air missiles to shoot down civilian planes.http://in.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idINKCN11W2NZ
The collapse of the latest Syria ceasefire has heightened the possibility that Gulf states might arm Syrian rebels with shoulder-fired missiles to defend themselves against Syrian and Russian warplanes, U.S. officials said on Monday.
....................
One consequence of the latest diplomatic failure may be that Gulf Arab states or Turkey could step up arms supplies to rebel factions, including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, something the United States has largely prevented until now.
One U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss American policy, said Washington has kept large numbers of such man-portable air defence systems, or MANPADS, out of Syria by uniting Western and Arab allies behind channelling training and infantry weapons to moderate opposition groups while it pursued talks with Moscow.
But frustration with Washington has intensified, raising the possibility that Gulf allies or Turkey will no longer continue to follow the U.S. lead or will turn a blind eye to wealthy individuals looking to supply MANPADS to opposition groups.
"The Saudis have always thought that the way to get the Russians to back off is what worked in Afghanistan 30 years ago – negating their air power by giving MANPADS to the mujahideen," said a second U.S. official.
"So far, we’ve been able to convince them that the risks of that are much higher today because we’re not dealing with a Soviet Union in retreat, but a Russian leader who’s bent on rebuilding Russian power and less likely to flinch," this official said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Nucks
RT History Department
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,462
The US is on the wrong side of history on this one.
Like Assad or not, he is the legal head of the legal government in Syria. The US is currently supporting directly and indirectly both Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria via direct support through armaments and by targeting SAA forces.
The US broke the ceasefire by bombing the SAA and killing what, 60 soldiers? Russia is involved because Syria is a Russian ally and Syria has invited Russia to assist them.
It doesn't matter how bias you are, and how much you dislike Russia or Putin. Russia in in the right on this one, and the US is so far in the wrong it's almost comical to pretend otherwise.
Like Assad or not, he is the legal head of the legal government in Syria. The US is currently supporting directly and indirectly both Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria via direct support through armaments and by targeting SAA forces.
The US broke the ceasefire by bombing the SAA and killing what, 60 soldiers? Russia is involved because Syria is a Russian ally and Syria has invited Russia to assist them.
It doesn't matter how bias you are, and how much you dislike Russia or Putin. Russia in in the right on this one, and the US is so far in the wrong it's almost comical to pretend otherwise.
The US is on the wrong side of history on this one.
Like Assad or not, he is the legal head of the legal government in Syria. The US is currently supporting directly and indirectly both Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria via direct support through armaments and by targeting SAA forces.
The US broke the ceasefire by bombing the SAA and killing what, 60 soldiers? Russia is involved because Syria is a Russian ally and Syria has invited Russia to assist them.
It doesn't matter how bias you are, and how much you dislike Russia or Putin. Russia in in the right on this one, and the US is so far in the wrong it's almost comical to pretend otherwise.
This of course selectively omits the reality that Syria is a failed state with a large section of its land mass reapportioned to the Caliphate, and another fraction in dispute to a variety of other factions. Oh, and Putin is of course extremely righteous and in it exclusively for altruistic reasons unrelated to ginning up a dust storm of nationalism back home to obfuscate from years of corruption.
VidaRed
Unimaginative FC
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 29,603
This of course selectively omits the reality that Syria is a failed state with a large section of its land mass reapportioned to the Caliphate, and another fraction in dispute to a variety of other factions. Oh, and Putin is of course extremely righteous and in it exclusively for altruistic reasons unrelated to ginning up a dust storm of nationalism back home to obfuscate from years of corruption.
Because of the actions of the us govt.
Because of the actions of the us govt.
No its because of the Arab Spring. Assad started this.
Kaos
Full Member
The US is on the wrong side of history on this one.
Like Assad or not, he is the legal head of the legal government in Syria. The US is currently supporting directly and indirectly both Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria via direct support through armaments and by targeting SAA forces.
The US broke the ceasefire by bombing the SAA and killing what, 60 soldiers? Russia is involved because Syria is a Russian ally and Syria has invited Russia to assist them.
