Syria Help

[Bruv]

Can anyone run the history of the current situation past me in simple terms.

[magentaflame]

Its a ****ed up situation. Weve seen it plenty of times through history.

[FourPart]

Basically, it's a place where the Super Powers get a chance to do their Military Training, using live ammunition. It also provides a need for the Saudi Government to replenish its armament stocks, after giving them to ISIS, thus providing the UK Government with a willing customer for our Arms Trade, thus boosting the economy. Quite an equitable arrangement, overall.

[spot]

There's a brief article published five years ago which I've always considered informed and relevant as far as what started it and why - The plan to destabilize Syria, by Thierry Meyssan

[Bruv]

spot;1504105 wrote: There's a brief article published five years ago which I've always considered informed and relevant as far as what started it and why - The plan to destabilize Syria, by Thierry Meyssan


Didn't help much to be honest......but thanks.

[spot]

If you give a hint why it wasn't what you hoped for, I could find alternatives. So far in this thread you've been very obscure.

There seems little point just saying "x wanted to achieve y so they did z" without any evidence. I could do that if you prefer. America's security agencies were provided by Congress with a budget to distribute around the Middle East to destabilize various countries, Syria being one of them. They created and armed assorted fundamentalist Islamic groups just as they did in Afghanistan to bring down the Russian-backed government in the 80s, and they fed money along with the Saudis to expand the exiled Syrian opposition. The armed groups generated a civil war which could only be sustained if the US gave air superiority to the insurgents, so the US did that too which rather gave the game away. Quite recently the Russians stepped in and said no, the Assad government isn't going down, Yankee Go Home.

Which bit do you not believe?

[Ahso!]

Other than the two sources listed, the Meyssan article you linked could use some credible citations. It's more of an opinion piece than anything else.

[Bryn Mawr]

spot;1504108 wrote: If you give a hint why it wasn't what you hoped for, I could find alternatives. So far in this thread you've been very obscure.

There seems little point just saying "x wanted to achieve y so they did z" without any evidence. I could do that if you prefer. America's security agencies were provided by Congress with a budget to distribute around the Middle East to destabilize various countries, Syria being one of them. They created and armed assorted fundamentalist Islamic groups just as they did in Afghanistan to bring down the Russian-backed government in the 80s, and they fed money along with the Saudis to expand the exiled Syrian opposition. The armed groups generated a civil war which could only be sustained if the US gave air superiority to the insurgents, so the US did that too which rather gave the game away. Quite recently the Russians stepped in and said no, the Assad government isn't going down, Yankee Go Home.

Which bit do you not believe?


The lack of British involvement

[Bruv]

spot;1504108 wrote: If you give a hint why it wasn't what you hoped for, I could find alternatives. So far in this thread you've been very obscure.........................



....................Which bit do you not believe?


Sorry but after every other line, I wonder how they know that, or why they believe anyone would want to do what they suspect they did.

Maybe the question I should have asked was.......why ?

[Ahso!]

Bruv;1504119 wrote: Sorry but after every other line, I wonder how they know that, or why they believe anyone would want to do what they suspect they did.

Maybe the question I should have asked was.......why ?Good question!

Perhaps underlying everything is culling.

[spot]

Bruv;1504119 wrote: Sorry but after every other line, I wonder how they know that, or why they believe anyone would want to do what they suspect they did.

Maybe the question I should have asked was.......why ?


If you pick specific claims I can dig up the evidence for each. I do note that the article I referenced has footnote sources though.

House approves plan to assist Syrian rebels - CNNPolitics.com is a good indicator of Congressional financing.

Why, though. That's the strategy question as opposed to the tactical question and I'm quite certain nobody in power in America has ever laid out their strategy. I would be reduced to guessing.

I would start by saying that an American public which was not scared of foreigners would refuse to tolerate the erosion of their civil liberties. If there were no credible terrorist threat to America then the Establishment would just have to invent one.

[Ahso!]

America's motivations are in plain sight. American politicians make decisions based on one issue over all else - jobs! The health of America's economy is every politician's responsibility. Everything else is secondary and simply a balancing act that centers around JOBS. America manufactures an awful lot of military hardware.

[Bruv]

And your link says that America approves funding the fight against ISIS, which is why I asked to start with.

That is how messed up it all is right now.

The rebels and the government are anti ISIS, so it is a three way fight with super powers siding with the different factions.

