Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Baffler]

For a concrete example, see assholes like these. They're just different arms of the same organizations, and what we give to one is is plenty likely to end up being given to the other.

I was going to link you to that article a few pages back about Pentagon-backed and CIA-backed rebels fighting each other, or just up and joining ISIS, Nusra, or whoever as soon as they were trained and taking their gear with them, but it seems to've been deleted. I'll see if I can find it somewhere else.

[smjjames]

For a concrete example, see assholes like these. They're just different arms of the same organizations, and what we give to one is is plenty likely to end up being given to the other.

I was going to link you to that article a few pages back about Pentagon-backed and CIA-backed rebels fighting each other, or just up and joining ISIS, Nusra, or whoever as soon as they were trained and taking their gear with them, but it seems to've been deleted. I'll see if I can find it somewhere else.

Just goes to show what a clusterfuck Syria is, there's like hundreds of factions or something I think. And yeah, I know of that one where the CIA kept trying to train rebels but they either kept getting killed, fighting each other, or just disappearing.

It's almost like 'should we even try helping this region anymore?' and the presence of ISIS and also preventing Assad from genociding his country is the only thing keeping us in there.

Trump seems to think that there is a simple solution to this whole thing, but if such a solution did exist, it would have been done already... Well okay, not ALL simple solutions, assassinating Assad might seem like a simple solution, but that just ends up with the exact same situation because we have no plan for 'what next?'.

[Loud Whispers]

Huh? That makes as much sense as Assad thinking that the West is arming ISIS and Al Quaeda (who hate the west).

The Independent says the bulk of arms that end up in Islamist rebel hands are sent from wealthy gulf states like Qatar

With that said, here is a good investigation into the claims that the West has attempted to rebrand Al Qaeda Levant as a "moderate" faction and ignored so-called moderates who fought alongside groups the West considered enemies, if it meant an alliance of convenience between jihadists and the West to destroy the Assad regime (this radio report is a must-listen)

Rather notably, when a Swede was arrested by British security after the Swede tried to join jihadi groups in Syria, the charges were embarrassingly dropped with the defendant's lawyers suspecting the British were sending weapons to the same people the Swede wanted to join

Here is a BBC report on which countries are giving weapons to factions in Syria

Also I just found this article - the West funded the wrong side
Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.
For the past year, US, British and other western forces have been back in Iraq, supposedly in the cause of destroying the hyper-sectarian terror group Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq). This was after Isis overran huge chunks of Iraqi and Syrian territory and proclaimed a self-styled Islamic caliphate.
The campaign isn’t going well. Last month, Isis rolled into the Iraqi city of Ramadi, while on the other side of the now nonexistent border its forces conquered the Syrian town of Palmyra. Al-Qaida’s official franchise, the Nusra Front, has also been making gains in Syria.
A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.
Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.
Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.

Seems this was all done not for democracy, it was done to balkanize Syria and drive ethnic and religious group against one another. The goal was never to have a strong Syrian state, it was to destroy it
*EDIT
Just got to a bit on the Radio report where Joe Biden's talking about the problem for the West is its allies, Saudis, Turks and Emirates so determined to destroy Assad that they poured millions of dollars of weapons into anyone willing to fight Syria, so the West would've had to have risked alienating the Sunni states or Syria

[smjjames]

Again, complicated clusterfuck is the simplest way to describe Syria. And from the list of people who are sending weapons to Syria, sounds like almost anybody who's anybody in the world has interest in Syria. About the only major player missing is China.

Also, isn't 2012 around the same time where talk of splitting Iraq into pieces started? Might have been before then, but considering that talk of balkanizing Iraq did happen, it's not particularily surprising that there was talk of balkanizing Syria.

I doubt that the US's origional plan was to pit the various groups against each other. Other countries started supporting various rebel groups and it just snowballed from there into a microcosm of MidEast problems.

[Flying Dice]

"No one gives a shit about the Geneva Convention in war..."
"Even some of the most evil regimes in recorded history gave enough of a shit about the Geneva Convention in war to devote considerable effort to hiding the fact that they were violating its terms."

One of these things is not like the other.

Civilians care, and the civil disorder and prestige loss that will result from openly perpetuating atrocities hurts the imperial effort, so the callous government must conceal its actions.

Correct. Human rights care not from where the restraint flows, only that it does flow.

