ISIS in Iraq and Syria

This is interesting:



Organic Potatoes said:
Landis was criticized by some on here, but he was right from very early on.
Click to expand...

He gets a lot of shit I believe because his wife is an Alawite from a family with ties to the military. But he gets most stuff right IMO.
 
Apparently all-out jihadi infighting going on right now in Syria, with Ahrar fighting al-Qaeda group Jund al-Aqsa with Nusra split over it
 
Been away for a while and this may have been posted somewhere here (although I wouldn't bet that these would be the kind of facts that interest the people here), but just for the stupid and the deluded who are still trying to argue that the US don't use terrorism as a tool to defeat its opponents (like it have for decades now), here is a new fresh dose of reality...

Obama hoped to use Islamic State as leverage against Assad, John Kerry reveals

Well before Russia’s military came to Bashar Assad’s aid in Syria, the Obama administration calculated that the Islamic State’s expansion in the region would force the Syrian president into negotiating with Washington, according to private comments Secretary of State John F. Kerry made last fall.

Leaked audio captures Mr. Kerry’s closed-door discussion with Syrian activists on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in late September.

Although some details of the meeting have been reported, little attention has been paid to Mr. Kerry’s discussion about a strategy to use the terrorist group’s growing presence in Syria and Iraq as leverage to pressure Mr. Assad.

The State Department on Tuesday forcefully denied any suggestion that the administration ever had a policy of tolerating or trying to use the group, also known as ISIS and ISIL. But Mr. Kerry’s comments, which drew fresh scrutiny in the Arab media last week, raise questions about the extent to which the administration sought to gain from the terrorist group’s prominence to force Mr. Assad to capitulate.

“The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger,” Mr. Kerry said on the recording, posted on the website of AMN News, an online aggregator of material focused on the Middle East. “[The Islamic State] was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus and so forth. We were watching. We saw that [the Islamic State] was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened.

“We thought, however, we could probably manage. You know, that Assad might then negotiate,” Mr. Kerry said. “Instead of negotiating he got [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to support him.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/obama-hoped-to-use-isis-as-leverage-against-assad-/

I don't even need to comment any further.
 
This would be pretty funny if true, Trump can claim that he got al-Baghdadi in his first three days in office!
 
Organic Potatoes said:
Pitting one terrorist against another. That's hardly controversial.
Click to expand...
1- It's not, and you know it. You're just trying to make excuses for supporting terrorism after your lies were busted (again), by trying to tell another lie. There is no way any political regime is as bad as the cancerous disease you (the US and its allies) are spreading all over the globe to fight your political opponents. When those scumbags come to you and blow your family next, remind yourself to blame yourself first for this.

2- If you are wondering what (blatant) lies you told that were busted, here are a few:

- "Russia didn't come to Syria to fight ISIS."

That's literally what Kerry admits there.

- "The US is fighting ISIS.", "The US wants to defeat and destroy ISIS."

That's literally what Kerry said they deliberately didn't do while they were watching ISIS grow stronger and stronger, to use them as a way to make political gains (once again) against their political opponent (Assad this time). It's the same reason they helped Al-Qaeda in Syria in many different ways because they're "on their side" (a direct quote).

- "Assad is not fighting ISIS."

Yeah, that's quite obviously bullsh*t.

- "Assad is using ISIS as a way to pressure his opponents."

:lol:
 
PedroMendez said:
Apparently the fighting between JFS(+Zenki) and Ahrar+Jaish (+the rest) is escalating in Idlib. JFS is trying to take over larger parts of the country-side.
Click to expand...

You're back!

Looks like they're doing what ISIS tried to do (with partial success) in 2014. Ultimately there's no room for pluralism with al Qaeda, even for groups like Ahrar which are barely distinct.
 
2cents said:
You're back!

Looks like they're doing what ISIS tried to do (with partial success) in 2014. Ultimately there's no room for pluralism with al Qaeda, even for groups like Ahrar which are barely distinct.
Click to expand...

I agree that this would be the case in the long run, but I think it is more about power than about ideology at the moment. Ahrar is not part of Astana, but their majority faction seems to be close enough to Turkey to adapt to a new strategy if necessary. I think Turkey is trying to build up their own rebels that have fairly limited goals (= they don't fight Assad, but ISIS/Kurds) and that step could be facilitated even further with the current talks. Various rebel groups might be tempted to follow this approach instead of fighting a lost war. That would isolate and weaken the rest of the bunch significantly. JFS/AQ is now trying to unify the opposition on gun point to stay powerful.
 
PedroMendez said:
I agree that this would be the case in the long run, but I think it is more about power than about ideology at the moment. Ahrar is not part of Astana, but their majority faction seems to be close enough to Turkey to adapt to a new strategy if necessary. I think Turkey is trying to build up their own rebels that have fairly limited goals (= they don't fight Assad, but ISIS/Kurds) and that step could be facilitated even further with the current talks. Various rebel groups might be tempted to follow this approach instead of fighting a lost war. That would isolate and weaken the rest of the bunch significantly. JFS/AQ is now trying to unify the opposition on gun point to stay powerful.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much. The other groups see the writing on the wall and have probably received a sharp dose of reality from Ankara.
 