It doesn't matter how bias you are, and how much you dislike Russia or Putin. Russia in in the right on this one, and the US is so far in the wrong it's almost comical to pretend otherwise.
Good post.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
This was written by Patrick Seale in 1965:
“It is as a mirror of rival interests on an international scale that Syria deserves special attention. Indeed, her internal affairs are almost meaningless unless related to the wider context, first of her Arab neighbors and then of other interested powers. It is no accident that Syria should reflect in her internal political structure the rivalries of her neighbors since, as I hope to show, whoever would lead the Middle East must control her.”
Replace "Arab neighbors" with "Muslim neighbors" for the 2016 version.
“It is as a mirror of rival interests on an international scale that Syria deserves special attention. Indeed, her internal affairs are almost meaningless unless related to the wider context, first of her Arab neighbors and then of other interested powers. It is no accident that Syria should reflect in her internal political structure the rivalries of her neighbors since, as I hope to show, whoever would lead the Middle East must control her.”
Replace "Arab neighbors" with "Muslim neighbors" for the 2016 version.
2mufc0
Everything is fair game in capitalism!
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,936
- Supports
- Dragon of Dojima
Everyone seems to be ignoring this simple truth, if Assad stood down rather than shooting unarmed civilians this war wouldn't even be happening.No its because of the Arab Spring. Assad started this.
Everyone seems to be ignoring this simple truth, if Assad stood down rather than shooting unarmed civilians this war wouldn't even be happening.
At a minimum, if he stood down and the Russians were on board with a UN peacekeeping force, the establishment of a provisional government, and a three year road map towards a constitution and elections. Plenty of time to get rid of ISIS and work with all redeemable factions to form a unity government. That obviously wouldn't sit well with with the Russians or Assad, but the reality is there is no future in Syria for Assad and Putin will ditch him like a hot potato if he thinks he can leverage his Syria adventure into western sanctions relief elsewhere.
PedroMendez
Acolyte
That was soooo successful in Iraq, Libya, Haiti and Afghanistan, that we really need to repeat the same mistakes in Syrian. That makes a lot of sense. Additionally nobody, who has power on the ground, would agree to form a government of national unity anyway. The whole idea is absurd.
antihenry
CAF GRU Rep
U.S. seen ending Syria diplomacy with Russia, mulls options.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKCN11Z22P?il=0
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKCN11Z22P?il=0
That was soooo successful in Iraq, Libya, Haiti and Afghanistan, that we really need to repeat the same mistakes in Syrian. That makes a lot of sense. Additionally nobody, who has power on the ground, would agree to form a government of national unity anyway. The whole idea is absurd.
You obviously don't have any viable ideas or solutions. The current situation is obviously not sustainable and Assad is never going to regain control of the country without an eternal insurgency that is obsessed with deposing him. The only realistic path forward therefore is a UN brokered peacekeeping force with the buy in of both the Russians and Americans (and the rest of the SC).
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
Article by a native of Mosul on the city's predicament and the coming battle to liberate it:
The Once and Future Mosul
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/09/26/the-once-and-future-mosul/
God help any American or other foreigner who may come to have a hand in trying to govern Mosul after its liberation, if they think that there is only one kind of resident in Mosul, one kind of Muslim, or one kind of anything else. The place is just not that simple, and missing the details is bound to end in tears for everyone...
...Mosul’s Sunnis will not embrace the rituals of Ashura, and Shi‘a from Karbala will not accept “Ta-ra-weeh” prayers during Ramadan. Mosul does not await the Hidden Imam, and Najaf does not consider “Mu‘awiyah” a reverent companion of the prophet. These communal convictions will not change, and need not change. Until Iraqis realize that such differences are manageable, it would be wise not to raise banners that tout Al-Hussein’s vengeance in the center of Mosul. “Liberation” might then be confused for “subjugation.” Instead of injecting sectarian triumphalism into a dynamic situation, it would be much better to keep the focus on the Islamic State’s failure to win over Moslawis, and so let “the Caliphate” be Mosul’s final “Never Again.”
