Not sure what that has to do with my post, but of course he's going to have support, Syrians haven't exactly got a great choice at the moment. Unless what you mean is the protests that happened in Syria were staged and people that were killed didn't really happen?Interesting, I'm good friends with 3 naturalized American citizens originally from Syria. Came over as babies. They all still have large, extended families living in Syria. All of them, 100% support Assad. Their families support Assad. Now, that isn't representative of the entire country, obviously, but it is interesting that it does seem like the majority in Syria actually do support him. I'd bet more Syrians support Assad, than Americans support Trump
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
That's not what he wrote.
It was pretty obvious though.
The truth is you're taking blatantant propoganda sources over one of the least biased media outlets in the world, in the BBC
I want you to source and defend your sources. Post them so we can discuss them. Because frankly you're defending massacres and arguably genocide because you're too cool for school.
I do think you're a moral individual who's been misled by blatant propoganda here but that propoganda is seeing you defending horrific war crimes.
I think it would be great if they did. I think it would be great if they could all return home, live in peace and prosperity, free to practice whichever religion they choose, and set about the enormous task of rebuilding their country, economy, infrastructure, arts, etc., etc.. The obstacles to achieving those ends are primarily external forces.
Nah. I've posted way too much to go over it all again. It's here in this thread already.
You're really taking the piss though mate, as you'd realise if you could see beyond the veneer of mainstream media. I
Your anecdote is a complete 180 to what my Syrian friends think, they hated Assad before the war and they still hate him, but of course when given the option of ISIS or a return to Assad the majority of them would take Assad but that doesn't equal unfettered support.Interesting, I'm good friends with 3 naturalized American citizens originally from Syria. Came over as babies. They all still have large, extended families living in Syria. All of them, 100% support Assad. Their families support Assad. Now, that isn't representative of the entire country, obviously, but it is interesting that it does seem like the majority in Syria actually do support him. I'd bet more Syrians support Assad, than Americans support Trump
What would happen if ISIS, AlQaeda,etc are pushed back and Syria and its allies advance on the Golan?
They would be pushed back with ease by the Israelis.
I think you're right, and the world will ignore the fact that Israel would be fighting Syria and Russia on Syrian land in violation of at least 2 UN Security Council resolutions.
Holy shit, the thread is full of alt-left/alt-right propagandists and conspiracy theorists
Holy shit, the thread is full of alt-left/alt-right propagandists and conspiracy theorists
We have one alt-left guy who is doing all the work in this thread.
I think in fairness, Russia would never be interested enough in Syria to actually attempt to invade the Golan with Assad and I imagine Putin would strongly discourage any such advance from Assad's forces. The Assads have done little but pay lip service to retaking the Golan for decades, they would be moronic beyond belief to attempt to do so after a brutal civil war in which they've required the help of militias from other countries to even keep their own fighting force afloat.
It's quite clear that Russia and Israel have an understanding over Syria.
Speaking of fairness - do you think it would be fair for UN SC resolutions to be upheld and for Israel to vacate the Syrian land they illegally occupy? Is it just because they are militarily strong and have US backing that it's deemed OK for them to carry on and extract oil and gas from Syrian land? Is the UN being ignored OK?
Putin having a right laugh arming the syrians and Saudis at the same time.
Long piece on dissension among ISIS ulama surrounding the question of takfir:
Caliphate in Disarray: Theological Turmoil in the Islamic State
Caliphate in Disarray: Theological Turmoil in the Islamic State
I don't know if I'm reading the tone in the wrong manner, it can be quite difficult to gauge such things over the internet. You are barking up the wrong tree however if you want to go down this line with me.
Without even going into the fact that ISIS in Syria and Iraq is irrelevant to the Golan heights currently, I am someone who would want the Golan to be returned to Syria. So no I don't think its fair that they occupy the Golan. Regardless, Syria won't be retaking it militarily anytime soon.
I just followed that and found myself on a site called jihadica.com. If I now end up on a no-fly list, I'm going to be seriously pissed off.
Good, scary read. Interesting that he thinks they could be over within months. Is that realistic?
And what happens to the leftover leaders and members that aren't taken out? Carry on going after as many as possible for a bit?
With Mosul completely finished and Raqqa more or less done as well, anyone left over is going to run out of places to go, so I would think months is realistic. That's obviously not including fighters in far off players like Afghanistan and Niger etc.
