ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Was a bit of a throwaway comment tbf. I just find it interesting that the US is being accused of doing too little to intervene in this recent conflict and interfering too much in previous conflicts.

As I said a few posts, higher up, would be interesting to see how things panned out in the ME if the US had managed to abstain completely from any involvement at all, ever. But that was never going to happen, for a number of very good reasons.

So we end up with this long-running saga of trying to strike the right balance between intervening too much, too little or (what I'm hearing today) managing to do both at once and still getting it wrong. The one constant is criticism after the fact, no matter what approach they take.
I honestly and firmly believe the US is interfering (rather than intervening) far too much in the region as a whole. Oil.
 
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/12/...ding-and-arming-jihadist-terrorists-in-syria/

Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill to Stop US Government Funding and Arming Jihadist Terrorists in Syria
21wire
21st Century Wire says…

Finally, a US government official with character has emerged to condemn Washington’s clandestine support of extremist terrorists overseas.

Previously 21WIRE reported how US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-D) received a somewhat hostile reception when talking with CNN’s Jake Tapper about her “Stop Funding Terrorism Bill.” Gabbard is the first US legislator since the 1980’s to opening highlight the very real problem of US clandestine services arming and supporting violent internatonal terrorist organizations, particularly those currently operating inside of Syria.

Interestingly, Gabbard’s important move to stop international terrorism comes at the exact same time when the outgoing President Obama has pushed his own executive action to lift all restrictions on US arms exports and support to proxy “rebel” or terrorist fighting groups operating in Syria and elsewhere. In this context, we can see clearly that there is a moral battle being fought in Washington – between those who oppose terrorism – and those like President Obama and Senator John McCain,who have seen it as ‘useful’ in the pursuit of their own geopolitical objectives, particularly by their open support of terrorist factions in Syria.

The following piece of legislation was introduced on in the US Congress on December 8, 2016…

Gabbard House.gov

Washington, DC Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act today. The legislation would prohibit the U.S. government from using American taxpayer dollars to provide funding, weapons, training, and intelligence support to groups like the Levant Front, Fursan al Ha and other allies of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, al-Qaeda and ISIS, or to countries who are providing direct or indirect support to those same groups.

The legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Peter Welch (D-VT-AL), Barbara Lee (D-CA-13), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-48), and Thomas Massie (R-KY-04), and supported by the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and the U.S. Peace Council.


.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said
, “Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.[i]

“The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.

“A recent New York Times article confirmed that ‘rebel groups’ supported by the U.S. ‘have entered into battlefield alliances with the affiliate of al-Qaeda in Syria, formerly known as al Nusra.’ This alliance has rendered the phrase ‘moderate rebels’ meaningless. Reports confirm that ‘every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces [of Idlib and Aleppo] is engaged in a military structure controlled by [al-Qaeda’s] Nusra militants.’

“A recent Wall Street Journal article reported that many rebel groups are ‘doubling down on their alliance’ with al Nusra. Some rebel groups are renewing their alliance, while others, like Nour al-Din al-Zinki, a former CIA-backed group and one of the largest factions in Aleppo are joining for the first time. “The Syria Conquest Front—formerly known as the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front—is deeply intermingled with armed opposition groups of all stripes across Syria’s battlefields.”

“The CIA has long been supporting a group called Fursan al Haqq, providing them with salaries, weapons and support, including surface to air missiles. This group is cooperating with and fighting alongside an al-Qaeda affiliated group trying to overthrow the Syrian government. The Levant Front is another so-called moderate umbrella group of Syrian opposition fighters. Over the past year, the United States has been working with Turkey to give this group intelligence support and other forms of military assistance. This group has joined forces with al-Qaeda’s offshoot group in Syria.

“This madness must end. We must stop arming terrorists. The Government must end this hypocrisy and abide by the same laws that apply to its’ citizens.