In other words, someone not doing something that's illegal or taboo (or working to conceal that they have) because of social disapproval means that they care about the fact that they're not supposed to do it to the extent that they want to avoid the consequences. Like, the Wehrmacht officers that ordered mass-murders of POWs didn't giggle about it and write books about how awesome it was to kill people after they surrendered, even before the ones who did started getting hemp neckties.

Even if you're motivated enough to go against law or taboo, you still typically care about it enough to want to pretend that you didn't. That's normal behavior, it's why we don't have massive numbers of unrepentant serial killers, because people don't normally forsake the social contract just because they felt like it, and when they do stray from it they tend to snap back.

[Sheb]

For me Russian\Assad's goal in Allepo is very simple and obvious. Destroy the city and kill as many of its inhabitants as possible. It is a plain genocide, not a war. They have zero interest in capturing the city because it will never be loyal to Assad and will stay a huge problem nearly forever.

That's ridiculous. We'd see many more death if genocide was really the goal. Plus, why kill them when you can drive them out as refugees, where dealing with them will drain Western political capital and cause the raise of Russia-friendly far right parties?

[martinuzz]

Carpet bombing a 2.5 million inhabitant city is indeed no genocide, it's just a lowly mass murder.

[Loud Whispers]

That's ridiculous. We'd see many more death if genocide was really the goal. Plus, why kill them when you can drive them out as refugees, where dealing with them will drain Western political capital and cause the raise of Russia-friendly far right parties?

Even driving them out as refugees would make more sense for the countryside, doesn't make as much sense in the city where the majority of the regime's support is

Carpet bombing a 2.5 million inhabitant city is indeed no genocide, it's just a lowly mass murder.

The Syrians are not carpet bombing Aleppo, there's no Dresden there and they'd end up bombing the half of the city under their control

In February, the United Nations estimated that the number of people killed was approaching seventy thousand; more recently, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights announced that it had verified six thousand and five deaths in March—the bloodiest month so far. It is impossible to count the dead with any precision: both of these figures include only victims for whom a name and a date and location of death are available. Whatever the real toll may be, civilians likely account for a substantial share of it. This has certainly been the case in Aleppo, where some of the war’s most devastating bombing and fiercest fighting have taken place, in congested residential neighborhoods. An assessment of fewer than half the city’s neighborhoods, conducted in March by international humanitarian organizations, estimated that thirteen thousand five hundred people had been killed and twenty-three thousand injured. Fifteen hundred of the dead were under five years old.
The conflict did not reach Aleppo until last July, when fighters from the surrounding countryside mounted their first offensive there. The Syrian Army, after losing much of the eastern half of the city, entrenched itself in the west. Throughout the summer, fall, and winter, the two sides engaged in house-to-house fighting, and contested and rebel-held areas were subjected to continuous jet, mortar, and artillery bombardments. Today, the combat has settled into an uneasy stalemate. Neither side has the men or the firepower needed to decisively push out the other. Still, the aerial pounding continues; the March assessment found that more than half of all the city’s private buildings have been damaged or destroyed.

The reason why the Syrian army was able to hold onto Western Aleppo throughout the entirety of the war is because they had a military base there, whereas the entire surrounding countryside was full of al-qaeda to the west and ISIS to the east. They've been inflicintg heavy casualties on jihadis in southern aleppo, and are currently launching numerous strikes in northern aleppo in preparation of an assault after jihadi infighting left one of the factions weak. This leaves a massive no mans land between eastern and western aleppo of destruction

Just looks like normal urban warfare to me, whereas it bears repeating, if the ethnic and religious minorities lived in the countryside they would have been cleansed

Although it is difficult to give an exact number for IDPs, the available data suggests that 6.5 million Syrians have fled violent areas for safer parts of the country. This includes about 2 million who have fled to the current government-controlled zone from areas controlled by other factions, as well as millions of others who fled one regime-controlled area for another due to intense fighting.

The areas held by rebels (the northwest, the south, and other small pockets such as Ghouta) have lost the most people because they are the least secure — Russian and regime airstrikes impede normal life there, and the presence of numerous different rebel factions creates persistent insecurity. The area held by the self-styled Islamic State (IS) seems safer, in part because it has a central authority.

Although religious minorities and secular Sunnis fled Raqqa and Deir al-Zour, they were replaced by foreign jihadists and Syrians displaced from Aleppo. In general, people tend to seek refuge where they have relatives, and where there is no fighting; the identity of the faction that controls the area does not necessarily matter to them as much.

