ISIS in Iraq and Syria

2cents said:
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:
Click to expand...

I did come across that with Assad's brother when Charlie Rose interviewed Assad for the first time (2006?). It felt like with the line of questioning Rose was being a nuisance and trying to hint at that scenario you describe above.

Can't say I know really anything about Syrian life or the fairness of the Syrian elections, so I can't dismiss what you say there. Another reason I'm interested in this situation though is because of the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

I think one of the speakers might have mentioned this organisation/document in the Eva Bartlett video, and I did scan through the paper that was published a while back. It basically seems like quite an odd document given the people involved that came to power shortly after in the Bush administration, everything that has happened since (Iraq, Libya, Syria...Iran and North Korea?), and this situation with what have been called 'moderate rebels', US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and this alleged Wikileaks email from Clinton to Podesta:

“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
KingEric7 said:
Can't say I know really anything about Syrian life or the fairness of the Syrian elections
Click to expand...

Well if you're genuinely interested in understanding why and how Syria collapsed in 2011, these types of questions would be the place to start. There are books/articles I could recommend. On the other hand, if you're more interested in confirming that an American hand lies behind all this, then I think you're on the right track already.
 
2cents said:
Well if you're genuinely interested in understanding why and how Syria collapsed in 2011, these types of questions would be the place to start. There are books/articles I could recommend. On the other hand, if you're more interested in confirming that an American hand lies behind all this, then I think you're on the right track already.
Click to expand...
If you're phrasing it this way, then you're unlikely to be able to provide "genuine understanding about why and how", even though Syria definitely didn't have fair elections under Assad.

Only on this forum, Russia literally installed Trump as president of the US with their blatant interventions, but the US has nothing to do with what's happening in Syria.
 
2cents said:
Well if you're genuinely interested in understanding why and how Syria collapsed in 2011, these types of questions would be the place to start. There are books/articles I could recommend. On the other hand, if you're more interested in confirming that an American hand lies behind all this, then I think you're on the right track already.
Click to expand...

The latter to be honest, but thank you. I will look more into the recent history of Syria in the future but it interests me how unsubtle this Clinton/US/Saudi/ISIS relationship seems given arms sales when she was Secretary of State, donations from Saudi Arabia to the Clinton Foundation, that Wikileaks email talking about Saudi Arabia funding ISIS, the John Kerry audio, etc...

I mean, if this is genuine...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/715977/al-nusra-us-arming-jihadists-syria
 
Last edited:
Danny1982 said:
If you're phrasing it this way
Click to expand...

It's phrased that way in order to note @KingEric7 's clear agenda, which he has subsequently and happily acknowledged.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with me. But welcome back.
 
2cents said:
It's phrased that way in order to note @KingEric7 's clear agenda, which he has subsequently and happily acknowledged.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with me. But welcome back.
Click to expand...
I don't care about his agenda or anybody's agenda. You're definitely right that things were tough for the people under Assad (and that has a lot to do with him but definitely not only with him). However trying to give the impression that the American hand is just something for people "not genuinely interested in the reality" then you're not being honest in even what you know.

The US role in destabilizing Syria actually goes much further than 2011. The US systematically destabilizes countries through economic warfare, as poverty and poor economic situation is one of the main drivers for unrest (which the US hopes would result in regime change eventually). On the other hand of course its ally in the region (Saudi Arabia) is using the Wahhabi ideology as their way of destabilizing countries (with the US full knowledge and support of course). These are in fact the two main factors that led to the collapse of Syria (and other countries in the region) if you're genuinely interested in understanding why and how.

By the way, thank but I'm not really back, too busy to post regularly now, just dropping to make a post of two here and there. And I know your position is a little bit different when it comes to the US elections, but I don't see you putting your opinion there in a similarly patronizing way as you do here.
 
Danny1982 said:
However trying to give the impression that the American hand is just something for people "not genuinely interested in the reality" then you're not being honest in even what you know.
Click to expand...

I've acknowledged all along what I believe to be the destructive US role in this. If you read what I wrote above it states "if you're more interested in confirming that an American hand lies behind all this" - as in, that the US role is the only role worth exploring. As @KingEric7 has acknowledged. that is the only aspect he's interested in here. So my patronizing assumption was correct.

My position, which I'm sure you know like the back of your hand by now, is that there are a multitude of factors at play, two of which you address here...

