ISIS in Iraq and Syria

That's never been questioned, has it? It's a bad situation, for sure. There have been deliberate murders and there have been 'friendly fire' accidents. None of us know the truth. I'm sure even you must agree that the line spun by our western governments and mass media has been exposed for the load of bullshit it is though.

"Bad situation and deliberate murders"? There's been massacres and complete disregard for human life according to 1) UN institutions, pretty much all NGOs, media and governments not connected to Syria, Iran or Russia. 2) the millions of Syrian refugees who have left the country, several of which I know personally.

I mean, you shared a video of Eva Bartlett, who is affiliated with RT and who writes that she is pro-Assad on her webpage: https://ingaza.wordpress.com, while simultaneously claiming that Western mass media has somehow been exposed for sharing bullshit. That is incredibly hypocritical.

Pro-Assad blogger = Worth sharing.
Everyone else = Bullshit.

Excellent journalism, DenisIrwin.
 
That's never been questioned, has it? It's a bad situation, for sure. There have been deliberate murders and there have been 'friendly fire' accidents. None of us know the truth. I'm sure even you must agree that the line spun by our western governments and mass media has been exposed for the load of bullshit it is though.
It's been a question that is central to this argument, with sides in favor of Russia or the US taking opposite positions. I suppose where we disagree is the point that none of us know the truth. The truth is so obvious I'm surprised it's still up for debate.

Everyone has blood on their hands. The Putin-Bots should just admit it, rather than pointing their fingers in faux outrage towards the West...
 
This is the fundamental problem with these fringe, alternative media sites and blogs. An orgy of nonsense for the easily led.
 
So then we have to ask each person who posts in the CE whether they acknowledge the wrongs committed by their government past and present before allowing them to complain about those of any other government. So essentially unless everyone say in the US admits to everything wrong the US has ever done then nobody in the US can ever point out that some other country is doing wrong? And if they do the country doing wrong can just shrug it off and say "Yeah well you did this, so you have no right to call what I do wrong" So anyone complaining about things the US does is also probably a hypocrite and should just STFU.
Just pointing out how easy it currently is for assad or Russia or hezbollah or Iran to dismiss the usa's criticisms... particularly to their domestic audiences.
 
Must be quite a loss of face for the US and the West that the seize fire agreement and hopeful steps towards a solution in Syria has been taken without our help. After all the media tells us that we are the beacons of peace and tranquillity and the shining light of democracy and hope, right?
 
Must be quite a loss of face for the US and the West that the seize fire agreement and hopeful steps towards a solution in Syria has been taken without our help. After all the media tells us that we are the beacons of peace and tranquillity and the shining light of democracy and hope, right?
Your spelling is a loss of face.
 
Your spelling is a loss of face.

'He said without a hint of irony.'

I am truly sorry, I did spell "tranquility" wrong. I am just a simple european after all, no way in hell can I hope to achieve such an understanding of other languages, cultures and geography that the average 'Murican has. Neither can we grow to appreciate your fantastic understanding of irony plus humorous and balanced outlook on the world. Please liberate us.

My humble apologies, Sir.
 
Last edited:
What finally happened in Mosul? It has disappeared completely from the news. A month ago I read that Isis had in Mosul only suicide squads and snipers but it seems they still resist?
 
I am truly sorry, I did spell "tranquility" wrong. I am just a simple european after all, no way in hell can I hope to achieve such an understanding of other languages, cultures and geography that the average 'Murican has. Neither can we grow to appreciate your fantastic understanding of irony plus humorous and balanced outlook on the world. Please liberate us.

My humble apologies, Sir.
Seize fire already. Please tell me you're serious. Please.
 
What finally happened in Mosul? It has disappeared completely from the news. A month ago I read that Isis had in Mosul only suicide squads and snipers but it seems they still resist?

It has ground to a stalemate, as many predicted it might.
 
Seize fire already. Please tell me you're serious. Please.

Nah, recognize a windup when I see it.

Just a bit tired of the instant defensive attitude a lot of us in the West take towards the whole Syria debacle. Is it so inconceivable that we "for once" was in the wrong and backed the wrong horse? Is it so totally unrealistic that we had a vicarious motive?

About time the West as a whole reflect a bit upon our whole involvement in the ME and what we've actually achieved over the years, because it sure looks like we've fecked up a bit.
 
This conflict is fecking crazy. The Russian Ministry of Defence has now published a list of rebel groups who it claims have signed on to the ceasefire, and has described them as 'moderate' - the list includes Ahrar al-Sham (co-founded by al-Qaeda higher up Abu Khalid al-Suri) and Jaysh al-Islam (of the notorious late Zahran Alloush) - http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12107227@egNews. According to Reuters, Ahrar al-Sham has denied signing on for the ceasefire - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-ceasefire-idUSKBN14I17I

Meanwhile, Reuters reports on Russia's plan to bring the conflict to a close. It's a reasonable route to go down and maybe signals that Russia isn't too keen on going all the way with Assad to reconquering the entire country. It also seems to mean partition in all but name:

Syria would be divided into informal zones of regional power influence and Bashar al-Assad would remain president for at least a few years under an outline deal between Russia, Turkey and Iran, sources say.

Such a deal, which would allow regional autonomy within a federal structure controlled by Assad's Alawite sect, is in its infancy, subject to change and would need the buy-in of Assad and the rebels and, eventually, the Gulf states and the United States, sources familiar with Russia's thinking say...

...Assad's powers would be cut under a deal between the three nations, say several sources. Russia and Turkey would allow him to stay until the next presidential election when he would quit in favor of a less polarizing Alawite candidate.

Iran has yet to be persuaded of that, say the sources. But either way Assad would eventually go, in a face-saving way, with guarantees for him and his family...

...Foreign and defense ministers from Russia, Turkey and Iran met in Moscow on Dec. 20 and set out the principles they thought any Syria deal should adhere to.

Russian sources say the first step is to get a nationwide ceasefire and then to get talks underway. The idea would then be to get Gulf states involved, then the United States, and at a later stage the European Union which would be asked, maybe with the Gulf states, to pick up the bill for rebuilding...

...The shifting positions of Moscow and Ankara are driven by realpolitik. Russia doesn't want to get bogged down in a long war and wants to hold Syria together and keep it as an ally.

Turkey wants to informally control a swathe of northern Syria giving it a safe zone to house refugees, a base for the anti-Assad opposition, and a bulwark against Kurdish influence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-deal-idUSKBN14H12V

On the same day, an Assad fangirl posts an op-ed on RT mocking everyone who has suggested partitioning Syria, claiming Assad will reconquer the country one way or another - https://www.rt.com/op-edge/372142-us-russia-syria-partition-turkey/#.WGWP0hT7Jy0.twitter

The US has at this stage surrendered any and all influence on the course of events in Syria it once had, quite a staggering turnaround under Obama.
 
Nah, recognize a windup when I see it.

Just a bit tired of the instant defensive attitude a lot of us in the West take towards the whole Syria debacle. Is it so inconceivable that we "for once" was in the wrong and backed the wrong horse? Is it so totally unrealistic that we had a vicarious motive?

About time the West as a whole reflect a bit upon our whole involvement in the ME and what we've actually achieved over the years, because it sure looks like we've fecked up a bit.
You missed my point again, but I won't belabor it. It's not fun anymore.
 
This conflict is fecking crazy. The Russian Ministry of Defence has now published a list of rebel groups who it claims have signed on to the ceasefire, and has described them as 'moderate' - the list includes Ahrar al-Sham (co-founded by al-Qaeda higher up Abu Khalid al-Suri) and Jaysh al-Islam (of the notorious late Zahran Alloush) - http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12107227@egNews. According to Reuters, Ahrar al-Sham has denied signing on for the ceasefire - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-ceasefire-idUSKBN14I17I

Meanwhile, Reuters reports on Russia's plan to bring the conflict to a close. It's a reasonable route to go down and maybe signals that Russia isn't too keen on going all the way with Assad to reconquering the entire country. It also seems to mean partition in all but name:



On the same day, an Assad fangirl posts an op-ed on RT mocking everyone who has suggested partitioning Syria, claiming Assad will reconquer the country one way or another - https://www.rt.com/op-edge/372142-us-russia-syria-partition-turkey/#.WGWP0hT7Jy0.twitter

The US has at this stage surrendered any and all influence on the course of events in Syria it once had, quite a staggering turnaround under Obama.
Thanks for that. It's a good piece imo.
 
Interesting excerpt from John Kerry's recent interview to Boston Globe. He's basically admitting he was sabotaged by his own side in negotiations with Russia over Syrian conflict.
There are usual accusations of Assad/Russia/Iran's conduct in it but overall he seems to be genuinely sorry about failure to make things work in Syria.By the way, from what I could gather, Russian officials considered Kerry the only US top official in the current administration who was trustworthy and worth dealing with despite all the problems in the US-Russia relations.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...-role-state/3DqcfBTEvs8euhTThnhvIK/story.html

More recently, he has clashed inside the administration with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. Kerry negotiated an agreement with Russia to share joint military operations, but it fell apart.

“Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation of that extremely hard to accomplish,” Kerry said. “But I believe in it, I think it can work, could have worked.’’

“It’s late now obviously because of what’s happened to Aleppo,’’ he said. “But the fact is we had an agreement in which Russia gave us a veto over their flights and over what they were doing in the area, had we set up a joint cooperative effort.’’

“Now we had people in our government who were bitterly opposed to doing that,’’ he said. “I regret that. I think that was a mistake. I think you’d have a different situation there conceivably now if we’d been able to do that.”
 
Question regarding identity: do Syrian Christians, Alawis, Sunnis, Kurds, etc. all perceive themselves as 'Syrians'?
 
Question regarding identity: do Syrian Christians, Alawis, Sunnis, Kurds, etc. all perceive themselves as 'Syrians'?

Except for the extreme salafi-jihadis of al-Qaeda and ISIS, and perhaps some extreme nationalist Kurds, "yes" is the short answer.

The longer answer would have to consider where Syrian identity stands in regard to other more tribal, sectarian or ethnic identities. Historically Syrian nationalism has been intertwined with pan-Arab nationalism, and Syrian nationalism itself has tended to view the entire Levant/Bilad al-Sham and even in some instances Iraq and Cyprus as part of the "Syrian" homeland. The non-Sunni Arab minorities (especially the Orthodox Christians and more lately the Alawites) and the old urban Sunni elites were the primary adherents of these nationalist ideologies which tended to reach beyond the frontiers imposed by the colonial powers after WW1, and which were enshrined by the Ba'th as Syria's raison d'etre. But safe to say that at the local level, other more parochial forms of identity are prevalent. There is an old rivalry between Aleppo and Damascus for example - the former had strong links with south-east Anatolia and especially the city of Mosul, while Damascus was more connected with Palestine and especially Cairo. This manifested itself in political rivalries which plagued the country during the 50s and led to coup after coup.
 
I've lived through war and I know there's nothing entertaining about it so I don't need your lecturing on the subject.

Yes, genius, I do post articles that back my point of view. Doesn't everybody? I care enough about Syrians that I support what Russian military is doing there and the humanitarian aid that pours from Russia which gets almost no coverage in the western MSM unlike the non-stop crocodile tears about the plight of the citizens of Aleppo. It's my country's doing so it comes out of my pocket and my countrymen do their part in protecting thousands of Syrians from terrorists.

You've lived through war yet find bits of this war entertaining? Why exactly is that? Is it perhaps because unlike the Syrians, as I said, the war barely affects you at all and your armed forces are away in a distant land, rather than it being your own country? Because, having lived through war, I don't find any aspect of any conflict entertaining? Perhaps that's just me though.

Again with the aggression and again with the victim complex. Yes you do post articles that back your point of view. And yes so does everybody else. That is in fact exactly what I said. Hence why I said you all. And why I again clarified later with the general you. Did you miss that part? My point is that its just a steady stream of people posting articles with their own view, completely disregarding the other side or even the possibility that there may be an other side.

Is it a coincidence that what and who you care about aligns so perfectly with what your government cares about?

Jesus, you sound just like the Americans did with the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

And 2cents, your comment about a certain side co-opting the terrorist talk is spot on. It has became a favourite tactic in the Arab world, especially after 9/11.
 
You've lived through war yet find bits of this war entertaining? Why exactly is that? Is it perhaps because unlike the Syrians, as I said, the war barely affects you at all and your armed forces are away in a distant land, rather than it being your own country? Because, having lived through war, I don't find any aspect of any conflict entertaining? Perhaps that's just me though.

Again with the aggression and again with the victim complex. Yes you do post articles that back your point of view. And yes so does everybody else. That is in fact exactly what I said. Hence why I said you all. And why I again clarified later with the general you. Did you miss that part? My point is that its just a steady stream of people posting articles with their own view, completely disregarding the other side or even the possibility that there may be an other side.