“That is why I’ve introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists bill—legislation based on congressional action during the Iran-Contra affair to stop the CIA’s illegal arming of rebels in Nicaragua. It will prohibit any Federal agency from using taxpayer dollars to provide weapons, cash, intelligence, or any support to al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups, and it will prohibit the government from funneling money and weapons through other countries who are directly or indirectly supporting terrorists,” concluded Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Stephen Kinzer, a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, and award-winning author and journalist said, “The proposal to stop sending weapons to insurgents in Syria is based on the principle that pouring arms into a war zone only intensifies suffering and makes peace more difficult to achieve. Congress made a decision like this about the Nicaraguan contras during the 1980s. Aid to the contras was cut off by the Boland Amendment. The result was a peace process that finally brought an end to wars not only in Nicaragua, but also in El Salvador and Guatemala. This is the example we should be following. Cutting off arms shipments forces belligerents to negotiate. That is what we achieved in Nicaragua. It should be our goal in Syria as well.”

Donna Smith, Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America said, “Progressive Democrats of America believes that it is fundamentally wrong for the United States to fund those groups or individuals aligned with al-Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, ISIS, or other terrorist/extremist organizations. The ‘Stop Arming Terrorists’ bill authored by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, of Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District, would help bring an end to the human tragedy unfolding in Syria where the haunting eyes of the innocent children of Aleppo call on us all to stop supporting those who threaten and kill them with ferocious intention. War is war, and terrorism is terrorism whether waged by the state or from external forces. PDA supports this measure.”

Alfred Marder, President of the U.S. Peace Council said, “The U.S. Peace Council is honored to endorse and support the ‘Stop Arming Terrorists Bill’ as a major contribution to peace. This legislation will serve to galvanize the anti-war movement and the opposition to regime change policies that characterize our present foreign policy.”

Background: The Stop Arming Terrorists bill prohibits U.S. government funds from being used to support al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. In the same way that Congress passed the Boland Amendment to prohibit the funding and support to CIA backed-Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980’s, this bill would stop CIA or other Federal government activities in places like Syria by ensuring U.S. funds are not used to support al-Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, ISIS, or other terrorist groups working with them. It would also prohibit the Federal government from funding assistance to countries that are directly or indirectly supporting those terrorist groups. The bill achieves this by:

  1. Making it illegal for any U.S. Federal government funds to be used to provide assistance covered in this bill to terrorists. The assistance covered includes weapons, munitions, weapons platforms, intelligence, logistics, training, and cash.
  2. Making it illegal for the U.S. government to provide assistance covered in the bill to any nation that has given or continues to give such assistance to terrorists.
  3. Requiring the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to determine the individual and groups that should be considered terrorists, for the purposes of this bill, by determining: (a) the individuals and groups that are associated with, affiliated with, adherents to or cooperating with al-Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, or ISIS; (b) the countries that are providing assistance covered in this bill to those individuals or groups.
  4. Requiring the DNI to review and update the list of countries and groups to which assistance is prohibited every six months, in consultation with the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees, as well as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  5. Requiring the DNI to brief Congress on the determinations.
 
A quick Google search shows that Eva Bartlett is a journalist/activist with ties to Russia Today. The rest of the results do little to restore any kind of credibility.

So why are you posting this without giving us this very, very relevant background information?
Eva Bartlett is an independent Canadian journalist. It's not a surprise that RT publishes some articles for her considering her views. She's not even affiliated with RT. Larry King also appeared on RT, you disregard everything he says immediately too? Besides, all media are biased, debate the news, not the source. Don't you claim they're merely spreading "fake news"? Give your view about the subject, and we'll let the time decide who was telling the truth and who was telling "fake news".

Or maybe these people don't want to be governed by a murderous tyrant and are being killed for it. Of Course you won't see that angle.
Let's do our own research like you suggested earlier, shall we? Here is what was said about Aleppo by the "rebels" in 2011 and 2012...






...

And then...

"We liberated the rural parts of this province. We waited and waited for Aleppo to rise, and it didn't. We couldn't rely on them to do it for themselves so we had to bring the revolution to them," said a rebel commander in a nearby village, who calls himself Abu Hashish.
http://www.reuters.com/article/syria-crisis-aleppo-idUSL6E8IT0TY20120729

People in Aleppo never wanted to be part of this. This is the reality you can't deny. Their areas have been literally occupied by the "rebels" and they were literally held hostages during the conflict, especially after their areas were besieged. Even Obama ffs admitted the rebels were preventing the people from leaving and were shooting at them if they leave (because it was all caught on camera and was undeniable anymore). The UN itself admitted the rebels blocked humanitarian aid for the people of Aleppo for political gains. They wanted to get all the aid and they weren't giving the people any of it, double win for them, they keep getting supplies and the people keep starving so they can send more pictures on twitter to receive even more weapons and political support. This is the literal definition of the word liberation for the people of East Aleppo now. Hopefully they will return back to their homes soon (as some already have).

