View Full Version : SYRIA thread
Sarmatian
02-09-2016, 18:19
We haven't really had a dedicated Syria thread, we mostly talked about it in other threads. I do think that it deserves a thread of its own so I'm starting one.
Recently, Syrian army launched an offensive into Aleppo and is threatening to encircle the city. The loss of Aleppo would be a major defeat for Al-Nusra and ISIS, apparently.
According to this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/syria-putin-assad_b_9169998.html) on Huffington Post, written by Alastair Crook, the former MI6 member, this means the end of the war is close.
The war is just begining I think, I hope I am wrong
Montmorency
02-09-2016, 22:25
To put it baldly then, as things stand, Syria seems to be heading not towards a "quagmire" as many western politicians have suggested, but rather to a clear military outcome. As one knowledgable commentator noted, the negotiating table is not in Geneva. The true negotiations are taking place on the battlefields of Idlib and Aleppo -- and what has just been negotiated is the near encirclement of rebel forces into a cauldron.
That's rather silly, and it makes out 5-year-old news sound as a brilliant analysis. There will be a clear military outcome, just as there was a clear military outcome in some other states in the region. The military component is not in question - the quagmire has simply been the fact of the matter. There is no indication that this will change.
As for the "cauldron", that has more to do with what territory those rebels are actually based in. rather than any particular facts of military deployment on the ground. Are they expected to break out into the arms of IS?
Nor, it seems, is Syria heading toward a low-intensity guerrilla war in the aftermath of any military victory on the ground.
Clever equivocation, but the question is less of "low-intensity guerrilla war" in this or that city block, but of such throughout reclaimed areas.
I also expect Syria to soon again constitute a strong regional state. The meaning of this will be evidenced in a powerful, cohesive northern arc through the region -- and perhaps closer relations with Iraq. Correspondingly, certain Gulf states will find themselves eclipsed.
Now the author dives into pure fantasy. For Syria to reassert power in the region to the point of overshadowing Iraq and "certain Gulf states", all IS territory in Syria-Iraq would have to be overrun with main force, followed by long-term occupation and mop-up of resistance from the hinterland and sporadic terrorist activity. Then, the Syrian government would have the task of re-establishing governance and authority over all this area, reintegrating refugees, rebuilding infrastructure, and attracting foreign (not just Russian or Iranian) investment.
At this point, forget about rebels or IS - Turkey could break Bashar's regime simply by repatriating a million refugees.
Peoples who undergo the kind of trauma to which Syrians have been subjected either emerge as a psychologically defeated nation or they are strengthened by the crisis through which they have passed.
It's clear that Iraq's experience in the war against Iran strengthened its regime and its nationhood. Nevertheless, both were still far too fragile to survive more pressure. Syria's catastrophe, on all levels except perhaps debt incurred and proportion of armed forces service members killed, is considerably worse.
The 4+1 coalition (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah)
The basic error here is that these no more constitute a coalition than do: Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the United States.
Assad is happy to align with Iran for survival, but he is much more comfortable as a client of Russia, as Russia can bring more international influence and Iran is just too close to home to tolerate its dominance. Iraq is a rump state in its current form, and to that extent a client of Iran. Most importantly, Iran is not inclined to be friendly with Russia. Russia counts as a major competitor to Iran in terms of its national security, and where it aligns with Russia it does so to counterbalance American coercion. Russia is no more a partner of Iran than it is a partner of China.
In fact, the author of the article is not merely sloppy and ignorant, but is an active advocate for political Islam (http://www.conflictsforum.org/).
Sarmatian
02-09-2016, 22:47
His ponies and rainbows scenario after the war does seem a little far fetched, but I'm mainly interested in the military aspect - will taking of Aleppo cripple ISIS and is Turkey really preparing an intervention in Syria? Russia seems to be getting ready for it.
In fact, the author of the article is not merely sloppy and ignorant, but is an active advocate for political Islam (http://www.conflictsforum.org/).
What do you mean by political Islam?
Greyblades
02-10-2016, 00:11
I trawl through the guardian from time to time; reading the raw ideological stupidity of the articles being called out in their own comments sections never fails to entertain, however I stumbled upon a rare nugget of (almost) complete sanity today that you may be interested in.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/peace-conference-war-syria-president-assad-west
Gilrandir
02-10-2016, 10:34
Recently, Syrian army launched an offensive into Aleppo and is threatening to encircle the city. The loss of Aleppo would be a major defeat for Al-Nusra and ISIS, apparently.
ISIS has nothing to do with Aleppo.
I have been following for a month or so what's going on here:
http://syria.liveuamap.com/
Haven't noticed any changes in (the city of) Aleppo. In other places some villages are reported to change hands, but there is no clearly marked tendency in such events - sometimes Assad's forces capture a village from the Sunni opposition, sometimes Kurds from the same, sometimes it is vice versa.
In any case only an intervention of other players (involving land operations) can bring any side to a decisive military victory. Otherwise it will last for quite a longish time with no palpable results for anyone.
Montmorency
02-10-2016, 13:25
I trawl through the guardian from time to time; reading the raw ideological stupidity of the articles being called out in their own comments sections never fails to entertain, however I stumbled upon a rare nugget of (almost) complete sanity today that you may be interested in.
This terrible war must clearly fight to some sort of finish. But it is not our war, and will not be our finish. The thesis that humanitarian goals are best served by grandstanding, by taking sides in foreign conflicts and pretending to “resolve” them, is the madness of our age. It has reduced much of the Middle East to bloody chaos.
Our sole obligation to the Syrian people is humanitarian. It is to relieve suffering with charity, not increase it with bombs. It is to send aid to bordering countries, and take in those refugees that fate washes, quite literally, on to our shores. It is to do good, not to pretend to do good by doing harm.
Solid enough.
Sarmatian I will reply later, I have to complete my itinerary for today.
Not that you are going to be responding anyway, but what good is robbing them from their young (unqualified) males who don't stand a chance here, and will never be anything but a burden.
Sarmatian
02-21-2016, 23:25
While we're discussing refugees to no end, things have not been quieting down in Syria. Ankara now blames the Kurds for the terrorist attack and is looking to exploit that claim and intervene militarily in Syria.
With Kurds entering into a de facto alliance of convenience with Assad, there is a very real possibility of an actual, truly autonomous Kurdish region in Syria, which in fact may link up with Kurds in Iraq and Turkey. Interesting article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-isis-turkey-barack-obama-ankara-bombing-a6886466.html) about it in the Independent.
According to them Obama didn't manage to persuade Erdogan to drop the plans for invasion, and that means things could get really ugly, really quickly. Some other articles suggest that Turkey wouldn't dare perform an invasion unless they get US support, which they apparently aren't getting, but I'm not 100% sure Erdogan will be able to ignore his ego.
Hmm, that and the probability some Russian pilots might be eager to see if Turkish pilots are keen to engage Russian air planes fully aware that they are under rules of engagement. And then, what id the Assad Forces, still legitimate President of Syria, decide that is an invasion, so it is a war started by Turkey.
NATO will not have the legal right to side for Turkey, as Turkey would have to cross an internationally recognised borders (not that did stop NATO before, I grant you this), but this is coming with a possibility of war wit Russia.
I am not sure that the Turkish Mussolini is ready for this, as first he has a opposition in Turkey, and for sure the PKK will received modern equipment... If some incidents arrived between Russian and Turkey, the Russian can move troops along the borders (sea).
So, it looks that Putin keeping Sevastopol was a good move, after all, even if, of course, he lost everything.:creep:
Gilrandir
02-22-2016, 13:28
If some incidents arrived between Russian and Turkey, the Russian can move troops along the borders (sea).
If that happens Turkey will close the Straits for Russian ships and it would endanger the supply problems for Russian forces in Syria. And moving troops along borders has no sense unless you want to cross them some day at some place. Russia will never land any expedition forces on Turkey's coastline. It would be suicidal.
"If that happens Turkey will close the Straits for Russian ships and it would endanger the supply problems for Russian forces in Syria." Really? How Turkey would implement this? Shooting at Russian navy when, well, it is still not a war?
As aggressor, Turkey wouldn't be able to ask for help (we speak here of Turkish Forces invading Syria, Syria having a defence agreement wit Russia).
Gilrandir
02-22-2016, 17:10
"If that happens Turkey will close the Straits for Russian ships and it would endanger the supply problems for Russian forces in Syria." Really? How Turkey would implement this? Shooting at Russian navy when, well, it is still not a war?
As aggressor, Turkey wouldn't be able to ask for help (we speak here of Turkish Forces invading Syria, Syria having a defence agreement wit Russia).
First of all Turkey can issue to Russian ship a prohibition to pass through. If Russian ships nevertheless try to enter Bosphorus, Turkish ships from the three basis in and around the Sea of Marmara may use against Russia the same tactics Russia used while overrunning the Crimea: blocking the way of entrance with the ships. No shooting first and no aggressor status. And it would be not violating the Montreux convention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
Turkey was authorised to close the Straits to all foreign warships in wartime or when it was threatened by aggression; additionally, it was authorised to refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey.
If they don't have a long chain they can raise, they can still lay a mine field. Or build a wall.
“when it was threatened by aggression” Russia is not "aggressing" Turkey, that the flaw of your argument. It was not a Turkish plane that was sot-down by a Russian plane. It is not Russian troops that might cross Syrian border against the will of the recognised government. The lands Turkey want to invade were never part of Modern Turkey (unlike Sevastopol was part of Russia before Communist dictator Khrushchev gave it to his wife, oops, sorry Ukraine). And Turkey even claimed they want to fight the populations who are there...
“refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey.” So, Turkey would have to declare war on Russia to do so legally. At the moment when Russia and USA signed a cease fire on Syria… Tsk tsk tsk, I don’t think USA will allow that…
Especially, if I have to believe the news (cease-fire Feb-27), Russia and USA Air Force will now work together and finally share maps…
Mmmm, that leave Recepo Erdoglini little options to attack now. Will he take the narrow window and take the risk to be left alone on a potential low level war against Russia/Assad/Kurds?
“blocking the way of entrance with the ships” No offence but the Ukrainian army/navy was not match for Russia. Russia is more than a match for Turkey, especially with Turkey behaviour. So, what if the Russian boats bloke the Turkish boats blocking their boats? That will look like Istanbul roads, traffic jam…
While we're discussing refugees to no end, things have not been quieting down in Syria. Ankara now blames the Kurds for the terrorist attack and is looking to exploit that claim and intervene militarily in Syria.
With Kurds entering into a de facto alliance of convenience with Assad, there is a very real possibility of an actual, truly autonomous Kurdish region in Syria, which in fact may link up with Kurds in Iraq and Turkey. Interesting article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-isis-turkey-barack-obama-ankara-bombing-a6886466.html) about it in the Independent.
According to them Obama didn't manage to persuade Erdogan to drop the plans for invasion, and that means things could get really ugly, really quickly. Some other articles suggest that Turkey wouldn't dare perform an invasion unless they get US support, which they apparently aren't getting, but I'm not 100% sure Erdogan will be able to ignore his ego.
It's pretty certain the bomber was a Kurd, the real question is whether or not he was involved with the YPG. A Kurdish terror organization called TAK (Kurdistan Freedom Falcons) has claimed responsibility while the YPG denies it was involved, however like you said Turkey is itching for an excuse to invade Syria and destroy the YPG so they claim the bomber was a Syrian Kurd who entered Turkey from Kobani.
I think it's unlikely that the YPG carried out the bombing, their goals are to establish an autonomous zone within Syria and defend themselves against ISIS and Islamist rebels, they haven't fired back when Turkey shells their positions and they are trying to appeal to the West for support. Carrying out a terrorist attack against Turkey would give Turkey a real reason to invade and ruin everything.
Meanwhile TAK is a PKK splinter group which has a history of carrying out terrorist attacks against Turkey, and a lot of Kurds are upset about Turkey's crackdown in the southeast.
Gilrandir
02-23-2016, 12:17
“when it was threatened by aggression” Russia is not "aggressing" Turkey, that the flaw of your argument. It was not a Turkish plane that was sot-down by a Russian plane. It is not Russian troops that might cross Syrian border against the will of the recognised government.
“refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey.” So, Turkey would have to declare war on Russia to do so legally. At the moment when Russia and USA signed a cease fire on Syria… Tsk tsk tsk, I don’t think USA will allow that…
Especially, if I have to believe the news (cease-fire Feb-27), Russia and USA Air Force will now work together and finally share maps…
There is no flaw in my arguments, because we were discussing might-have-beens. This is what you had said:
If some incidents arrived between Russian and Turkey, the Russian can move troops along the borders (sea).
My above mentioned speculations bore on what might happen next. Moving Russian troops along the border or the coast might as well be considered by Turkey as an aggression and it is entitled to react the way I assumed it could.
The lands Turkey want to invade were never part of Modern Turkey (unlike Sevastopol was part of Russia before Communist dictator Khrushchev gave it to his wife, oops, sorry Ukraine).
And that gives Russia a right to annex it? Then we might remember that the Crimea was once almost a part (as a vassal) of the Ottoman empire. Whose claim on it is more justified then?
“blocking the way of entrance with the ships” No offence but the Ukrainian army/navy was not match for Russia. Russia is more than a match for Turkey, especially with Turkey behaviour. So, what if the Russian boats bloke the Turkish boats blocking their boats? That will look like Istanbul roads, traffic jam…
You exaggerate the power of Russian Black Sea navy (which consists of out-of-date Soviet ships) and belittle the power of the Turkish navy whose principal base is right nigh in the Sea of Marmara. Turks will fight (if it comes to blows) on their own ground with their supplies and reinforcements at hand. Russia will have to drag whatever they can across all the expanse of the Black Sea.
Sarmatian
02-23-2016, 15:51
And that gives Russia a right to annex it? Then we might remember that the Crimea was once almost a part (as a vassal) of the Ottoman empire. Whose claim on it is more justified then?
Whoever gets to say "Stop quoting laws, we carry swords". Historically, those guys always have the strongest claim.
“Moving Russian troops along the border or the coast might as well be considered by Turkey as an aggression and it is entitled to react the way I assumed it could.” Nope. If manoeuvring troops near a border was enough for a war, Russia (and before USSR) would have attack NATO or vive-versa long time ago.
I was referring to a move, during the Falklands, by Chile, that Argentina couldn’t ignore, reason why the British didn’t have to fight the best Argentinians troops and all the Argentinian Air Force, reason why until the end Maggy Thatcher did call the bloody Chilean dictator a friend.
So a blockade would be an act of war, not movement on the sea. Some can even imagine some air trespassing…
“And that gives Russia a right to annex it?” No it didn’t. But our discussion about Crimea when it stated was about the outcry of indignation from NATO/EU countries whereas the same took part at a similar operation in Kosovo. Then you decide we (I and some others) were pro Putin, pro-Russia and so and so…
“Whose claim on it is more justified then?” Hmmm, hard call: Ottoman Empire doesn’t exist anymore, Turkey want to kill the inhabitants of this region of Syria under probably false pretext (remind me a bit of Hitler’s polish attack, this one), whereas Russia still exists, Ukraine was given by a dictatorship’s act, and, I didn’t heard of fighting during and after the annexation… In fact, I vaguely remember someone (perhaps you) telling that Putin was doom because he will have to pay the pensions to the elders (one of the multiple reasons I was told he lost).
“You exaggerate the power of Russian Black Sea navy” You might be right, but as I said, it is not the question of war, but put a pressure impossible to ignore…
“Turks will fight (if it comes to blows) on their own ground with their supplies and reinforcements at hand” Err, NATO material, and no NATO involvement? A good blockade and Turkey’s supplies will go down very fast. Again reference to the Falklands, but Argentina lost this war at sea because (but not only) their missile Exocets AM39 and maintenance parts for the Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard were put on hold by the French suppliers. And they did quite a good use a small amount they had…
Sarmatian
02-23-2016, 23:43
You might be right, but as I said, it is not the question of war, but put a pressure impossible to ignore…
That's true. Didn't think of that. In the scenario where Turkey intervenes in Syria, on modern pretext like averting a humanitarian disaster or fighting terrorists, Russia can move a fleet through Dardanelles. If Turkey blockades it, Russia just parks its ships there. No one passes through the straits, and that puts Turkey at an enormous international pressure. That cuts only access to the Med and beyond for Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and Georgia. Not to mention just how idiotic would be to have a fleet of potentially hostile warships right next to your main city. Turkey would probably have to cave in eventually.
If Turkey declares war, it can't invoke article 5.
Turkey in general doesn't have a very strong hand here. At best they might get a few concessions, but they will probably be left with their influence diminished overall after this in the best scenario.
Might be good for them in the long run, cause it might undermine Erdogan's position.
Kralizec
02-24-2016, 01:22
It's pretty certain the bomber was a Kurd, the real question is whether or not he was involved with the YPG. A Kurdish terror organization called TAK (Kurdistan Freedom Falcons) has claimed responsibility while the YPG denies it was involved, however like you said Turkey is itching for an excuse to invade Syria and destroy the YPG so they claim the bomber was a Syrian Kurd who entered Turkey from Kobani.
I read that Turkey's prime minister said today that TAK falsely claimed the attack, and that it was really the YPG.
I've wondered about this puzzle before. Is there any logic at all in carrying out a terrorist attack and then denying responsibility for it? To me that would seem pointless. Unless it's a false flag operation by intent, but I don't see why the YPG would want extra military action against Turkey's Kurds.
The simplest conclusion I can see is that TAK really did it, and that Turkey's government is just spinning lies to justify retribution against YPG.
The other possibility is that YPG's leadership was ignorant about the attack, but that some isolated cell under the YPG umbrella did it without consulting the leaders of the organisation.
Turkey in general doesn't have a very strong hand here. At best they might get a few concessions, but they will probably be left with their influence diminished overall after this in the best scenario.
Might be good for them in the long run, cause it might undermine Erdogan's position.
Turkey has managed to alienate almost every country in the region, plus Europe, since Erdogan has gained power. I agree that their influence will probably deteriorate further, regardless of the outcome in Syria. Sadly past experience suggests that Erdogan will just wallow in isolation, caring even less about what the world thinks of him. Maybe imprison some more journalists, professors or whoever else hurts his feelings :shrug:
The simplest conclusion I can see is that TAK really did it, and that Turkey's government is just spinning lies to justify retribution against YPG.
This is what I think is the case, because as far as Turkey is concerned the YPG is the Syrian branch of the PKK (they do have ties but whether or not they're the same organization is debatable) so Turkey is concerned that if the Syrian Kurds gain autonomy they'll harbor and support PKK fighters who will attack Turkey.
Gilrandir
02-24-2016, 10:05
In the scenario where Turkey intervenes in Syria, on modern pretext like averting a humanitarian disaster or fighting terrorists, Russia can move a fleet through Dardanelles.
Dardanellas is the southern one of the Straits. To move a fleet THROUGH it one has to either pass Bosphorus from the Black Sea or move northward from the Mediterranean. The first option is easily preventable by Turks and the second will mean moving Russian ships FROM the Mediterranean.:dizzy2:
If Turkey blockades it, Russia just parks its ships there. No one passes through the straits, and that puts Turkey at an enormous international pressure. That cuts only access to the Med and beyond for Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and Georgia.
So you mean that Russia will say: "We wouldn't let anyone through Bosphorus. If you want to know why, ask Turkey"? That's rich. Denying everybody else access through THE TERRITORY OF A DIFFERENT COUNTRY? It would be one more argument in favor of Russia's stance.
Turkey would probably have to cave in eventually.
Turkey in general doesn't have a very strong hand here. At best they might get a few concessions, but they will probably be left with their influence diminished overall after this in the best scenario.
All those are arbitrary conclusions/speculations prompted by a wishful thinking.
“Moving Russian troops along the border or the coast might as well be considered by Turkey as an aggression and it is entitled to react the way I assumed it could.” Nope. If manoeuvring troops near a border was enough for a war, Russia (and before USSR) would have attack NATO or vive-versa long time ago.
Tell it to the Turks who shot down the Russian plane. They seem to have their own mind as to what is allowed and what is not.
“And that gives Russia a right to annex it?” No it didn’t. But our discussion about Crimea when it stated was about the outcry of indignation from NATO/EU countries whereas the same took part at a similar operation in Kosovo.
We have been through with the invalid comparison. Kosovo was not annexed. Period.
“Whose claim on it is more justified then?” Hmmm, hard call: Ottoman Empire doesn’t exist anymore,
Neither does Russian empire nor the USSR. Yet it doesn't cancel Putin's aspirations to grab back what the two had lost.
Turkey want to kill the inhabitants of this region of Syria
I have always asked myself what was Turkey's ultimate purpose in Syria. Thank you for making it clear.
In fact, I vaguely remember someone (perhaps you) telling that Putin was doom because he will have to pay the pensions to the elders (one of the multiple reasons I was told he lost).
I would be obliged if you gave a proof to it - the thing that you enjoy to demand from others.
Err, NATO material, and no NATO involvement? A good blockade and Turkey’s supplies will go down very fast.
:laugh4: Sure. It is more difficult for a country to provide logistics for it s own army on its own ground that for Russia to supply its distant garrisons and ships.
And NATO can surreptitiously supply and support Turkey and pretend that it doesn't, in a word, to play the game that Russia has been involved in in Donbas for a couple of years.
Sarmatian
02-24-2016, 12:59
Dardanellas is the southern one of the Straits. To move a fleet THROUGH it one has to either pass Bosphorus from the Black Sea or move northward from the Mediterranean. The first option is easily preventable by Turks and the second will mean moving Russian ships FROM the Mediterranean.:dizzy2:
Yeah, I've should have written Bosphorus and Dardanelles, but regardless, one has to pass both to go from Black Sea to the Med or vice versa. So, the point still stands. Needless mental acrobatics on your part...
So you mean that Russia will say: "We wouldn't let anyone through Bosphorus. If you want to know why, ask Turkey"? That's rich. Denying everybody else access through THE TERRITORY OF A DIFFERENT COUNTRY? It would be one more argument in favor of Russia's stance.