Is it a coincidence that what and who you care about aligns so perfectly with what your government cares about?

Jesus, you sound just like the Americans did with the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

And 2cents, your comment about a certain side co-opting the terrorist talk is spot on. It has became a favourite tactic in the Arab world, especially after 9/11.

I don't find war entertaining and nothing in my post suggested it. I was making fun at political games, in that case, Erdogan accusing America of supporting ISIS when only few months earlier he was accused of the same thing. If you read into it something that isn't there, then it's your problem.
 
Except for the extreme salafi-jihadis of al-Qaeda and ISIS, and perhaps some extreme nationalist Kurds, "yes" is the short answer.

The longer answer would have to consider where Syrian identity stands in regard to other more tribal, sectarian or ethnic identities. Historically Syrian nationalism has been intertwined with pan-Arab nationalism, and Syrian nationalism itself has tended to view the entire Levant/Bilad al-Sham and even in some instances Iraq and Cyprus as part of the "Syrian" homeland. The non-Sunni Arab minorities (especially the Orthodox Christians and more lately the Alawites) and the old urban Sunni elites were the primary adherents of these nationalist ideologies which tended to reach beyond the frontiers imposed by the colonial powers after WW1, and which were enshrined by the Ba'th as Syria's raison d'etre. But safe to say that at the local level, other more parochial forms of identity are prevalent. There is an old rivalry between Aleppo and Damascus for example - the former had strong links with south-east Anatolia and especially the city of Mosul, while Damascus was more connected with Palestine and especially Cairo. This manifested itself in political rivalries which plagued the country during the 50s and led to coup after coup.

Thanks. I was asking in context of the partitioning idea which has been around for a while now, and was wondering if there is even a desire among 'Syrians' to live together in one state or if the differences caused by this war a too great and make this impossible. No idea if any theoretical models have been worked out so far as to how the state could be partitioned. I am guessing, however, that the dark powers of the universe will do their best to prevent any sort of Kurdish autonomy being created.
 
Thanks. I was asking in context of the partitioning idea which has been around for a while now, and was wondering if there is even a desire among 'Syrians' to live together in one state or if the differences caused by this war a too great and make this impossible. No idea if any theoretical models have been worked out so far as to how the state could be partitioned. I am guessing, however, that the dark powers of the universe will do their best to prevent any sort of Kurdish autonomy being created.

All factions except for ISIS are insisting on maintaining the unity of the country (ISIS obviously don't recognize the state of Syria as in any way legitimate). It's fair to say the PYD have a different vision of how this will work - they seem to envisage a federal system with a large measure of autonomy for Kurds, whereas the regime and the mainstream opposition seem to be committed to rebuilding the centralized state (certainly the regime - there may be differences in this regard among the Arab opposition that I'm not aware of). I agree the Kurds are going to get screwed, been saying it for two years and the signs are that the Americans will abandon them with Russia and Turkey planning to divide the country into zones of influence giving Ankara a free reign to put an end to Kurdish autonomy in the north.

As for how a partition might look like, at this stage if it happens it will reflect the course of the conflict rather than any actual ethnic or sectarian boundaries that are perceived to exist. In any case, partitioning along ethnic and especially sectarian lines would create huge problems as the populations are mixed in with each other to a large extent, and the Sunni population is extremely divided as to what kind of future they want for the country. Interestingly when the French ruled they initially divided the country like this:

French-Syria-Map.jpg


But there was a massive revolt against them in the 1920s, with one of the major complaints against them being what was seen as this 'divide-and-rule' policy, so they merged the Alawite, Druze, Damascus and Aleppo zones to form Syria, keeping Lebanon for the Maronites and Alexandretta separate (it was taken by the Turks in the late 1930s). So you can see that even at that early stage the boundaries created by the colonial powers had created loyalties to a state that had not even existed ten years prior.
 
@2cents This is then going back to how the Ottomans structured their empire. Reminds me of Bosnia which also was a vilayet, and then consisted of several sandzaks. Looks like the French based their partitioning on that system. I'm actually wondering if the current 'Bosnian model' would be of any use. It's a very complicated and wasteful administrative nightmare but it's still the closest to having a 'centralised' state. Mind you, the risk is that one of the federal units would seek for more than just autnomony under the current set up and demand full independence (like we're currently doing in the Serbian part of Bosnia). It's all so very complex. Seems to be somewhat more balanced in Iraq as the powers are spilt bewteen Shia and Sunni/ Kurds. But, perhaps it's not impossible for Syria either if, as you say, the majority Sunnis are split in regards to their expectations. In the end it will turn out that everything should have stayed the way it was before 2011.
 
It's interesting that during the course of the Syrian war the Axis of Resistance (the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance) and their supporters have wholly adopted the rhetoric and discourse of the War on Terror which, during the 2000s, was primarily used to target them.

Different scenario though.

The so-called 'War on terror' ochestrated by Bush and Blair was nothing more than a red herring to cloak the true goal - regime change and regional hegemony. Whereas Syria and Iraq have genuinely be at the receiving end of Islamist terrorism, with Shias being the most common victims.
 
@2cents This is then going back to how the Ottomans structured their empire. Reminds me of Bosnia which also was a vilayet, and then consisted of several sandzaks. Looks like the French based their partitioning on that system. I'm actually wondering if the current 'Bosnian model' would be of any use. It's a very complicated and wasteful administrative nightmare but it's still the closest to having a 'centralised' state. Mind you, the risk is that one of the federal units would seek for more than just autnomony under the current set up and demand full independence (like we're currently doing in the Serbian part of Bosnia). It's all so very complex. Seems to be somewhat more balanced in Iraq as the powers are spilt bewteen Shia and Sunni/ Kurds. But, perhaps it's not impossible for Syria either if, as you say, the majority Sunnis are split in regards to their expectations. In the end it will turn out that everything should have stayed the way it was before 2011.

The difference is that the Ottoman vilayats in the Middle East were arbitrarily drawn administrative units with no relations to any ethnic or sectarian boundaries. It was the colonial powers who introduced this idea in the region in 1860 when they intervened to protect the Maronites following the anti-Christian massacres of that year, and forced the Ottomans to accept Maronite autonomy on Mount Lebanon.

Different scenario though.

The so-called 'War on terror' ochestrated by Bush and Blair was nothing more than a red herring to cloak the true goal - regime change and regional hegemony. Whereas Syria and Iraq have genuinely be at the receiving end of Islamist terrorism, with Shias being the most common victims.

To be clear, I blame the US 'War on Terror' for this - once utilized it's no surprise to see others adopt it (just about everybody did after 9/11). And yes, the peoples who the Axis of Resistance claim to defend have undoubtedly been victims of Islamist 'terror'. However Iran and Syria have been happy over the years to sponsor and facilitate violent Islamists themselves. Yet now they throw around terms like 'terrorism' in much the same fashion as Bush and co. did, with no attempt to consistently or reliably define it, while they promote a 'you're either with us or against us' agenda. And while Iran has justifiable and no doubt genuine concerns over the genocidal anti-Shi'a mood and actions among many Sunni groups, it's naive to think they aren't utilizing this discourse in support of their own regional hegemonic goals.

barros said:
Can someone tell me why most of the muslim countries hate the Kurds? I almost compare their hate with the hate for Israel in the region.

It's not about hating the Kurds per se, it's just that Kurdish nationalist ambitions are incompatible with the continuing existence of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran as we know them.
 
Can someone tell me why most of the muslim countries hate the Kurds? I almost compare their hate with the hate for Israel in the region.

I've asked the same question and my Turkish friends told me it's because of their customs: they marry their cousins, practice honor-killing, implement arranged/forced marriages, deal with drugs/weapons/prostitution... (insert any other sterotype available) ;)

On a more serious note, I'm still amazed by the fact that Turkey does not recognise the Kurds as a national/ ethnic minority. I'm also curious about the Alewite Kurds, are they closer to the Alewite Turks in regards to their religion or are they also different within that sect?
 
Last edited:
Fantastic news, if true

http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/middle-east/324388

In addition, Sedun said the decision of the Kurdish politicians to join the talks comes from Russia’s strong role as a guarantor throughout the discussions. According to his words, Russia has an opportunity to have strong influence on the Syrian government, which may lead to granting of certain right to the Kurdish population of the country.


"Russia is telling us: voice your suggestions and we will discuss them with the Syrian government. If Damascus offers to grant you autonomy, agree to it. The status of autonomy is a good opportunity in current circumstances," the politician told Sputnik.