The Once and Future Mosul
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/09/26/the-once-and-future-mosul/
God help any American or other foreigner who may come to have a hand in trying to govern Mosul after its liberation, if they think that there is only one kind of resident in Mosul, one kind of Muslim, or one kind of anything else. The place is just not that simple, and missing the details is bound to end in tears for everyone...
...Mosul’s Sunnis will not embrace the rituals of Ashura, and Shi‘a from Karbala will not accept “Ta-ra-weeh” prayers during Ramadan. Mosul does not await the Hidden Imam, and Najaf does not consider “Mu‘awiyah” a reverent companion of the prophet. These communal convictions will not change, and need not change. Until Iraqis realize that such differences are manageable, it would be wise not to raise banners that tout Al-Hussein’s vengeance in the center of Mosul. “Liberation” might then be confused for “subjugation.” Instead of injecting sectarian triumphalism into a dynamic situation, it would be much better to keep the focus on the Islamic State’s failure to win over Moslawis, and so let “the Caliphate” be Mosul’s final “Never Again.”
Mihajlovic
Its Baltic!
You obviously don't have any viable ideas or solutions. The current situation is obviously not sustainable and Assad is never going to regain control of the country without an eternal insurgency that is obsessed with deposing him. The only realistic path forward therefore is a UN brokered peacekeeping force with the buy in of both the Russians and Americans (and the rest of the SC).
I think that it's those who supported Assad's overthrow who never had any viable ideas or solutions. Who did you want to replace him with? I seriously don't know. All I saw was a bunch of bearded 'moderate rebels' determined to kill Alawites and whoever else sided with Assad and that's just about it. This bullshit Syrian revolution in my view is nothing but an externally supported violent action with only one goal, to get rid of Assad by using Sunni fanatics, who by the way have zero understanding nor interest in this insane, abstract thing called 'democracy'. It's basically just a reshuffling of the cards, "OK it's my turn now to be in power".
Mihajlovic
Its Baltic!
Is this the same interview? - https://www.rt.com/news/360690-us-arms-nusra-syria/
Apparently it's fake, the Nusra member is a regime actor. At least that's what some credible enough (IMO) figures are saying on Twitter.
@2cents, yes that's the same interview. I'm a bit surprised Todenhofer would fall for it, considering he's been obver there quite a few times and has somewhat of an understanding as to what's going on. Would you be able to judge by the responses of this Al Ezz guy if he's fake or not?
PedroMendez
Acolyte
Todenhofer is a bit of a moron, so I wouldn't put too much trust into him.
I think that it's those who supported Assad's overthrow who never had any viable ideas or solutions. Who did you want to replace him with? I seriously don't know. All I saw was a bunch of bearded 'moderate rebels' determined to kill Alawites and whoever else sided with Assad and that's just about it. This bullshit Syrian revolution in my view is nothing but an externally supported violent action with only one goal, to get rid of Assad by using Sunni fanatics, who by the way have zero understanding nor interest in this insane, abstract thing called 'democracy'. It's basically just a reshuffling of the cards, "OK it's my turn now to be in power".
Its been discussed over and over again in this and the Syria thread.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
@2cents, yes that's the same interview. I'm a bit surprised Todenhofer would fall for it, considering he's been obver there quite a few times and has somewhat of an understanding as to what's going on. Would you be able to judge by the responses of this Al Ezz guy if he's fake or not?
Even Josh Landis, who's married into an Alawite family close to the regime, has been forced to admit it looks fake.
Todenhofer was exposed a couple of years ago as being on a list of Assad's 'favoured' foreign journalists, some leaked emails between him and one of Assad's (female) PR people are quite cringy. Personally I know nothing about the quality of his journalism and I respect his balls for going into the heart of the caliphate but it appears he's seriously compromised his credibility in Syria.
RedTiger
Half mast
I saw this a few days ago and it's unbelievable that Todenhofer fell for it.Even Josh Landis, who's married into an Alawite family close to the regime, has been forced to admit it looks fake.