This time it seems the Russians are wearing white hats, in between bombing hospitals, but that could be propaganda or misinformation.

[Bryn Mawr]

Bruv;1504137 wrote: And your link says that America approves funding the fight against ISIS, which is why I asked to start with.

That is how messed up it all is right now.

The rebels and the government are anti ISIS, so it is a three way fight with super powers siding with the different factions.

This time it seems the Russians are wearing white hats, in between bombing hospitals, but that could be propaganda or misinformation.


I was under the impression that half the rebels were ISIS / Al-Quaeda related.

[spot]

Bruv;1504137 wrote: And your link says that America approves funding the fight against ISIS, which is why I asked to start with.
To have an enemy to fight, first you have to create an enemy.

[Bruv]

spot;1504147 wrote: To have an enemy to fight, first you have to create an enemy.


No you don't.

I've had my nose punched for nothing, not even a funny look was exchanged.

I was under the impression that half the rebels were ISIS / Al-Quaeda related.
I thought there are three different sections, anti government rebels, the government, and ISIS / Al-Quaeda.

The government is fighting a minority rebel faction, and the nasty ISIS, that want an Islamic caliphate, the ISIS is fighting both I thought, America backs the rebels, Russia the government, everybody is against ISIS.

I presume that the majority of the population, the victims, don't care who is bombing them, only that they just stop.

[spot]

Bruv;1504155 wrote: I've had my nose punched for nothing, not even a funny look was exchanged.We evidently move in different social circles.

[Bryn Mawr]

Bruv;1504155 wrote: No you don't.

I've had my nose punched for nothing, not even a funny look was exchanged.



I thought there are three different sections, anti government rebels, the government, and ISIS / Al-Quaeda.

The government is fighting a minority rebel faction, and the nasty ISIS, that want an Islamic caliphate, the ISIS is fighting both I thought, America backs the rebels, Russia the government, everybody is against ISIS.

I presume that the majority of the population, the victims, don't care who is bombing them, only that they just stop.


Many of the rebels are from Al-Quaeda and ISIS with the various rebel groups all fighting Assad whom the West want to see overthrown but the Russians are supporting. ISIS only got into the mix because we tried to overthrow Assad and created a power vacuum.

Given that the Independent is putting out the west's political viewpoint, this is of some interest :-

Battle for Aleppo: Who's fighting on what side and why this siege could be a turning point in Syria | The Independent

Aleppo is divided between pro-Syrian forces and a range of rebel groups, from the Free Syrian Army to the radical al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra. These rebel groups are not all aligned in their fight against Assad, with the moderates that form the Syrian National Coalition distancing themselves from Islamist designated terror groups such as the al-Nusra front and Isis.

In addition, the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) control an area of northern Aleppo.

[Bruv]

So in fact it is as messed up as I had thought when I started the thread.

And now there is a another generation of people consumed with hatred..................the cycle continues.

[Bryn Mawr]

Bruv;1504170 wrote: So in fact it is as messed up as I had thought when I started the thread.

And now there is a another generation of people consumed with hatred..................the cycle continues.


Indeed it does - so much for hearts and minds

[FourPart]

In a Tripartheid situation, the old adage "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend" rather falls flat on its face, as it would make all parties friends.

[tude dog]

FourPart;1504173 wrote: In a Tripartheid situation, the old adage "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend" rather falls flat on its face, as it would make all parties friends.


With friends like that who needs enemies?

[tude dog]

spot;1504156 wrote: We evidently move in different social circles.


Social circles?

I imagine most of us are not immune to the real world where people move freely about.

[spot]

tude dog;1504194 wrote: I imagine most of us are not immune to the real world where people move freely about.It is rare for me to actually meet any of the working classes whom I do not myself employ.

[Bryn Mawr]

spot;1504195 wrote: It is rare for me to actually meet any of the working classes whom I do not myself employ.


Then we definitely move in different social circles - I rarely meet anyone outside of the working class (other that the retired ex-working class)

[tude dog]

spot;1504195 wrote: It is rare for me to actually meet any of the working classes whom I do not myself employ.


Well, gee. Not being a snob I freely associate with anybody.

[spot]

I didn't get where I am today by wearing jokes on my shirt.

[spot]

Here, as another attempt to provide the history of what has happened, is an article.