Turkey is legally obliged to let Russian ships pass the straits unless officially at war. If the straits are closed, Russian ships can remain parked, waiting for the blockade to be lifted. Until they move, no one can pass. Since the Russian line will be "we're not blocking anything, were waiting to pass. We will move instantly when the passage is opened" and Turkish line will "we're not letting them pass, the straits remain closed" I can assure you everyone will blame Turkey.
All those are arbitrary conclusions/speculations prompted by a wishful thinking.
Possibly. This isn't an exact science, but regarding Russia, I've actually been right so far quite often, while your doom and gloom theories haven't came to pass.
We have been through with the invalid comparison. Kosovo was not annexed. Period.
Neither was Crimea. There was a plebiscite and people overwhelmingly decided to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
"Kosovo was not annexed. Period." Really? Check Bondsteel on your favourite research engine... Then, it was still taken from the country which is was in in Internationally recognised borders, wasn't it? So, if you take a part someone else territory, put a puppet regime based on ethnicity and installed a very powerful base on it, how do you qualify it, if not annexation?
And you are the one telling I have double standard. :laugh4:
"Tell it to the Turks who shot down the Russian plane." Oh, yeah, and I think, if Erdogan is not entirely stupid, he learned his lesson. NATO told him off (see agreement between USA and Russia, without Turkey) and he probably knows now he will be on his own...
"It is more difficult for a country to provide logistics for it s own army on its own ground that for Russia to supply its distant garrisons and ships" In the Black Sea? Check on a map...
"And NATO can surreptitiously supply and support Turkey and pretend that it doesn't" Sure, at the age of satellite (and successor of KGB is till regarded as one of the best), you can do this, especially with Greece in NATO...:laugh4:
You read too much spy novels...:laugh4:
And why NATO would do this, when NATO doesn't do it for Ukraine which has a much better case to present? Retaliation?
"Neither does Russian empire nor the USSR" Russian Empire doesn't exist, but, geographically, Russia, now a Republic, is.
It is as valid to pretend that France doesn't exist because the Kingdom of France went in the bin of History... A change of regimes is quite different than a complete territorial disappearance.
The Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey don't cover the same geographical space, nor the same populations...
Fisherking
02-25-2016, 09:55
For your consideration: http://journal-neo.org/2016/02/17/washington-s-machiavellian-game-in-syria/
Gilrandir
02-25-2016, 14:58
Yeah, I've should have written Bosphorus and Dardanelles, but regardless, one has to pass both to go from Black Sea to the Med or vice versa. So, the point still stands. Needless mental acrobatics on your part...
If you (or other orgahs) correct the mistakes of others, it testifies to the fact that they are engaged in discussion which presupposes proving your point and overthrowing the opponent's argument. If I have the cheek to do it, well, it is just mental acrobatics. Unbiased and uninvested.
Turkey is legally obliged to let Russian ships pass the straits unless officially at war.
Some more mental tumbling: I have cited the Montreux Convention (post # 13). It says that Turkey can close the Straits if it is threatened by aggression. A valid excuse if Turkey decides to do it.
If the straits are closed, Russian ships can remain parked, waiting for the blockade to be lifted. Until they move, no one can pass. Since the Russian line will be "we're not blocking anything, were waiting to pass. We will move instantly when the passage is opened" and Turkish line will "we're not letting them pass, the straits remain closed" I can assure you everyone will blame Turkey.
Are you deep in counsels of the EU, the USA, Germany and the Pope to claim that they would blame Turkey? So let me repeat: All those are arbitrary conclusions/speculations prompted by a wishful thinking.
Possibly. This isn't an exact science, but regarding Russia, I've actually been right so far quite often, while your doom and gloom theories haven't came to pass.
1. Quite often =/= always.
2. I would be greatly obliged if you specified with pertaining evidence what theories of mine you mean.
Neither was Crimea. There was a plebiscite and people overwhelmingly decided to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
I see. The Kosovo resentment is still rankling.
Count how many nations acknowledged the legality of both referenda and their results and you will have your answer.
"Kosovo was not annexed. Period." Really? Check Bondsteel on your favourite research engine... Then, it was still taken from the country which is was in in Internationally recognised borders, wasn't it? So, if you take a part someone else territory, put a puppet regime based on ethnicity and installed a very powerful base on it, how do you qualify it, if not annexation?
And you are the one telling I have double standard. :laugh4:
No, just your misunderstanding of the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation
Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the political transition of land from the control of one entity to another. In international law it is the forcible transition of one state's territory by another state or the legal process by which a city acquires land.
Go argue wikidedia or polish your knowledge of basic terms in international law.
"Tell it to the Turks who shot down the Russian plane." Oh, yeah, and I think, if Erdogan is not entirely stupid, he learned his lesson. NATO told him off (see agreement between USA and Russia, without Turkey) and he probably knows now he will be on his own...
Again ifs and probably. As Erdogan has shown he is on par with Putin as far as reclkess behavior is concerned. So, conclusion: one can never tell.
"It is more difficult for a country to provide logistics for it s own army on its own ground that for Russia to supply its distant garrisons and ships" In the Black Sea? Check on a map...
Not IN the Black Sea, but ACROSS the Black Sea. We were discussing potential Russian campaign on the Turkish coast and near Bosphorus, remember?
"And NATO can surreptitiously supply and support Turkey and pretend that it doesn't" Sure, at the age of satellite (and successor of KGB is till regarded as one of the best), you can do this, especially with Greece in NATO...:laugh4:
Russia's modus operandi is just like that: supplying the Donbas separatists with everything they need for warfare and denying it. When Lavrov is told about it he says: "You all lie, and your intelligence photos are photoshopped". I don't see why can't NATO respond in kind.
You read too much spy novels...:laugh4:
Never read any of them. In fact, there are two types of movies and books I hate: those about James Bond (and all of the kind) and those about Superman (and his varieties - Spiderman, Lightningman and all other Bullsh*tmen).
But, again, since you don't trust me....:shrug:
And why NATO would do this, when NATO doesn't do it for Ukraine which has a much better case to present? Retaliation?
It would be a surprise for you, but the reason is that Turkey is a NATO member and Ukraine is not.
"Neither does Russian empire nor the USSR" Russian Empire doesn't exist, but, geographically, Russia, now a Republic, is.
The Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey don't cover the same geographical space, nor the same populations...
Check the map of Russian empire and you will see that modern Russia doesn't cover all of that either.
Although both empires probably wouldn't mind retrieveing what they have lost. Especially the northern one.
"Check the map of Russian empire" Check on a map and you will see that a lot of country don't. However, none dispute their continuity...
"but the reason is that Turkey is a NATO member" And have to comply to the treaty, in theory a defensive one. So if a NATO's country launches a war, other NATO countries don't have legal rights nor duty to help the aggressor.
"I don't see why can't NATO respond in kind." For political and strategic reason. NATO certainly doesn't want the Talibans with modern weapons. Crimea/Kosovo was a lesson for the West, the game can be played by both side.
"Not IN the Black Sea, but ACROSS the Black Sea" I was speaking of the fleet, and manoeuvres to put pressure impossible to ignore. Not a landing on Turkish soil... As far as I know, Russia have no armies in Syria, but few specialists support units for air forces and almost certainly special forces...
"But, again, since you don't trust me" In fact, I do. With you bias and your anti-Putin stance (which I understand somehow)...
"No, just your misunderstanding of the term." Nope:
I followed your advice and look:
annexation,ˌanəkˈseɪʃn,ˌanɛkˈseɪʃn/Submit,noun:
the action of annexing something, especially territory.
"the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938"
synonyms: seizure, occupation, invasion, conquest, takeover, appropriation, expropriation, arrogation; usurping
"the annexation of Austria"
Def of to annex:
1. to attach, append, or add, especially to something larger or more important.
2. to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a city, country, or state:
Germany annexed part of Czechoslovakia.
3. to take or appropriate, especially without permission.
4. to attach as an attribute, condition, or consequence.
Def of appropriate:
3. to set apart, authorize, or legislate for some specific purpose or use:
The legislature appropriated funds for the university.
4. to take to or for oneself; take possession of.
5. to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate:
He appropriated the trust funds for himself.
6. to steal, especially to commit petty theft.
I think Kosovo fit in the description/definition.:yes:
Gilrandir
02-26-2016, 13:46
"Check the map of Russian empire" Check on a map and you will see that a lot of country don't. However, none dispute their continuity...
I don't dispute the continuity. I dispute equalizing modern Russia and Russian empire geographically and populationally, so to say. The latter, unlike the former, included Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, the Caucasian states, Middle Asia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova (and Alaska before 1867).
"but the reason is that Turkey is a NATO member" And have to comply to the treaty, in theory a defensive one. So if a NATO's country launches a war, other NATO countries don't have legal rights nor duty to help the aggressor.
So far we have been speculating on how Turkey would protect itself against Russia's possible aggression, not vice versa.
"I don't see why can't NATO respond in kind." For political and strategic reason. NATO certainly doesn't want the Talibans with modern weapons. Crimea/Kosovo was a lesson for the West, the game can be played by both side.
You can never tell. And besides, AFAIK, Turkey has the second most powerful armed forces among NATO states. I don't think they may feel the lack of any weapons.
"Not IN the Black Sea, but ACROSS the Black Sea" I was speaking of the fleet, and manoeuvres to put pressure impossible to ignore. Not a landing on Turkish soil...
... and this pressure may be qualified by Turkey (and perhaps by NATO) as an aggression. As was the case with the Russian plane. And if Russia really wanted to put any kind of pressure, it should be done near the Turkish territory, thus across the Black sea, and thus problematic supply-wise.
"No, just your misunderstanding of the term." Nope:
I followed your advice and look:
annexation,ˌanəkˈseɪʃn,ˌanɛkˈseɪʃn/Submit,noun:
the action of annexing something, especially territory.
"the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938"
synonyms: seizure, occupation, invasion, conquest, takeover, appropriation, expropriation, arrogation; usurping
"the annexation of Austria"
Def of to annex:
1. to attach, append, or add, especially to something larger or more important.
2. to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a city, country, or state:
Germany annexed part of Czechoslovakia.
3. to take or appropriate, especially without permission.
4. to attach as an attribute, condition, or consequence.
Def of appropriate:
3. to set apart, authorize, or legislate for some specific purpose or use:
The legislature appropriated funds for the university.
4. to take to or for oneself; take possession of.
5. to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate:
He appropriated the trust funds for himself.
6. to steal, especially to commit petty theft.
I think Kosovo fit in the description/definition.:yes:
It doesn't. We were speaking not of existing meanings of the word (and you picked #3 ignoring #2). If we were we could apply the word in the sentences like: "The robber chased her down the street and annexed her I-phone" or "Hardly had he left the purse unwatched when a passer-by annexed it" and so on. We were speaking of the term of international law which doesn't extend to the Kosovo case.
Sarmatian would have called it mental (or perhaps semantic) acrobatics. On a second thought he wouldn't. He would if I did it. You are fully protected from such derogatory statements by his attitude.
I read that Turkey's prime minister said today that TAK falsely claimed the attack, and that it was really the YPG.
I've wondered about this puzzle before. Is there any logic at all in carrying out a terrorist attack and then denying responsibility for it? To me that would seem pointless. Unless it's a false flag operation by intent, but I don't see why the YPG would want extra military action against Turkey's Kurds.
The simplest conclusion I can see is that TAK really did it, and that Turkey's government is just spinning lies to justify retribution against YPG.
To clear the confusion: YPG established as the vassal organization of PKK, which takes orders from, and sent its men to PKK when necessary. About TAK, such a group simply does not exist.
PKK likes to aim the women and children of the military staff as a vengeance. (Especially the jet pilots) At past, as an excuse they were simply claiming "Oh, some of our guerillas just went rogue and did the bombing by their own decision." which was not good enough to avoid responsibility.
And now, to have a better excuse, they simply invented TAK. So if an attack kills more civilians than the military personnel, "TAK" claims it. If it doesn't, PKK does.
In this particular case, the bomber is a YPG militia who joined YPG from Turkey, and then back to Turkey as to become PKK militia later. Still, it's impossible to tell if he is PKK or YPG at the time of the attack, because he is both.
A new player is on the rise!
The New Syrian Army, campaigning in search for glory and democracy, attacked from the Kingdom of Jordan against daesh positions in South Eastern Syria (http://www.forsannet.com/world-news/219477.html). It's a totally new group, full of liberal Syrian students that love social-democracy and wish for freedom of religion.
I am slightly confused though.
Originally we liked the Free Syrians, but then it turned out that they liked burqas more than us.
Then, we started to like the Democratic Syrians (who were actually Kurds and not Arabs), until our NATO colleague began to bomb them a bit and they allied with the Soviets and Assad, the notorious cogwheel of the Axis of Evil.
So, now do we like the New guys? What if they fight with our former friends, like the Democratic chaps tried to murder the Free rascals. Is anyone worried that we are running out of catchy names for our proxies?
How should we call the next group, if the Newbies are proven to be too religious or Soviet-Iranian-North Korean-Cthulhu-friendly?
Gilrandir
03-05-2016, 16:10
I am slightly confused though.
Originally we liked the Free Syrians, but then it turned out that they liked burqas more than us.
Then, we started to like the Democratic Syrians (who were actually Kurds and not Arabs), until our NATO colleague began to bomb them a bit and they allied with the Soviets and Assad, the notorious cogwheel of the Axis of Evil.
So, now do we like the New guys?
Local traditions of Syria allow you to like up to four paramours simultaneously. Go ahead and use the chance.
Shaka_Khan
03-05-2016, 16:25
We didn't understand the situation. (For us it's understandable because we're not there and we get the wrong information). Countries have misunderstood numerous times in the past about the other regions. And so they made the wrong decisions and the wrong policies.
The Kurds are joining the Russians and Assad after being attacked by Turkey. Also, Turkey and the Kurds aren't getting along so it's quite convenient for the Kurds to join the side (Russia) who's also not getting along with Turkey. NATO is still on Turkey's side, so the Kurds expect more help from Russia when it comes to Turkey. Both have common enemies, which includes ISIS.
I'm undecided between:
a) Finally they're fixing their own country.
b) Yet another ME group that wants power and to kill one another.
Sarmatian
03-05-2016, 18:01
A new player is on the rise!
The New Syrian Army, campaigning in search for glory and democracy, attacked from the Kingdom of Jordan against daesh positions in South Eastern Syria (http://www.forsannet.com/world-news/219477.html). It's a totally new group, full of liberal Syrian students that love social-democracy and wish for freedom of religion.
Coming out of Jordan means they're US backed. I don't think much is gonna change.
AE Bravo
03-06-2016, 01:26
A new player is on the rise!
The New Syrian Army, campaigning in search for glory and democracy, attacked from the Kingdom of Jordan against daesh positions in South Eastern Syria (http://www.forsannet.com/world-news/219477.html). It's a totally new group, full of liberal Syrian students that love social-democracy and wish for freedom of religion.
I don't think anyone should be quick to root for these guys. The article says they were a subfaction of the FSA.
Seems like an opportunistic move from FSA big wigs to present a decent enough counterpoint to Assad. Their parent organization (Jabhat al Tanmiya wal Islah) is fishy, with a vague charter and not a whole lot to say about religious freedom.
Any group that's not willing to settle for less than the eradication of the standing army of the Syrian Arab Republic is not a politically prudent group, and is probably heavily influenced by non-Syrians.
They already lost the border crossing to daesh.
The New ones don't seem to have a long life expectancy. So any thoughts on this?
Should we root for the Renovated Syrians, the Originals or Syria 2.0?
Gilrandir
03-16-2016, 09:53
Putin withdraws from Syria?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35807689
Hooahguy
03-16-2016, 12:02
Kinda reminds me of this:
17808
If I had to guess, he will leave his anti-air defenses in the country to prevent a no-fly zone from being established. This way he can return if needed as it is not a complete withdrawal.
I think putin wants legimitate peace agreement he has ordered to troops to leave or threaten to leave in so that Assad will actually be sincere in the geneva talks, yes he'll leave the S400 SAAM missiles to prevent a Turkey or Saudi aggression.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/vladimir-putin-syria-outfox-obama-220745
Gilrandir
03-16-2016, 17:56
I think putin wants legimitate peace agreement he has ordered to troops to leave or threaten to leave in so that Assad will actually be sincere in the geneva talks, yes he'll leave the S400 SAAM missiles to prevent a Turkey or Saudi aggression.
If either decides on a campaign, no missiles will stop them.
Palmyra, both the ancient and the modern one, is free at last, thanks to the valiant efforts of the Syrian Arab Army and its Iranian and Russian allies. Syrian archaeologists are moderately optimist about the prospects of restoring the site to its former glory. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-palmyra-idUSKCN0WT04R)
Humanity owes a big thank you to the brave Syrian soldiers, Iranian guards and Russian commandos for their heroic service. It is estimated that more than 400 daesh were killed in the offensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlNq4i9r_2k
Don't worry. Some Western "Experts" will come soon enough to explain how, in fact, Putin' strategy is completely failing...
Gilrandir
03-27-2016, 14:58
Don't worry. Some Western "Experts" will come soon enough to explain how, in fact, Putin' strategy is completely failing...
He had promised to destroy ISIS and withdrew in half a year (or proclaimed withdrawal giving the successful accomplishment of the mission as a reason), yet ISIS is alive and kicking - and even reaches out for Belgium. So it is safe to assume that destroying ISIS was not his purpose, whatever he might have stated.
"He had promised to destroy ISIS" Can you give a link? I try but cannot find Putin's promises on the net. Thanks.
"So it is safe to assume that destroying ISIS was not his purpose, whatever he might have stated." With this statement, do you apply it it all country that have pledge, according to you, the same thing and didn't, USA being one of the first?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755133/President-Obama-promises-destroy-ISIS-wake-beheading-British-hostage.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3331982/ISIS-fought-countries-says-White-House-certainly-pulling-weight.html
Gilrandir
03-28-2016, 12:00
"He had promised to destroy ISIS" Can you give a link? I try but cannot find Putin's promises on the net. Thanks.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50401
The only real way to fight international terrorism (and international terrorist groups are creating chaos in Syria and the territory of neighbouring countries right now) is to take the initiative and fight and destroy the terrorists in the territory they have already captured rather than waiting for them to arrive on our soil.
Not that it contains the words "I promise", but it forwards the purpose of Russian mission in Syria - to destroy terrorists. Were they all destroyed?
Further on in Putin's speech:
First, we will support the Syrian army only in its lawful fight against terrorist groups.
Judging from what Russians did in Syria, he has a weird understanding of who terrorists are. He includes Sunni opposition into that category, yet Hezbollah is out of it.
Second, our support will be limited to airstrikes and will not involve ground operations.
No groud operation?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/18/putin-honours-syria-veterans-wider-russian-involvement
Flying tanks and guns?
Third, our support will have a limited timeframe and will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive.
Assad captured Palmira AFTER Putin had proclaimed withdrawal.
"So it is safe to assume that destroying ISIS was not his purpose, whatever he might have stated." With this statement, do you apply it it all country that have pledge, according to you, the same thing and didn't, USA being one of the first?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755133/President-Obama-promises-destroy-ISIS-wake-beheading-British-hostage.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3331982/ISIS-fought-countries-says-White-House-certainly-pulling-weight.html
I just wanted to say that fighting ISIS wasn't the reason why Putin started his Syrian operation.
"Given these circumstances, we naturally have no intention of getting deeply entangled in this conflict. We will act strictly in accordance with our set mission. First, we will support the Syrian army only in its lawful fight against terrorist groups. Second, our support will be limited to airstrikes and will not involve ground operations. Third, our support will have a limited timeframe and will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive" First of all, thanks for the link.
Second, where is the passage of "He had promised to destroy ISIS and withdrew in half a year"? Limited frame work? or "will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive"
This is the core of most of your contributions. You just don't read them and most of the time your links show exactly the reverse of what you are saying...
"Not that it contains the words "I promise", but it forwards the purpose of Russian mission in Syria - to destroy terrorists. Were they all destroyed?" So he didn't promise, and there is no time frame, so the objective is still valid. Are the terrorists still there, yes, but again, as stated in his speech, it is in helping Assad. So, your point is invalid.
"He includes Sunni opposition into that category, yet Hezbollah is out of it." That is politic, and Hezbollah is actually not fighting the legitimate government of Syria, Saudis' sponsored terrorists groups are... He is technically right.
"No ground operation?" Yeah, and? This is not related to the actual discussion. Does Putin sometimes lie, exaggerate, manipulate? Yes, as all politicians...
"Assad captured Palmira AFTER Putin had proclaimed withdrawal." That is even better for Putin as it proves his strategy (long term) worked.
"I just wanted to say that fighting ISIS wasn't the reason why Putin started his Syrian operation" Yeap, he wants to keep his access to Mediterranean sea, to obliged the Western Powers to speak to him and forget about Crimea, and various others reasons.
However, the same can be said for others...
Gilrandir
03-28-2016, 12:57
Second, where is the passage of "He had promised to destroy ISIS and withdrew in half a year"? Limited frame work? or "will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive"
This is the core of most of your contributions. You just don't read them and most of the time your links show exactly the reverse of what you are saying...
"Not that it contains the words "I promise", but it forwards the purpose of Russian mission in Syria - to destroy terrorists. Were they all destroyed?" So he didn't promise, and there is no time frame, so the objective is still valid. Are the terrorists still there, yes, but again, as stated in his speech, it is in helping Assad. So, your point is invalid.
This is the core of your reaction - to misinterpret (whether intentionally, or because of inability to comprehend grammar) what I said. Now I repeat: he had promised to destroy ISIS and withrdew in half a year. Your reading: he promised to destroy ISIS and to withdraw in half a year. Don't you see the difference between the first sentence where two successive actions are described and the second one where two infinitives specify the promise? Thus, I never claimed Putin set any timeframe for his operation. So your criticism is invalid.
"He includes Sunni opposition into that category, yet Hezbollah is out of it." That is politic, and Hezbollah is actually not fighting the legitimate government of Syria, Saudis' sponsored terrorists groups are... He is technically right.
"No ground operation?" Yeah, and? This is not related to the actual discussion. Does Putin sometimes lie, exaggerate, manipulate? Yes, as all politicians...
"Assad captured Palmira AFTER Putin had proclaimed withdrawal." That is even better for Putin as it proves his strategy (long term) worked.
All this was meant to say that Putin hasn't reached the goals he had claimed to set which amounts to an ostensible failure. The conclusion from the hypothetical experts that you denied.
"I just wanted to say that fighting ISIS wasn't the reason why Putin started his Syrian operation" Yeap, he wants to keep his access to Mediterranean sea, to obliged the Western Powers to speak to him and forget about Crimea, and various others reasons.
Yeah, they totally forgot about the Crimea:http://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/john-kerry-us-remains-firmly-committed-to-ukraines-sovereignty-and-territorial-integrity-and-that-includes-crimea-410786.html
Pannonian
03-28-2016, 13:23
This is the core of your reaction - to misinterpret (whether intentionally, or because of inability to comprehend grammar) what I said. Now I repeat: he had promised to destroy ISIS and withrdew in half a year. Your reading: he promised to destroy ISIS and to withdraw in half a year. Don't you see the difference between the first sentence where two successive actions are described and the second one where two infinitives specify the promise? Thus, I never claimed Putin set any timeframe for his operation. So your criticism is invalid.
All this was meant to say that Putin hasn't reached the goals he had claimed to set which amounts to an ostensible failure. The conclusion from the hypothetical experts that you denied.
Yeah, they totally forgot about the Crimea:http://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/john-kerry-us-remains-firmly-committed-to-ukraines-sovereignty-and-territorial-integrity-and-that-includes-crimea-410786.html
You seem to think that politics has absolute goals that have to be satisfied or else is deemed a failure. Barring election to power and similar votes, everything else has degrees of success and failure. As long as he gets what he wants, and I doubt it's destroying iSIS or anything he says for public consumption, then much of everything else can go hang. Assad in power is the key to what he wants, so he'll prop him up for as long as it suits Russia's purposes. Bombing ISIS is the publicly acceptable face of this aim, so that's what he emphasises. I doubt he really bothers too much with the Muslim world other than Chechnya and other Muslim states that Russia claims influence in. The west would do well to learn from this kind of cynicism, rather than dive in toppling dictators willy nilly without a thought for what is likely to come after.
Gilrandir
03-28-2016, 13:44
You seem to think that politics has absolute goals that have to be satisfied or else is deemed a failure. Barring election to power and similar votes, everything else has degrees of success and failure. As long as he gets what he wants, and I doubt it's destroying iSIS or anything he says for public consumption, then much of everything else can go hang. Assad in power is the key to what he wants, so he'll prop him up for as long as it suits Russia's purposes. Bombing ISIS is the publicly acceptable face of this aim, so that's what he emphasises.
I don't deny Putin's current success at propping up Assad and showing the world that he is to be reckoned with. I point at the failure of the ostensible goal he proclaimed. His backing out now (if it really will happen) looks as if the British and Americans after liberating France in 1944 stopped at the border with Germany and said: "OK, we have reached our goal. The tables have turned and the spine of the enemy is broken. Our mission is complete."
"he had promised to destroy ISIS and withrdew in half a year." You can repeat it as much as you want. In the text you link he didn't. Period. There is no mention of 6 months, there is a mention of destruction of ISIS as long term goal. Again, Putin's speech: "First, we will support the Syrian army only in its lawful fight against terrorist groups. Second, our support will be limited to airstrikes and will not involve ground operations. Third, our support will have a limited timeframe and will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive"
And you translated in "He had promised to destroy ISIS and withdrew in half a year". Well done...
"All this was meant to say that Putin hasn't reached the goals he had claimed to set which amounts to an ostensible failure. The conclusion from the hypothetical experts that you denied.":laugh4:. So ISIS is on the run at Palmyra but it is Putin's failure. Well, few failures like this and hopefully ISIS will finish in the bin of History... And again, Putin did not set up goals, not in the text you linked, only in your fertile imagination...
You failed again to back-up your claim in "He had promised to destroy ISIS and withdrew in half a year". I know you are a great believer in truth by repetition, even against all evidences...
Pannonian
03-28-2016, 17:17
I don't deny Putin's current success at propping up Assad and showing the world that he is to be reckoned with. I point at the failure of the ostensible goal he proclaimed. His backing out now (if it really will happen) looks as if the British and Americans after liberating France in 1944 stopped at the border with Germany and said: "OK, we have reached our goal. The tables have turned and the spine of the enemy is broken. Our mission is complete."
Things are different and more clearcut when dealing with cohesive nation states. The occupation of Iraq is a lesson in how ill-defined objectives led by well meaning ideals lead to endless mission redefinition. Unlike us, Putin isn't an idealistic idiot. He has something limited in mind. he aims for it, and gets gone after he gets it.
Gilrandir
03-29-2016, 20:50
"he had promised to destroy ISIS and withrdew in half a year." You can repeat it as much as you want. In the text you link he didn't. Period. There is no mention of 6 months, there is a mention of destruction of ISIS as long term goal. Again, Putin's speech: "First, we will support the Syrian army only in its lawful fight against terrorist groups. Second, our support will be limited to airstrikes and will not involve ground operations. Third, our support will have a limited timeframe and will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive"
And you translated in "He had promised to destroy ISIS and withdrew in half a year". Well done...You failed again to back-up your claim in "He had promised to destroy ISIS and withdrew in half a year". I know you are a great believer in truth by repetition, even against all evidences...
Once again: just make a mental effort and use the limited knowledge of English grammar you still are in possession of. Now nice and slow I will explain in a foolproof way.
What I said about Putin: He promised to destroy ISIS. Period. Half a year elapsed and he withdrew. Period. ISIS is still not destroyed. Period. He didn't do what he had claimed.
I admit that I interpreted too broadly his promise to destroy terrorists equalling it to the promise to destroy ISIS. But I NEVER said that Putin set a definite timeframe (half a year or otherwise) for his operation in Syria. I just pointed to the time that has passed since Putin promised to destroy terrorists (and he said NOTHING about half a year).
"All this was meant to say that Putin hasn't reached the goals he had claimed to set which amounts to an ostensible failure. The conclusion from the hypothetical experts that you denied.":laugh4:. So ISIS is on the run at Palmyra but it is Putin's failure. Well, few failures like this and hopefully ISIS will finish in the bin of History...
Dream on. Why didn't Putin proceed with his successful strategy if everything was going on so fine? Why didn't he push ISIS on? Besides other reasons (like rumored availability of Stingers to Sunni opposition and deplorable financial situation in Russia: http://www.unian.info/economics/1289176-details-emerge-of-putins-late-night-meeting-on-economy-emergency.html) it is evident that he is interested in ISIS still present where it is. It is a source of Europe's destabilization and he hopes that under the burden of immigration deluge and under the threat of new terroristic attacks Europe will resume cooperation with him and lift sanctions.
And again, Putin did not set up goals, not in the text you linked, only in your fertile imagination...
First, we will support the Syrian army only in its lawful fight against terrorist groups. Second, our support will be limited to airstrikes and will not involve ground operations. Third, our support will have a limited timeframe and will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive"
And those are not the goals that Putin set?
AE Bravo
03-29-2016, 21:34
What I said about Putin: He promised to destroy ISIS. Period. Half a year elapsed and he withdrew. Period. ISIS is still not destroyed. Period. He didn't do what he had claimed.
By saying Russia's mission was accomplished in Syria after the fact, he openly admitted that destroying IS was pure fantasy. It was hardly in his radar.
If we believe every word that comes out of a scumbag politician's head, every mission would be a failure.
Gilrandir
03-30-2016, 06:06
This is the core of most of your contributions. You just don't read them and most of the time your links show exactly the reverse of what you are saying...
Let's see how YOU do it:
She leaked documents from the Court (where she was employed) in order to make her point (pro-Croat one).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8253992.stm
One of Fragony's many linked news stories specifically said she mentioned the documents but did not leak them. Your link mentions it, too. She did not leak them, merely said that they exist and should be leaked. However, I guess it shows that she was not good at keeping those two jobs either way.
So much for ME not reading MY links.
By saying Russia's mission was accomplished in Syria after the fact, he openly admitted that destroying IS was pure fantasy. It was hardly in his radar.
If we believe every word that comes out of a scumbag politician's head, every mission would be a failure.
I realize that. It would be good if some people here and in the world generally (and in Europe specifically) realized that too before they say that the West needs Putin to fight terrorism.
"She leaked documents from the Court (where she was employed) in order to make her point (pro-Croat one)." :laugh4::laugh4: Thanks to illustrate what I am saying!!!!! You put together two parts of sentences I wrote but were not related... it is how you read things.
"He promised to destroy ISIS" No he didn't. Just show me the sentence where he said it, it is very simple. I find some, but in context, it means he will fight ISIS. Of course, with your methods of copy and paste parts of sentences (see above) unrelated then to make-up a story, I am sure you can do it...
"Half a year elapsed and he withdrew." As he said he would, yes (roughly, as he never gave a time frame).
" ISIS is still not destroyed" As he never said he will be, where is the problem?
"He didn't do what he had claimed" Which he did only in for very limited imagination (I know, I contradict myself, as I said previously you had a fertile one, But it was a wrong assessment)...
You came for "he promised to destroy ISIS and left after 6 months" pretending he failed on his own goals. However, tell me if I am wrong, Russian troops are still there no?
"Thus, I never claimed Putin set any timeframe for his operation" :laugh4: So, your claim is invalid, as Russians troops are still helping Assad's regime, so the fight against ISIS is still on-going, so you look as most of the time, .....
"First, we will support the Syrian army only in its lawful fight against terrorist groups. Second, our support will be limited to airstrikes and will not involve ground operations. Third, our support will have a limited timeframe and will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive" Well, it looks to me that is exactly what Russia is doing, no? Even Boris Johnson had to agree with this... Support Syrian Army for a limited period of time, then will continue to help... So where is the failure there?
What I find funny is you hate so much Russians that you wish ISIS to win, somehow, if its defeat would be a Putin's success..
About Florence Hartman, she did leaks documents:
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/contempt_hartmann/cis/en/cis_hartmann_en.pdf
"knowingly and willingly disclosing information in knowing violation of an order of a Chamber".
http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/florence-hartmann-guilty-for-telling.html
Sorry Husar...
Gilrandir
04-02-2016, 14:29
"She leaked documents from the Court (where she was employed) in order to make her point (pro-Croat one)." :laugh4::laugh4: Thanks to illustrate what I am saying!!!!! You put together two parts of sentences I wrote but were not related... it is how you read things.
I didn't put anything together, I quoted your post from a different thread. Show me the two initial sentences of yours that were put together by me.
"He promised to destroy ISIS" No he didn't. Just show me the sentence where he said it, it is very simple. I find some, but in context, it means he will fight ISIS. Of course, with your methods of copy and paste parts of sentences (see above) unrelated then to make-up a story, I am sure you can do it...
"Half a year elapsed and he withdrew." As he said he would, yes (roughly, as he never gave a time frame).
" ISIS is still not destroyed" As he never said he will be, where is the problem?
I equated "destroying terrorism" with "destroying ISIS" in his speech. If it is a mistake, I admit it.
Yet Putin didn't destroy either. So he failed on the "destroy terrorists" promise as well.
You came for "he promised to destroy ISIS and left after 6 months" pretending he failed on his own goals. However, tell me if I am wrong, Russian troops are still there no?
... which kinda shows one more failed promise of Putin - to withdraw from Syria. No?
What I find funny is you hate so much Russians that you wish ISIS to win, somehow, if its defeat would be a Putin's success..
We have been through it and yet you rattle on with this poppycock of yours.
I have said more than once that I don't hate Russians (nor Russia, by the way). My father is half-Russian, thus I have Russian blood in me and numerous relatives in Russia. Moreover, me and my wife's family have a few friends there.
What I hate is the way Russia is run now. Having such a neighbor close at hand is much worse than seeing the atrocities of ISIS somewhere over there since Russia's policies affect my daily life, which I can't say of ISIS.
"I didn't put anything together, I quoted your post from a different thread." True. My mistake
"I equated "destroying terrorism" with "destroying ISIS" in his speech. If it is a mistake, I admit it." You still failed to produce the sentence where he promised to destroy terrorism as an actual promise. If not, time are not over yet, so he still have plenty of it to fufill his "promise".
"which kinda shows one more failed promise of Putin - to withdraw from Syria. No?" Except of course he never did, as shown by the "will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive" of the sentence. So, no.
"which I can't say of ISIS" Which is reverse for me.
An other abject defeat for Putin:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/30/russia-and-us-planning-military-coordination-against-isis-in-syria
Gilrandir
04-04-2016, 11:53
"I equated "destroying terrorism" with "destroying ISIS" in his speech. If it is a mistake, I admit it." You still failed to produce the sentence where he promised to destroy terrorism as an actual promise. If not, time are not over yet, so he still have plenty of it to fufill his "promise".
From the same speech by Putin:
The only real way to fight international terrorism (and international terrorist groups are creating chaos in Syria and the territory of neighbouring countries right now) is to take the initiative and fight and destroy the terrorists in the territory they have already captured rather than waiting for them to arrive on our soil.
And these words I understood as "we will destroy terrorists in Syria". What is your reading of them?
"which kinda shows one more failed promise of Putin - to withdraw from Syria. No?" Except of course he never did, as shown by the "will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive" of the sentence. So, no.
From: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/14/world/russia-syria-withdrawal/
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Monday that he has ordered Russian forces to begin withdrawing from Syria, saying they have achieved their goals in the country.
It was not a promise, but an order. So, yes.
An other abject defeat for Putin:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/30/russia-and-us-planning-military-coordination-against-isis-in-syria
:laugh4: Did you read the very first sentence of the article you linked to?
The two powers are working to liberate the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa, says Russian deputy foreign minister
Russian officials are anything but a source of reliable information. Until their American counterparts confirm it, I will consider it a wishful thinking on the part of Russia.
But you, Brutus... sorry, Brenus. Such a well-versed person in propaganda techniques ought to know better than to believe a flagrantly biased source.:no:
"What is your reading of them?" Just what they say: "to take the initiative and fight and destroy the terrorists in the territory they have already captured rather than waiting for them to arrive on our soil." Fighting, not promise to destroy...:shrug:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Monday that he has ordered Russian forces to begin withdrawing from Syria, saying they have achieved their goals in the country." As he said in the text you linked. So really a broken promise, is it?
"Russian officials are anything but a source of reliable information. " My bad. I saw the newspaper was English... As we know, very in favour of Putin...:rolleyes:
Another Putin's politic failure....
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/syria-army-islamic-state-capture-town-palmyra/
Indian media, so it is all right...
Another Putin's politic failure....
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/syria-army-islamic-state-capture-town-palmyra/
Indian media, so it is all right...
A guy believes Putin, but counts Erdogan as a dictator... Well that's how illogical politics is.
In Turkey, we see Russia as "The Protestant version of Turkey." Same ignorance, same love for dictators...
But you are right though: Putin is successful because he never intended to destroy Isis. He just helped his puppet Syrian Army, to recapture the cities they lost. Isis is a good thing to have there for Putin too.
Gilrandir
04-05-2016, 11:59
Just what they say: "to take the initiative and fight and destroy the terrorists in the territory they have already captured rather than waiting for them to arrive on our soil." Fighting, not promise to destroy...:shrug:
You again miss the bolded.:shrug:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Monday that he has ordered Russian forces to begin withdrawing from Syria, saying they have achieved their goals in the country." As he said in the text you linked. So really a broken promise, is it?
He didn't withdraw. He didn't do what he had promised. Russian planes were instrumental in capturing Palmira which happened AFTER his announcement of withdrawal.
In Turkey, we see Russia as "The Protestant version of Turkey."
Russians are Orthodox. You should know thy enemy.
"in the territory they have already captured rather than waiting for them to arrive on our soil." You ignored what follows the bold. If I say I will never do unless and you ignore the unless, you miss the point. No?
"He didn't withdraw. He didn't do what he had promised. Russian planes were instrumental in capturing Palmira which happened AFTER his announcement of withdrawal" Yeap. That is covered by the “will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive.”
“A guy believes Putin, but counts Erdogan as a dictator... Well that's how illogical politics is.” :laugh4: So Palmyra is still in ISIL’s hands, so is Qaryatain? This nothing with believing or not, these are hard facts.
And Erdogan is a fascist. The fact that Putin is not a nice guy is not a good reason to excuse Erdoganoli.
“But you are right though: Putin is successful because he never intended to destroy Isis. He just helped his puppet Syrian Army, to recapture the cities they lost. Isis is a good thing to have there for Putin too.” Yeap. Mind you it was (before Kurds savage babies eaters cut the roads) Turkey making business with ISIL…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-civil-war-isis-syrian-army-russia-turkey-al-rabiaa-assad-a6882281.html
Carreful, the Independent is probably Putin's agent!!!! :creep:
I give you Turkey was probably not the only one…
ISIL was a creature of Saudis and Qatar, turned really bad, so became a good reason for Putin to come back as a "goody" after Crimea, and the Turkey's mistake made a crack in NATO, which Putin as usual was prompted to exploit. The Syrian Army, puppet if you want but is defeating forces which before Russian's intervention seemed unstoppable and are now if not on the run, seriously shaken.
Gilrandir
04-06-2016, 11:26
"in the territory they have already captured rather than waiting for them to arrive on our soil." You ignored what follows the bold. If I say I will never do unless and you ignore the unless, you miss the point. No?
Are terrorists destroyed on "the territory they have already captured"? So either only the bolded or together with the unbolded the promise was not carried out.
"He didn't withdraw. He didn't do what he had promised. Russian planes were instrumental in capturing Palmira which happened AFTER his announcement of withdrawal" Yeap. That is covered by the “will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive.”
Why then announce withdrawal?
"Why then announce withdrawal?" Tactic, leaving a door open in case of need, if campaign goes horribly wrong...
"Are terrorists destroyed on "the territory they have already captured"? So either only the bolded or together with the unbolded the promise was not carried out."Not yet, could be the answer, but as there is no time frame, it could be a work in progress:"only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive". So, Syrian army still conduct bla bla, so support still carry on...
Gilrandir
04-17-2016, 13:26
The Syrian Army, puppet if you want but is defeating forces which before Russian's intervention seemed unstoppable and are now if not on the run, seriously shaken.
The seriously shaken ones are on the offensive:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/thousands-of-refugees-flee-for-turkish-border-after-surprise-isis-attack
The seriously shaken ones are on the offensive:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/thousands-of-refugees-flee-for-turkish-border-after-surprise-isis-attack
Against not the SAA, but the opposition, which has also lately been squeezed by the army. It didn't help that the Kurds coordinated their attacks against them with daesh's offensive.
Gilrandir
04-18-2016, 10:25
Against not the SAA, but the opposition, which has also lately been squeezed by the army. It didn't help that the Kurds coordinated their attacks against them with daesh's offensive.
An offensive is still an offensive, and it shows that ISIS still has some aces up the sleeve. So its collapse is only a wishful thinking. At least for the time being.
And here we go again:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3545336/Syrian-rebels-declare-new-battle-against-government.html
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-19-2016, 11:21
Sorry IS - we have the technology, we can rebuild it (apparently).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36070721
The YPG and the regime started fighting in Qamishlo yesterday. Hopefully this is just a momentary flare up and the regime won't start bombing Kurdish areas.
Syrian Civil War subreddit megathread (https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/4ftpz0/alqamishli_megathread/) with updates, pictures, etc.
The YPG and the regime started fighting in Qamishlo yesterday. Hopefully this is just a momentary flare up and the regime won't start bombing Kurdish areas.
Syrian Civil War subreddit megathread (https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/4ftpz0/alqamishli_megathread/) with updates, pictures, etc.
The fighting was between the Kurds and pro-regime Arab tribes and Assyrians, who are uncomfortable with Kurdish nationalism. Doubt it's going to deteriorate further, both of them need each other.
You are right, a truce was declared today. However why do you think they need each other? They can't afford to fight each other right now but in the long term their interests are opposed; the PYD wants autonomy and/or a federal system for Syria, but Assad doesn't seem willing to give that to them.
You are right, a truce was declared today. However why do you think they need each other? They can't afford to fight each other right now but in the long term their interests are opposed; the PYD wants autonomy and/or a federal system for Syria, but Assad doesn't seem willing to give that to them.
No disagreement here. I was talking about the short-term conditions, that they currently both need to focus on the islamofascist rebels and avoid such unfortunate incidents.
Speaking of islamofascists, let's take a look at the moderate guys of FSA. (http://www.spiegel.de/video/jaafar-abdul-karim-videoblog-aus-kilis-tuerkei-video-1668392.html)
Toddlers wanting to become mujahideens and eradicate the infidels from Syria. The real damage of the civil war is not the destruction of the infrastructure, but the poisoning of innocent minds, of the younger generation's soul. Congrats Qatar, Erdo and SA, you ruined Syria for good.
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2016/05/gorefest_zo_ziet_het_vluchteli.html#comments welcome to Turkey, nice
Gilrandir
05-15-2016, 06:11
Exporting terrorists: the Russia style:
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/russia-militants/
Hardly exporting the same could be said with all european countries letting them go and fight in syria. Some Chechens and dagestanis have been great informants for Russia in the fight against Islamic State and other Jihadist groups Ramzan let this out
Gilrandir
06-21-2016, 16:22
Russia uses cluster bombs in Syria:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36578281
Well China, Russia, the United States, India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Brazil haven't signed up to the Cluster bomb ban treaty. It seems the American Warmongers are beating their drums to depose Assad again.
Anyway the RBK-500 detonation is different to the conventional cluster bomb as they act as parachute rockets they are generally anti vehicle and dont tend to litter like conventional cluster bombs do as seen in Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan. The only RBK 500 variant that has been documented in syria is the RBK-500-SPBE-D which are designed for taking out multiple Tanks and APC's it is parachuted in and then a 300mm rocket is launched penetrating the weakest part of a Tanks armour the top. And many of these RBK 250's are actually thermite (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2v6xcZ15g) and not really conventional cluster bombs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehFPmRaWOsw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrViSg60U9E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=162&v=ECHqRL_nKQ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jrl6cto2Ds
And quite a while ago it was documented that RBK-250 incendiary munitions however there were conflicting reports these were actually OFAB-250-270 instead which aren't cluster munitions. Here is some thermobaric (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQpxNA-uku4)
Who cares in the end war is war and sympathy for the welfare of US armed terrorists is unwaranted and a disgrace in my view.
If I was you i would be more worried about Obama and King Saud giving AA launchers to the rebels as you know just like the TOW launchers they will get in the hands of ISIS and then Civil Aviation will be threatened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzuPA5_E6FI China may enter Syrian conflict i think its hot air.
Gilrandir
08-25-2016, 05:55
Turkey starts a ground operation in Syria:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/24/middleeast/turkish-troops-isis-syria-operation/
This move is about preventing the Kurds from uniting the cantons as much as it is about fighting ISIS and as a YPG supporter I'm pretty disappointed by this development. It was also pretty shitty for the US to tell the YPG to withdraw from Manbij after they spent so many lives and effort liberating it. I hope Rojava will be able to survive the Turkish onslaught.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-29-2016, 18:35
This move is about preventing the Kurds from uniting the cantons as much as it is about fighting ISIS and as a YPG supporter I'm pretty disappointed by this development. It was also pretty shitty for the US to tell the YPG to withdraw from Manbij after they spent so many lives and effort liberating it. I hope Rojava will be able to survive the Turkish onslaught.
I understand your perspective, Tuuvi, but the USA has been consistent in its assurances to Turkey that it will not abet the development of an independent Kurdistan (which de facto that territory might have begun to create). Mind you, given the glowing support of Turkey for NATO under Erdogan especially, and the wonderful degree of success enjoyed by the post-invasion secular government in Iraq, I am not at all sure that our efforts to ensure the lack of an independent Kurdistan have been the right choice at all.
EDIT
And yes, I am using 'glowing' and 'wonderful' in sarcasm mode.
I'm well aware that the US was always going to side with a NATO ally over a ragtag Kurdish militia and the only reason the US was working with the YPG was because they were the only ones who were in a position to ISIS effectively. It just bothers me that the US supported the fight for Manbij with airstrikes and then told the YPG to withdraw from the city in order to appease Turkey. I think this was a very cynical move on the US' part.
Turkey said that the YPG crossing the Euphrates was a "red line". USA probably knew there was going to be consequences for the Kurds but they helped them cross the Euphrates anyway. They used Kurdish lives to fight ISIS without a care in the world for what would happen to them afterwards.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-30-2016, 18:15
I'm well aware that the US was always going to side with a NATO ally over a ragtag Kurdish militia and the only reason the US was working with the YPG was because they were the only ones who were in a position to ISIS effectively. It just bothers me that the US supported the fight for Manbij with airstrikes and then told the YPG to withdraw from the city in order to appease Turkey. I think this was a very cynical move on the US' part.
Turkey said that the YPG crossing the Euphrates was a "red line". USA probably knew there was going to be consequences for the Kurds but they helped them cross the Euphrates anyway. They used Kurdish lives to fight ISIS without a care in the world for what would happen to them afterwards.
Not quite so unfeelingly as that. Most of our military who have worked with the Kurds regard them pretty highly and respect them more than most of that region's locals. Crappy realpolitik behavior by us, I concur, but do not think it happened without any number of regrets and frustrations.
Just about everyone I know that's worked with the Kurds thinks highly of them. They do have their own problems, especially in their connections to the various Kurdish terrorists in Turkey. That however is why they are effective, they know how to and want to fight, they don't profit from the status quo and are willing to shed blood to achieve it. If only they didn't have Kurdish terrorists commiting attacks in Turkey to go and make them such irritant to our 'allies' in Turkey and Iraq.
If only Turkey wasn't such a necessary evil for NATO. Their strategic positions makes them absolutely indispensable which is why we've always had to put up with their spats with Greece, meddling in Cyprus, previous border skirmishes with Syria, their hesitation in letting us use Incirlik airbase in '91 and then again the northern attack route in 2003. While all of the anti-ISIS coalition helped the Kurds in Kobane the Turks closed the border to prevent any help to the Kurds. They won't even let German politicians visit their Bundeswehr contingent at Incirlik due to political disputes.
Despite all that and more we cannot do without Turkey. If they joined the Russian sphere or created a new Islamist sphere NATO would be tremendously hampered in effecting any sort of policy in the middle east, black sea, Caucasus and so on.
NATO would be tremendously hampered in effecting any sort of policy in the middle east, black sea, Caucasus and so on.
And why is that so important again? The reason we fight ISIS now is that NATO "effected" its policies in that region in the first place... :dizzy2:
And why is that so important again? The reason we fight ISIS now is that NATO "effected" its policies in that region in the first place... :dizzy2:
There are threats beyond ISIS (Russia, Iran, other Islamists that pre-date 2003 invasion) and having a foothold that influences the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa by land and sea is very important.
The current debacle in the Iraq and Syria is more the US and UKs fault than NATO, otherwise we'd have seen German and French forces in some way helping out.
What would you prefer? Turkey out of NATO and Erdogan trying to fulfill the destabilizing role that Nasser's Egypt/Syria had in the 50s and 60s but this time as neo-ottomanism? I'd rather we work with the Turks and all their problems while continuing to try to liberalize their government and society so that it doesn't revert to its pre-Ataturk self.
Gilrandir
12-11-2016, 16:43
While Assad and Russia were busy with Aleppo:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/11/isis-regains-palmyra-syria-forces-jihadi-russian-airstrikes
Seamus Fermanagh
12-11-2016, 20:04
While Assad and Russia were busy with Aleppo:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/11/isis-regains-palmyra-syria-forces-jihadi-russian-airstrikes
Assad's forces and the Russians have never wavered from their objective of breaking the back of the Syrian rebel forces who are NOT closely affiliated with Islamic State. When that opposition is broken, Assad will be, functionally, back in power and NATO will then be forced to work with him to finish off ISIL. Russia will then actually support efforts against ISIL in Syria, but will likely not do much in Iraq, leaving NATO and the Kurds to pay the price for that portion of it.
I predict that Russia will then quietly support Erdogan's anti-Kurdistan stance (which NATO formally supports in deference to Turkey), leaving the Kurds having bled for privilege of cleaning up Western Iraq.
The Kurds will undoubtedly get shafted again. Hope that the Iraqi government is able to at least give them concessions at the expense of the sunni arabs in terms of oil revenues to the Kurdish government but that will probably never happen.
Gilrandir
12-12-2016, 11:58
Assad's forces and the Russians have never wavered from their objective of breaking the back of the Syrian rebel forces who are NOT closely affiliated with Islamic State.
Ostensibly, Russian objective was/is destroyng IS.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-12-2016, 18:47
The Kurds will undoubtedly get shafted again. Hope that the Iraqi government is able to at least give them concessions at the expense of the sunni arabs in terms of oil revenues to the Kurdish government but that will probably never happen.
Seems likely to me. Shame really, Kurdistan might actually be an ally if it ever came into existence. Instead, we'll sell them south for one useful airbase and keeping Turkey in NATO.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-12-2016, 18:49
Ostensibly, Russian objective was/is destroyng IS.
Which they will...when it suits the purposes of the Assad regime. Assad has no love for IS...he just wants his home-grown rebels neutralized first.
I won't complain when he also purges the thugs of Al-Qaeda and child beheaders (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/19/u-s-backed-moderate-rebels-behead-a-child-near-aleppo.html). BTW, the original plan was to firstly exterminate ISIS. The plan worked, daesh fighters transformed into fertilizers in Palmyra and Kuweires, but then the moderate fascists realized that with ISIS out of the picture, they would soon join them in the afterlife, so they violated the ceasefire. Nothing surprising, they had conquered Idlib, now their de-facto capital, when Syria was busy fending off ISIS attacks against Palmyra.
Edit-
http://en.mehrnews.com/news/121968/Aleppo-liberated
:yes:
Gilrandir
12-13-2016, 11:08
Which they will...when it suits the purposes of the Assad regime. Assad has no love for IS...he just wants his home-grown rebels neutralized first.
I don't think Putin does what suits others. He has his agenda and if Assad doesn't suit him anymore Putin will opt for the most
propitious course of actions never minding Assad.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-13-2016, 22:43
I don't think Putin does what suits others. He has his agenda and if Assad doesn't suit him anymore Putin will opt for the most
propitious course of actions never minding Assad.
Concur. However, at this juncture, Putin does nothing except win points when Assad succeeds. The USA and NATO said GO, whereas we (me Putin) said Assad was the more practical choice. He puts egg on the faces of all in the West and gets to use it for his domestic political agenda/scoring points with public opinion. And since he is ALSO working against IS, Putin can be pretty sure that we won't do squat more than complain.
Even gives him a toehold in the ME if he wants it.
Gilrandir
12-14-2016, 14:16
However, at this juncture, Putin does nothing except win points when Assad succeeds.
And loses points when Assad fails? Then the Palmyra debacle is supposed to be a hard hit.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-14-2016, 14:29
I won't complain when he also purges the thugs of Al-Qaeda and child beheaders (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/19/u-s-backed-moderate-rebels-behead-a-child-near-aleppo.html). BTW, the original plan was to firstly exterminate ISIS. The plan worked, daesh fighters transformed into fertilizers in Palmyra and Kuweires, but then the moderate fascists realized that with ISIS out of the picture, they would soon join them in the afterlife, so they violated the ceasefire. Nothing surprising, they had conquered Idlib, now their de-facto capital, when Syria was busy fending off ISIS attacks against Palmyra.
Edit-
http://en.mehrnews.com/news/121968/Aleppo-liberated
:yes:
Years of Civil War tend to make monsters of men, it doesn't mean they're Fascist. Objectively Assad's government is Fascist whilst the rebels have no coherent ideology. If they are Fascist then their supplanting Assad would be unlikely to make much of a difference to the country.
Gilrandir
12-14-2016, 14:37
I won't complain when he also purges the thugs of Al-Qaeda and child beheaders (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/19/u-s-backed-moderate-rebels-behead-a-child-near-aleppo.html).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/aleppo-latest-battle-un-syrian-army-forces-government-regime-kill-civilians-massacre-assad-russia-a7471416.html
And Crandar isn't complaining. Walk with pride, man.
Sarmatian
12-14-2016, 15:16
You really should read the articles you link to.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-14-2016, 16:49
Debacle? Assad has traded ruins in the desert back to IS in order to break the largest remaining power center of the non-IS rebels who are the real threat to HIM. IS is a threat, but he ALREADY has uncle sugar helping him with that one, free of charge. He will let the West degrade IS while he consolidates his own position, then make sure he is in at the finish to reassert control over Western Syria and "help" us fight ISIS so that Putin can then fig-leaf Assad as one of the 'good guys' and how this proves that the USA has no real clue about what works in the Middle East.
Works for Assad, works for Putin, really works for Putin because ISIS is taking all the USA attention away from Crimea etc.
And if somehow the non-IS opposition turns it around and ousts Assad (which seems less likely by the day), Putin just plays it off as "we felt Assad the better choice to provide stability and oppose IS." Would he lose a few points? Sure, but not a major prestige hit....and the whole time Crimea is just getting ignored and steadily morphing into "Russian" territory in the collective mind of the West.
Years of Civil War tend to make monsters of men, it doesn't mean they're Fascist. Objectively Assad's government is Fascist whilst the rebels have no coherent ideology. If they are Fascist then their supplanting Assad would be unlikely to make much of a difference to the country.
Assad works with nationalists, communists, Kurds, Assyrians, Christians, Shias and Sunnis. So, first point is wrong. Second is actually worse, because poor Al-Qaede didn't use to be a beacon of humanity before the war. The islamofascists in Aleppo and Damascus are Salafists, aka Muslim fascist bigots. The rest are political islamists, which usually means bigots with whom we cooperate.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Maps/Syria%20Conflict/Syrian-Rebel-Powerbrokers-Number-Ideology-map-580x594.jpg
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/aleppo-latest-battle-un-syrian-army-forces-government-regime-kill-civilians-massacre-assad-russia-a7471416.html
And Crandar isn't complaining. Walk with pride, man.
Nice unverified deflection. Might have worked, but it kind of didn't. Better stay on copy-pasting what national televisions report.
The lack of any true 'allies' for us in Syria is one of the reasons why the rebels have only gotten mild support. Policy makers in the west are well aware that aside from the Kurds, any training and weapons provided would eventually be used against the US or its allies (Israel). Egypt has shown that even if they were truly pro-democracy that voice of the people would elect individuals quite opposed to western policy.
Assad is certainly a son of a bitch but so are his opponents. If it weren't for Assads decades long ties to USSR/Russia, meddling in Lebanon, and anti-Israel stance he would have been warmly tolerated much like Mubarak. Ghadaffi's death showed all the rest of the tinpot dictators what you get for support if you work with the West instead of with Russia and has made diplomatic collaboration that much less likely. The winner is hardpower for the region and lipservice to the West.
AE Bravo
12-14-2016, 20:03
Years of Civil War tend to make monsters of men, it doesn't mean they're Fascist. Objectively Assad's government is Fascist whilst the rebels have no coherent ideology. If they are Fascist then their supplanting Assad would be unlikely to make much of a difference to the country.
It will make a difference. Assad regime at least is not sectarian and espouses gender equality. Above is just the typical orientalist tone that contributes nothing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7471416.html
And Crandar isn't complaining. Walk with pride, man.
So you just linked an article showing Homs in 2013 passing it off as news. Try different outlets, you're letting your issues with Putin interfere with the facts in Syria.
Pannonian
12-14-2016, 21:37
The lack of any true 'allies' for us in Syria is one of the reasons why the rebels have only gotten mild support. Policy makers in the west are well aware that aside from the Kurds, any training and weapons provided would eventually be used against the US or its allies (Israel). Egypt has shown that even if they were truly pro-democracy that voice of the people would elect individuals quite opposed to western policy.
Assad is certainly a son of a bitch but so are his opponents. If it weren't for Assads decades long ties to USSR/Russia, meddling in Lebanon, and anti-Israel stance he would have been warmly tolerated much like Mubarak. Ghadaffi's death showed all the rest of the tinpot dictators what you get for support if you work with the West instead of with Russia and has made diplomatic collaboration that much less likely. The winner is hardpower for the region and lipservice to the West.
Intervention in Libya and the toppling of Qaddafi was one of the most stupid pieces of statecraft I've seen in my life, surpassing even Iraq as at least Iraq had no previous examples of utter disaster to draw lessons from, and Qaddafi was at least trying to conform to western demands. The French, who AFAIK headed that effort, have no high horse to mount about Iraq.
Pannonian
12-14-2016, 21:42
Debacle? Assad has traded ruins in the desert back to IS in order to break the largest remaining power center of the non-IS rebels who are the real threat to HIM. IS is a threat, but he ALREADY has uncle sugar helping him with that one, free of charge. He will let the West degrade IS while he consolidates his own position, then make sure he is in at the finish to reassert control over Western Syria and "help" us fight ISIS so that Putin can then fig-leaf Assad as one of the 'good guys' and how this proves that the USA has no real clue about what works in the Middle East.
Works for Assad, works for Putin, really works for Putin because ISIS is taking all the USA attention away from Crimea etc.
And if somehow the non-IS opposition turns it around and ousts Assad (which seems less likely by the day), Putin just plays it off as "we felt Assad the better choice to provide stability and oppose IS." Would he lose a few points? Sure, but not a major prestige hit....and the whole time Crimea is just getting ignored and steadily morphing into "Russian" territory in the collective mind of the West.
We're not going to upset Russia anyway. News gets tired after a while, but there's always a new winter to look forward to. Russian foreign policy doesn't directly affect us, but energy prices are an immediate concern for everyone, and it's not like the Russians don't know that they can influence other countries through their energy market.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-14-2016, 22:20
It will make a difference. Assad regime at least is not sectarian and espouses gender equality. Above is just the typical orientalist tone that contributes nothing.
Assad is simply the least Sectarian bastard
The point is that not all his opponents are bastards, some are genuine Democrats and some of the current bastards started out as Good Guys. A couple of years ago everybody was up in arms about the guy who ate his enemy's heart and filmed it, but further investigation showed that the same guy had been offering an olive branch to a tank during the initial protests.
Now, I'll grant you that if Assad falls he may well be replaced by a worse bastard but you have to recognise that, if that's the case, it's because the Syrian Arabs keep supporting bastards instead of sane men who can conceive of giving up power after a few years. What's more this starting to look, embarrassingly, like a specifically Arab Muslim problem as neither the Kurds or the Lebonese have as much difficulty with establishing a democracy.
Assad is a bad ruler - a Tyrant - he should be overthrown. If the Syrians cannot come up with something better than Assad they are doomed.
We're not going to upset Russia anyway. News gets tired after a while, but there's always a new winter to look forward to. Russian foreign policy doesn't directly affect us, but energy prices are an immediate concern for everyone, and it's not like the Russians don't know that they can influence other countries through their energy market.
Maybe that's why Trump and others have a pro-global-warming-agenda? :sweatdrop:
Pannonian
12-14-2016, 22:44
Assad is simply the least Sectarian bastard
The point is that not all his opponents are bastards, some are genuine Democrats and some of the current bastards started out as Good Guys. A couple of years ago everybody was up in arms about the guy who ate his enemy's heart and filmed it, but further investigation showed that the same guy had been offering an olive branch to a tank during the initial protests.
Now, I'll grant you that if Assad falls he may well be replaced by a worse bastard but you have to recognise that, if that's the case, it's because the Syrian Arabs keep supporting bastards instead of sane men who can conceive of giving up power after a few years. What's more this starting to look, embarrassingly, like a specifically Arab Muslim problem as neither the Kurds or the Lebonese have as much difficulty with establishing a democracy.
Assad is a bad ruler - a Tyrant - he should be overthrown. If the Syrians cannot come up with something better than Assad they are doomed.
List all the (largely) secular tyrants we've overthrown in the region in the last decade or two, and what came after. Why do you expect anything to happen differently?
AE Bravo
12-14-2016, 23:35
Assad is simply the least Sectarian bastard
The point is that not all his opponents are bastards, some are genuine Democrats and some of the current bastards started out as Good Guys. A couple of years ago everybody was up in arms about the guy who ate his enemy's heart and filmed it, but further investigation showed that the same guy had been offering an olive branch to a tank during the initial protests.
Now, I'll grant you that if Assad falls he may well be replaced by a worse bastard but you have to recognise that, if that's the case, it's because the Syrian Arabs keep supporting bastards instead of sane men who can conceive of giving up power after a few years. What's more this starting to look, embarrassingly, like a specifically Arab Muslim problem as neither the Kurds or the Lebonese have as much difficulty with establishing a democracy.
Assad is a bad ruler - a Tyrant - he should be overthrown. If the Syrians cannot come up with something better than Assad they are doomed.
The issue here is that the Democrats you are thinking of are more constrained by their non-Syrian (western, Kurdish) side than it is with its homegrown side. This undermines the plurality that Assadists latch onto.
I can accept that the Arab Muslim problem is mostly true, but it makes no sense here. First, Syria is a secular Arab republic. Second, living in Damascus you would have little to complain about the regime. The reality is that there is no free speech but this is the dynasty that the Syrian people are accustomed to. Any attempts at reform with respect to the constitution would involve a secular Syrian movement, not a western-backed proxy. You should start by questioning who is more in line with the Syrian constitution and what Assad has actually done to warrant being toppled by outsiders.
Have you ever asked someone in Moscow what they think of Putin? Ask about Assad in Damascus you’ll get the same answer. These people simply do not care for what you have to say, they have their own thing going on.
Kralizec
12-15-2016, 00:07
Ghadaffi's death showed all the rest of the tinpot dictators what you get for support if you work with the West instead of with Russia and has made diplomatic collaboration that much less likely. The winner is hardpower for the region and lipservice to the West.
I don't think that's a fair point, really. Looking at it from a western perspective, Quadaffi had financed international terrorists for decades. That he decided to play nice with the west was an extremely opportunist move. I remember reading an article at the time that he sometimes "subtly" threatened diplomats or other leaders with reverting to his old ways afterwards, in order to get his way.
Quite frankly, the man was a whimsical psychopath and it's no surprise that the west decided to bank their money on the rebels - even with the memory of Iraq fresh in memory. I imagine that other tin-pot dictators like Assad (or Mubarak, or the Tunesian guy who was ousted a few years ago) are quite familiar with Quadaffi's crazyness and can understand.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-15-2016, 00:45
The issue here is that the Democrats you are thinking of are more constrained by their non-Syrian (western, Kurdish) side than it is with its homegrown side. This undermines the plurality that Assadists latch onto.
I can accept that the Arab Muslim problem is mostly true, but it makes no sense here. First, Syria is a secular Arab republic. Second, living in Damascus you would have little to complain about the regime. The reality is that there is no free speech but this is the dynasty that the Syrian people are accustomed to. Any attempts at reform with respect to the constitution would involve a secular Syrian movement, not a western-backed proxy. You should start by questioning who is more in line with the Syrian constitution and what Assad has actually done to warrant being toppled by outsiders.
Have you ever asked someone in Moscow what they think of Putin? Ask about Assad in Damascus you’ll get the same answer. These people simply do not care for what you have to say, they have their own thing going on.
Well, first of all Syria is not a Secular Republic, it's a Tyranny where the current ruling Dynasty is not particularly concerned with the religion of its subjects so long as they're quiet. In such a circumstance religion tolerance is more a question of benign neglect that respect for Freedom of Conscience. Such tolerance is dispensed with as soon as it ceases to be expedient.
Such regimes are also inherently unstable - because there is no democratic way to change the regime economic misfortune usually leads to revolts and the regime responds with slaughter - as in Syria.
Absent a generally recognised Caliph or democratic states the Arab world will continue to move through circles of war, destruction, recrimination, and recovery dictated by the economic cycle.
My Uncle believes the Arabs are doomed so long as they continue to follow Islam because they will always look for "strongman" rulers, rejecting democratic reform or pluralism because it is seen as counter to Islam.
