And next, Syria?

[elbows]

Conspiracy theorists have been known to call Al Qaeda 'Al QaCIAda', and do you know, they've got a point there. Its totally bizarre this is happening - giving weapons to a group that is your sworn enemy. Unless their plan is to keep the forces of Assad and the Jihadists fighting each other and thus making both sides weaker.

Well given the history of 'Al Qaeda' I'd say its always been the case that whether they are considered friend or foe to western interests depends on where they are fighting and our objectives in the place at the time. Fundamental ideological incompatibilities and bloody blowback potential are deemed largely irrelevant if their fighting capability can be used to further our objectives.

CIA etc links are only relegated to the realm of fact-free conspiracy theorists if attention is not paid to the time and the place in question, e.g. there is not much in dispute if we discuss the Afghan Mujahideen during the period where the Soviets were in Afghanistan. Nor is it utterly unpredictable and bizarre that we should seek to make use of such groups again when in suits in spite of years of intense 'war on terror' rhetoric and violence. It may make a mockery of some of our propaganda, but thats not unusual either.

 

[CyberRose]

Its perfectly legal to sell defensive weapons to a sovereign state that isnt involved in the crime of aggression against another sovereign state . And Syria isnt . As regards morality a lot of people dont think its moral to have any weapons at all . Thats a relative issue .

So weapons sales to any country on Earth to use against their population is fine by you?

As regards the Syrian governemnt I want them to prevail in this conflict against the isalmist maniacs .

Why do you see this as simply the government vs Islamists?

And when America is fighting Islamists do you give them your full support?

That doesnt mean I want them to remain in power afterwards . I want to see the national dialogue and conference process fulfilled and new political forces and trends emerging there . And I believe they definitely will as soon as this jihadist threat is brought to heel.

But these "new political forces" are currently being slaughtered by the Assad regime...and the reason for that is that Assad has no intention of giving up power (he'll be tried as a war criminal and go the way of Saddam should there be any change in government). It's only clowns like you that believe Assad's empty promises of "change"

I certainly didnt support a ridiculous , pointless and unwinnable war against the Taleban, who by the way are just about to open an official international headquarters in your ally Qatars capital of Doha . So with freinds like that in your jihad against Assad I assume it will all go swimmingly, as per usual .

Are you pissed? Or have you realised your arguments are so weak the only way to save a bit of face is to invent arguments to argue against?

 

[Casually Red]

Conspiracy theorists have been known to call Al Qaeda 'Al QaCIAda', and do you know, they've got a point there. Its totally bizarre this is happening - giving weapons to a group that is your sworn enemy. Unless their plan is to keep the forces of Assad and the Jihadists fighting each other and thus making both sides weaker.

jihadists largely depend on saudi money . If they cause problems with Israel beyond the rhetoric they simply wont get it . For the past 2 years now theres been tens of thousands of foreign jihadists in Syria . They are running about like lunatics literally eating people but amidst all that chaos theyve shown no interest in attacking Israel . And Israeli troops , not all that noted for their humanitarian impulses towards arabs and muslims, have definitely been rescuing them and patching them up in field hospitals while repeatedly dropping bombs on the troops theyre fighting . So that doesnt point to making both sides weaker .

These people mainly want their own turf, their own caliphate . More than anything they hate secular Arab regimes . The west have set their face on Assads departure from the scene, he has to go by any means possible and these people are simply the only proxy force who can accomplish that for them . Nobody else can . Thats the cold logic at the end of the day . They get rid of Assad, afterwards the saudis and Qataris call the shots and keep them in line. A few fatwahs from the right clerics and theyll hopefully go home. Or more likely into Lebanon and then onto Iran .

 

[Casually Red]

[quote="CyberRose, post: 12324722, member: 224"

So weapons sales to any country on Earth to use against their population is fine by you?

last time i checked tens of thousands of Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari, Iraqi, British, American, Lebanese, Egyptian, Jordanian, Chechen, French and feck knows what else foreign jihadists werent the Syrian population .

Why do you see this as simply the government vs Islamists?

because largely thats what it is

And when America is fighting Islamists do you give them your full support?

why would I when theyll only be back in league with them a few years later and supplying them with weapons . Ive no interest in supporting such cynical ploys.

But these "new political forces" are currently being slaughtered by the Assad regime...and the reason for that is that Assad has no intention of giving up power (he'll be tried as a war criminal and go the way of Saddam should there be any change in government). It's only clowns like you that believe Assad's empty promises of "change"

thats absolute bollocks . There are substantial political blocs outside the baath socialist party that support his stand against the Islamists . There are opposition figures outside the NTC that are persuing his national dialogue and reconcialiation process .

your the clown on this one.