Todenhofer was exposed a couple of years ago as being on a list of Assad's 'favoured' foreign journalists, some leaked emails between him and one of Assad's (female) PR people are quite cringy. Personally I know nothing about the quality of his journalism and I respect his balls for going into the heart of the caliphate but it appears he's seriously compromised his credibility in Syria.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
This bullshit Syrian revolution in my view is nothing but an externally supported violent action
Look, whatever elements have come to dominate the movement to overthrow Assad - and I agree the externally-supported jihadi element was present from near the start, and especially after Assad cynically released thousands of jihadists from prison - to dismiss the genuine legitimate opposition to the regime and subsequent protest movement inspired by events in the region as "nothing" is not only unnecessary for you to make your broader point, but also incredibly disrespectful to those many Syrians killed by the regime in the act of protesting (or simply living).
It also implies that Syrians were happy with their lot under Assad until the big, bad Saudis and their Wahhabism came along and turned them into crazed beheaders at the click of their fingers - as if it had nothing to do with 40 years of being brutalised at the hands of the Ba'th regime, and all the attendant social and economic problems associated with it.
Fair enough, you favour Assad over the forces currently dominating the rebel movement - I've no major issue with that though I think it's short-sighted to believe an Assad 'victory' is a solution to jihadism in Syria (perhaps you don't believe this). But there's really no need to take your point further than that and start dismissing the regime's role in all this and a large portion of the Syrian peoples' opposition to it. Syria's problems began long before March 2011.
Mihajlovic
Its Baltic!
Look, whatever elements have come to dominate the movement to overthrow Assad - and I agree the externally-supported jihadi element was present from near the start, and especially after Assad cynically released thousands of jihadists from prison - to dismiss the genuine legitimate opposition to the regime and subsequent protest movement inspired by events in the region as "nothing" is not only unnecessary for you to make your broader point, but also incredibly disrespectful to those many Syrians killed by the regime in the act of protesting (or simply living).
It also implies that Syrians were happy with their lot under Assad until the big, bad Saudis and their Wahhabism came along and turned them into crazed beheaders at the click of their fingers - as if it had nothing to do with 40 years of being brutalised at the hands of the Ba'th regime, and all the attendant social and economic problems associated with it.
Fair enough, you favour Assad over the forces currently dominating the rebel movement - I've no major issue with that though I think it's short-sighted to believe an Assad 'victory' is a solution to jihadism in Syria (perhaps you don't believe this). But there's really no need to take your point further than that and start dismissing the regime's role in all this and a large portion of the Syrian peoples' opposition to it. Syria's problems began long before March 2011.
My point is that is was absolutely naive to support the idea of 'replacing' one brutal regime with another that is even more brutal. I would have supported a secular opposition, but not a revenge driven religious opposition that disregards human rights and all other aspects of secular-humanistic values. And you could see exactly how things were unravelling in the ME, especially considering the evident chaos and desintegration of Iraq and the collaps of Libya. So to then make a decision to provide weapons and arm anti-Assad 'rebels' who would then go on and slaughter whatever minority they encounter, that is just insane. Last year the German Bundestag gave their approval for military assistance, voting 440 in favour: 140 against (something like that), and when later interviewed, as you can see in this short funny clip, they did not even have a clue who they're actually supporting in Syria. You've outlined in one of your previous posts the bizarre role of USA in this war. I might be incredibly naive but I cannot understand how those decisions to support a violent overthrow of Assad were made.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
My point is that is was absolutely naive to support the idea of 'replacing' one brutal regime with another that is even more brutal. I would have supported a secular opposition, but not a revenge driven religious opposition that disregards human rights and all other aspects of secular-humanistic values. And you could see exactly how things were unravelling in the ME, especially considering the evident chaos and desintegration of Iraq and the collaps of Libya. So to then make a decision to provide weapons and arm anti-Assad 'rebels' who would then go on and slaughter whatever minority they encounter, that is just insane. Last year the German Bundestag gave their approval for military assistance, voting 440 in favour: 140 against (something like that), and when later interviewed, as you can see in this short funny clip, they did not even have a clue who they're actually supporting in Syria. You've outlined in one of your previous posts the bizarre role of USA in this war. I might be incredibly naive but I cannot understand how those decisions to support a violent overthrow of Assad were made.