And by the way, what they found when they entered East Aleppo shows clearly that the battle didn't go according to plan (for Al-Nusra and co). The amount of food, supplies, weapons, ammo, tunnels was huge, and it would have been enough to withstand any attack for years, literally for years. East Aleppo didn't fall militarily, the rebels collapsed literally because pretty much all the people were against them, and even most of the fighters didn't want to fight, they gave up and surrendered. They didn't even ask to be transferred to Idlib, they just asked for amnesty which was (reportedly) granted for the vast majority of them. East Aleppo fell the moment the army managed to create a hole to evacuate the people from. Once the hostages were liberated from every area, Al-Nusra and co had no chance to survive. It is why they were shooting at people who were leaving to force them to stay inside, but then the army's job was relatively easy, all they needed for every neighbourhood was create a hole in Al-Nusra's defences from which civilians can escape, once they establish that the neighbourhood falls immediately. That was how East Aleppo was liberated in like a week or two.

This is bs, and also makes no sense whatsoever. The only one who could gain from "shooting people on the spot" in Aleppo is Al-Nusra and co, and like I said even Obama admitted it (which makes anybody trying to argue about it look a bit silly). Here is the crucial part in this propaganda report (which was hidden quite well in between the lines)...
"Yesterday evening, we received further deeply disturbing reports that numerous bodies were lying on the streets," Mr Colville added, while admitting it was hard to verify the reports.
Reports from sources like this man...

The toy smuggler of Aleppo’s jihadist connections, made-up stories and an orphan project run aground
Aid worker Rami Adham has gained international recognition for helping orphans in Syria. However, an investigation by Helsingin Sanomat finds that Adham has misled the public, has tight links to jihadist groups and his Aleppo orphan project also has many irregularities.

THE STORY is almost beyond belief: a Finnish-Syrian father of six risks his life repeatedly to bring toys and aid to children trapped in the besieged city of Aleppo. To get there he treks through the mountains on foot and clambers across muddy hills under cover of the night.

Rami Adham, “the toy smuggler of Aleppo”, has quickly become an international hero.

Adham’s gripping story has been intensively reported in Finland, including in Helsingin Sanomat. Adham has appeared in public with celebrities and politicians. The Finnish first lady Jenni Haukio was a patron of an art auction organized by Adham’s NGO, the Finland-Syria Community.

Recently the “toy smuggler of Aleppo” has also received flattering coverage in the international media, including from such major networks as CNN, NBC, BBC and Al-Jazeera.
You can read the results of the investigation in the link. http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000002926544.html

I ask anybody who believes this report to present any evidence of those "regime forces shooting civilians on the spot in East Aleppo". They don't have any evidence, even though everybody in East Aleppo seems to have a camera, wifi and a twitter account. All they could muster was re-circled old pictures from Yemen, Gaza, Pakistan, and a photoshopped picture of a girl from a song video clip. (I can post all the pictures if anybody wants to, but some of them are gruesome). "Do your own research!".
 
I can't believe you're still quoting me while still refusing to answer my question. This is getting silly now...

I'll ask you again. If you can't or won't answer, please don't quote me again because this discussion is pointless. Name another half century where the world was more at peace and/or more prosperous? Please note, I'm talking about the whole world, so if you can name a period of time where the West wasn't peaceful/prosperous but everyone else was, then that's just fine.

I don't know about the most peaceful, but perhaps the most prosperous, yes, and it's mostly concerns the West where most of the wealth is, and always was. So I'll agree with you on the prosperity point, but not so sure about the peace, and once again, it wasn't the west's good intentions that led to the world on the whole becoming more prosperous than ever before.
 
I'm in two minds about seeing the busloads of "rebels" leaving east Aleppo bound for "rebel-controlled" territory. On the one hand, I'm delighted to see an end to the violence for the people of east Aleppo and others in greater Aleppo caught up in the conflict on the receiving end of mortar and gas cannister attacks. I'm also very concerned that a lot of these rebels are sympathetic to Al Qaeda and ISIL, and that, for some of them at least, Paris or London or New York might be in their minds for their next campaign. It's really weird. If it turns out as I fear, it will largely be due to international media pressure that Assad and his allies felt compelled to allow them safe-passage. The same media will then no doubt be full of outrage and condemnation if/when these same Al Qaeda/ISIL fundamentalist jihadist terrorist "rebels" strike in the west.
 
I'm in two minds about seeing the busloads of "rebels" leaving east Aleppo bound for "rebel-controlled" territory. On the one hand, I'm delighted to see an end to the violence for the people of east Aleppo and others in greater Aleppo caught up in the conflict on the receiving end of mortar and gas cannister attacks. I'm also very concerned that a lot of these rebels are sympathetic to Al Qaeda and ISIL, and that, for some of them at least, Paris or London or New York might be in their minds for their next campaign. It's really weird. If it turns out as I fear, it will largely be due to international media pressure that Assad and his allies felt compelled to allow them safe-passage. The same media will then no doubt be full of outrage and condemnation if/when these same Al Qaeda/ISIL fundamentalist jihadist terrorist "rebels" strike in the west.

What makes you think Assad gives a shite about "international media pressure"?
 
Great propaganda from a Russian propaganda channel.
I've been reading and watching all I can find about what's actually going on in Aleppo lately because it became so very difficult to know who to believe. I'd rather get my news from people actually there than from people with no actual clue. Like it or not, RT provides the best coverage. You don't have to accept what they're saying - take it with a grain or two of salt - but it has to be better than accepting bullshit from alarmist MSM dudes in the west just wanting to sell their product knowing that they actually haven't got the slightest idea what they're on about, other than playing their part in affecting regime change.
 
I've been reading and watching all I can find about what's actually going on in Aleppo lately because it became so very difficult to know who to believe. I'd rather get my news from people actually there than from people with no actual clue. Like it or not, RT provides the best coverage. You don't have to accept what they're saying - take it with a grain or two of salt - but it has to be better than accepting bullshit from alarmist MSM dudes in the west just wanting to sell their product knowing that they actually haven't got the slightest idea what they're on about, other than playing their part in affecting regime change.

Its obviously not the best coverage when your source is an overtly propagandist channel funded by Vladimir Putin to influence the views of western audiences.
 
It's natural.

The war's been raging for five years, he hasn't given any indication during that time that media pressure has guided his action, and there have been plenty of moments in those five years when it's been worse than now.

There are plenty of practical reasons for Assad to allow those fighters to leave. And Idlib will likely be next in his sights anyway.
 
Its obviously not the best coverage when your source is an overtly propagandist channel funded by Vladimir Putin to influence the views of western audiences.
OK. That's your view. Don't watch it. Believe what you want. Do though, question the authenticity of what you're being fed.
 
OK. That's your view. Don't watch it. Believe what you want. Do though, question the authenticity of what you're being fed.

I don't believe what I want, I gather as many credible sources as possible and form an opinion based on them, as opposed to believing what a murderous, authoritarian dictator wants me to believe.
 
I don't believe what I want, I gather as many credible sources as possible and form an opinion based on them, as opposed to believing what a murderous, authoritarian dictator wants me to believe.
You mean Assad. I haven't seen much at all from him or his spokespeople - other than his Ambassador to the UN. I'm talking about independent journalists on the ground that have appeared on RT and various other non-MSM media. People actually on the ground. Who are your credible sources? Where are they reporting from? Serious question. I want to get to the truth as much as anyone. Wtf wouldn't I? I have no great affinity for Putin or Russia.
 
You mean Assad. I haven't seen much at all from him or his spokespeople - other than his Ambassador to the UN. I'm talking about independent journalists on the ground that have appeared on RT and various other non-MSM media. People actually on the ground. Who are your credible sources? Where are they reporting from? Serious question. I want to get to the truth as much as anyone. Wtf wouldn't I? I have no great affinity for Putin or Russia.

No actually I mean Putin - the source of much of the fire power in this fiasco.
 
No actually I mean Putin - the source of much of the fire power in this fiasco.
Ok. I'm losing patience with you now. I'm not so interested in who you think is the big bad wolf. More interested in where you get your credible info.
 