The US role in destabilizing Syria actually goes much further than 2011. The US systematically destabilizes countries through economic warfare, as poverty and poor economic situation is one of the main drivers for unrest (which the US hopes would result in regime change eventually). On the other hand of course its ally in the region (Saudi Arabia) is using the Wahhabi ideology as their way of destabilizing countries (with the US full knowledge and support of course). These are in fact the two main factors that led to the collapse of Syria (and other countries in the region) if you're genuinely interested in understanding why and how.
Click to expand...

...and although I'd quibble with the details, I've never denied that US policies and Saudi Wahhabism have been a major factor. I just believe there are other long-term factors at play which have had a greater bearing on what has gone on. As you well know.

I know your position is a little bit different when it comes to the US elections, but I don't see you putting your opinion there in a similarly patronizing way as you do here.
Click to expand...

I know feck all about US politics compared to dozens of others on this forum, and compared to what I know about the Middle East, that's why.
 
2cents said:
I've acknowledged all along what I believe to be the destructive US role in this. If you read what I wrote above it states "if you're more interested in confirming that an American hand lies behind all this" - as in, that the US role is the only role worth exploring. As @KingEric7 has acknowledged. that is the only aspect he's interested in here. So my patronizing assumption was correct.
Click to expand...

I misinterpreted that ('all this'). Didn't mean to come off as assuming that there were no other causes.
 
Last edited:
There are a million worse videos from Syria - but, this video for whatever reason broke my heart.

The poor mother touching her deceased daughter tenderly



As with all wars - we talk about good guys and bad guys...but, no one cares about these poor people :(
 
I can't keep up with this any more, my Twitter feed has videos of Euphrates Shield rebels clashing with SDF outside Manbij, Euphrates Shield with captured SAA soldiers also near Manbij, and some unidentified rebel group with captured SAA soldiers west of Aleppo.
 
well. I guess it is equally confusing on the ground. Maybe we'll see in a day or two how things turn out. I don't think that Euphrates Shield and SAA are going to fight each other for a prolonged period of time.
 
Powerful tactics. Don't like the discussion, change the topic.

However it all started, whatever mitigating circumstances on either side, the Syrian authority and Russia, AND Iran, are on the right side of history in this specific conflict now. Maybe Syria wasn't initially, but things change.

Spin spin spin away.
 


Syrian regime are playing this one beautifully it seems.
 
Nucks said:
However it all started, whatever mitigating circumstances on either side, the Syrian authority and Russia, AND Iran, are on the right side of history in this specific conflict now. Maybe Syria wasn't initially, but things change.
Click to expand...
"Right side of history" is a strong claim. This specific conflict is part of Teheran's offensive in the ME now, and I don't think that's something to look forward to at all.

I have no illusions about their Sunni rivals, but from what I know, Iran is and has been every bit as bad as Saudi Arabia since the Islamic Revolution. An oppressive, murderous religious dictatorship with an imperialistic foreign policy and a devastating proxy-war strategy since the 1980s. Among left-leaning people it usually gets off much too lightly because of anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments, which make this state seem like an anti-Imperialistic and now somehow even anti-Islamistic stronghold. I view them as competition to Salafism/Wahhabism and Saudi-Arabian ambition and certainly not the lesser evil.

More often than not there is no right side of history.
 
Synco said:
"Right side of history" is a strong claim. This specific conflict is part of Teheran's offensive in the ME now, and I don't think that's something to look forward to at all.

I have no illusions about their Sunni rivals, but from what I know, Iran is and has been every bit as bad as Saudi Arabia since the Islamic Revolution. An oppressive, murderous religious dictatorship with an imperialistic foreign policy and a devastating proxy-war strategy since the 1980s. Among left-leaning people it usually gets off much too lightly because of anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments, which make this state seem like an anti-Imperialistic and now somehow even anti-Islamistic stronghold. I view them as competition to Salafism/Wahhabism and Saudi-Arabian ambition and certainly not the lesser evil.

More often than not there is no right side of history.
Click to expand...

Agree with you on the 'right side of history' stuff, I don't think it's relevant here as all actors (national, regional, and international) are bound up in this mess together to varying degrees.