My objection was to your dismissal of Syrian opposition to Assad as "nothing but an externally supported violent action", a claim which removes all level of responsibility for the emergence of the opposition movement from the regime, and which implies that Syrians themselves have basically been passive actors only capable of being moved to action by the manipulation of foreign powers.
I don't disagree with your post above - my point is that it is possible to reject foreign intervention on behalf of the opposition, and to reject the increasingly fanatic nature of that opposition, while at the same time recognizing that the regime itself bears the primary responsibility for the nature of the Syrian society which emerged in the Spring of 2011 (violent, paranoid, intolerant, and with a thirst for sacrifice and matrydom), and for its increasing radicalization since then.
Too often the international dimensions of the conflict have clouded the reality that this war was made in Syria, with most of the violence being perpetrated by Syrians against other Syrians.
Mihajlovic
Its Baltic!
My objection was to your dismissal of Syrian opposition to Assad as "nothing but an externally supported violent action", a claim which removes all level of responsibility for the emergence of the opposition movement from the regime, and which implies that Syrians themselves have basically been passive actors only capable of being moved to action by the manipulation of foreign powers.
I don't disagree with your post above - my point is that it is possible to reject foreign intervention on behalf of the opposition, and to reject the increasingly fanatic nature of that opposition, while at the same time recognizing that the regime itself bears the primary responsibility for the nature of the Syrian society which emerged in the Spring of 2011 (violent, paranoid, intolerant, and with a thirst for sacrifice and matrydom), and for its increasing radicalization since then.
Too often the international dimensions of the conflict have clouded the reality that this war was made in Syria, with most of the violence being perpetrated by Syrians against other Syrians.
That's fair enough, I'm in agreement with your post.
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 62,922
You obviously don't have any viable ideas or solutions. The current situation is obviously not sustainable and Assad is never going to regain control of the country without an eternal insurgency that is obsessed with deposing him. The only realistic path forward therefore is a UN brokered peacekeeping force with the buy in of both the Russians and Americans (and the rest of the SC).
A viable solution would be to create 2-3 states. One lead by Assad and the other one lead by a coalition of rebels. People would have to move in which area they want to live in.
A viable solution would be to create two states. One lead by Assad and the other one lead by a coalition of rebels. People would have to move in which area they want to live in.
Neither side, Assad, anti-Assad, nor obviously ISIS would agree or respect such a situation. Fighting would go on until all sides excluding ISIS negotiate for a new government.
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 62,922
Neither side, Assad, anti-Assad, nor obviously ISIS would agree or respect such a situation. Fighting would go on until all sides excluding ISIS negotiate for a new government.
Well they will have to accept that else they will end up condemned and attacked by everybody. I think there should be 3 states ie one lead by regime loyalists, one by the rebels and a Kurdish part.
Mihajlovic
Its Baltic!
Neither side, Assad, anti-Assad, nor obviously ISIS would agree or respect such a situation. Fighting would go on until all sides excluding ISIS negotiate for a new government.
It worked in Bosnia. It's a functioning country with two distinct entities. But I agree, I don't think it would ever work in Syria.
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 62,922
It worked in Bosnia. It's a functioning country with two distinct entities. But I agree, I don't think it would ever work in Syria.
I don't think it would work either however its better than the current situation or with just one winner who oppresses the rest. Its needs to be co-ordinated well though. The US and Russia must make it pretty obvious that any intrusion by other Arab countries or any fighting between the 2-3 'Syrias' will have serious consequences
You have to get rid of ISIS and their fan boy groups first - that much I would imagine everyone can agree with. You are then still left with a massive insurgency that won't go away, but may be amenable to being a part of a new unity government where their interests are represented. Assad obviously can't stay after years of killing his own population via barrel bombs and chemical attacks. Sad situation, but if the international community want to get serious about fixing Syria, it has to include a blank slate, peacekeeping forces, a roadmap to a new constitution and elections where all stakeholders feel represented going forward. ANything short of this will just prolong the current hamster wheel of cyclical violence.