US watched ISIS rise in Syria and hoped to use it -- Kerry on leaked tape

The article discusses a tape made of Vice-President Kerry meeting with Syrian opposition representatives, in which Kerry himself explains the history. It's not a made-up story, the Vice-President speaks, this (the bit in italics is the quote) is part of what he says.

The Syrians complained we aren’t helping enough. Kerry and his associates said we and the Saudis and Qatar and Turkey had provided huge amounts of aid to the rebels, who unfortunately were sort of aligned with extremists.

“Nusra makes it hard, Kerry said, referring to Jabhat al-Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. “Nusra and Daesh [ISIS] both make it hard, because you have this extreme element out there and unfortunately some of the opposition has kind of chosen to work with them.

The rise of extremists had led to Russia’s intervention. Kerry said (at minute 26) that when Daesh, or ISIS, started to grow, the US watched and thought we could “manage the ISIS situation, because it might push Assad to negotiate, but instead Putin came in. Kerry:

“The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger, Daesh was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus and so forth. And that’s why Russia went in. Because they didn’t want a Daesh government and they supported Assad.

“And we know that this was growing. We were watching. We saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage, that Assad would then negotiate. Instead of negotiating, he got Putin to support him.

[magentaflame]

spot;1504105 wrote: There's a brief article published five years ago which I've always considered informed and relevant as far as what started it and why - The plan to destabilize Syria, by Thierry Meyssan


Hmmmm...... interesting. It makes sense years on . When you think about it, how many of us even know much about these countries until we see them on the news ? Gullibility isn't a sin but explains a lot in terms of news broadcasts and western thought. I have no doubt the US is behind the Syrian revolt. They admitted it themselves. so I guess you don't need a source for that.

just watched this on telly . Syria war: Newest Australian tells extraordinary story of life under siege - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Just remember his words where he tried to tell the Red cross and the UN what was happening and they ignored him........IGNORED HIM!!!!

[magentaflame]

spot;1504195 wrote: It is rare for me to actually meet any of the working classes whom I do not myself employ.


lol ( to use a working class British phrase) Tosser!

[Ahso!]

Obama certainly outsmarted himself and got outplayed by Putin in Syria.

[spot]

And, until midweek, I thought the current rush from the north was going to be stopped before it got past Aleppo. And it hasn't been, which either has the Syrian Army massed to defend Damascus or the country is about to fall. It's all very sudden. And just possibly this is the first Middle Eastern attack in decades that hasn't been paid for as a proxy move - this one might actually be a bunch of genuine fanatics.

[spot]

And the handover of power to the Turkish-backed dissident invaders is complete, the Syrian government has left the country having ordered the Syrian army to stand down and return to barracks. Fifty years of Alawite rule over Syria have ended.

There we are - Erdogan wins this throw of the dice. Presumably he told a few other countries before things got under way.

Not exactly a bloodless invasion so far but pretty close, considering the alternatives. The selective executions and looting haven't started though they undoubtedly will. The prisons have been emptied in preparation for the new intake.

Syrian rebels entered the residence of the Italian ambassador in Damascus on Sunday, but did not harm him or his security staff, Italian foreign minister Antonio Tajani said.

The Islamist fighters were looking for pro-Assad troops or relevant documents, and left after firing a few shots against a wall, Tajani told a press conference.

He said:

This morning an armed group entered the garden of the ambassador’s residence. They took away only three cars and that was it. Neither the ambassador nor the Carabinieri (embassy police) were harmed.

We are calling for a peaceful handover between the fallen regime and the new reality, so for a peaceful rather than military transition. It seems to me that at the moment things are going in this direction.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... op-of-blog

[spot]

The lethal bombing of Syria continues even after the departure of the government:

Following the fall of Assad’s government, the United States conducted dozens of airstrikes, coinciding with the day Islamic rebels overthrew his regime and captured the capital city, Damascus. On Sunday, Assad and his family fled the country and reportedly arrived in Moscow. Meanwhile, the American military stated that it carried out as many as 75 airstrikes in central Syria.

https://www.india.com/news/world/us-air ... n-7452400/

Someone should pull the astoundingly impotent USAF out of the middle east before it manages to annoy anyone. This is just death for the sake of performance targets and to keep its pilots qualified at killing anyone who can't shoot back. I note they don't behave like this over Ukraine.

In Damascus:

[photo caption] A fire burns in a room of the Tishrin residential palace of Syria's ousted president Bashar al-Assad, who fled to Russian on a private plane.