Turkey ensured that the YPG was not included in the cease-fire brokered with Russia and has already launched several attacks against the Syrian Kurdish guerilla.
Turkey shelled Kurdish villages neighboring Kobane on Friday, continuing its December push against the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units, the YPG, who were excluded in the cease-fire brokered with Russia last week.

“Before the YPG-SDF retook Tel Abyad from ISIS in early 2015, the terror group (Islamic State group) used to export its oil tankers through this border crossing to the black market,” YPG officer Habun Osman told the Syrian Kurdish ARA News.

“When ISIS was in control here, Turkey never attacked the group’s positions. Now that Tel Abyad is under Kurdish control, the Turkish Army continues to attack the area.”
Click to expand...


Non-neutral source

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/ne...Kobane-Targets-Kurdish-YPG-20170106-0020.html
 
Boris Johnson signals shift in UK policy on Syria's Assad

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-shift-in-uk-policy-on-syria-bashar-al-assad

“We have been wedded for a long time to the mantra that Assad must go, and we have not been able at any stage to make that happen, and that has produced the difficulty we now face,” Johnson said.

“We are getting to the stage where some sort of democratic resolution has got to be introduced … We believe in democracy, we support democracy, and if there is a political solution then I don’t think we can really avoid such a democratic event. I think that is the way forward.”

Johnson said it was crucial that the Trump administration recognised that any deal with Russia on ending the Syrian conflict would also involve accommodating Iran, another key Assad ally.

“The real question is whether the incoming American administration fully appreciates that relationship, and how we can shape the conversation,” Johnson said. “Clearly, what we do not want to see is a further extension of Iranian policy and influence in the region.”

Johnson also held out the conditional prospect of the UK working with Russia militarily to defeat Islamic State – something that would have been unthinkable only weeks ago.

The UK has been one of Russia’s strongest critics but, in a change of tone – if not policy – that reflects the new mood in the White House, Johnson said Moscow had to be engaged. “We cannot endlessly push them away and demonise them,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Here's a theory on the jihadi infighting from a supporter of the regime:

C3BfWoHXgAEH-hw.jpg
 
Was in the army for a year. Reconnaissance. Just a lot of training, nothing real. Tempted to rejoin and actually fight some bad guys.
 
Think that's more of an immediate response to the phone call between Trump and Erdoğan. Not that they didn't owe Turkey one.
 
A BRITISH jihadi who blew himself up in a suicide attack on Iraqi troops in Mosul has been nnamed as a former Guantanamo Bay detainee who the UK Government lobbied to release — before handing him a £1MILLION compo.

Ronald Fiddler, who changed his name to Jamal Al-Harith after converting to Islam, was filmed driving a death car packed with explosives at an army position in near the ISIS stronghold on Monday.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/29208...ormer-guantanamo-bay-detainee-ronald-fiddler/


 
Very interesting article on the general state of 'analysis' of the Arab Spring, with an emphasis on Syria:

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/25885/a-preface-to-a-critique-of-instant-analysis-and-sc

"What continues to be in short supply is a systematic and historically informed analysis of the factors that brought various societies to a boil, more or less, at that particular moment. A corollary objective is to identify the factors that influenced the trajectories of different cases. The fact that the human cost of the uprisings, their diversions, and their suppression has been calamitous is all the more reason to take analytical pause in judgement."
Click to expand...
 
The media are misleading the public on Syria.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...ublic-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html

COVERAGE OF the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.

For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.

This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.

Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?”

This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.

Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the “moderate opposition” will win.

This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.

Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.

Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.

Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.

Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.

Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.
 
Not posted on here much recently, but I have popped in every now and then to look at threads like these and gauge opinion on certain subjects.

I know what the mainstream narrative is when it comes to Assad, but I'm absolutely struck by how genuine and sincere a person he comes across as (and not just for a politician), as well as his level of eloquence and consistency in the face of journalist interrogations. I've watched hours of interviews, and it just seems unimaginable to me that someone like this would kill his own people indiscriminately, which is absolutely an accusation that every mainstream media journalist I've seen interviewing him levels at him.

Found this a good watch if anyone's interested:

 
KingEric7 said:
I know what the mainstream narrative is when it comes to Assad, but I'm absolutely struck by how genuine and sincere a person he comes across as (and not just for a politician), as well as his level of eloquence and consistency in the face of journalist interrogations. I've watched hours of interviews, and it just seems unimaginable to me that someone like this would kill his own people indiscriminately, which is absolutely an accusation that every mainstream media journalist I've seen interviewing him levels at him.

Found this a good watch if anyone's interested:

Click to expand...


He was never meant to be President. The older brother Basil was being groomed for leadership while Bashar was studying in London. However he was killed in a motor accident in the mid-90s (you still see his portrait plastered all over the place in Syria, or could before 2011 - more than one Syrian told me that Bashar had him killed, but I think that's very unlikely) which meant Bashar had to come home to take the reigns after the father died.

Whatever he is as an individual, he is the head (or figure-head) of the Syrian Ba'th Party, which has never had any scruples with doing whatever it has felt necessary to stay in power. Here's my take on how the Assads have governed Syria - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isis-in-iraq-and-syria.392179/page-195#post-20188816

As for Bartlett, she's correct about the general state of the media coverage of the Syrian conflict, but she ultimately reveals herself to be a regime stooge, insisting that free and fair elections were held under Bashar.

(Edit) - Hafiz, Basil, and Bashar al-Assad:

681x454.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.