Danny1982
Sectarian Hipster
Look, whatever elements have come to dominate the movement to overthrow Assad - and I agree the externally-supported jihadi element was present from near the start, and especially after Assad cynically released thousands of jihadists from prison - to dismiss the genuine legitimate opposition to the regime and subsequent protest movement inspired by events in the region as "nothing" is not only unnecessary for you to make your broader point, but also incredibly disrespectful to those many Syrians killed by the regime in the act of protesting (or simply living).
It also implies that Syrians were happy with their lot under Assad until the big, bad Saudis and their Wahhabism came along and turned them into crazed beheaders at the click of their fingers - as if it had nothing to do with 40 years of being brutalised at the hands of the Ba'th regime, and all the attendant social and economic problems associated with it.
Fair enough, you favour Assad over the forces currently dominating the rebel movement - I've no major issue with that though I think it's short-sighted to believe an Assad 'victory' is a solution to jihadism in Syria (perhaps you don't believe this). But there's really no need to take your point further than that and start dismissing the regime's role in all this and a large portion of the Syrian peoples' opposition to it. Syria's problems began long before March 2011.
A lot of inaccuracies and missed points in these posts.My objection was to your dismissal of Syrian opposition to Assad as "nothing but an externally supported violent action", a claim which removes all level of responsibility for the emergence of the opposition movement from the regime, and which implies that Syrians themselves have basically been passive actors only capable of being moved to action by the manipulation of foreign powers.
I don't disagree with your post above - my point is that it is possible to reject foreign intervention on behalf of the opposition, and to reject the increasingly fanatic nature of that opposition, while at the same time recognizing that the regime itself bears the primary responsibility for the nature of the Syrian society which emerged in the Spring of 2011 (violent, paranoid, intolerant, and with a thirst for sacrifice and matrydom), and for its increasing radicalization since then.
Too often the international dimensions of the conflict have clouded the reality that this war was made in Syria, with most of the violence being perpetrated by Syrians against other Syrians.
1- Trying to frame Assad as an "as big a reason" for the mess we have in Syria is totally off for a simple reason. There is nothing special about Assad in the middle East. Your argument will fail resoundingly if you only took a look at the rest of the middle East. I'll give you two examples, one is supposedly a democracy (running the proposed model some pretend to think is going to work in Syria), and the other is a dictatorship.
Look at Iraq, the same mess, the same Al-Qaeda, the same Wahhabism, but ironically after the dictator fell! And after the proposed democratic system was implemented! And then look at Egypt, a coup, a military dictatorship that toppled an elected president, but a kiss on the head of the Saudi king was enough to restore calm.
You're only kidding yourself if you think it's about "dictators", and not about Saudi Arabia actively spreading Wahhabism everywhere in the world to control other countries. That's how they operate, that's what they invest in. They don't invest in their army, they don't invest in the economy, their real investment to gain power is their terrorist Wahhabi ideology, and they're growing it everywhere, building networks of their Wahhabi terrorists, ready to strike, not when a "dictator rules" but when a government follows a political direction that doesn't suit Saudi Arabia, regardless of that government and the form of its rule.
Nobody is saying Assad is a good president. He's a terrible dictator (just like pretty much every other Middle Eastern ruler), but he's not the real reason for what's happening in Syria.
2- About Assad being the reason for the spread of Wahhabism and terrorism in Syria, not the small good Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is actively promoting and spreading Wahhabism everywhere in the world, even in Europe. Tens of thousands of the fighters fighting Assad came from abroad! (And even the US and the UN admit this now) What Assad?
And using that logic, the US is definitely the one to blame for 9/11.