However I wouldn't go so far as to say Iran has been as bad as Saudi Arabia since the revolution. Khomeini's brand of revolutionary Shi'ism is more akin (in the Sunni context) to the kind of program the Muslim Brotherhood wish to implement rather than the ultra-conservative, extremely harsh, and wildly sectarian scripturalist legalism of Saudi-state and -exported Wahhabism. It is more flexible socially, more representative politically, and aspires to be more pan-Islamic internationally, whatever limitations it actually faces due to its Shi'i nature. Additionally, the non-state Shi'i actors that Iran has sponsored abroad such as Hezbollah and some of the Iraqi militias have generally avoided (since the 80s at least in the case of Hezbollah) the vicious sectarian rhetoric and toned down the kind of extreme violence that characterizes the Salafi-Jihadis who the Saudis tend to use in order to counter Iranian influence.

Having said that there's not much else you can accuse the Saudis of doing that the Iranians haven't done either, whether it's support for suicide attacks (introduced to the region by Iranian-backed groups in the early 80s), persecution of religious minorities, destruction of holy places (on both see the Baha'i for example), anti-semitic conspiracism, etc. It's probably a matter of degree.
 
Synco said:
"Right side of history" is a strong claim. This specific conflict is part of Teheran's offensive in the ME now, and I don't think that's something to look forward to at all.

I have no illusions about their Sunni rivals, but from what I know, Iran is and has been every bit as bad as Saudi Arabia since the Islamic Revolution. An oppressive, murderous religious dictatorship with an imperialistic foreign policy and a devastating proxy-war strategy since the 1980s. Among left-leaning people it usually gets off much too lightly because of anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments, which make this state seem like an anti-Imperialistic and now somehow even anti-Islamistic stronghold. I view them as competition to Salafism/Wahhabism and Saudi-Arabian ambition and certainly not the lesser evil.

More often than not there is no right side of history.
Click to expand...

It's not 'Anti-Israeli'

It's anti-zionist, anti-land stealing and anti-ethnic cleansing.
 
2cents said:
Having said that there's not much else you can accuse the Saudis of doing that the Iranians haven't done either, whether it's support for suicide attacks (introduced to the region by Iranian-backed groups in the early 80s), persecution of religious minorities, destruction of holy places (on both see the Baha'i for example), anti-semitic conspiracism, etc. It's probably a matter of degree.
Click to expand...
I get what you say earlier in the post, and I agree that this more pragmatic side has to be noted. Although in a way that blend of ruthlessness and precise calculation is part of what makes them so dangerous as a regional superpower whose power is steadily growing. When they choose to advance, they usually get it right, as it now happens in Syria. I also ask myself if there's the possibility of a projected endgame based on Shia eschatology for some point in the future. Perhaps they are just doing their job better than their Salafi counterparts.

But the passage quoted here is pretty much what I meant. There is a strong tendency among critics of the West and Saudi-Arabia to ignore this major part of the Iranian regime's reality altogether, as well as the systematic spurring on of civil war through the Shi'ite and other levers. The standards applied to Iran are too often vastly different from other regional actors, and I fail to see how its rulers deserve this kind of favourable treatment. Although I can imagine the motives.

@Neutral It simply is to me, most of the time.
 
@Neutral

I'm definitely no fan of Israel but if what Ahmadinejad said is representative*, the stuff from Iran is anti-Israeli, not just based on human rights.

*That may not be true, I have zero idea.

Edit: but I agree that SA is leaps ahead of Iran in terms of repression.
 
berbatrick said:
@Neutral

I'm definitely no fan of Israel but if what Ahmadinejad said is representative*, the stuff from Iran is anti-Israeli, not just based on human rights.

*That may not be true, I have zero idea.

Edit: but I agree that SA is leaps ahead of Iran in terms of repression.
Click to expand...
Of course the rhetoric from Iran (and this stuff is essentially State policy and has been for decades) is anti-Israel and there is no doubt the Mullahs in control despise anything and everything to do with Israel - I was just messing :lol:
 
I don't necessarily think this is the case, but I reckon with Iran many people get the feeling that, as distasteful as the regime may be, underneath it all is a pretty decent society ready to emerge, while with the Saudis, underneath it all is something even worse waiting to emerge.
 
2cents said:
I don't necessarily think this is the case, but I reckon with Iran many people get the feeling that, as distasteful as the regime may be, underneath it all is a pretty decent society ready to emerge, while with the Saudis, underneath it all is something even worse waiting to emerge.
Click to expand...
In what way?
 
2mufc0 said:
In what way?
Click to expand...

I think many people feel there is a burgeoning, liberal civil society in Iran waiting to be released on the day the regime falls, whereas the feeling with Saudi Arabia is that any change in that regime will likely usher in ISIS.

Again, just my feeling based on much of the rhetoric surrounding these countries; how a change in regimes would actually play out in either state is anyone's guess.
 
2cents said:
I think many people feel there is a burgeoning, liberal civil society in Iran waiting to be released on the day the regime falls, whereas the feeling with Saudi Arabia is that any change in that regime will likely usher in ISIS.

Again, just my feeling based on much of the rhetoric surrounding these countries; how a change in regimes would actually play out in either state is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

Isn't it even more fundamental?
Iran/Persia is going to exist as nation state even if the current regime falls (maybe things get better, maybe worse). I am not sure you could say the same about political order on the Arabian peninsula. I could be totally wrong about this so.
 
2cents said:
I think many people feel there is a burgeoning, liberal civil society in Iran waiting to be released on the day the regime falls, whereas the feeling with Saudi Arabia is that any change in that regime will likely usher in ISIS.

Again, just my feeling based on much of the rhetoric surrounding these countries; how a change in regimes would actually play out in either state is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
I don't think isis will be around long enough for that to happen. Also with the economic situation there I think we will see a change in Saudi Arabia we never thought would happen.
 
PedroMendez said:
Isn't it even more fundamental?
Iran/Persia is going to exist as nation state even if the current regime falls (maybe things get better, maybe worse). I am not sure you could say the same about political order on the Arabian peninsula. I could be totally wrong about this so.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's correct I'd say. And just as Iran is always going to exist in one form or another, so its basic interests and history-fueled self-perception will always lead it to project power in the region when it can, no matter who is ruling.
 
2cents said:
I don't necessarily think this is the case, but I reckon with Iran many people get the feeling that, as distasteful as the regime may be, underneath it all is a pretty decent society ready to emerge, while with the Saudis, underneath it all is something even worse waiting to emerge.
Click to expand...
As far as my personal experiences go, I can definitely confirm these impressions of Iran's civil society. I've gotten to know many people from the local Iranian community over the past 15 years or so, some of them quite well; Everyone despises the Mullahs, no one buys into their bullshit and they generally have an individualistic, mostly liberal stance. Although most of them are from a rather specific background (urban, diaspora, somewhat middle-class), it's obvious they are representative for a strong current in Iranian society.

@berbatrick It's hard for me to judge from outside impressions and it may be that the level of repression in Saudi-Arabia is worse. But comparisons aside, the grip the regime/police/IRGC has over Iranian society is really not to be underestimated. I know people who had friends or parents that were killed because of opposition work, and the accounts I've heard are pretty much in line with what can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

But it's also true that the Mullahs have/had to make tactical considerations and sometimes compromises the Saudi regime probably never needed to care about.
 
Synco said:
As far as my personal experiences go, I can definitely confirm these impressions of Iran's civil society. I've gotten to know many people from the local Iranian community over the past 15 years or so, some of them quite well; Everyone despises the Mullahs, no one buys into their bullshit and they generally have an individualistic, mostly liberal stance. Although most of them are from a rather specific background (urban, diaspora, somewhat middle-class), it's obvious they are representative for a strong current in Iranian society.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the side of Iran that many in the West are somehow counting on in the event there is change there. On the other hand, I've been to Qom and Mashad, and some out of the way places like Bandar Abbas, and they are a world away from North Tehran - at least that's how it seemed to me, always hard if not impossible to judge a place like Iran as a casual visitor.
 
So it looks like US and Russian troops are trying to keep SDF and Euphrat Shield away from each other.
I am a bit surprised by the USA and Russian standing by the YPG against the Turkish offensive so far. I thought they would abandon them once Euphrates shield advances. Weird to see US flagged Stryker and Russian flagged transporter roaming around Manbij.
 
Dario Mitidieri, Italy
Lost Family Portraits "March 2017 will mark the 6th anniversary of the beginning of the war in Syria. More than 470,000 people have died since. In all, 11.5% of the country's population have either been killed or injured. 45% of the population have been displaced, 6.36 million internally and 4.8 million abroad. This is the biggest humanitarian emergency of our era.
Lost Family Portraits aims to tell the story of those who have lost family members in the Syrian war, and who have made their way to the refugee camps in the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon. The empty chairs or spaces in the photographs symbolise the missing family members. Lost Families Portraits is a reminder of the of the destructive power that war has over families. It is also a testimony to the 1.5 million refugees who are left behind in Lebanon, who cannot afford to buy their way into Europe and who have nothing to go back to."
https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-wor.../professional/shortlisted/natural-world/dario
 
You must log in or register to reply here.