Ok. I'm losing patience with you now. I'm not so interested in who you think is the big bad wolf. More interested in where you get your credible info.

Here's a good chart....

7xHaUXf.jpg
 
I'm in two minds about seeing the busloads of "rebels" leaving east Aleppo bound for "rebel-controlled" territory. On the one hand, I'm delighted to see an end to the violence for the people of east Aleppo and others in greater Aleppo caught up in the conflict on the receiving end of mortar and gas cannister attacks. I'm also very concerned that a lot of these rebels are sympathetic to Al Qaeda and ISIL, and that, for some of them at least, Paris or London or New York might be in their minds for their next campaign. It's really weird. If it turns out as I fear, it will largely be due to international media pressure that Assad and his allies felt compelled to allow them safe-passage. The same media will then no doubt be full of outrage and condemnation if/when these same Al Qaeda/ISIL fundamentalist jihadist terrorist "rebels" strike in the west.

:lol::lol::lol:

Trust me there a much bigger threats to the lives of the people of Aleppo , they are called air strikes, barrel bomb and bunker bombs , might want to Google them.
 
Selective indignation from a lot of people here. Obviously nothing on Yemen but a lot of BS on the secular syrian Arab army that just freed Alep from terrorist organisations.
 
:lol::lol::lol:

Trust me there a much bigger threats to the lives of the people of Aleppo , they are called air strikes, barrel bomb and bunker bombs , might want to Google them.
What would you suggest? If, as independent on the spot journalists have reported - and as seems entirely plausible - the rebels were in basements, coming up to launch attacks and retiring. How would you get them out?

Imagine if the UK was crawling with heavily armed jihadist terrorists being backed by the most powerful arms exporting countries in the world and their allies, had entrenched themselves in - oh I dunno - Salford say, and were using locals as human shields. Imagine also that the UK was under crippling sanctions and had the world's mainstream media (nowhere to be seen, safely overseas) continually painting the terrorists as the righteous freedom-fighters (even while they continued with their jihadist rhetoric). What would you suggest we do about it? After 4-5 years?
 
What would you suggest? If, as independent on the spot journalists have reported - and as seems entirely plausible - the rebels were in basements, coming up to launch attacks and retiring. How would you get them out?

Imagine if the UK was crawling with heavily armed jihadist terrorists being backed by the most powerful arms exporting countries in the world and their allies, had entrenched themselves in - oh I dunno - Salford say, and were using locals as human shields. Imagine also that the UK was under crippling sanctions and had the world's mainstream media (nowhere to be seen, safely overseas) continually painting the terrorists as the righteous freedom-fighters (even while they continued with their jihadist rhetoric). What would you suggest we do about it? After 4-5 years?
I'd wager we would never get into this situation as we are not governed by a dictator who shoots at innocent civilians just because they want a change in their governance.
 
Selective indignation from a lot of people here. Obviously nothing on Yemen but a lot of BS on the secular syrian Arab army that just freed Alep from terrorist organisations.

Think a lot of people are starting to question Western medias coverage and the Western support of 'rebel' forces now. I actually saw a debate program on the second biggest newschannel in Norway with the title "Can we trust Western media", and the debate leader was openly calling out the participants that spouted tired old spins like "he is dictator", "he has the support of Russia" etc. They were using a lot of footage from actual evacuations of civilians from Aleppo and people in the field claiming that people in Aleppo cheers on the SAA, all the while the MSM is reporting nothing of the sort, but literally can't wait to publish unconfirmed reports of the atrocities performed by Assad.

This whole Syria debacle has left me very disillusioned when it comes to the West and Western press in general. Previously I've just blindly accepted our stance (with our I mean the West) and the perspective of MSM, but Libya and now Syria has left me disillusioned.
 
Think a lot of people are starting to question Western medias coverage and the Western support of 'rebel' forces now. I actually saw a debate program on the second biggest newschannel in Norway with the title "Can we trust Western media", and the debate leader was openly calling out the participants that spouted tired old spins like "he is dictator", "he has the support of Russia" etc. They were using a lot of footage from actual evacuations of civilians from Aleppo and people in the field claiming that people in Aleppo cheers on the SAA, all the while the MSM is reporting nothing of the sort, but literally can't wait to publish unconfirmed reports of the atrocities performed by Assad.