3- About the role of the normal Syrians, the normal Syrians have been passive actors in this conflict. Some cheered, some hoped, but like I said in 2012, they had no control over what was going on. Many of them didn't even know that at the time. We've had long discussions about this here 4 years ago, and time has already proven me right in this one, so trying to argue for this point in 2016 is moot. The real drivers of the whole conflict in Syria since the start were the Wahhabis, the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood. It has never been about democracy, or better economy (and I'm talking about the reality on the ground, not the speeches the internet experts give). Even the US knew that from the beginning, as their documents (dating back to 2012) clearly showed.
4- About those released from prison by Assad, first, these are the same ones who are mourned when killed now and pictured as the "moderate rebels killed by Assad!". Remember Zahran Alloush for example? You can't complain when they're released from prison, and then when they're killed. And second, most of the actual leaders in ISIS and Al-Nusra were actually released from the US prisons, not Assad's.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 16,441
A lot of inaccuracies and missed points in these posts.
1- Trying to frame Assad as an "as big a reason" for the mess we have in Syria is totally off for a simple reason. There is nothing special about Assad in the middle East. Your argument will fail resoundingly if you only took a look at the rest of the middle East. I'll give you two examples, one is supposedly a democracy (running the proposed model some pretend to think is going to work in Syria), and the other is a dictatorship.
Look at Iraq, the same mess, the same Al-Qaeda, the same Wahhabism, but ironically after the dictator fell! And after the proposed democratic system was implemented! And then look at Egypt, a coup, a military dictatorship that toppled an elected president, but a kiss on the head of the Saudi king was enough to restore calm.
You're only kidding yourself if you think it's about "dictators", and not about Saudi Arabia actively spreading Wahhabism everywhere in the world to control other countries. That's how they operate, that's what they invest in. They don't invest in their army, they don't invest in the economy, their real investment to gain power is their terrorist Wahhabi ideology, and they're growing it everywhere, building networks of their Wahhabi terrorists, ready to strike, not when a "dictator rules" but when a government follows a political direction that doesn't suit Saudi Arabia, regardless of that government and the form of its rule.
Nobody is saying Assad is a good president. He's a terrible dictator (just like pretty much every other Middle Eastern ruler), but he's not the real reason for what's happening in Syria.
2- About Assad being the reason for the spread of Wahhabism and terrorism in Syria, not the small good Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is actively promoting and spreading Wahhabism everywhere in the world, even in Europe. Tens of thousands of the fighters fighting Assad came from abroad! (And even the US and the UN admit this now) What Assad?
And using that logic, the US is definitely the one to blame for 9/11.
3- About the role of the normal Syrians, the normal Syrians have been passive actors in this conflict. Some cheered, some hoped, but like I said in 2012, they had no control over what was going on. Many of them didn't even know that at the time. We've had long discussions about this here 4 years ago, and time has already proven me right in this one, so trying to argue for this point in 2016 is moot. The real drivers of the whole conflict in Syria since the start were the Wahhabis, the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood. It has never been about democracy, or better economy (and I'm talking about the reality on the ground, not the speeches the internet experts give). Even the US knew that from the beginning, as their documents (dating back to 2012) clearly showed.
4- About those released from prison by Assad, first, these are the same ones who are mourned when killed now and pictured as the "moderate rebels killed by Assad!". Remember Zahran Alloush for example? You can't complain when they're released from prison, and then when they're killed. And second, most of the actual leaders in ISIS and Al-Nusra were actually released from the US prisons, not Assad's.
As usual it's like you're having an argument with someone else here, you have a big habit of ascribing arguments to posters (in this case me) that they've never made, and you're basically having the argument you want to have rather than sticking to what I've actually argued throughout this thread.
So, in the case of number 1 and 2, do a search for Saudi and/or Wahhabi under my name, and come back to me.
In the case of number 3, it is clear I was talking about the initial stages of the protest movement. In my previous post I even acknowledged that the armed extremist element was there from the start.
In the case of number 4 - just do a search for "Alloush" in this thread, see which poster has written by far the most about him, and try and find one example of that poster mourning him.
Share: