Syria

[tobyjugg2]

since the syrian army has had ground support from the ruskis, iranians, etc that group has been in retreat according to reports.

 

Its not as if the Russian etc have that many troops active on the ground - yet.

The big difference is that with Russian air support Assad and his allies can fight the radicals without the yanks bombing them, and ISIS is actually being targeted now rather than Assad's forces.

 

Wait until the Russians send in the up to 150,000 troops reportedly being prepared. It would seem they are no longer relying on Hezbollah or Iranian (thankfully) ground troops.

It should NEVER have come to this state. Damn Yanks.

[SabreSheep]

See I have a problem with the whole ISIS thing.

 

ISIS attack countries all over the world including some countries that are not bombing them as well as those that are.

It seems this group want the whole world to unite against them.

Why do they want to encourage everyone to bomb them?

 

Something is not quite right.

[tobyjugg2]

See I have a problem with the whole ISIS thing.

 

ISIS attack countries all over the world including some countries that are not bombing them as well as those that are.

It seems this group want the whole world to unite against them.

Why do they want to encourage everyone to bomb them?

 

Something is not quite right.

 

There are a great many things not right (even for a messy multi-faction proxy war) in all sorts of areas Sabresheep, but I don't think that Paris was a false flag attack - its unlikely the French response could be anticipated with any level of accuracy, and other related options are just not a realistic in my opinion.

 

Some of the lies and double dealing have already come out, some are apparently confirmed from Frances stance both before and since Paris, some have yet to clarify (Iran).

 

Even the perception that Russia is demonstrably the 'good guy' here, and the partial clouding that Iran is one of the bad guys, beggars belief.

 

I've said it from the start: An assault on Assads Syria is both morally wrong and a BIG mistake. There was no positive outcome to attempt to achieve.

Either the yanks are really really really stupid or the suads bought them and the sauds and Turks played them for fools - and both may yet pay dearly for it.

 

and for those not following the posts from the start I'll reiterate that I believe deposing Saddam Hussein was both right and necessary - the lessor of many evils

Libya was wrong, and damaging to the stability of the region - but I lost no sleep.

 

BUT acts of war to change the regime in Syria has destabilised the whole world.

[determindator]

Maybe the question is, how is ISIL being used by global and regional powers to change the geographical map of the middle east.

[tobyjugg2]

Maybe the question is, how is ISIL being used by global and regional powers to change the geographical map of the middle east.

I genuinely dont think ISIL is the tool.

ISIL grew out of a number of disaffected, but yes, parts of its source groups were undoubtedly sponsored by various powers in the region . Frankenstein and Jekyll and a dozen others' monster.

 

I think the American/saud focus on deposing Assad at any cost was what allowed ISIL to grow. The yanks simply didn't care and now are to entrenched to change path without it being forced on them.

 

That it can effectively perform terrorist acts is quite believable - just look up my prior red brigade link.

 

Its the apparent military success (well prior to Russia and now Frances involvement) against all odds which needs explaining.

 

The big danger is that even if defeated militarily - they would appear to be very rich.

The money needs to be traced and stopped - shame its apparently the sauds dealing with the western coalitions aspect of that.

[SabreSheep]

And maybe thats a nice question to explore.

 

Who are behind them

 

And who has anything to gain by the whole world turning on that one group.

[tobyjugg2]

And who has anything to gain by the whole world turning on that one group.

 

Everyone Now (perhaps especially the Sauds) - It was perhaps different earlier.

 

A key point may be that perhaps those who might have the most to lose from ISIS being really attacked by everyone.

Iran (influence),

Turkey (deposing assad and gaining part of Syria via al-nusra turkmen, and devastation of the Kurds)

America (deposing assad, Pride and whatever their initial goals were)

 

According to regional reports ISIL hardcore command and control is Saddam Husseins Iraqi military and secret police, saud militants with some Pakistanis although a number of other groups are now associated/incorporated including al-nusra turkmen.

 

You may be thinking it was possibly a Russian or Assad false flag attack - but ISIS claimed it and continue to claim the attacks on those attacking them (eg France and Lebanese Hezbollah bombings). That is also the common practice of them and similar groups.

[tobyjugg2]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/nusra-front-downed-russian-drones-syria-151118155706834.html

 

 

The al-Nusra Front group has said it downed two (syrian army controlled) Russian reconnaissance drones over a military airport it controls in northwest Syria.

 

Al-Nusra and its allies in the powerful Army of Conquest alliance seized Abu Duhur on September 9, consolidating its control of Idlib province.

 

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

[Guest]

600 'rebels' targeted in one (ruski) missile strike in syria, apparently?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...w-doubles-jets

 

also, re something that UncleB referred to re taking out the oil/finance

'PARIS/MOSCOW, Nov 20 (Reuters) - France dismissed Russian suggestions on Friday its air strikes against oil installations in Syria were illegal, saying they were "an appropriate and necessary riposte" to attacks by Islamic State..It has previously targeted oil installations under the control of Islamic State and said it aimed to cut the group's main revenue stream.'

http://www.trust.org/item/20151120163407-md3me/

[tobyjugg2]

Purely news channel and sources hearsay at the moment, but rumors are spreading that the US had known where jihadi john was for a while, but hit him when they learned Russia was about to hit the area due to a 'high profile' target.

 

Its on a number of foreign news services, but here is a UK reference

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/619227/Jihadi-John-ISIS-Vladimir-Putin-Russia-killed-airstrikes-Syria?_ga=1.220511640.1632123489.1444378697

[citizenB]

July 2014

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2711464/STEPHEN-GLOVER-I-m-afraid-bitter-truth-Iraq-Libya-better-tyrants-toppled-arrogant-naive-West.html

 

 

The tragic events in Gaza and Ukraine may be dominating the news, but even more terrible things are happening in Libya and Iraq. In both cases a naive and stupendously ill-conceived Western foreign policy is almost entirely to blame.

 

Many western embassies in Tripoli, including America’s, have closed, with diplomats deserting the city as fast as their legs will carry them, leaving the Libyans to their fate. Britain retains only a reduced embassy staff.

 

 

 

 

 

For however revolting Saddam Hussein may have been, he did at least tolerate Iraq’s Christian community, which at one time was almost 1.5 million-strong. In the years following the invasion, the number of Christians dwindled to 300,000.

 

Then, last month, Islamic State captured Mosul, Iraq’s second biggest city, which still had a sizeable Christian minority. Islamic State issued them with an ultimatum: if they did not convert to Islam by noon on July 19, they would pay a fine or be executed.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2711464/STEPHEN-GLOVER-I-m-afraid-bitter-truth-Iraq-Libya-better-tyrants-toppled-arrogant-naive-West.html#ixzz3s790LVIX

 

 

 

It is certain, however, that if the admittedly odious Saddam Hussein were still in power, Islamic State would not be on the rampage in northern Iraq and the lives of thousands of Christians and Shias would not have been lost.

 

And it is also certain that the number of people who have died since the invasion — as many as 500,000, according to reputable studies — far exceeds the number of victims of Saddam Hussein during his much longer period in power. No doubt thousands more innocent people are doomed to be killed.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2711464/STEPHEN-GLOVER-I-m-afraid-bitter-truth-Iraq-Libya-better-tyrants-toppled-arrogant-naive-West.html#ixzz3s79BUK5l

 

 

Cruel and despotic though he was, Saddam did offer Iraq a measure of stability, which was destroyed by the invasion. This repulsive strongman at least held his country together, which the divisive Shia-dominated government in Baghdad cannot do.

 

A similar point can be made about the no less repellent Gaddafi. In the Libya over which he presided for more than 40 years, there were no factions of militias killing innocent people and destroying their homes and livelihoods.

 

Where would you prefer to try to live a half-normal life — in Gaddafi’s mostly peaceable Tripoli or in a city fought over by pitiless gunmen?

 

Would it be better to inhabit Saddam Hussein’s Mosul or the city now transformed into a killing field by Islamic State? I know where my preferences would lie.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2711464/STEPHEN-GLOVER-I-m-afraid-bitter-truth-Iraq-Libya-better-tyrants-toppled-arrogant-naive-West.html#ixzz3s79TMYSa

 

 

 

[citizenB]

 

Of course, this is not the choice that western statesmen had in mind when they intervened in Iraq and Libya. They genuinely believed that, when the tyrants had been removed, better and more competent rulers would replace them.

 

But such a belief constituted a triumph of hope over good sense. It arose from a toxic combination of naivety, ignorance and vanity. Tony Blair displayed these fatal characteristics in all his foreign excursions.

 

His habit was to divide the world into ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’. Before the British-led invasion of Kosovo in 1999, Blair demonised the Serb leader, Slobodan Milosevic, while representing the Kosovans, and their leader Hashim Thaci, as noble and blameless victims.

 

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2711464/STEPHEN-GLOVER-I-m-afraid-bitter-truth-Iraq-Libya-better-tyrants-toppled-arrogant-naive-West.html#ixzz3s7AETzuc

 

Whilst the above is in respect of Iraq and Libya, the same mistakes are being made with Syria. Except now they are also dealing with the aftermath of interfering in Iraq and Libya !

[citizenB]

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/06/isis-is-what-happens-when-we-try-to-bomb-things-better/

 

 

Syria, of course, is supposed to be the counterfactual. ‘We left Syria alone,’ say the hawks. ‘We wanted to bomb, and the likes of you wouldn’t let us! And look what happened! Isis all over the place!’ Which is a strange argument because, well, it wasn’t Isis they were going to bomb, was it? It was the people Isis are fighting; the army of the very, very horrible — although evidently less horrible — Bashar Assad. Which Isis might not have been altogether distraught about. True, we are still told, again and again, that removing Assad in a timely manner would have led to ‘the moderate Syrian opposition’ taking control instead. This, though, like the whole basis for our endeavours in Libya, seems to have been a bit of a hopeful punt. That baseless, terribly familiar belief, that if you blow up something nasty, something nicer will arise in its place.

[unclebulgaria67]

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/06/isis-is-what-happens-when-we-try-to-bomb-things-better/

 

Very good short article.

 

I was in favour of interventionist policies, but you have to be careful where you help citizens of other countries in their wars. Blair was convinced that successful actions in the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone, could be applied elsewhere and has said this in a number of speeches. I think others have made the same argument and Cameron may believe the same.

 

The problem is that some countries, particularly those in the Middle East, are very complicated, with their various factions and their ways of doing things. If you replace people like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad, you have to have potential new leaders who can obtain the popular support of most people. This can be almost impossible, as any new leaders are likely to come from one faction and will not be trusted by people from other factions. You either need to have a government with multiple leaders from all factions, if this is possible or you divide the countries up with agreement and have independent security iof borders, until it settles down.

 

Cameron apparently will come forward with a plan that deals with stopping the current conflict using necessary force and the way forward to secure peaceful futures, where reconstruction can take place and refugees can return. All i can say, is good luck with the plan and gaining agreement from most who have interest.

[tobyjugg2]

Cameron apparently will come forward with a plan that deals with stopping the current conflict using necessary force and the way forward to secure peaceful futures, where reconstruction can take place and refugees can return. All i can say, is good luck with the plan and gaining agreement from most who have interest.

 

Whens this Unc? - its still just the we should be helping our allies aka 'we should be doing what the Americans say' rhetoric so far.

[Guest]

further re targeting of oil supplies, '280 oil trucks destroyed..'

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/u-s-destroys-280-isis-oil-trucks-syrian-city-deir-n468126

 

that terrorist group 'execute 10 civilians..' and more.

warning; graphic image

http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2015/11/23/721199/story.html

 

and, of course, the Cons propose strikes in syria (likely to be approved), and give France use of cyprus airbase. bbc.

[Guest]

citb

re the info you posted.

yes, it seems it was a case of 'better the devil you know'

since the iraq 'invasion' things are worse.

from a legal point of view, it can still be seen that that was illegal under international law. self defence that they claimed being n/a.

since libya, things are worse (though they say that they thought the moderates wld've been able to take control. but, without further support, how wld that be likely. it amazes how they think that just deposing a dictatorship that controlled various volatile sects wld result in a stable democracy without any afterthought. theres even joe public saying so, yet they dont heed. in one respect its not surprising some of the dissent. but, the dissent goes to far. and, it is interesting to know, that if these so called Piers Morgans have the free vote, they wld not be voted in. they are not the majority, and that must be remembered. yes, the west has effed up re these so called 'springs'. but there is hope. egypt went from extreme to less, i think. i dont know, just posing some issues

[Guest]

ps.

and what happens afterwards, the same thing starts all over again!

[Conniff]

Just received this in an email, this clears it all up;

 

 

President Assad (who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good ) started winning (Hurrah!).

 

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

 

So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad ) which was good.

 

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they are good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

 

Getting back to Syria.

 

So President Putin (who is bad, - 'cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad ) by attacking IS (who are also bad ), which is sort of a good thing?

 

But Putin (still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

 

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad ) as are the Russians (bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

 

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad ) Putin (extra bad ) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS (who are bad ) which is a good thing but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) which is bad.

 

Now the British (obviously good, except that idiot Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans (also good ) cannot attack Assad (still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad ) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

 

So Assad (bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS (but lets face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

 

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!.)

 

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm…might have a point…) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

 

So now we have America (now bad ) and Britain (also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad ) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad ) for support against Assad (now good ) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

 

I hope that clears all this up for you!

[tobyjugg2]

Just received this in an email, this clears it all up;

 

 

President Assad (who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good ) started winning (Hurrah!).

 

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

 

So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad ) which was good.

 

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they are good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

 

Getting back to Syria.

 

So President Putin (who is bad, - 'cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad ) by attacking IS (who are also bad ), which is sort of a good thing?

 

But Putin (still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

 

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad ) as are the Russians (bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

 

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad ) Putin (extra bad ) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS (who are bad ) which is a good thing but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) which is bad.

 

Now the British (obviously good, except that idiot Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans (also good ) cannot attack Assad (still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad ) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

 

So Assad (bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS (but lets face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

 

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!.)

 

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm…might have a point…) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

 

So now we have America (now bad ) and Britain (also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad ) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad ) for support against Assad (now good ) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

 

I hope that clears all this up for you!

 

Actually, thats not a bad (although not good) if overly simplistic view of the situation Conniff.

[SabreSheep]

Russian Jet shot down in Syria/Turkey (Flip a coin)

[tobyjugg2]

Russian Jet shot down in Syria/Turkey (Flip a coin)

 

Yes, Waiting to see what the breakdown is.

Turkey protecting the al-nusra front turkmen (supplied from Turkey) despite even the yanks classing them as terrorists.

 

Wonder how this will be spun, bet the yanks are having fits about it, although the Syrians have shot down a Turkish plane previously.

Turkey has always been the big liability here with its own agendas at odds with everyone else (except the Turkish factions in Syria).

 

I think a major war is a big step closer.

 

Prediction

Its likely NATO Turkey will be in a state of civil (proxy) war before the decade turns, perhaps long before.

(*Turkey now actually need Assad in power to lessen the odds of that - or at least stretch it further away)

[citizenB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983

 

update from an hour ago.

[tobyjugg2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983

 

update from an hour ago.

 

 

Warned them for 10 minutes - which means at 600mph the jet traveled 100 miles (160KM) over Turkish territory?

 

I'm sure the blip in Turkeys map they may have flown over according to Turkeys report is only a couple of KM wide?

 

They wouldn't even have time to scramble plans during any flyover.

 

Sheesh - the air to air missile wouldn't have hit the Russian plane in Turkey if the Turks had fired it the second the russians started crossing - if its where it seems to be and as the Turks show in their current claims.

 

So must be something else

[SabreSheep]

I have a feeling this will be addressed easily

 

NATO is a defensive alliance

Russian Jet did not "Attack" Turkey

 

Plus what are the range on those air to air missiles