Are you pissed? Or have you realised your arguments are so weak the only way to save a bit of face is to invent arguments to argue against?

its up to you to prove my argument wrong, youve patently failed to do so , on a number of occasions now. You accusing anyone on this thread of making a weak argument is pretty much taking taking the piss. Tbf

and dont forget to keep mentioning chemical weapons . Keep saying it with a straight face .

 

[CyberRose]

last time i checked tens of thousands of Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari, Iraqi, British, American, Lebanese, Egyptian, Jordanian, Chechen, French and feck knows what else foreign jihadists werent the Syrian population .

Answer the question

why would I when theyll only be back in league with them a few years later and supplying them with weapons . Ive no interest in supporting such cynical ploys.

Would I be right in thinking your views on Syria (and every other conflict that has or will happen) is simply determined by which "side" America and Britain are on?

its up to you to prove my argument wrong, youve patently failed to do so , on a number of occasions now. You accusing anyone on this thread of making a weak argument is pretty much taking taking the piss. Tbf.

I've addressed nobody other than yourself on this thread. You deliberately plead ignorance to Russian imperialism in order to justify opposition to America and Britain, that is your only motivation in this debate. Time for you to be honest and admit that instead of peddling lies about other posters somehow supporting Islamists (a bit rich considering you support Hizballah)

 

[Casually Red]

[quote="CyberRose, post: 12324763, member:

Answer the question

I plainly did, you simply dont like the answer so your refusing to address it .

Would I be right in thinking your views on Syria (and every other conflict that has or will happen) is simply determined by which "side" America and Britain are on?

If a country attacks either Britian or America theyve a perfect right to defend themselves . As that has patently not been happening, and the US and Britian have plainly been running about attacking countries which havent attacked them ..such as Iraq, Vietnam,Libya, Egypt...christ I could fill a whole page..then plainly Im highly unlikely to support criminal wars of aggression . Unlike yourself .

I've addressed nobody other than yourself on this thread. You deliberately plead ignorance to Russian imperialism in order to justify opposition to America and Britain, that is your only motivation in this debate. Time for you to be honest and admit that instead of peddling lies about other posters somehow supporting Islamists (a bit rich considering you support Hizballah)

well leaving aside your plainly racist and ignornat assertion that all muslim groups are essentially the same , you plainly do support the armed Syrian opposition . And it plainly is majority salafist . And its led in the feild by an Al Qaeda affiliate . Those are the undeniable facts.
You however plainly dont have the honesty to admit that .

And remember, straight face when talking about the regimes use of chemical weapons.
Straight face

 

[CyberRose]

I plainly did, you simply dont like the answer so your refusing to address it .

It's a yes or no question, answer it.

If a country attacks either Britian or America theyve a perfect right to defend themselves . As that has patently not been happening, and the US and Britian have plainly been running about attacking countries which havent attacked them ..such as Iraq, Vietnam,Libya, Egypt...christ I could fill a whole page..then plainly Im highly unlikely to support criminal wars of aggression . Unlike yourself .

Another yes or no question that didn't require this irrelevant bull above.

well leaving aside your plainly racist and ignornat assertion that all muslim groups are essentially the same , you plainly do support the armed Syrian opposition . And it plainly is majority salafist . And its led in the feild by an Al Qaeda affiliate . Those are the undeniable facts.
You however plainly dont have the honesty to admit that .

Resorting to calling people racist now in the absence of any coherent argument? I'd go to bed if I was you mate

Are you trying to draw attention away for your hypocrisy over supporting Russian imperialism whilst opposing American imperialism? Clearly, nay plainly, the variable there is the country conducting imperial policies, rather than imperialism itself (which you have no problem with)

 

[teqniq]

 

[camouflage]

Good article at the New York Times on how a responsible superpower would act on Syria. I don't agree with all of it but a few good points made:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/bad-idea-mr-president.html

Interventionists tend to detach their actions from longer-term consequences. This myopia is often coupled with a prevalent misunderstanding of the political and cultural context of where they want to intervene. Both problems are present in the current American approach to Syria.

The Syrian revolution isn’t democratic or secular; the more than 90,000 fatalities are the result of a civil war, not a genocide — and human rights violations have been committed on both sides.

Moreover, the rebels don’t have the support or trust of a clear majority of the population, and the political opposition is neither credible nor representative. Ethnic cleansing against minorities is more likely to occur under a rebel-led government than under Mr. Assad; likewise, the possibility of chemical weapons’ falling into the hands of terrorist groups only grows as the regime weakens.

And finally, a rebel victory is more likely to destabilize Iraq and Lebanon, and the inevitable disorder of a post-Assad Syria constitutes a greater threat to Israel than the status quo.

Not since the 2003 invasion of Iraq has American foreign policy experienced a strategic void so pervasive.

 

[likesfish]

Propably the best that coud be achieved assad coud have avoided a civil war but chose to unleash the military I cant see the jihadists goining back in the box run an apathied one party state when it all falls apart things go real bad real fast.

 

[camouflage]

Propably the best that coud be achieved assad coud have avoided a civil war but chose to unleash the military I cant see the jihadists goining back in the box run an apathied one party state when it all falls apart things go real bad real fast.

Is this supposed to make sense in some way?

 

[newbie]

I'm trying to grasp the main state/quasi state players involved, I'd appreciate correction/expansion.

Shi'ite
Iran: supporting & arming Assad
Hezbollah/Lebanon: supporting, arming & fighting for Assad
Iraq*: anti AQ; conduit for Iranian supplies yet full of US troops; lots of non-state actors on all sides

Sunni
Saudi*: supporting & arming Islamists
Qatar*: supporting & arming Islamists
Egypt*: anti-Assad, allowing non-state Islamist recruitment
Palestine/Hamas: anti Assad, denies actively supporting Islamists
Palestine/Fatah: keeping their head down, sfaics

Kurds: have established autonomous zone in N Syria but fighting Islamists for control

and

Israel: armed to the teeth, opposes everyone in the region but especially Iran

Jordan*: swamped by refugees; hosting US led war games; hosting Free Syrian Army council meetings
Turkey*: current civil unrest which may/may not become pertinent; hosting Free Syrian Army council meetings

plus, on the outside

Russia: supporting & arming Assad; advisers/trainers in Syria?
US*: supporting 'good rebels'; troops in Jordan; covert advisers in Syria
UK*: supporting 'good rebels'; troops in Jordan; covert advisers in Syria
France*: actively fighting Islamists in & around Mali


China: has all the money, wants to buy stuff/sell stuff

* means participating in the war games in Jordan

 

[sihhi]

I'm trying to grasp the main state/quasi state players involved, I'd appreciate correction/expansion.

Shi'ite
Iran: supporting & arming Assad
Hezbollah/Lebanon: supporting, arming & fighting for Assad
Iraq*: anti AQ; conduit for Iranian supplies yet full of US troops; lots of non-state actors on all sides

Sunni
Saudi*: supporting & arming Islamists
Qatar*: supporting & arming Islamists
Egypt*: anti-Assad, allowing non-state Islamist recruitment
Palestine/Hamas: anti Assad, denies actively supporting Islamists
Palestine/Fatah: keeping their head down, sfaics

Kurds: have established autonomous zone in N Syria but fighting Islamists for control

and

Israel: armed to the teeth, opposes everyone in the region but especially Iran

Jordan*: swamped by refugees; hosting US led war games; hosting Free Syrian Army council meetings
Turkey*: current civil unrest which may/may not become pertinent; hosting Free Syrian Army council meetings

plus, on the outside

Russia: supporting & arming Assad; advisers/trainers in Syria?
US*: supporting 'good rebels'; troops in Jordan; covert advisers in Syria
UK*: supporting 'good rebels'; troops in Jordan; covert advisers in Syria
France*: actively fighting Islamists in & around Mali


China: has all the money, wants to buy stuff/sell stuff

* means participating in the war games in Jordan

Turkey's special forces and army units are on active service in refugee camps ie training refugee Sunnis, and opposition MPs have been unable to visit.

 

[sihhi]

Palestine/Fatah: keeping their head down, sfaics

Al Aqsa brigades Fatah armed wing says its close relationship with Hezbollah will continue and that a dialogue must be sort by rebels, ie a very soft tilt to Assad.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Turkey's special forces and army units are on active service in refugee camps ie training refugee Sunnis, and opposition MPs have been unable to visit.

I wanted to ask you about Turkish policy towards Kurds, and how that's impacting events in Syria. I understand there was some sort of agreement between Erdogan and Kurdish and that PKK rebels were withdrawing to re-inforce Kurdish areas in Iraq and Syria, but within Syria itself the Kurdish forces are fighting against the rebels that Turkey are backing, and therefore nominally alongside Assad. Is that complicating things within Turkey at the moment with the protests as well?

The role of the Kurds in the region is very interesting and probably worth starting a thread of on it's own, as much like the Kurdish people themselves, stories about what's going on with the Kurds are spread out between the threads on Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

 

[newbie]

Al Aqsa brigades Fatah armed wing says its close relationship with Hezbollah will continue and that a dialogue must be sort by rebels, ie a very soft tilt to Assad.

while Hamas has broken with Iran and appears to be breaking with longtime allies Hezbollah. Half a million people in camps in Syria, which are apparently now a big part of the battleground

 

[newbie]

within Syria itself the Kurdish forces are fighting against the rebels that Turkey are backing, and therefore nominally alongside Assad.

Assad troops withdrew from Kurdish areas, which have since approached self governing status. I doubt he can get the area back without a fight. Their agenda is different from both the regime and the rest of the rebels.

 

[sihhi]

Assad troops withdrew from Kurdish areas, which have since approached self governing status. I doubt he can get the area back without a fight. Their agenda is different from both the regime and the rest of the rebels.

Sunni Islamist rebels have fought Kurdish armed fighters/ very rudimentary guerrilla since the end of May over a pocket of Kurdish towns that refused to let Sunni Islamists camp there and bombard Alawite towns.

AP report here http://abcnews.go.com/International...syrian-civil-war-19422189?page=2#.UcA4D-eHuuI

The Afrin assault began when rebels wanted to pass through it to attack the predominantly Shiite villages of Nubul and Zahra, controlled by Assad loyalists, the head of the Observatory, Rami Abdul-Rahman, said. After Kurdish groups refused, rebels attacked Kurdish checkpoints and laid siege, beginning May 25.

Dozens have been killed on both sides in the clashes since, he said. Kurdish groups in the area are mostly secular, while the rebels in the northern regions are made up of Muslim extremists, including al-Qaida-linked Jabhat al-Nusra.

"There is no trust between the two sides," Abdul-Rahman told The Associated Press. "There are efforts taking place to prevent a bigger war that could burn the region."

I'm sure there's better elsewhere.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I thought I'd mention this coz it's interesting. After the fall of Al-Qusayr, I presumed it was going to lead to a big offensive on the last remaining rebel held areas in Homs, part of a strategy aimed carving a government controlled area in the west, through the Homs gap, linking up Damascus to the Alawite coast, which is already preparing for a potential breakup of the Syrian state and maybe gonig it alone. Syria is a majority sunni country, just under 70% or so, but this region going from the Mountain of the Druze in the south, through Damascus and then east through to Tartous on the coast would be a different makeup, maybe a slight majority Druze-Christian-Alawite-Shi'ite over Sunni, and I daresay a significant percentage of the sunni population would be backing the Assad state over the islamist militia's. I've added some maps, geographic, political and ethnographic to help show this.

This however hasn't happened, instead the Syrian Army has moved quickly to start a new front in Aleppo. This has shifted momentum quickly from one part of the battlefield to another, wrongfooting the rebels who have been scrambling to re-inforce the area of the Homs gap north of Qusayr. Rather than push on to Homs, now they've cut off their supply routes through Lebanon they're being patient, and instead the Syrian Arab Army has launched an attack to break the siege of Minnakh Air Base, north of Aleppo in the town of Azaz near the Turkish border. This area is one of the routes being used to reinforce the FSA via Turkey, and so by reclaiming the air base and winning a victory there the Assad govt can cut off all the potential supply lines before the western powers start to arm the rebels more seriously, like they recently did in al-Qusayr.

these events on the ground in the upcoming weeks are going to determine a lot of what the west can and can not do in any Syrian intervention.

Political

geographic

ethnographic

 

[protesticals]

There is an OFFICIAL position where everyone is against Israel. The reality is that the governments Gulf States, Saudi and Jordan see Israel as a de facto Ally, Indeed Jordan directly appealed to Israel as long ago as the immediate aftermath of black September when Syria was seen to be a threat and Saudi has effectively guaranteed access to airspace for Israel refuelers to use Saudi Airspace to refuel Israeli Bombers if they were to attack Iran.

Also not that 'Moderate' islamists like Erdogan, Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood despise Salafists. Russia has big problems with Sunni Muslims generally but it also wants to help Orthodox Syrian Christians

 

[newbie]

the Kurd's longterm aim is to carve out a (rather secular) homeland nationstate rather than to be involved in a sectarian religious conflict. So they've had/will have problems with both sides. Given decades of suppression by Assad I'm finding it hard to group them with him.

 

[sihhi]

Also not that 'Moderate' islamists like Erdogan, Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood despise Salafists. Russia has big problems with Sunni Muslims generally but it also wants to help Orthodox Syrian Christians

Hamas, AKP and Muslim Brotherhood type Islamists try to use Salafists to do what they can't do see strikebreaking in Gaza, rounding on local protests when the police are busy, attacking liberal press organs in Egypt.

 

[sihhi]

the Kurd's longterm aim is to carve out a (rather secular) homeland nationstate rather than to be involved in a sectarian religious conflict. So they've had/will have problems with both sides. Given decades of suppression by Assad I'm finding it hard to group them with him.

This overstates it. For a long while Syria was the one place where Kurdish culture and identity thrived in Qamishlo. PKK members moved into Syria first in 1979/80 to escape the oncoming coup and began training in the Bekaa valley in 1980-4 before moving to northern Iraq to begin the guerrilla war.

It is highly plausible that 'better the devil you know' is guiding Kurdish nationalist attitudes in some quarters, although a minority have openly sided with the SNC opposition after urging and promises from the West apparently.

 

[camouflage]

I thought I'd mention this coz it's interesting. After the fall of Al-Qusayr, I presumed it was going to lead to a big offensive on the last remaining rebel held areas in Homs, part of a strategy aimed carving a government controlled area in the west, through the Homs gap, linking up Damascus to the Alawite coast, which is already preparing for a potential breakup of the Syrian state and maybe gonig it alone. Syria is a majority sunni country, just under 70% or so, but this region going from the Mountain of the Druze in the south, through Damascus and then east through to Tartous on the coast would be a different makeup, maybe a slight majority Druze-Christian-Alawite-Shi'ite over Sunni, and I daresay a significant percentage of the sunni population would be backing the Assad state over the islamist militia's. I've added some maps, geographic, political and ethnographic to help show this.

This however hasn't happened, instead the Syrian Army has moved quickly to start a new front in Aleppo. This has shifted momentum quickly from one part of the battlefield to another, wrongfooting the rebels who have been scrambling to re-inforce the area of the Homs gap north of Qusayr. Rather than push on to Homs, now they've cut off their supply routes through Lebanon they're being patient, and instead the Syrian Arab Army has launched an attack to break the siege of Minnakh Air Base, north of Aleppo in the town of Azaz near the Turkish border. This area is one of the routes being used to reinforce the FSA via Turkey, and so by reclaiming the air base and winning a victory there the Assad govt can cut off all the potential supply lines before the western powers start to arm the rebels more seriously, like they recently did in al-Qusayr.

these events on the ground in the upcoming weeks are going to determine a lot of what the west can and can not do in any Syrian intervention.

Political

maps

geographic

maps

ethnographic

more maps

This is called... Displacement, and Seizing The Initiative.

I hope the regime can bring the war to an end before the West can make this thing turn into a many-year-bleeder. With enough luck... could we see UN-observed elections in 2014? Will it all be over by christmas?

Hopes for the best.

By the way the maxi-max nature of the strategy here I feel reflects a profound misunderstanding of the West in terms of the Syrian regime. They are not persuing some sort of maxi-min approach, where they will settle for some sort of Alawite rump-state to which they can make a calculated retreat, snarling and injured and shooed away by a West out to build true democracy etc, the usual bollocks really.

It strikes me that the regime have a whole-nation objective, they consider themselves patriots, not just Alawite 'sect' members and a few friends of the family who calculate they will have more Mercedes if they continue to "cling to power". They are looking to win the country back. In my opinion, this is their right as a sovereign state. For that part, I wish em luck.

 

[J Ed]

Imperialist BS in the Graunid http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/18/boris-johnson-syria-arming-rebels

 

[sihhi]

Imperialist BS in the Graunid http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/18/boris-johnson-syria-arming-rebels

wanted NATO fighting a rocket and ground war with Serbia too

looking forward to a call for Britain to re-arm FARC rebels in Colombia so they don't get cut out of the political process by heavy sentences when they disarm.

 

[Idris2002]

wanted NATO fighting a rocket and ground war with Serbia too

looking forward to a call for Britain to re-arm FARC rebels in Colombia so they don't get cut out of the political process by heavy sentences when they disarm.

It nearly came to a ground war in Kosovo, didn't it?

 

[weltweit]

Very interesting recent posts about who is getting involved.
It certainly seems to me that there is quite enough foreign involvement, on both sides.
No need for us to get involved militarily, that could only make a bad situation worse.

 

[yield]

It nearly came to a ground war in Kosovo, didn't it?

James Blunt? Or was that an urban myth?

Very interesting recent posts about who is getting involved.
It certainly seems to me that there is quite enough foreign involvement, on both sides.
No need for us to get involved militarily, that could only make a bad situation worse.

Politically it's in the UK government's interest to be involved. Got to maintain that seat on the UN security council.

And there'll be payback with arms deals from the United Arab Emirates.

 

[teqniq]

British officials admitted that the Syrian opposition was still a work in progress.

What??? Rly???

From: Vladimir Putin may allow Assad to go if power vacuum in Syria is avoided