The Kurdish area attracts displaced Kurds but few Arabs — no surprise given that the faction in control, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), aims to make the area ethnically homogeneous.

Mainstream media reports often highlight the fact that the Syrian army controls less than 17% of the country, and IS over 50%.

Yet these seemingly shocking figures do not factor in Syria's geography — namely that 47% of the country is sparsely inhabited steppes. Of course, extending control over some of the steppes may hold ​​strategic interest for IS; Palmyra is a traffic hub with important gas and oil resources, for example, and it borders Iraq and Jordan. In any case, the Assad regime controls the largest share of Syria's residential areas, and also the most populated area.

Around 10.1 million inhabitants live in the government zone, or 63% of the total resident population. The areas controlled by the other three main factions (Kurds, IS, and rebels) are roughly equal, with about 2 million each. In short, the regime has gone from controlling about 20 million Syrians prewar to about 10 million now.

Spoiler: Literally wherever there are minorities the government holds (click to show/hide)

The Sunni areas the gov holds are from loyalist clans

Spoiler: which explains how they are 58% Arab Sunni without issue (click to show/hide)

Simply put, the Alawites have run out of sons, and do not have a constant influx of foreign fighters like the jihadis

[Guardian G.I.]

Cooperation in Syria between America and Russia is now officially over.

Furthermore, high-ranking American officials are threatening Russia and Syria with unknown 'actions' (likely a military operation against the two).

[martinuzz]

The CIA and the highest US generals are asking for cruise missile strikes and bombardments targeted at the Syrian army to punish Assad for the bombing of civilians and hospitals in Aleppo, if needs be covert, and hidden from the US public, such as to circumvent not getting UN mandate because of Russian veto (guess they're learning from Russia "there were no Russian troops in Donbass" and "there was no Russian BUK").

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/10/04/obama-administration-considering-strikes-on-assad-again/

In a nutshell, they are proposing using cruise missiles and long range bombs that can be fired from planes over 100 km away, so they can strike at Assad without getting anywhere near Russian forces.

[Guardian G.I.]

The CIA and the highest US generals are asking for cruise missile strikes and bombardments targeted at the Syrian army to punish Assad for the bombing of civilians and hospitals in Aleppo, if needs be covert, and hidden from the US public, such as to circumvent not getting UN mandate because of Russian veto (guess they're learning from Russia "there were no Russian troops in Donbass" and "there was no Russian BUK").

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/10/04/obama-administration-considering-strikes-on-assad-again/

In a nutshell, they are proposing using cruise missiles and long range bombs that can be fired from planes over 100 km away, so they can strike at Assad without getting anywhere near Russian forces.

In response, Russia has deployed S-300 SAM systems in Syria, officially to protect their naval installation in Tartus. S-400s are already defending the Russian airbase in Latakia. 
They have a range from 200km (S-300) up to 400 km (S-400). In the worst case scenario, if open war breaks out between Russia and America, they will be used against American bombers carrying the above-mentioned cruise missiles.

[smjjames]

The CIA and the highest US generals are asking for cruise missile strikes and bombardments targeted at the Syrian army to punish Assad for the bombing of civilians and hospitals in Aleppo, if needs be covert, and hidden from the US public, such as to circumvent not getting UN mandate because of Russian veto (guess they're learning from Russia "there were no Russian troops in Donbass" and "there was no Russian BUK").

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/10/04/obama-administration-considering-strikes-on-assad-again/

In a nutshell, they are proposing using cruise missiles and long range bombs that can be fired from planes over 100 km away, so they can strike at Assad without getting anywhere near Russian forces.

In response, Russia has deployed S-300 SAM systems in Syria, officially to protect their naval installation in Tartus. S-400s are already defending the Russian airbase in Latakia. 
They have a range from 200km (S-300) up to 400 km (S-400). In the worst case scenario, if open war breaks out between Russia and America, they will be used against American bombers carrying the above-mentioned cruise missiles.

That's what you get for blabbing your attacks, as Trump likes to point out.

[martinuzz]

Except, it was not in response. It was the other way around. CIA and generals are suggesting this in a meeting planned in response to Russia confirming placing the S-300.

[Zangi]

I thought it was in response to the Aleppo situation?

[Guardian G.I.]

Except, it was not in response. It was the other way around. CIA and generals are suggesting this in a meeting planned in response to Russia confirming placing the S-300.

If that's true... fuck.

If Obama's rejecting this, all hell will break loose when Clinton gets into the Oval Office. She definitely won't object to such plans.