I'm not convinced he's right but on the other hand the only actual Secular Republic in the Middle East is Lebanon, and it's roughly 50% Christian with the largest Christian denomination being almost as large as the Sunni or Shia population.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-15-2016, 01:08
List all the (largely) secular tyrants we've overthrown in the region in the last decade or two, and what came after. Why do you expect anything to happen differently?
They were not remotely Sectarian (Under the Sunni Ba'arthis Sunnis were better off than Shia), they were simply securely in charge and not insane Zealots.
Don't confuse the two.
Pannonian
12-15-2016, 02:13
They were not remotely Sectarian (Under the Sunni Ba'arthis Sunnis were better off than Shia), they were simply securely in charge and not insane Zealots.
Don't confuse the two.
Not by western standards they weren't secular. But then Israel is insanely religion-ruled by western standards, yet is by far the most secular state in the region. If you judge these countries by western standards, they'll always fall short. By the standards of the region though, is different. And experience after experience has shown that, when you topple these relatively secular (yet unsatisfactory to you) tyrants, Salafist nuts take over. However much you may wish for their people to see the sense of liberal democracy. In that region, liberalism is going to be hard pressed anyway. Introduce democracy, or upset the status quo so that the groundswell can decide their own destiny, and liberalism will die off altogether. It's how that region is, and neocons and their descendants should stop wishing otherwise in the face of all evidence.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-15-2016, 04:27
Not by western standards they weren't secular. But then Israel is insanely religion-ruled by western standards, yet is by far the most secular state in the region. If you judge these countries by western standards, they'll always fall short. By the standards of the region though, is different. And experience after experience has shown that, when you topple these relatively secular (yet unsatisfactory to you) tyrants, Salafist nuts take over. However much you may wish for their people to see the sense of liberal democracy. In that region, liberalism is going to be hard pressed anyway. Introduce democracy, or upset the status quo so that the groundswell can decide their own destiny, and liberalism will die off altogether. It's how that region is, and neocons and their descendants should stop wishing otherwise in the face of all evidence.
Cynic. Next you are going to tell me that 250k troops for security and 100k teachers, physicians, engineers, trainers and management design specialists for a 30-50 year nation building project in order to effect a stable, secular, democratic republic based on gender equality and the rule of law is somehow impractical. What a naysayer.
Pannonian
12-15-2016, 08:28
Cynic. Next you are going to tell me that 250k troops for security and 100k teachers, physicians, engineers, trainers and management design specialists for a 30-50 year nation building project in order to effect a stable, secular, democratic republic based on gender equality and the rule of law is somehow impractical. What a naysayer.
You've forgotten the first step. Flatten the country with ordnance and starve the people into submission so you can carry out your subsequent plans on your terms. If you can't be bothered to do that, then the above won't work. In some ways, the Russian plan for Syria is more conducive to creating a stable, secular, democratic republic based on gender equality and the rule of law, as they're at least doing the first step I describe.
Greyblades
12-15-2016, 08:58
Maybe that's why Trump and others have a pro-global-warming-agenda? :sweatdrop:
I like to imagine a couple of billionaires were tricked into buying beach side resorts in scotland and the only way to save face they can think of is to turn the hebrides into a tropical archepelago.
They were not remotely Sectarian (Under the Sunni Ba'arthis Sunnis were better off than Shia), they were simply securely in charge and not insane Zealots.
Don't confuse the two.
And Tikritis were better than everyone else. Never underestimate the tribal factor. That's what allowed the US to put down the first insurgency and Baghdad not following the American promises is what led to daesh.
Gilrandir
12-15-2016, 14:29
Assad has traded ruins in the desert back to IS in order to break the largest remaining power center of the non-IS rebels who are the real threat to HIM.
Are you sure it was a conscious trade and not a oversight of (Assad+Russia)'s intelligence?
Would he lose a few points? Sure, but not a major prestige hit....
Given his control of the media any setback of his is not a tiny bit hurtful. But you should have heard all the uproar when Palmyra had been taken back in spring. You should have seen how much attention was paid to the classical music concert held in the picturesque ruins.
Nice unverified deflection. Might have worked, but it kind of didn't.
So you just linked an article showing Homs in 2013 passing it off as news. Try different outlets, you're letting your issues with Putin interfere with the facts in Syria.
Different from UN officials?
Head of the UN's human rights office Rupert Colville said that six different sources had confirmed 82 non-combatants were shot in four different neighbourhoods overnight on Monday. The reports included 11 women and 13 children killed.
Maybe that's why Trump and others have a pro-global-warming-agenda? :sweatdrop:
Oh, come on! Now you will tell me that the Starks are behind all of this.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-15-2016, 15:26
Not by western standards they weren't secular. But then Israel is insanely religion-ruled by western standards, yet is by far the most secular state in the region. If you judge these countries by western standards, they'll always fall short. By the standards of the region though, is different. And experience after experience has shown that, when you topple these relatively secular (yet unsatisfactory to you) tyrants, Salafist nuts take over. However much you may wish for their people to see the sense of liberal democracy. In that region, liberalism is going to be hard pressed anyway. Introduce democracy, or upset the status quo so that the groundswell can decide their own destiny, and liberalism will die off altogether. It's how that region is, and neocons and their descendants should stop wishing otherwise in the face of all evidence.
Unlike you I only don't apply relativistic definitions. None of the states in the Middle East are really Secular. Lebanon comes closest but it's really more "mult-confessional" so that the various groups are held in check by each other. Even so, it still remains the best hope for the region. Turkey used to be a forcibly Secular state but as those prohibitions have been relaxed so it has begun to slide towards popular Islamism, and like Lebanon it had to specifically recognise and demarcate the particular religious groups and give each defined rights to make it work (ish).
Israel is a real democracy, I'll give you that, and it has a very high development index but it's not remotely secular. In some ways it's less secular than the surrounding states. To enjoy all the benefits of Israel's democracy you have to be seen as both ethnically and confessionally Jewish (good luck being black).
Joradn might actually be Secular, but it's only the King that keeps it that way. King Hussain experimented with democracy in the 1980's but discovered that it led to Islamism so it's been rolled back somewhat since.
The first thing we need to do when dealing with the Middle East is accept the reality is presents - and that means not pretending nations are "Secular" or factions "Progressive" when they aren't.
Having said that, I have no problem dealing with a Shia Tyrant so long as he isn't murdering his own people. This is where Assad fell fowl of the West, after riots that were essentially sparked by economic problems.
Still, unlike you I don't have to pretend he's secular, or even tolerant.
Hey you know where else is quite Democratic and actually doesn't just treat women like chattel? Iran. It's not remotely secular either, though.
Something to reflect on, that.
Kagemusha
12-15-2016, 16:12
Unlike you I only don't apply relativistic definitions. None of the states in the Middle East are really Secular. Lebanon comes closest but it's really more "mult-confessional" so that the various groups are held in check by each other. Even so, it still remains the best hope for the region. Turkey used to be a forcibly Secular state but as those prohibitions have been relaxed so it has begun to slide towards popular Islamism, and like Lebanon it had to specifically recognise and demarcate the particular religious groups and give each defined rights to make it work (ish).
Israel is a real democracy, I'll give you that, and it has a very high development index but it's not remotely secular. In some ways it's less secular than the surrounding states. To enjoy all the benefits of Israel's democracy you have to be seen as both ethnically and confessionally Jewish (good luck being black).
Joradn might actually be Secular, but it's only the King that keeps it that way. King Hussain experimented with democracy in the 1980's but discovered that it led to Islamism so it's been rolled back somewhat since.
The first thing we need to do when dealing with the Middle East is accept the reality is presents - and that means not pretending nations are "Secular" or factions "Progressive" when they aren't.
Having said that, I have no problem dealing with a Shia Tyrant so long as he isn't murdering his own people. This is where Assad fell fowl of the West, after riots that were essentially sparked by economic problems.
Still, unlike you I don't have to pretend he's secular, or even tolerant.
Hey you know where else is quite Democratic and actually doesn't just treat women like chattel? Iran. It's not remotely secular either, though.
Something to reflect on, that.
It is rather naive notion to assume that The Arab Spring, which also sparked the Syrian civil war was sparked essentially by economic problems.
Pannonian
12-15-2016, 16:50
Unlike you I only don't apply relativistic definitions. None of the states in the Middle East are really Secular. Lebanon comes closest but it's really more "mult-confessional" so that the various groups are held in check by each other. Even so, it still remains the best hope for the region. Turkey used to be a forcibly Secular state but as those prohibitions have been relaxed so it has begun to slide towards popular Islamism, and like Lebanon it had to specifically recognise and demarcate the particular religious groups and give each defined rights to make it work (ish).
Israel is a real democracy, I'll give you that, and it has a very high development index but it's not remotely secular. In some ways it's less secular than the surrounding states. To enjoy all the benefits of Israel's democracy you have to be seen as both ethnically and confessionally Jewish (good luck being black).
Joradn might actually be Secular, but it's only the King that keeps it that way. King Hussain experimented with democracy in the 1980's but discovered that it led to Islamism so it's been rolled back somewhat since.
The first thing we need to do when dealing with the Middle East is accept the reality is presents - and that means not pretending nations are "Secular" or factions "Progressive" when they aren't.
Having said that, I have no problem dealing with a Shia Tyrant so long as he isn't murdering his own people. This is where Assad fell fowl of the West, after riots that were essentially sparked by economic problems.
Still, unlike you I don't have to pretend he's secular, or even tolerant.
Hey you know where else is quite Democratic and actually doesn't just treat women like chattel? Iran. It's not remotely secular either, though.
Something to reflect on, that.
And I happen to think that Iran are among the lesser evils in the region. You probably think that's a bit too relativistic a view to take though. They're not perfect, ergo we must hate them and topple them. It's 2003 all over again.
Sarmatian
12-15-2016, 17:38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjHniRRgOao
I know it's 6 days old but I missed it till today. Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist, certainly doesn't pull any punches, when it comes to Syria and mainstream media.
Most interesting is how she discredits SOHR and White Helmets, two organizations on which western media rely the most.
AE Bravo
12-15-2016, 18:38
Well, first of all Syria is not a Secular Republic, it's a Tyranny where the current ruling Dynasty is not particularly concerned with the religion of its subjects so long as they're quiet. In such a circumstance religion tolerance is more a question of benign neglect that respect for Freedom of Conscience. Such tolerance is dispensed with as soon as it ceases to be expedient.
Such regimes are also inherently unstable - because there is no democratic way to change the regime economic misfortune usually leads to revolts and the regime responds with slaughter - as in Syria.
Absent a generally recognised Caliph or democratic states the Arab world will continue to move through circles of war, destruction, recrimination, and recovery dictated by the economic cycle.
My Uncle believes the Arabs are doomed so long as they continue to follow Islam because they will always look for "strongman" rulers, rejecting democratic reform or pluralism because it is seen as counter to Islam.
I'm not convinced he's right but on the other hand the only actual Secular Republic in the Middle East is Lebanon, and it's roughly 50% Christian with the largest Christian denomination being almost as large as the Sunni or Shia population.
To draw the whole situation based on how its conceptualized in western thought is to look past the fact that this war is a result of outsiders further ripping apart an otherwise manageable internal struggle. We are better off applying international standards than who we think are tyrants.
I believe the strongman rulers are needed, or rather make themselves needed. Japanese sociologist Nobuaki Notohara published a book called “Arabs From A Japanese Perspective,” which is a bit racist but very much true. Its bulletpoints are actually very well-known in social media across the ME. They should make an English translation to give the world a sense of how deep-rooted and personal the problems are. Seeing the accuracy of her points alone make strongman seem like a necessary reality with the current climate.
Lebanon, we have just seen a reconciliation between Christianity and political Islam in the form of Aoun’s friendship with Nasrallah. Here we see that a form of Islamism was successfully integrated into an overarching social order. It was a unifying force rather than a divisive one, plus it has served Lebanese civil institutions rather than hinder them. So you can proceed with a basic hypothesis that Arab Muslims make up the problem for the most part, but the Arab social order is the bigger problem, especially when that social order is accomodated by the west as a function of deterrence for competing powers.
AE Bravo
12-15-2016, 18:50
Different from UN officials?
Head of the UN's human rights office Rupert Colville said that six different sources had confirmed 82 non-combatants were shot in four different neighbourhoods overnight on Monday. The reports included 11 women and 13 children killed.
1. Not perpetrated by the Syrian Armed Forces
2. If we choose to evaluate the war crimes of militias to place the blame on their patrons, whom do you think outweighs the other in war crimes. Not the Syrian armed forces.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-15-2016, 19:47
It is rather naive notion to assume that The Arab Spring, which also sparked the Syrian civil war was sparked essentially by economic problems.
The spark was quite literally economic - a Tunisian man set himself on fire because he was being harassed by tax inspectors over his fruit stall. That's approximately what happened, I may be fudging the details but the point is that the "Arab Spreing" came about because of the way the local Tyrants dealt with protests over economic conditions. Those protests were then hijacked by Liberals and Islamists.
And I happen to think that Iran are among the lesser evils in the region. You probably think that's a bit too relativistic a view to take though. They're not perfect, ergo we must hate them and topple them. It's 2003 all over again.
You need to do that thing where you read other people's posts instead of just arguing against a Straw Man, if you had done so you would know I have no particular problem with Iran - in fact just a few months ago I was arguing we would be better off supporting them than the Saudis. However, trying to make nice with someone who regularly refers to you as the "Great Stan and the Little Satan" is pointless which is why I have generally been opposed to most Iranian government prior to the current one, which is more conciliatory.
Sarmatian
12-15-2016, 23:33
You need to do that thing where you read other people's posts instead of just arguing against a Straw Man, if you had done so you would know I have no particular problem with Iran - in fact just a few months ago I was arguing we would be better off supporting them than the Saudis. However, trying to make nice with someone who regularly refers to you as the "Great Stan and the Little Satan" is pointless which is why I have generally been opposed to most Iranian government prior to the current one, which is more conciliatory.
Very one sided view. I wouldn't say that being included in the Axis of Evil is better than being called "Satan". Or having one of the most senior statesman for foreign policy sing "bomb Iran"... With they way Iran has been called by western politicians and mainstream western media, "Great Satan and Little Satan" is actually show a great restraint on Iran's part.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-16-2016, 02:17
You've forgotten the first step. Flatten the country with ordnance and starve the people into submission so you can carry out your subsequent plans on your terms. If you can't be bothered to do that, then the above won't work. In some ways, the Russian plan for Syria is more conducive to creating a stable, secular, democratic republic based on gender equality and the rule of law, as they're at least doing the first step I describe.
point
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-16-2016, 03:48
Very one sided view. I wouldn't say that being included in the Axis of Evil is better than being called "Satan". Or having one of the most senior statesman for foreign policy sing "bomb Iran"... With they way Iran has been called by western politicians and mainstream western media, "Great Satan and Little Satan" is actually show a great restraint on Iran's part.
Uh huh.
The "Axis of Evil" was specifically a Bush thing - the "Great Satan" thing was going for decades before that, as was "Death to America" alongside "Death to Israel". Iran spent decades trolling everyone, they consequently garnered a lot of bad press. It should also be noted that it has only been in the last decade that Iran has even started to open up to the outside world.
Gilrandir
12-16-2016, 12:00
I know it's 6 days old but I missed it till today. Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist, certainly doesn't pull any punches, when it comes to Syria and mainstream media.
Most interesting is how she discredits SOHR and White Helmets, two organizations on which western media rely the most.
Just another opinion of a journalist with a pro-Syrian agenda.
https://zeroanthropology.net/eva-bartlett/
Why does her opinion weigh more than the ones she denounces?
1. Not perpetrated by the Syrian Armed Forces
... but by those they are allied with? "I didn't do it I just stood and watched them doing it"?
And SAF are angels who never do anything like that?
Any war is a dirty business, especially so complicated as the Syrian one.
2. If we choose to evaluate the war crimes of militias to place the blame on their patrons, whom do you think outweighs the other in war crimes. Not the Syrian armed forces.
I see. Measuring atrocities. Never mind bombing Hiroshima or Dresden - Auschwitz and Japan's atrocities were more terrible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_D%C3%B6nitz#Nuremberg_war_crimes_trials
His sentence on unrestricted submarine warfare was not assessed, because of similar actions by the Allies: in particular, the British Admiralty on 8 May 1940 had ordered all vessels in the Skagerrak sunk on sight; and Admiral Chester Nimitz, wartime commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated the U.S. Navy had waged unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific from the day the U.S. entered the war. Thus, although Dönitz was found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare against unarmed neutral shipping by ordering all ships in designated areas in international waters to be sunk without warning, no additional prison time was added to his sentence for this crime.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-16-2016, 14:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjHniRRgOao
I know it's 6 days old but I missed it till today. Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist, certainly doesn't pull any punches, when it comes to Syria and mainstream media.
Most interesting is how she discredits SOHR and White Helmets, two organizations on which western media rely the most.
A little research suggests a connection to Russia Today and an Anti-Israeli bias.
If you look at what she says, she talks about how the "mainstream media" has no verifiable sources on the ground, but presents no verifiable sources herself. She says the SOHR is "one man" when in reality it is "one man" in the UK and a whole network of contacts in Syria. Her Attacks of the White Helmets sound very convincing but difficult to check.
This appears to be the story about "Aya" appearing in multiple videos:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrias-white-helmets-assad-says-the-boy-in-the-ambulance-is-fake-this-proves-it/5552367
Scenes two and three are clearly the same girl but its extremely difficult to tell in the other instances because small children tend not to have many identifying features. Personally I don't think the Aya in the first scene has the same shape face as in later scenes. The boy is so filthy it's completely impossible to tell anything reliably. One thing that IS notable is that the one screencap has had its colour balance altered, making the girl's complexion pinker and the blood "glossier". The article says "trust your eyes" and my eyes tell me that screencap has been doctored, and there's only one clear high-res shot of each child.
Now, lets look at her other points.
We can pretty much dismiss her quoting the Syrian election as the results would be reported as supporting Assad even if they didn't, rubber stamping a Tyrant with a falsely reported election is a practice that goes back to Napoleon at least. Likewise, her vague anecdotes about Syrians saying they support their government may be true, but likewise may be the result of being "liberated" by the Syrian army and now being under their auspices. It has been remarked before that if you ask someone in an IS controlled area what they think of IS they will tell you how great they are.
Finally, she picks out the BBC and the Guardian as "lying" about what is going on in Syria. That's really interesting, because pretty much every British source says the same thing about Syria, but she picks the Guardian and the BBC as opposed to, say, the Guardian and the Telegraph and brands them "liars". What is it that makes these two particular targets? If the only voices in Britain's "Establishment Media" are anti-Assad, why these two? It might be that both are Anti-Russian and the guardian in particular is strongly anti-Putin. Anybody familiar with the journalistic culture within these two organisations would know that neither would consciously "lie". The BBC in particular is pathalogically opposed to miss-information, people lose their jobs over it. That's not to say there's no bias, or that they can't be fed miss-information but what she says repeatedly is "they're lying" and she picks out these two anti-Putin outlets several times.
Finally, with regards to the Russians having satellite imagery of as not-bombed hospital, we know the Russian military has a whole doctrine of military diss-information and that the policy, if caught, is to double down. We also know they supplied fake satellite imagery of empty bases on the Russian-Ukraine border a few years ago.
So - whilst I doubt the situation is as clear cut as the "evil Assad" that is sometimes peddled I am even less inclined to believe, as she says, that "the opposite is true" given that she looks like a Russian mouthpiece.
To draw the whole situation based on how its conceptualized in western thought is to look past the fact that this war is a result of outsiders further ripping apart an otherwise manageable internal struggle. We are better off applying international standards than who we think are tyrants.
Whilst Syria has certainly become a battleground for international forces it would be disingenuous to describe the initial protests as anything other than domestic.
As regards labelling Assad a Tyrant, I can't speak for others but personally I am applying Aristotle's standards. Assad is neither an elected leader not a king, ergo he occupied an anomalous position within the Syrian Constitution. He is, therefore, bad in so far as his Tyranny disrupts the normal functions of Constitutional Government and thereby harms the state. Furthermore, as he is not Constitutionally Legitimate he has to use force to hang onto power - which is why he had to violently suppress the ongoing protests.
I believe the strongman rulers are needed, or rather make themselves needed. Japanese sociologist Nobuaki Notohara published a book called “Arabs From A Japanese Perspective,” which is a bit racist but very much true. Its bulletpoints are actually very well-known in social media across the ME. They should make an English translation to give the world a sense of how deep-rooted and personal the problems are. Seeing the accuracy of her points alone make strongman seem like a necessary reality with the current climate.
This is an incredibly complex topic deserving its own thread. Clearly a lot of Arabs right now want Tyrants in preference to Islamists. Equally clearly when Arabs vote they often tend to vote for Islamists, despite not apparently wanting their policies to be enacted. Witness Egypt. It seems to me that when Arabs have been given a democratic vote, in various places, throughout the last few years there have been a tendencey for a significant percentage to vote for the most pious voice as opposed to the most practical. I don't think it's a majority but it's a large enough majority who seem to vote this way that Islamists can end up holding the balance of power.
Lebanon, we have just seen a reconciliation between Christianity and political Islam in the form of Aoun’s friendship with Nasrallah. Here we see that a form of Islamism was successfully integrated into an overarching social order. It was a unifying force rather than a divisive one, plus it has served Lebanese civil institutions rather than hinder them. So you can proceed with a basic hypothesis that Arab Muslims make up the problem for the most part, but the Arab social order is the bigger problem, especially when that social order is accomodated by the west as a function of deterrence for competing powers.[/QUOTE]
Just in case that helps (one of the top stories in Google when I look for Eva Bartlett): http://www.snopes.com/syrian-war-victims-are-being-recycled-and-al-quds-hospital-was-never-bombed/
Seems to agree with PVC.
Sarmatian
12-16-2016, 16:48
A little research suggests a connection to Russia Today and an Anti-Israeli bias.
Being anti Israeli isn't necessarily the same as having anti Israeli bias, and it doesn't have much to with Syrian civil war.
A connection to RT isn't proof of lies. Furthermore, a freelance journalist generally selling her stories to media agencies is the what freelance journalists do. I'm sure you'd find that connection to many other media organizations around the world.