I just followed that and found myself on a site called jihadica.com. If I now end up on a no-fly list, I'm going to be seriously pissed off.
You're ok, it's run by academics.
That's a brutal read, some of the violence is exactly as the guy in the article says, it is unfathomable. Can't imagine being in a perpetual state of fear like that.
So I'll definitely end up on a US no-fly list..
Interesting how the guy claims he never killed anyone or ordered any killings. Yeah, ok then..
Yeah also funny how these deserters always seem to have become disillusioned right at the point when ISIS started losing.
Yea I know what you mean like.
that was an insightful read. Intresting that they kept the locals and foreigners separate, most likely so they could keep control of their narrative that they were feeding both groups.
I'm sure I heard on Radio 4 last night that Turkish armour and troops had entered Syria to support FSA and "were being escorted by Al Qaeda affiliates". Anyone else hear that too?
I saw this in my Twitter feed, but will search for more...
I saw this in my Twitter feed, but will search for more...
Last edited:
True. Although maybe there's slightly less vigilance so it's easier to escape. I've no doubt some that were already there just ended up stuck in the situation. Plenty of people still got out though, so dunno.
I was simply asking what you think is fair - and you've answered. Most fair-minded people would, I think, agree with the UN SC ruling on this - if not their "turning a blind eye".
As to whether Israel's occupation of the Golan is relevant to the conflict between ISIS and Syria...
Are you aware of Genie's subsidiary Afek Oil, it's activities in the Golan, the people on its board and major shareholders? You can look it up yourself or I could provide links if you like, although they've been posted previously in this thread.
Are you aware that Israel has provided air support to ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates in the SW of Syria near the Golan? Again, that has been covered already here.
Are you aware that Israel has on multiple occasions provided medical assistance to ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates in that region at hospitals in the Golan? There's a link to an interview with an Israeli official about that in here too. He said something along the lines of "Well, Al Qaeda hasn't done Israel any harm". That was shortly after the US had given Israel a huge amount of aid, by the way.
Are you aware that an Israeli officer was in Aleppo when it was taken back by Syria?
I could go on. I think Israel's occupation and exploitation of the Golan is certainly relevant to the conflict between ISIS/AlQaeda and Syria.
I'm pretty sure the main reason for Israel's occupation of the Golan is that it adds vital strategic depth and works as a buffer towards a hostile country. I'm also not aware of any willingness for an Egypt-style 'land for peace' deal on Syria's behalf. At least under Hafez al-Assad, I'm not really informed on what Bashar was up to afterwards.
Throughout the 90s the prospect of a peace deal was dangled in front of the Americans. Hafiz had supported the US coalition in the Gulf War against Saddam which got him in Washington's good books for the first time really. And with the Cold War over Damascus needed a new strategy with the end of Soviet funding. This went as far as actual peace talks between Jerusalem and Damascus (an old professor of mine was involved). However his death and the start of the second intifada put an end to any prospect of a deal, although it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that neither side was genuinely interested. I think when it comes to the 'peace process', most in the Middle East are much more interested in the 'process' rather than the 'peace'.
Last edited:
Ah ok, then I had a warped view of that. Would you say these talks had a realistic chance of leading to an actual deal (especially when taking into account Israel's security interests and Syria's demand to get back the whole Golan)?
I don't personally believe that Assad could have got away with it politically even if he was so inclined. Syria under the Ba'th has projected itself as the "beating heart of Arab nationalism". On the other side, there was maybe a small window in the mid-90s under Rabin and then Peres when the Israeli public might have conceivably gone for it (have a look at Peres's book, The New Middle East, for a sense of the optimism in Israel in the mid-90s - it's possibly the worst book ever published on the region), but my hunch would be that even then it would have been very unlikely - ultimately it's such a strategically vital territory, the Israelis just aren't going to concede those heights which give whoever occupies them the entire Galilee to shoot down on to, all the way to the Med. Not until the entire mood/political culture in the region has fundamentally shifted.
I mean just read the ridiculous synopsis for Peres's book:
"The co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1994 offers a compelling vision of the future for the Middle East, in which he sees a reconstructed region free of past conflicts, allowing a social and economic revival, and provides a cogent analysis showing how this peace can be achieved."
"The co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1994 offers a compelling vision of the future for the Middle East, in which he sees a reconstructed region free of past conflicts, allowing a social and economic revival, and provides a cogent analysis showing how this peace can be achieved."