This whole Syria debacle has left me very disillusioned when it comes to the West and Western press in general. Previously I've just blindly accepted our stance (with our I mean the West) and the perspective of MSM, but Libya and now Syria has left me disillusioned.
This is true for both sides unfortunately.
 
Think a lot of people are starting to question Western medias coverage and the Western support of 'rebel' forces now. I actually saw a debate program on the second biggest newschannel in Norway with the title "Can we trust Western media", and the debate leader was openly calling out the participants that spouted tired old spins like "he is dictator", "he has the support of Russia" etc. They were using a lot of footage from actual evacuations of civilians from Aleppo and people in the field claiming that people in Aleppo cheers on the SAA, all the while the MSM is reporting nothing of the sort, but literally can't wait to publish unconfirmed reports of the atrocities performed by Assad.

This whole Syria debacle has left me very disillusioned when it comes to the West and Western press in general. Previously I've just blindly accepted our stance (with our I mean the West) and the perspective of MSM, but Libya and now Syria has left me disillusioned.

You should follow Raoul's chart above you're starting to be a conspiracy theorist !

I was being ironic, you're very right and just one example to illustrate your point : the scandalous non coverage of the atrocities committed by the saudis in Yemen (we all know why) vs the coverage of the war in Syria. Sad thing is the majority of people still fall for the western media BS but thankfully more and more people are opening their eyes.
 
It's absolutely correct to doubt any and all reports promoting the opposition narrative of what is happening in Aleppo. By the same token though, that doubt should be extended to any so-called 'independent' journalists parroting the regime narrative:

Foreign correspondent Cecilia Uddén forced to leave Syria
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2938&artikel=6589455


Swedish Radio’s Middle East correspondent Cecilia Uddén was today forced to leave Syria, where she has been reporting over recent days. Cilla Benkö, Director General of Swedish Radio, and Ginna Lindberg, Head of Foreign News are protesting the decision and the treatment of Cecilia Uddén.

”Today, our correspondent Cecilia Uddén was forced to leave Syria after Syrian authorities withdrew her journalist visa and refused her permission to report from the country.

We are protesting the decision and the treatment of our correspondent. The fact that the Syrian administration is taking this sort of action against an accredited journalist trying to do her job, is not only regrettable but outrageous.

Over recent days, Cecilia Uddén has been reporting from Damascus and Aleppo, and has presented views from both sides involved in the ongoing violent conflict. She is now being accused by the Syrian authorities, on unclear grounds, of circulating ’false information’, an accusation which we completely refute.

Syria’s blatant shortcomings regarding press freedom are well-known and well documented. In recent years, the country has occupied the bottom place in Reporters without Borders’ annual press freedom index. We can observe that the Syrian government is continuing to prevent journalists from being able to document and report from one of the most violent conflicts of recent times.

Swedish Radio is continuing to monitor the conflict in Syria closely and will of course apply for new permission to travel to the country and report on location. The actions of Syrian authorities against our correspondent strengthen our belief in the need for independent journalism.”

The fact that the opposition is dominated by al Qaeda type Taliban wannabees seems to have led many to forget that the regime is a Ba'thist dictatorship with a PHD in suppressing free press and media. You may prefer the regime to the opposition - a completely understandable position to take - but there's no need to go from there to blindly accepting all accounts which cast it in a good light.

The Western mainstream media have indeed promoted the opposition narrative almost exclusively since the conflict began - I don't think there's another conflict where the coverage has been so poor and one-sided. Journalists sitting in Beirut basing all their reports on Skype interviews with 'activists' in rebel territory have been the main feature.

On the other hand, this coverage has been having less and less impact as the war has dragged on. At this stage Assad has won the propaganda war in the sense that the opposition narrative has failed to capture pubic sympathy. This thread is a prime example - since Uzz/Le Chuck stopped posting in it, I don't think there has been a single post in support of any particular rebel group.
 
All their resources are in Kurdish areas such as Kirkuk for Iraq. 60% of Syria's oil is also in Kurdish areas. They're scared of a strong Kurdish nation.
I'm in favour of a long-overdue independent Kurdistan. I'm also sure it will have to wait. The region is so messed up right now. As things are, an independent Kurdistan wouldn't last 5 minutes. The Turks would be at their throats along with all the jihadist nutters.