Now, if you have a good story about how she is actually employed exclusively by RT, and sent to Syria with an agenda, all the while pretending to be a freelance journalist, that would actually be discrediting.
If you look at what she says, she talks about how the "mainstream media" has no verifiable sources on the ground, but presents no verifiable sources herself. She says the SOHR is "one man" when in reality it is "one man" in the UK and a whole network of contacts in Syria. Her Attacks of the White Helmets sound very convincing but difficult to check.
Of course, she might be lying, but, with her being rather forthcoming with exact dates, times, places it would be easy to pick her story apart. So far, she was supposedly caught lying about Al Quds hospital, while in fact, she didn't lie. Almost all western media reported that the hospital was attacked and damaged. When pressed now (in Husar's post) MSF said that a "building across the road from the hospital and another building even further away". Hospital wasn't damaged and continue operating.
For me, attack on SOHR was actually more convincing. We actually don't really know anything about it. How many informants they have, who they are, where they are, how often do they send news, how they verify them etc... Being a journalist, she actually had training and experience to do that.
And after all those information reach UK, a single guy in Coventry decides what gets published.
This appears to be the story about "Aya" appearing in multiple videos:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrias-white-helmets-assad-says-the-boy-in-the-ambulance-is-fake-this-proves-it/5552367
Scenes two and three are clearly the same girl but its extremely difficult to tell in the other instances because small children tend not to have many identifying features. Personally I don't think the Aya in the first scene has the same shape face as in later scenes. The boy is so filthy it's completely impossible to tell anything reliably. One thing that IS notable is that the one screencap has had its colour balance altered, making the girl's complexion pinker and the blood "glossier". The article says "trust your eyes" and my eyes tell me that screencap has been doctored, and there's only one clear high-res shot of each child.
For me, that is the least important. Media tends to pick the photo that's easiest to empathize with. Even if it was the same girl, it's irrelevant. Certainly many children have suffered, no need to prove that each individual child suffered.
Now, lets look at her other points.
We can pretty much dismiss her quoting the Syrian election as the results would be reported as supporting Assad even if they didn't, rubber stamping a Tyrant with a falsely reported election is a practice that goes back to Napoleon at least. Likewise, her vague anecdotes about Syrians saying they support their government may be true, but likewise may be the result of being "liberated" by the Syrian army and now being under their auspices. It has been remarked before that if you ask someone in an IS controlled area what they think of IS they will tell you how great they are.
This is arguably true, and I have no problem thinking that the support for Assad is actually lower than elections show. At the same time, I'd also think it's higher than western politicians are trying to portray.
Finally, she picks out the BBC and the Guardian as "lying" about what is going on in Syria. That's really interesting, because pretty much every British source says the same thing about Syria, but she picks the Guardian and the BBC as opposed to, say, the Guardian and the Telegraph and brands them "liars". What is it that makes these two particular targets? If the only voices in Britain's "Establishment Media" are anti-Assad, why these two? It might be that both are Anti-Russian and the guardian in particular is strongly anti-Putin. Anybody familiar with the journalistic culture within these two organisations would know that neither would consciously "lie". The BBC in particular is pathalogically opposed to miss-information, people lose their jobs over it. That's not to say there's no bias, or that they can't be fed miss-information but what she says repeatedly is "they're lying" and she picks out these two anti-Putin outlets several times.
I definitely don't agree with this. She mentioned several times that she means all western corporate media. She also mentioned LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post and others. She mentioned Guardian and BBC specifically because she was talking about a concrete article, and had to say the source of the article, otherwise it wouldn't be a serious report.
Finally, with regards to the Russians having satellite imagery of as not-bombed hospital, we know the Russian military has a whole doctrine of military diss-information and that the policy, if caught, is to double down. We also know they supplied fake satellite imagery of empty bases on the Russian-Ukraine border a few years ago.
Possibly, but in the case of Al Quds hospital, they were obviously correct.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-16-2016, 19:12
Being anti Israeli isn't necessarily the same as having anti Israeli bias, and it doesn't have much to with Syrian civil war.
A connection to RT isn't proof of lies. Furthermore, a freelance journalist generally selling her stories to media agencies is the what freelance journalists do. I'm sure you'd find that connection to many other media organizations around the world.
Now, if you have a good story about how she is actually employed exclusively by RT, and sent to Syria with an agenda, all the while pretending to be a freelance journalist, that would actually be discrediting.
None of this discredits her exactly, but it speaks to her worldview - there is a certain anti-Western sentiment within the West. The most famous current example is Jeremy Coirbyn who in addition to having an anti-Israeli bias has vocally supported Russia Today as a n alternative preferable to the BBC. The BBC has, of course, exposed Corbyn lying on camera, sharing a platform with terrorist sympathisers and quite literally embracing anti-Semites.
Russia Today, on the other hand, is quite obviously the mouthpiece of the Kremlin and only reports accurately when it doesn't hurt their masters' political agenda.
If she's so pro-Arab and so well embedded why isn't she working for Al Jazeera? Possibly because she's too biased and prejudiced.
I also found this: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145637
Forum thread at Arm Chair General started by a now banned user, either she has an unashamed anti-Israeli bias or he set out to character assassinate her. Doesn't seem like she was famous enough for that, though. Interesting find none the less - have a skim.
Here's Eva Bartlett apparently responding to someone from Buzzfeed:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/16/eva-bartlett-on-syria-responding-to-buzzfeed/
Whether Mr Dara actually contacted her or not I do not know, however by pre-empting his interview she's likely dissuaded him from publishing unless he wants to get into a flame war (not this is different to letting him publish and then responding to the article as-published.
Here she is for Russia Today on the UN: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/229215-united-nations--syria-ambassador/
Of course, she might be lying, but, with her being rather forthcoming with exact dates, times, places it would be easy to pick her story apart. So far, she was supposedly caught lying about Al Quds hospital, while in fact, she didn't lie. Almost all western media reported that the hospital was attacked and damaged. When pressed now (in Husar's post) MSF said that a "building across the road from the hospital and another building even further away". Hospital wasn't damaged and continue operating.
You means this:
"On 27 April 2016, amidst the Syrian government-led coalition’s offensive on East Aleppo, Basel Aslan (Al Quds) hospital was attacked and severely damaged by two airstrikes. According to interviews with staff present at Al Quds hospital during the attack, at exactly 9.37pm, a building across from the hospital, identified as Ain Jalout school, was struck by an airstrike. Following the first strike, Al Quds medical staff retrieved the wounded to transfer them to the hospital for medical care. Soon after, the Al Quds staff residence, located a few buildings down from the hospital, was hit by a second strike."
Missiles cause widespread damage when they bit a building, the building itself becomes a grenade, hurling out concrete and rebar whilst the shockwave alone can know out Windows. Bartlett claimed the hospital was not attacked and that the Russians have footage of it being in "exactly" the same state as before the attack. She neglects to mentioned the crater of the road where the school used to be. Given her attitude to slack reporting in the Mainstream media being "lies" we could saying she is lying by omission.
Here's the footage: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-airstrike-al-quds-hospital-rebel-held-aleppo-doctor-cease-fire/
Also - note the White Helmets in the video.
For me, attack on SOHR was actually more convincing. We actually don't really know anything about it. How many informants they have, who they are, where they are, how often do they send news, how they verify them etc... Being a journalist, she actually had training and experience to do that.
And after all those information reach UK, a single guy in Coventry decides what gets published.
There's some mileage in this, but plenty of people have met this "one man" and found him to be genuine, I understand people have watched him work. So it's not as though we know "nothing".
For me, that is the least important. Media tends to pick the photo that's easiest to empathize with. Even if it was the same girl, it's irrelevant. Certainly many children have suffered, no need to prove that each individual child suffered.
The claim is, in essence, that these are child actors - I posted a link explaining this in detail. Essentially, there are no White Helmets - it's all staged. Highly unlikely given the huge amounts of money invested, there are probably Europeans embedded with the White Helmets, ex forces. That's another thing Bartlett never mentions, you would think with all her talk of "Regime Change" etc. that she would mention the American, British and French forces embedded with opposition groups, we're pretty sure they're there (especially with the Kurds) but not a mention.
This is arguably true, and I have no problem thinking that the support for Assad is actually lower than elections show. At the same time, I'd also think it's higher than western politicians are trying to portray.
Given the protracted nature of the Civil War and the evidenced lack of morale among the armed forces I would hazard well under 50%.
On the topic of the Civil War - a list of Defectors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_defectors
I definitely don't agree with this. She mentioned several times that she means all western corporate media. She also mentioned LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post and others. She mentioned Guardian and BBC specifically because she was talking about a concrete article, and had to say the source of the article, otherwise it wouldn't be a serious report.
The examples she gave were the Guardian, the BBC and the New York Times - then she got into specifics - but those three were the three emblematic examples of Western Media corruption.
Possibly, but in the case of Al Quds hospital, they were obviously correct.
Obviously not, because the school over the road would be a ruin and the hospital would have been somewhat damaged by that - even if it was just blown out windows.
Sarmatian
12-17-2016, 00:01
If she's so pro-Arab and so well embedded why isn't she working for Al Jazeera? Possibly because she's too biased and prejudiced.
There are many possible reasons and picking one that suits your narrative is unfair, at least.
I also found this: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145637
Forum thread at Arm Chair General started by a now banned user, either she has an unashamed anti-Israeli bias or he set out to character assassinate her. Doesn't seem like she was famous enough for that, though. Interesting find none the less - have a skim.
I wouldn't say it's either. They guy posted about his personal experience on a forum he frequents. I shared my experiences about a visit to a ruins of a Roman palace/fort in Serbia in the Monastery a few years back. That doesn't mean I have a special agenda, or that I'm paid by Tourist Organization of Serbia to promote possible sights in the country.
From what I've read of the discussion, she dislikes the acts of the Israeli government, but nothing in there that shows a bias.
Here's Eva Bartlett apparently responding to someone from Buzzfeed:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/16/eva-bartlett-on-syria-responding-to-buzzfeed/
Whether Mr Dara actually contacted her or not I do not know, however by pre-empting his interview she's likely dissuaded him from publishing unless he wants to get into a flame war (not this is different to letting him publish and then responding to the article as-published.
I'm not familiar with journalist practice so intimately to gauge whether that was a breach of some protocol or not. In any case, it certainly didn't look like an interview, just a few questions by email.
Here she is for Russia Today on the UN: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/229215-united-nations--syria-ambassador/
Again, writing an article for RT isn't proof that she is their propaganda mouthpiece, nor is an article published by RT automatically a hoax.
You means this:
"On 27 April 2016, amidst the Syrian government-led coalition’s offensive on East Aleppo, Basel Aslan (Al Quds) hospital was attacked and severely damaged by two airstrikes. According to interviews with staff present at Al Quds hospital during the attack, at exactly 9.37pm, a building across from the hospital, identified as Ain Jalout school, was struck by an airstrike. Following the first strike, Al Quds medical staff retrieved the wounded to transfer them to the hospital for medical care. Soon after, the Al Quds staff residence, located a few buildings down from the hospital, was hit by a second strike."
That would be fine and dandy if MSF didn't publish this about the strike two days after it happened (April 29th):
"The attack on Al Quds hospital has destroyed one of the last remaining places in Aleppo in which you could still find humanity." - That statement identifies hospital as the target of the attack and concludes that the hospital was destroyed.
On May 4th, they issued a following statement:
"The airstrikes first hit buildings neighboring the hospital, then the hospital itself as the wounded were transferred there." - this one concludes that at least two buildings were hit, before the hospital itself was hit.
And lastly, the bit you quoted:
"...a building across from the hospital, identified as Ain Jalout school, was struck by an airstrike. Following the first strike, Al Quds medical staff retrieved the wounded to transfer them to the hospital for medical care. Soon after, the Al Quds staff residence, located a few buildings down from the hospital, was hit by a second strike." - and this one says that only two buildings were hit, one across and one further away from the hospital, were hit.
I'm the only one seeing inconsistencies here?
Missiles cause widespread damage when they bit a building, the building itself becomes a grenade, hurling out concrete and rebar whilst the shockwave alone can know out Windows. Bartlett claimed the hospital was not attacked and that the Russians have footage of it being in "exactly" the same state as before the attack. She neglects to mentioned the crater of the road where the school used to be. Given her attitude to slack reporting in the Mainstream media being "lies" we could saying she is lying by omission.
Obfuscation. The narrative was and is that Russians/Syrian army are purposefully targeting hospitals and thus committing war crimes. Thus, the difference between a direct attack and collateral damage is huge.
To put it in perspective, Chinese government wouldn't have been nearly as angry with NATO in 1999, if the NATO bombed something a few buildings away from the Chinese embassy, resulting in shattered windows.
Here's the footage: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-airstrike-al-quds-hospital-rebel-held-aleppo-doctor-cease-fire/
Also - note the White Helmets in the video.
I'm not overly familiar with White Helmets, so I won't make a case either way, but in her statement, she didn't deny their existence, just questioned whether they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, especially with a huge funding they have at their disposal.
There's some mileage in this, but plenty of people have met this "one man" and found him to be genuine, I understand people have watched him work. So it's not as though we know "nothing".
Possibly. But why should he be trusted? Merely because the organization has Human Rights in the title, or because it suits the current narrative?
Let's compare him with Eva Bartlett -
1) One person - check
2) network of contacts - check
3) possible bias - check
4) first hand knowledge - only Bartlett
5) journalist training and experience - only Bartlett
The claim is, in essence, that these are child actors - I posted a link explaining this in detail. Essentially, there are no White Helmets - it's all staged. Highly unlikely given the huge amounts of money invested, there are probably Europeans embedded with the White Helmets, ex forces. That's another thing Bartlett never mentions, you would think with all her talk of "Regime Change" etc. that she would mention the American, British and French forces embedded with opposition groups, we're pretty sure they're there (especially with the Kurds) but not a mention.
American, British and French Involved directly in fighting? I doubt that.
She mentioned support and training for rebels provided by western countries.
Given the protracted nature of the Civil War and the evidenced lack of morale among the armed forces I would hazard well under 50%.
Your guess is as good as mine.
The examples she gave were the Guardian, the BBC and the New York Times - then she got into specifics - but those three were the three emblematic examples of Western Media corruption.
I got a different understanding, but the two of you are native speakers, so I'll leave it at that.
White Helmets is the medical service of the rebels. Many of them help civilians, some punch captives and others are so unbelievably stupid that they participate in the mannequin challenge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgl271A6LgQ
I feel sorry for the guy who thought of it, hoping to appeal to the western audience and instead giving a field day to Russia Today. No more paychecks from the Qatar National Bank, I guess. Truth is that some of them are as nice as the guys sent to the mukhabarat for interrogation by the Americans in Iraq. But yes, the west is totally concerned for human rights. Like really.
However I can't describe all of them collectively as fascists, that will be unjust.
Funny thing is that the jihadists and their twitter brigades use the same tactics to discredit the Red Crescent, because they help civilians bombed by them. How dare they, I say!
Not much hope for the public opinion though, when so many (even excluding the Saudi bots) believe that a 7-year old and her mother daily update their twitter status calling for WW3 and crying about genocidde.
Oh, the gullibility...
Looks like the Rightist French Newspapers Le Figaro agreed with RT.
Probably paid by Putin as well.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2016/12/16/31002-20161216ARTFIG00292-alep-la-realpolitik-est-plus-humaine-que-le-manicheisme-moralisateur.php
Montmorency
12-17-2016, 12:23
Looks like the Rightist French Newspapers Le Figaro agreed with RT.
Probably paid by Putin as well.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2016/12/16/31002-20161216ARTFIG00292-alep-la-realpolitik-est-plus-humaine-que-le-manicheisme-moralisateur.php
Google Translate went a bit spotty toward the end, but her comments on political morality/ethics were the more promising part of the article.
I agree that Manicheanism toward the conflict serves very few political ends today other than inertia.
I raise that when she points out that IS is a scapegoat, she must also recognize that the same holds for every other concrete organization of Islamist violence, indeed short of the contemporary theme itself. A given organization is never the center of the question but rather a body which the state can directly defend itself against with its armed assemblage, and in this regard the task of "empty[ing] the jihadist abscess" runs only parallel to targeting whatever other groups fighting in Syria (and elsewhere) that the author dislikes.
It is false to suggest that the conflict is largely driven by foreign occupiers holding the Syrian people "hostage".
I reject the bromide that US-Russian cooperation can resolve either the Syrian conflict or conflicts of Islam at large, not least for the fact that these questions have very little to do with either cooperation or animosity between Russia and the US. The trend of this attitude is something you should have noticed, the fact that rightist organizations across Europe (except for those in Poland and the Baltic states, by the by) tend to look upon Putin with sympathy at the very least. This is so because, just as rightist groups despised Russia under a leftist regime, so they admire it as the seat of a rightist regime. Leaving aside questions of "fifth column" this has most to do with Russia being locked by (mind my choice of words now) one of the most successful rightist governments of modern history. I believe ideological resonance (across numerous principles) accounts for Euro right-wing attitudes toward Russia today than any specific instances of patronage, indoctrination, or other forms of compromise.
(One may take my thoughts further and compare rightist praise of Putin to, say, leftist praise of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez with concomitant implications, but I wouldn't take that step - yet)
I wanted just to underline that written media are changing a bit the narrative.
Google is awful at translation, unfortunately...
What she is saying is the media reading of the crisis is based on only 2 uniques sources, both of them nor reliable nor objective and news-agencies repeating eachothers.
She is saying that in Syria, the most urgent task of Europe and US was not to deal with Islamist Extremist but to bring Assad down, at what ever cost, and expel Russia from the region.
So, they legitimised islamic terrorists groups under the label of "rebels, forgetting about children enrolment in their ranks, massacres, tortures and extortions.
She said there is no more moderate opposition in Syria and we went from a Civil War in Syria to a war against Syria (invasion of turkish troops, and finances from Arabs Monarchies)
At no moment she said that IS was made a scapegoat. She said that the most of the opposition is like IS. And she finishes on the duty to go back to the "realpolitik" and need to respect borders as they are a good tools/frame for resolving crisis than moralism (that she qualifies as cynical) pretending working for democracy...
Acknowledgment of different interest by various parties....
Montmorency
12-17-2016, 23:03
I wanted just to underline that written media are changing a bit the narrative.
Google is awful at translation, unfortunately...
What she is saying is the media reading of the crisis is based on only 2 uniques sources, both of them nor reliable nor objective and news-agencies repeating eachothers.
She is saying that in Syria, the most urgent task of Europe and US was not to deal with Islamist Extremist but to bring Assad down, at what ever cost, and expel Russia from the region.
So, they legitimised islamic terrorists groups under the label of "rebels, forgetting about children enrolment in their ranks, massacres, tortures and extortions.
She said there is no more moderate opposition in Syria and we went from a Civil War in Syria to a war against Syria (invasion of turkish troops, and finances from Arabs Monarchies)
At no moment she said that IS was made a scapegoat. She said that the most of the opposition is like IS. And she finishes on the duty to go back to the "realpolitik" and need to respect borders as they are a good tools/frame for resolving crisis than moralism (that she qualifies as cynical) pretending working for democracy...
Acknowledgment of different interest by various parties....
The translation was enough to get all that.
As for "scapegoat":
pas seulement celle de Daech, bouc-émissaire spectaculaire
She calls it scapegoat by comparison to the other groups, to which I raised my complaint on her goal of countering the " l'abcès djihadiste" and "péril commun", namely that scapegoating the other evil awful groups is wrongfooted.
She still not qualifies Daesh as scapegoat, she is saying it was an easy target to divert attention of the others similars movements with exactly the same methods and ideology. And these groups were the ones financed by Saudis and allies, including us.
Kagemusha
12-23-2016, 13:28
While for some reason news dont speak about it much, Kurdish peshmerga of YPG and YPJ have achieved a major breakthrough West of Raqqa and are advancing towards the Isis capital alongside river Euphrates.
Assad claimed victory over Aleppo.
Agreement between Turkey, Russia and Iran apparently? A new alliance?
Seamus Fermanagh
12-23-2016, 18:18
Assad claimed victory over Aleppo.
Agreement between Turkey, Russia and Iran apparently? A new alliance?
Alliance? Not likely with those three states. Fellow-travelers for a particular short term agenda? Definite possibility.
"Definite possibility." Bad news for the Kurds...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-02-2017, 14:25
When was there any good news for the Kurds after the coming of Islam?
The West's refusal to actually back the Kurds with ammo and heavy weapons ensures that Iraq, Syria and Turkey will eventually be able to impose a return to the previous status quo.
Maybe someone should tell Trump a lot of the Kurds aren't Muslims but actually closet Zorastrians?
Sarmatian
01-02-2017, 17:46
He would probably say - Zorro is not Austrian, he's Mexican, and I don't like them either.
Gilrandir
01-19-2017, 12:03
It seems that Assad is likely to lose one more (after Palmyra) city to ISIS. Or is it included into the Aleppo-Palmyra swap?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrian-war-isis-daesh-advances-in-deir-ezzor-encircles-airport-intense-fighting/5569224
Nah, even pro-rebels admit that daesh is getting owned.
https://twitter.com/Zendetta2022/status/822006313949548544
Meanwhile the hypocrisy of the media is hilarious. In Aleppo, we were all prepared for a new Srebrenica, Grozny and even Holocaust. A 7-year old explained why she wanted a third WW to save Aleppo from the bad Russians.
Then Al-Qaeda got smashed and no genocide happened. The reports of 80 civilians killed were quickly followed by a mass-execution of captives by Al-Qaeda and the ex-moderates, currently beheaders of children.
Meanwhile, Deir el-Zour is besieged by the modern Nazis for several years and no tear has been shed. Two Shia towns are besieged by Al-Qaeda in Idlib for years, again no tears, no Banas.
Not the first time:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nubl-zahra-a6889921.html
Gilrandir
01-19-2017, 13:35
Nah, even pro-rebels admit that daesh is getting owned.
https://twitter.com/Zendetta2022/status/822006313949548544
According to this
http://syria.liveuamap.com/
I wouldn't be so sure as to speak of ISIS's defeat.
According to this
http://syria.liveuamap.com/
I wouldn't be so sure as to speak of ISIS's defeat.
It's too early to say anything. However, livemap is rubbish.
Made by Ukrainians to counter Russian lies, as the founders said.
Translation: We only post tweets that fit our narrative, which is, bash Russia as much as possible.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/07/citizen-journalists-are-live-mapping-the-crisis-in-ukraine/375178/
Gilrandir
01-19-2017, 14:04
It's too early to say anything. However, livemap is rubbish.
Made by Ukrainians to counter Russian lies, as the founders said.
Translation: We only post tweets that fit our narrative, which is, bash Russia as much as possible.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/07/citizen-journalists-are-live-mapping-the-crisis-in-ukraine/375178/
Perhaps for you countering lies equals bashing someone. Not so for me. You may offer any translations you like, but this site was (and is) accurate in presenting the map of Donbas conflict (where it could be said to be taking sides) and it was often at variance with the official information from Ukrainian authorities. It was also accurate (e.i. in accordance with other sources) in presenting the Aleppo episode. That is why I assume it should be accurate about the situation in question where it has no side to cheer for.
One may also doubt the accuracy of sources you refer to.
So everything you said after the first sentence may be considered rubbish as well.
Yet I agree with the initial statement with a reservation that ISIS has conquered some ground there and is pushing on.
Anyone following the talks in Astana? The Syrian regime have explained that the last joint statement of the Astana talks does not include the mention of a secular Syria, because the idea was vetoed by the rebels and Turkey.
From the Middle East rumour mill: Two years ago, the Jordanian regime spent a lot of effort to distance themselves from rumours of Jordanian-Russian military corporation in Syria.
Maybe that is why the Jordanians are not talking about the current scuttlebutt; that the Jordanian military is now coordinating military actions with the Syrian regime army.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-08-2017, 16:14
From the Middle East rumour mill: Two years ago, the Jordanian regime spent a lot of effort to distance themselves from rumours of Jordanian-Russian military corporation in Syria.
Maybe that is why the Jordanians are not talking about the current scuttlebutt; that the Jordanian military is now coordinating military actions with the Syrian regime army.
For months now I have thought of the Syrian rebellion against Assad as a failed effort. Russian air power turned the tide in his favor and Assade never really lost sight of his objective -- he never meant to deal with ISIS until the internal threat was quelled.
If Jordan is supporting Assad, I suspect it is more on the basis of "dealing with the facts that are" rather than any genuine feeling of support for Assad -- the effort to oust him has failed. You don't have to actually like your neighbor, but you need some form of cordial relationship to get through the week.
Kagemusha
02-10-2017, 23:00
It seems that the SDF forces which are comprised of mostly Kurdish fighters are now only 10km North from Isis capital in Syria, Raqqa.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-11-2017, 02:32
It seems that the SDF forces which are comprised of mostly Kurdish fighters are now only 10km North from Isis capital in Syria, Raqqa.
They've been carrying much of the water in the ISIS campaign, I wonder if Trump will let them set up a Kurdistan in NE Syria and NW Iraq? My bet is that NATO and we will screw them out of the prize again to placate Turkey.
Kagemusha
02-11-2017, 15:28
They've been carrying much of the water in the ISIS campaign, I wonder if Trump will let them set up a Kurdistan in NE Syria and NW Iraq? My bet is that NATO and we will screw them out of the prize again to placate Turkey.
They seem to be working quite independently. They are working with Syrian rebel factions against ISIS, but they have recently also launched an operation towards liberating Deir Ez Zor, where ISIS have been besieging an Assad regime garrison for ages. It would seem that they are more or less neutral in Syrian civil war, while supporting any anti ISIS efforts both in Syria and Iraq.
The main problem for Kurdish independent state is of course Turkey. Turkey would feel threatened with a Kurdish state at their Southern border and apparently one of the main reasons for launching an attack against ISIS at Al Bab was to make sure that the Syrian Kurdish forces would not take control of all areas at the border of Turkey and Syria. Until now Turkey has been more friendly with the Iraq Kurdish and more resentful towards the Syrian Kurds, apparently in order to divide the two, but it would seem that have not worked very well.
My bet is that like before, the outside powers will see Turkey as more important partner compared to any Kurdish state, so im afraid what ever independent realm they are going to form. They have to carve it out and defend themselves.
Montmorency
02-11-2017, 23:18
I think a typical US/NATO administration would, if the Kurds made some sort of fait accompli toward conglomeration, insist in the quorum on tentative recognition and diplomatic engagement, i.e. everyone leave it alone. It wouldn't be a guarantee or endorsement, but a show of preference that the event be allowed to move into status quo.
Iraqi and Syrian Kurds hate each other and with a very good reason. Peshmerga is an undemocratic, conservative force happy with the status quo, which is why Turkey cooperates with them, while YPG/PKK are the last remnant of 20th century leftist partisans. Their ideology is simply incompatible.
Montmorency
02-12-2017, 12:15
Iraqi and Syrian Kurds hate each other and with a very good reason. Peshmerga is an undemocratic, conservative force happy with the status quo, which is why Turkey cooperates with them, while YPG/PKK are the last remnant of 20th century leftist partisans. Their ideology is simply incompatible.
That's partly true, but more to the point is the fact that "Kurds" in Iraq and Syria have long-standing cultural and linguistic divergences between them, and the current distribution of Turkish and Iraqi forces in the north of the countries makes unification even more impossible than in the past. What's not outside possibility is an independent Iraqi Kurdistan declared within the next few years, and NATO persuading Turkey that recognizing it would be in Turkish interests. It would depend on the situation between Syria, Iraq, and Iran by the cessation of major hostilities.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-13-2017, 01:56
You also need to take into account the deteriorating political situation in Turkey - in a couple of years Turkey may no longer be a viable partner or member of NATO.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-13-2017, 03:10
You also need to take into account the deteriorating political situation in Turkey - in a couple of years Turkey may no longer be a viable partner or member of NATO.
I fear you are correct, but suspect your timeline is optimistic.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-13-2017, 03:13
I fear you are correct, but suspect your timeline is optimistic.
Oh no, Turkey will be a basket case by the end of the year, or not.
The Syrian Civil War has a few years to grind on yet though.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-13-2017, 19:30
Oh no, Turkey will be a basket case by the end of the year, or not.
The Syrian Civil War has a few years to grind on yet though.
You mis-understood my response. By 'too optimistic,' I was referring to Turkey's ceasing to be an effective allow a few years from now. I suspect it will be there in 6-15 months.
You are correct as to the length of the Syrian Civil War, I believe, but I think the decision is already rendered and the rest, however lengthy, no more than denouement.
rory_20_uk
02-14-2017, 10:46
Whatever the outcome in Syria, there will be no solution. It is just one state amongst many, all of which range from moderately unstable to not really states at all but externally stuck together.
All sides are killing civilians and prisoners. All are using human shields. All are in essence doing whatever they can to win - as always happens in a war - just when the West does it we call it such things as collateral damage / faulty intelligence or somesuch phrase which apparently makes everything OK.
NATO needs Turkey and we'd rather they were in "our team" than not - even if they are an authoritarian dictatorship than look to Russia / China - realpolitik trumps morals.
~:smoking:
Kagemusha
02-14-2017, 12:20
Maybe something akin to this should be done with borders of Iraq and Syria:
19464
Al Assad is Alawite, so maybe the Alawite state should be named as Assadlandia or similar..
rory_20_uk
02-14-2017, 12:42
Turkey / Iran / Iraq would not want a kurdish state that other areas might wish to join.
They might all be Sunni, but they also have other differences and would Iraqis / Syrians want to be together?
Peace is generally the aftermath of when one lot wipe out the other lot, or at the very least displace all of them elsewhere.
~:smoking:
Montmorency
02-14-2017, 12:42
Can't tell if Turkey would balk, or welcome the opportunity.
https://i.imgur.com/fMoaMvF.png
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zpjgPqkVXuMJ:https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mosul-end-beginning+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
In 1922, Turkish President Mustafa Kemal Ataturk dispatched his foreign minister, Mustafa Ismet Pasha, to Lausanne to save the fledgling Turkish republic from the jaws of voracious European colonialists. Two years earlier, the Treaty of Sevres had dismembered the Ottoman Empire, ceding big chunks of territory to the leading Allied powers along with the Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. Deeply traumatized, Turkey — under the nationalist command of Ataturk — was determined to return to the negotiating table, not as supplicant but as Europe's equal, to re-carve its post-colonial boundaries in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Though the country regained control of Anatolia and the strategic straits through the deal, Turkey left some critical unfinished business at Lausanne: the former Ottoman vilayet of Mosul.
The Turks demanded that the British, represented by Foreign Secretary Lord George Nathaniel Curzon, return the expansive territory, which stretched from Anatolia beyond the mountains of upper Kurdistan. From there, it followed the Tigris southeast from the Sinjar Mountains near the Syrian border, across the Nineveh plain through Mosul to Arbil and Kirkuk before butting up against the Zagros Mountains along the Iranian border. Ismet Pasha insisted that this swath of land was the natural dividing line between Anatolia and Mesopotamia, a strategic frontier where most inhabitants were intricately bound with Turkey by trade, tongue and culture. "Mosul has become more closely connected … with the ports of the Mediterranean than with those of the Persian Gulf," he argued. The region's oil wealth, in no small part, influenced the Turks' interest in Mosul. At the same time, they were also trying to extend the strategic depth of their new republic as far as possible, knowing that an array of adversaries could pit ethnic minorities in the Turkish periphery against the newborn state.
Lord Curzon, armed with his own demographic and ethnographic studies, struck down the Turkish argument at every turn. London could not afford to let the threat of Turkey's expansionism thwart its own goal of establishing a strategic foothold in Mesopotamia and monopolizing the region's energy resources. Looking at the region demographically, Lord Curzon saw the Mosul vilayet as a land full of Arabs and ethnic minorities who were more willing to fight the Turks than to assimilate with them. "Why should Mosul city be handed back to the Turks? It is an Arab town built by Arabs. During centuries of Turkish occupation it has never lost its Arab character," he maintained. He also insisted that the Turkish argument for a natural mountainous buffer along the Sinjar-Mosul-Arbil-Kirkuk line was disingenuous:
"Ismet Pasha has suggested that the Jebel Hamrin will make a good defensive boundary. But it is well known that this is not a great range of mountains, but merely a series of rolling downs. Is it not obvious that a Turkish army placed at Mosul would have Baghdad at its mercy, and could cut off the wheat supply almost at a moment's notice? It could practically reduce Bagdad by starvation."
Ismet Pasha, known for driving Lord Curzon mad with his penchant for wearing earplugs while his British counterpart spoke, responded with utmost innocence:
"Turkey, which has now ceased to be an Empire and become a national State, cannot think of attacking and conquering a country whose population belongs to a different race… [T]he Turkish and Arab people who have lived together like brothers for centuries would obviously never think of attacking each other when left to themselves."
London and Ankara sparred for another three years over the Mosul Question, as it was called. The League of Nations finally put the matter to rest in 1926, and Turkey begrudgingly ceded rights to the Mosul vilayet to the British Mandate in Iraq in exchange for a few economic concessions. But Turkey's obsession with Mosul and its surroundings never ceased.
For Ankara, this land is either a buffer in Turkish hands or a menace in the hands of its adversaries. And between Tehran, Damascus, Moscow, the PKK and the Islamic State, Turkey has no shortage of foes, each of which has no shortage of proxies to weaken the Turkish state.
Well beyond the conflict of the day, Turkish and Persian spheres of influence have been colliding for centuries over the Mosul vilayet. As Turkey deepens its presence there, chipping away at Iran's Shiite crescent, that competition is bound to intensify. The Turks and Iranians are not abiding by the political borders of a contemporary map. Neither do they intend to draw up a new one, post-Sykes Picot, with states neatly repartitioned along ethno-sectarian lines that would threaten their own territorial integrity, particularly when it comes to the Kurds. On this fluid battleground, cranes, tanks and cash will shape the ebb and flow of competition among the strongest regional players, while the weak and fractious remnants of former empires try to stoke their own nationalist embers in defense.
Kagemusha
02-14-2017, 17:40
Turkey / Iran / Iraq would not want a kurdish state that other areas might wish to join.
Iraqi Kurdistan is practically independent as of now and they seem to have a quite good relationship with the current Shia majority Iraq government.
They might all be Sunni, but they also have other differences and would Iraqis / Syrians want to be together?
Both are Arabs, more so in the non coastal areas and in matter of fact during 70´s there was serious plans and talks between Syria and Iraq concerning unification.
Peace is generally the aftermath of when one lot wipe out the other lot, or at the very least displace all of them elsewhere.
~:smoking:
Maybe in totalwar games, hardly in reality.
Kagemusha
02-14-2017, 17:44
Can't tell if Turkey would balk, or welcome the opportunity.
https://i.imgur.com/fMoaMvF.png
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zpjgPqkVXuMJ:https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mosul-end-beginning+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Saudi´s might have a one or two concerns with such eventuality. Though it would offer a very interesting dilemma for West, deciding between Turkey and Saudi´s which are a more important partner.
rory_20_uk
02-14-2017, 22:46
Maybe in totalwar games, hardly in reality. So... After WW2 when all the Germans were deported out of territories no longer part of Germany they were happy with this? The current slaughter by ISIS is making the population a lot more homogeneous.
~:smoking:
Montmorency
02-15-2017, 05:58
So... After WW2 when all the Germans were deported out of territories no longer part of Germany they were happy with this? The current slaughter by ISIS is making the population a lot more homogeneous.
~:smoking:
On the other hand, now you have huge displaced populations concentrated amongst each other that are highly heterogeneous. There has been cooperation so far, but what happens when it comes time for resettlement amongst the bones of the moribund Islamic State, with Sunnis getting pick of the land? Especially with a former metropolis like Mosul, with the minorities at their armed peak and waiting right in the wings behind the national forces? You just know there are going to be reprisals against Sunni collaborators or perceived collaborators, which will then reverberate throughout the region...
Ethnic cleansing has formed a bedrock for modern European peace only in conjunction with numerous political and economic factors, decades of careful compromise and reconciliation under the pressure of superpower dominance. I don't think this will be replicated in West Asia - and we may be moving out of this stage in European history anyway.
(And it's questionable how much stability cleansing Greeks and Armenians has rendered Turkey...)
Montmorency
02-16-2017, 21:19
Most recent Assad interview (https://www.yahoo.com/news/full-interview-transcript-syrian-president-bashar-assad-194809125.html).
Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I got the feeling that the interviewer couldn't handle Assad and wasn't properly responsive regarding crucial evasions and rhetorical sleights.
As for Assad, his voice and accent remind me of someone...
Sarmatian
02-16-2017, 22:10
Most recent Assad interview (https://www.yahoo.com/news/full-interview-transcript-syrian-president-bashar-assad-194809125.html).
Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I got the feeling that the interviewer couldn't handle Assad and wasn't properly responsive regarding crucial evasions and rhetorical sleights.
As for Assad, his voice and accent remind me of someone...
Yeah, the interviewer wasn't good enough. Poor choice of questions didn't help.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-16-2017, 22:34
You mis-understood my response. By 'too optimistic,' I was referring to Turkey's ceasing to be an effective allow a few years from now. I suspect it will be there in 6-15 months.
You are correct as to the length of the Syrian Civil War, I believe, but I think the decision is already rendered and the rest, however lengthy, no more than denouement.
Oh no, I understood perfectly, that was why I said Turkey will be abasket case by the end of the year, or won't. It will depend on the outcome of the Referendum.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-16-2017, 22:37
What questions were permitted? What was the venue? What constraints in terms of time or content were placed on the journalist at the outset?
If I go on "Hardball," Mathews can ask me almost anything and ridicule me if I don't answer. I doubt this journalist was in anything like such a position.
Note Monty/Sarmation, that my comments do not undercut your qualitative assessments of the interview. I just put them out there as a reminder that many interviews have constraints that limit them from the outset.
Palmyra liberated (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-palmyra-syria-driven-out-second-time-islamic-state-ancient-roman-ruins-assad-executions-a7607351.html)!
Great news, I don't think that they will be dumb enough to lose it for a third time. The V Corps regrouped by Russia and Iran marched over daesh quite easily. The first pics of the freed archaeological site:
https://i.imgur.com/oCQPInK.jpg
Who can recognize the patch in the soldier's shoulder?http://www.twcenter.net/forums/images/smilies/emoticons/shifty4ib.gif
https://i.imgur.com/tLpv4jJ.jpg
Gilrandir
03-03-2017, 13:26
Who can recognize the patch in the soldier's shoulder?
"Novorossia" flag.
19512
19513
Or was it a rhetoric question?
It was a rhetoric question, but still congrats on recognizing it.
I thought he was either Scottish or a Confederate, but thanks for clearing that up.
I'm joking, but I really didn't know what flag it was.
Gilrandir
03-04-2017, 14:53
It was a rhetoric question, but still congrats on recognizing it.
I've been observing this flag for close on three years now.
Meanwhile Kurds yield what they have gained to Assad. To avoid an encounter with the Turks?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39140880
To Syria, not Assad, and yes, they want the Syrian Army as a buffer-zone.
There are even talks of giving Manbij to Syria, but I doubt it.
Gilrandir
03-04-2017, 15:45
To Syria, not Assad, and yes, they want the Syrian Army as a buffer-zone.
There are even talks of giving Manbij to Syria, but I doubt it.
While Assad was officially at power they carved a "state" of their own for themselves. Now they relinquish a part of it to Assad back. But they were and are ostensibly a part of Syria.
Kagemusha
03-04-2017, 15:47
While Assad was officially at power they carved a "state" of their own for themselves. Now they relinquish a part of it to Assad back. But they were and are ostensibly a part of Syria.
Kurdish took that area from Isis control, not from Assad regime.
At this moment Turkish backed militias are clashing with YPG at the area, so their concern is quite realistic. With this attack against the Kurds. Turkey is only playing at the hand of Isis, because i doubt Kurds are going to continue their push against Raqqa while being attacked themselves by the so called "Euphrates shield" forces.
Gilrandir
03-04-2017, 17:28
Kurdish took that area from Isis control, not from Assad regime.
Yet they have been fighting whoever they could on their own without proclaiming allegiance to Assad. And they are a separate party of the civil war. Thus I don't believe they are totally ready to let Assad rule them again. And I doubt they would let Assad further than Manbij.
Kagemusha
03-04-2017, 18:28
Yet they have been fighting whoever they could on their own without proclaiming allegiance to Assad. And they are a separate party of the civil war. Thus I don't believe they are totally ready to let Assad rule them again. And I doubt they would let Assad further than Manbij.
No one is saying that they are ready to unconditionally submit to Assad, but they are not actively fighting his regime either. In any case Turkish backed forces are hostile to Syrian Kurdish while Assad at least for the moment have other more pressing issues to deal with. What is common with both Assad and the Syrian Kurdish is that they both feel threatened by increasing influence of Turkey in Northern Syria. Like i said before. Turkish backed campaign against Isis seems nothing else then cover for them to check the two Syrian Kurdish owned territories from joining together at their Southern border.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2017, 02:58
On a more basic level this may be a case of "better the devil you know". The Syrian army are probably better than whatever loons the Turks are backing.
Montmorency
03-05-2017, 05:52
On a more basic level this may be a case of "better the devil you know". The Syrian army are probably better than whatever loons the Turks are backing.
Apparently, by now (http://carnegieendowment.org/files/ACMR_Khaddour.pdf) the Syrian Army is an Alawite-populated husk of commissioned officers and heavy weapons units that leaves most of the ground fighting to sectarian militias, i.e. more of a brand than a professional institution. Could explain why they've performed much better on the offense than defense.
I don't think this crop will ever prove up to storming the Golan Heights. Maybe the air force has improved?
The army has become vastly more corrupt, less professional,
and more isolated from wider society in the five years since the
start of the Syrian conflict. The military networks of nepotism
and patronage, already deeply entrenched before the 2011
uprising, have transformed the army and especially the officer
corps into kleptocratic organizations. The deprofessionalization
of the army and the unfolding war have further hollowed out
the army institutionally, leaving the officers little option but to
collude with regime networks and cash in on the corruption to
CARNEGIE MIDDLE EAST CENTER | 9
compensate for their low salaries. And as the army becomes less
professional, the more it has to rely on Alawite recruits to help
offset the army’s organizational deficiencies.
Yet, the army’s paradoxical resilience has been essential for the
Assad regime’s survival. Subcontracting the ground operations
to paramilitary forces has allowed the army to avoid many
battlefield losses. It has also helped to prevent mass defections
and to bolster the army’s image as a stalwart pillar of national
unity among regime supporters.
Should substantive negotiations to end the Syrian conflict
finally take place, neither the regime nor the opposition has
any interest in dismantling the army, as this would likely
bring about the total collapse of the Syrian state and renew
the war. The regime has used this fact to its advantage: by
ensuring the army remains deprofessionalized, it has secured
officers’ dependence and prolonged its influence via parallel
command chains.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-06-2017, 01:11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/05/donald-trump-says-has-changed-position-bashar-al-assad-syria/
War, what is it good for?
Possibly Trump's approval ratings.
Kagemusha
04-06-2017, 05:57
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/05/donald-trump-says-has-changed-position-bashar-al-assad-syria/
War, what is it good for?
Possibly Trump's approval ratings.
The situation seems nothing as black and white as you paint it:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39508868
The thing is. Assad regime troops and Russian are covering the back of the Syrian Kurdish forces at Manjib from the Turkish backed forces. The Syrian Kurdish forces are attacking Isis capital Raqqa together with US forces.
But no, lets turn this into fight between US backed forces and Russian backed forces and let the real enemy ISIS to have a nice breather.:wall:
Gilrandir
04-06-2017, 09:22
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/05/donald-trump-says-has-changed-position-bashar-al-assad-syria/
War, what is it good for?
Possibly Trump's approval ratings.
There no sense to believe that chemical weapons were used. All videos of them are staged. At least this is what Russia states.
http://24-my.info/zakharova-called-staged-videos-of-chemical-attack-on-the-syrian-idlib/
Russia knows extremism for what it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/putin-ban-extremist-gay-photo_us_58e5675de4b0917d3476f919
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-07-2017, 01:46
The situation seems nothing as black and white as you paint it:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39508868
The thing is. Assad regime troops and Russian are covering the back of the Syrian Kurdish forces at Manjib from the Turkish backed forces. The Syrian Kurdish forces are attacking Isis capital Raqqa together with US forces.
But no, lets turn this into fight between US backed forces and Russian backed forces and let the real enemy ISIS to have a nice breather.:wall:
Kage - complete the song lyric.
"War - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing."
That's hardly me painting things black and white, is it?
On the other hand, let's consider our willingness to continue to ignore the atrocities of the Assad Regime, this isn't even the first chemical attack.
The reality is that the only reason we haven't all-out crushed Assad by this point is Russian opposition. We need to face up to the fact that such an endeavour would be hard, and that's why we don't do it. No matter how many Syrians we re-settle we aren't addressing the core of the problem, Assad's oppression of his own people is what started this war. If Assad is not removed this war will only end when all the Syrians are dead, they have already ground swathes of their second city to rust fighting over it.
If Assad were removed, perhaps the various sides could come to some sort of accommodation, and then we would be able to remove ISIS from the region.
Edit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39522312
Looks like Trump is actively moving to a military solution, possible to cripple the Syrian Air Force.
"Cast your mind back to what President Trump said about Barack Obama, when the then president said a red line had been crossed and he did nothing about it afterwards.He heaped derision on President Obama. If Mr Trump were not to act now, he would look weak and he wouldn't want that."
It's true, Obama did say use of chemical weapons was a "red line" but nothing happened after they were apparently used.
a completely inoffensive name
04-07-2017, 02:28
US Launches Dozens of Missiles at Syrian Air Bases
https://nyti.ms/2oO4J9K
Strike For The South
04-07-2017, 02:58
Stupid motherfucker
In my 8-d chess world, this is the deep state fracturing trumps base so it will be easier to impeach him
Seamus Fermanagh
04-07-2017, 03:20
Few in his political base will grief that much about a missile strike, and more than a few will like it. Ground troops is what sways the opinion.
Montmorency
04-07-2017, 03:23
Just the one airfield? Not necessarily a miscalculation - it will depend on how the rules shift.
But it does mean that there can only be escalation from this response; inconveniencing the Syrian air force every time there is a high-profile chemical strike or crime against humanity (and no more) would get boring fast. Sisyphean slope, and all that.
So this would be rather useless as an isolated act, but by the same token putting it out as part of a potential system is what makes it risky.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-07-2017, 03:26
The direct recipient, Assad, is only one of the people for whom this is intended as a cautionary message. Iran and NK are also on the list.
Strike For The South
04-07-2017, 03:28
Counter theory to my theory. Putin got tired of Assad after the latest chemical attack and is giving Trump this mess, figuring he can hammer out a gas deal with whatever hellish theocracy comes to power. RT tweeted that Russian forces were warned before the attack.
this also serves as a major distraction from a scandal ridden 100 days.
B-b-but guys, I thought I had voted for the pacifist one, not war-crazy Shillary.
I thought we were gonna invade Saudi Arabia not bomb Syrian pilots. Did the God-Emperor lie t-t-to gain votes? Won't we drain the swamp until we MAGA it to death?!
B-b-but guys, I thought I had voted for the pacifist one, not war-crazy Shillary.
I thought we were gonna invade Saudi Arabia not bomb Syrian pilots. Did the God-Emperor lie t-t-to gain votes? Won't we drain the swamp until we MAGA it to death?!
Leader-cultus is an Obamamania-thingie. It wasn't......him.....
It does raise of few questions though. In a wtf just happened kinda way
It's true, Obama did say use of chemical weapons was a "red line" but nothing happened after they were apparently used.
That is not true. Obama was going to force the USA to war, against US opinion and against the opinion of its Allies in the UK (parliament had vote and said no). Russia came in and said "We will do a deal with Assad and get rid of all the chemical weapons.. that will make you happy, da?" and Obama agreed to it.
Shaka_Khan
04-07-2017, 13:47
This happened while Xi Jinping is in the US to meet Trump. This is clearly a message to China and North Korea.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-07-2017, 15:50
This happened while Xi Jinping is in the US to meet Trump. This is clearly a message to China and North Korea.
The message to NK was obvious.
The message to PRC a little less direct. Trump would certainly appreciate real Chinese pressure on NK to stop the crap. And China traditionally has taken a dim view of things happening in NK because of its proximity to the Middle Kingdom itself.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-08-2017, 00:54
That is not true. Obama was going to force the USA to war, against US opinion and against the opinion of its Allies in the UK (parliament had vote and said no). Russia came in and said "We will do a deal with Assad and get rid of all the chemical weapons.. that will make you happy, da?" and Obama agreed to it.
OK, I'll amend that to "did nothing in the end". As we can see, the Russians lied and let Assad keep some gas (surprise).
Montmorency
04-08-2017, 01:50
Russia condemns U.S. missile strike on Syria, suspends key air agreement (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-condemns-us-missile-strike-on-syria/2017/04/07/c81ea12a-1b4e-11e7-8003-f55b4c1cfae2_story.html?utm_term=.09ea4318c3eb)
Russia on Friday condemned a U.S. missile strike against Syrian government forces as an attack on its ally and said it was suspending an agreement to minimize the risk of in-flight incidents between U.S. and Russian aircraft operating over Syria.
Even as Russian officials expressed hope that the strike against Syrian President Bashad al-Assad’s forces would not lead to an irreversible breakdown in U.S. relations with Moscow, the Kremlin’s decision to suspend the 2015 memorandum of understanding on the air operations immediately raised tensions in the skies over Syria.
[...]
Russia on Friday condemned a U.S. missile strike against Syrian government forces as an attack on its ally and said it was suspending an agreement to minimize the risk of in-flight incidents between U.S. and Russian aircraft operating over Syria.
Even as Russian officials expressed hope that the strike against Syrian President Bashad al-Assad’s forces would not lead to an irreversible breakdown in U.S. relations with Moscow, the Kremlin’s decision to suspend the 2015 memorandum of understanding on the air operations immediately raised tensions in the skies over Syria.
[...]
Two U.S. military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Friday morning that they were aware of Russia’s stated intention to suspend the channel, but it was not yet clear how losing it may affect air operations. The Pentagon was still assessing the situation, they said.
[...]
There have been no reports of Russian casualties in Friday’s strike, but Syrian officials claimed that civilians, including children, were killed in the attack.
In Moscow on Friday, a Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said Russia would help strengthen Syrian air defenses to “protect the most sensitive Syrian infrastructure facilities.”
Konashenkov said the attack destroyed a warehouse, classrooms, a cafeteria, six Mig-23 fighter jets that were being repaired and a radar station. The runway and other aircraft were not affected, he said.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-08-2017, 02:55
OK, I'll amend that to "did nothing in the end". As we can see, the Russians lied and let Assad keep some gas (surprise).
Or it could be a fresh batch
Or it could be a fresh batch
Or it could be a happy (well sort of) lucky hit on the rebels stockpile...
Still waiting for the evidences, and we French have good reasons to doubt the CIA/MI5 ones! Remember WMD?
Elmetiacos
04-09-2017, 12:47
Or it could be a happy (well sort of) lucky hit on the rebels stockpile...
Still waiting for the evidences, and we French have good reasons to doubt the CIA/MI5 ones! Remember WMD?
One thing the chemical weapons experts agree on is that this is very unlikely as sarin will degrade if stored in a state where it could be released by a rupture to the case it has been stored in. Unless the rebels somehow have a working chemical weapons plant which works to produce a different formulation from that used by the Syrian government, there's now way this Russian suggestion is possible.
Gilrandir
04-09-2017, 13:38
Or it could be a happy (well sort of) lucky hit on the rebels stockpile...
Still waiting for the evidences, and we French have good reasons to doubt the CIA/MI5 ones! Remember WMD?
The airfield is still held by Assad, so only he (and Putin) knows the truth. Do you expect to get any reliable evidence from them (or Russians)?
The owner of the airfield is called Syria, not Assad. Just like the owner of every public structure in your homeland is called Ukraine and not Poroshenko.
Gilrandir
04-09-2017, 14:03
The owner of the airfield is called Syria, not Assad. Just like the owner of every public structure in your homeland is called Ukraine and not Poroshenko.
I accept your correction. But in case of Syria there are different belligerents some of whom are as Syrian as Assad, and I used metonymy to be clear. So it was something like "Moscow claims" or "the White House believes".
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-09-2017, 14:24
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/boris-johnson-spearhead-diplomatic-drive-get-russian-forces/
Russia is raising the prospect of war.
Strike For The South
04-09-2017, 14:56
A traditional shooting match ends up in a Russian loss
Putin wants to see a return to Russian greatness, a nuclear exchange would snuff that out
hence the information war
The airfield is still held by Assad, so only he (and Putin) knows the truth. Do you expect to get any reliable evidence from them (or Russians)?
Agree. However the US attacked telling the world the Syrian Air Forces use chemical weapons.
The Syrians are saying they hit a munitions depot and it exploded, so what was in this depot killed the civilians.
And History proved that CIA and other Western Allies can't be trusted either.
[QUOTE=Elmetiacos;2053744485 Unless the rebels somehow have a working chemical weapons plant which works to produce a different formulation from that used by the Syrian government, there's now way this Russian suggestion is possible.[/QUOTE]
Can buy it, no?
Gilrandir
04-09-2017, 16:08
Agree. However the US attacked telling the world the Syrian Air Forces use chemical weapons.
The Syrians are saying they hit a munitions depot and it exploded, so what was in this depot killed the civilians.
And History proved that CIA and other Western Allies can't be trusted either.
Since no side can be trusted what's the use of waiting for reliable evidence from any quarter?
Elmetiacos
04-09-2017, 16:36
Can buy it, no?
Realistically, no.
Elmetiacos
04-09-2017, 16:37
Since no side can be trusted what's the use of waiting for reliable evidence from any quarter?
Let's wait for an international team of enquiry before we assume that the Americans were behind the American missile attack.
Realistically, no.
I don't know any weapon which can't bought... Or provided.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-09-2017, 17:34
I don't know any weapon which can't bought... Or provided.
And where would the rebels buy it, or who would provide it?
I suppose it's possible the gas was looted from a Syrian Army or Air Force depo at the start of the war and has been kept since then because in order to get rid of it the rebels would have to admit they had it.
However, that the equivalent of rebels in Russia looting nukes - which irrc never actually happened.
Elmetiacos
04-09-2017, 18:05
And where would the rebels buy it, or who would provide it?
I suppose it's possible the gas was looted from a Syrian Army or Air Force depo at the start of the war and has been kept since then because in order to get rid of it the rebels would have to admit they had it.
However, that the equivalent of rebels in Russia looting nukes - which irrc never actually happened.
This is the problem: pre-war Sarin created and stored in this way would have degraded and be useless by now. The only viable way to store it over such a length of time is by separating the chemical reagents into at least two separate parts which don't degrade as quickly. Bombing would therefore not release any lethal gas.
A traditional shooting match ends up in a Russian loss
Putin wants to see a return to Russian greatness, a nuclear exchange would snuff that out
hence the information war
Ever considered that Russia is much more worried about China and couldn't care less about the west
AE Bravo
04-09-2017, 21:02
B-b-but guys, I thought I had voted for the pacifist one, not war-crazy Shillary.
I thought we were gonna invade Saudi Arabia not bomb Syrian pilots. Did the God-Emperor lie t-t-to gain votes? Won't we drain the swamp until we MAGA it to death?!
MAAQA. Make America Al Qaeda's Airforce.
Elmetiacos
04-09-2017, 21:25
Ever considered that Russia is much more worried about China and couldn't care less about the west
That's why they invaded Ukraine - to spite the Chinese.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-09-2017, 21:43
Ever considered that Russia is much more worried about China and couldn't care less about the west
Yes and no Frags.
In the sense that China is a major power and they share a border and China is using illegals to stake claim to territory out there, yes Russian clearly sees China as competition. And I am sure they have mixed feelings regarding Chinese efforts to build relationships with the Central Asian 'stans. On the other hand, Russia has a strategic deterrent that dwarfs China's, and any direct attack would have to go a long way to really cut Russia up. So the threat is muted somewhat.
By contrast, Russian has looked to Europe and steadfastly insisted on being thought of as European at least as far back as Czar Peter, if not before. China may be more of a threat, per se, but it is Europe that looms largest in the Russian psyche.
Sarmatian
04-09-2017, 21:48
And where would the rebels buy it, or who would provide it?
There have been talk of rebels smuggling gas from Iraq and Turkey since 2014. A photographed barrel which was allegedly used for a gas attack in 2014 had the words "Norinco" visible (Chinese arms manufacturer) on it. On its own, doesn't mean much, they may have just made the barrel, but there you have it... A lot of players with a lot of conflicting interests.
In the case of this attack, we basically still don't know anything. The conclusion that it was sarin is based on doctors' identification of the symptoms (although I would assume that shortness of breath and dizziness accompanies pretty much all gas attacks). Doctors also mentioned that victims "smelled of bleach" which would indicate chlorine.
Until OPCW conducts an investigation, all these real and quasi experts in the newspapers are guessing.
It is worth mentioning that all OPCW reports from 2013 onward identify Syrian government as fully cooperative.
Montmorency
04-09-2017, 23:07
I noted this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War) a year ago, but it's interesting that there were a fair number of chemical attacks in the first half of 2014, and of 2015, while other than a relatively-big incident in Aleppo in 2016, it seemed to have petered out recently.
Elmetiacos
04-09-2017, 23:10
So the Syrian government would never make poison gas, but the Chinese, Iraqi and Turkish governments, they all would, and then they'd sell it to terrorists?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-10-2017, 01:00
There have been talk of rebels smuggling gas from Iraq and Turkey since 2014. A photographed barrel which was allegedly used for a gas attack in 2014 had the words "Norinco" visible (Chinese arms manufacturer) on it. On its own, doesn't mean much, they may have just made the barrel, but there you have it... A lot of players with a lot of conflicting interests.
In the case of this attack, we basically still don't know anything. The conclusion that it was sarin is based on doctors' identification of the symptoms (although I would assume that shortness of breath and dizziness accompanies pretty much all gas attacks). Doctors also mentioned that victims "smelled of bleach" which would indicate chlorine.
Until OPCW conducts an investigation, all these real and quasi experts in the newspapers are guessing.
It is worth mentioning that all OPCW reports from 2013 onward identify Syrian government as fully cooperative.
Well, on the one hand you have this:
So the Syrian government would never make poison gas, but the Chinese, Iraqi and Turkish governments, they all would, and then they'd sell it to terrorists?
On the other hand, it seems the majority of attacks, the vast majority, have been directed at non-government forces. There are no records of confirmed Sarin attacks by rebels since 2013 which is consistent with looting supply dumps in the initial madness of the war. Since 2013 most attacks have been with Chlorine.
I suspect that the identification of Sarin in this case has a lot to do the reports immediately after the attack which mention nothing of odour.
In any case, there's no reason to believe it's not the regime.
It's also worth noting the Syrian Air Force continues to bomb the town - suggesting there's a reason they targeted it with gas, possible a high-value target has gone to ground there.
In any case, there's no reason to believe it's not the regime.
Believe? Double negation and a belief? And you bomb a country?
It was no reason not to believe that Saddam had WMD. Same for it was no reason not to believe that Milosevic was implementing Horse Shoes Operation in Kosovo, and throwing his victims in mines pits...
Yes, they could have done it. They just didn't, did they?
So until solid proof based on more reliable sources that the rebels doctors (by the way, where the white helmets? Did they vanished in the thin air?), we will not know what product was employed, and by whom... Find the munition/container used...
Better question, how would Assad benefit from using it, pretty big decision to use that stuff. Rogue general perhaps? Assad is no fool he knows he would be internationally cast out by just about everyone. Trump's decision to attack that airport is questionable to say the least whatever what
AE Bravo
04-10-2017, 09:06
Better question, how would Assad benefit from using it, pretty big decision to use that stuff. Rogue general perhaps?
Deja vu. Might be like the last time. A dissident until further notice.
Gilrandir
04-10-2017, 09:36
Yes and no Frags.
In the sense that China is a major power and they share a border and China is using illegals to stake claim to territory out there, yes Russian clearly sees China as competition. And I am sure they have mixed feelings regarding Chinese efforts to build relationships with the Central Asian 'stans. On the other hand, Russia has a strategic deterrent that dwarfs China's, and any direct attack would have to go a long way to really cut Russia up. So the threat is muted somewhat.
By contrast, Russian has looked to Europe and steadfastly insisted on being thought of as European at least as far back as Czar Peter, if not before. China may be more of a threat, per se, but it is Europe that looms largest in the Russian psyche.
On relations between Russia and China:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33196396
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82969&page=1
When China sees a propitious moment, it will play "oppressed Chinese speakers" card. Or is it purely Russian way?
Deja vu. Might be like the last time. A dissident until further notice.
Qui bono no? In a money-scam you follow the money, should do the same here but inf.uence as the currency. Assad is an asshole but I would be really surprised if he did this, not because he would never do such a thing but simply because it's absolutily not in his interests to have a pr-nightmare
Qui bono no?
No. Cui bono.
No. Cui bono.
Don't critisise my Spanish
Shaka_Khan
04-10-2017, 13:02
Trump won't overthrow Assad while the Russians are there. Unlike what a lot of the people are thinking, Assad's regime won't fall that easily. The rebels aren't strong enough to overthrow him. The war will go on and on and on.
Sarmatian
04-10-2017, 13:06
So the Syrian government would never make poison gas, but the Chinese, Iraqi and Turkish governments, they all would, and then they'd sell it to terrorists?
Iraqi government would have little reason to sell the gas to terrorists, but the Iraqi government isn't in control of the whole of Iraq, or all of its military and other facilities.
Elements from Turkey which may or may not be connected to Turkish government have already proved to be capable of doing business with the terrorists, like buying and reselling their oil, providing them with supplies etc...
On the other hand, it seems the majority of attacks, the vast majority, have been directed at non-government forces.
1) majority of the attacks were against civilians
2) even if it was used against non government forces, that doesn't immediately spell that government forces did it. There are dozens of armed factions in the region, and they generally don't like each other.
There are no records of confirmed Sarin attacks by rebels since 2013 which is consistent with looting supply dumps in the initial madness of the war. Since 2013 most attacks have been with Chlorine.
Ok. No disagreements but I don't see how is that relevant for your argument.
I suspect that the identification of Sarin in this case has a lot to do the reports immediately after the attack which mention nothing of odour.
Actually, MSF doctors who treated the patients mentioned the smell of bleach. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-gas-attack-chemical-weapons-assad-russia-rebels-latest-a7669011.html.
So, chlorine was most definitely used - there's no way of confusing chlorine with sarin as sarin is odorless.
Symptoms some of the patients had were consistent with a gas like sarin, and in fact MSF is suspecting that people were exposed to at least two different agents, which may give credence to the Russian story, that a bomb hit a workshop/storage.
In any case, there's no reason to believe it's not the regime.
I wouldn't be so sure. The last, and arguably most important piece of the puzzle is qui bono, as Frags mentioned.
Assad already agreed to surrender and destroy everything Syria had, and according to the OCPW the government of Syria was always fully cooperative (their Fact Finding Teams had more issues with rebels).
He did that because he was very aware of the potential consequences. To think that he was willing to destroy everything he had in storage and all production facilities and keep a minute amount hidden somewhere so that he could drop it out of spite, and invite western outrage all over again because...
... he is just that crazy?
The west was losing interest in the conflict and the new American president actually had some nice words (in between bad words) about his regime, so he got bored and decided it was more fun when western countries were actively considering military solution? He decided it was too easy, now that he controls most of Aleppo?
I'm having troubles believing Damascus ordered or even consented to this. A rogue commander is a possibility, though.
It's also worth noting the Syrian Air Force continues to bomb the town - suggesting there's a reason they targeted it with gas, possible a high-value target has gone to ground there.
It is also perfectly consistent with the story that they were bombing the area to defeat the rebels and they continue to bomb it because they still haven't done it, like with hundreds of other areas in Syria.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-10-2017, 13:13
Believe? Double negation and a belief? And you bomb a country?
I'm not the one making the decisions. Given that up until this point Trump was willing to consider Assad part of the solution in Syria I have to think there's some credible intelligence that it was the regime, intelligence we don't have.
My point was that there's no reason to think the regime wouldn't use gas - they have in the past.
Trump won't overthrow Assad while the Russians are there. Unlike what a lot of the people are thinking, Assad's regime won't fall that easily
Good reason to put some question-marks on this gas-attack and on wbo's who here
Don't critisise my Spanish
I don't, just your Latin.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-10-2017, 15:19
Don't critisise my Spanish
He was criticizing your Latin. LATIN...
You Frisii need to get your act together.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-10-2017, 15:22
One account I read, taken from an interview with a child refugee, was of that child running to their Grandfather -- who had been poisoned and shortly thereafter died -- but the child suffered only very limited effects despite not being treated for hours.
This suggests to me that the agent used may have been degraded.
If so, it is possible that we are dealing with negligence -- weapons stored in the wrong spot/lot and not properly recorded or noted.
Mind you, negligence on that level isn't exactly a "ringing endorsement" in any way....
Given that up until this point Trump was willing to consider Assad part of the solution in Syria I have to think there's some credible intelligence that it was the regime, intelligence we don't have.
I'd think if Trump has it, it must've been on FoxNews, or did he stop skipping his intelligence meetings in favor of TV/golf/Twitter?
Seamus Fermanagh
04-10-2017, 15:30
I'd think if Trump has it, it must've been on FoxNews, or did he stop skipping his intelligence meetings in favor of TV/golf/Twitter?
He's been meeting with them regularly since early on.
Though he did weed out a lot of the old admin's appointees where possible.
I don't, just your Latin.
nice catch mia muca
Elmetiacos
04-10-2017, 17:06
The Kremlin mindfuck is working. People no longer believe in physics.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.