The presidential palace in Damascus has been overrun by rebel forces and now people are taking selfies in the grand reception rooms

https://www.theguardian.com/world/galle ... n-pictures

It's good to see the "rebel forces" were recruited from among the more disciplined applicants then. The Syrian people owned those undefended buildings. The predictable sacking and pillaging has commenced.

"All else was unaccountable, by instinct led: But man He made of angel form erect." Except, for some reason, among the world's armed services. Somebody out of earshot will no doubt make the usual exorbitant profit.

[spot]

Meanwhile, in what's turning into a Keystone Kops clip, Every Western government is falling over in their haste to remove the "terrorist" label from the banned group which took down the Alawite dynasty yesterday. This is, presumably, to prevent any nation state from having been taken over by an ISIS offshoot organization. History is being rewritten. Sometimes an alias turns out to have been an unfortunate misunderstanding all along.

We're now in the peculiar position of it being illegal to applaud the overthrow of the Syrian government despite that having been a goal of the UK for the last decade, ever since the Americans started bombing the country and the Russians provided sufficient air cover to stop them. This is the same counter-terrorism legislation which this week resulted in "Counter-terror police are investigating reports that an Oxford Union speaker broke the law by 'expressing support' for Hamas during a debate on Israel", for example. Perhaps a week from now we'll be able to shout "Hooray for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham" and put a donations tin on the pub counter but not yet, there's an official list which needs fixing first.

The UK government could remove Islamist militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham from the list of banned terrorist groups after the rebels led the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Cabinet minister Pat McFadden told the BBC the situation in the country was "very fluid" and if it stabilised, any change in the ban would be a "relatively swift decision".

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) was proscribed as a terror organisation in the UK after being added as an alias of al-Qaeda in 2017.

McFadden confirmed the UK currently cannot have any communications with HTS.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7qenxy8r2o

[spot]

It seems we're instructed to welcome the fall of yet another secular republic in the Middle East to all-male governance by religious fundamentalists, despite these fundamentalists being a proscribed terrorist branch of ISIS. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I was brought up to dislike the Alawite Baathist group who governed Syria back when Robert Fisk was denouncing them from Beirut at considerable personal risk. On the other hand I've never regarded Bashar al-Assad as anything other than a captive figurehead, it was his dad and his dad's Baathist fixers who were the thugs. Bashar al-Assad was anything but. It's rather late in the day to commiserate with him for having his life hijacked but even so, someone ought to.

So, do I approve of the neutering of Syria? The way I was supposed to approve of the neutering of Libya? Do I heck as like. I note the mass killings have started.

I also wonder where Rifaat, Bashar al-Assad's uncle, is. 87 years old, retired for decades in London and Paris, but definitely in Syria for the last three years with arrest warrants issued in case he tries going back (all from Wikipedia). An influential chap. This is from 2010, one of Robert Fisk's later articles in The Independent:

Rifaat was Hafez's brother. Hafez was therefore Ribal's uncle, the present President – Bashar – his cousin. "But anyone can wear a pink uniform," Ribal says. "Everyone wanted to wear pink uniforms then, to look like the special forces. My father was not in Hama. He was in Damascus at the time." A mere lieutenant-colonel, I am to understand.

And Rifaat, it turns out – a man whom I have always believed should stand, alongside Ariel Sharon, in a war crimes dock – is now living in central London! Did we know this? Does the British Government advertise the fact that the Butcher of Hama – for so he was known to the survivors – now lives not very far from where his son sits with me in Marble Arch? But I have to be frank. Ribal was a bit put out by my insistence that our little chat must include his Dad. He wanted to talk about his so-called "United National Alliance" (self-funded, he claims), his desire to see a new, inclusive, equal rights Syria – not a dredging up of the past. Ribal was eight years old at the time of Hama, scarcely to blame for the sins of his father – though that is not a phrase of which he would approve. A businessman managing export-import between China and the Arab world, he insists he wants no political role in a "new" Syria and bursts into laughter when I suggest he might like to be president. Most would-be presidents, I should add, burst into laughter before assuring the world that they have no such ambitions.

Personally, I suspect young Ribal would like to be a political opponent in a democratic Syria. He shakes his head. But let's face it, Ribal is a strong sell. "We want to concentrate on our future country. A country cannot be built on past grudges. We have to forgive – I don't know about forget – and we have to live together, all Syrians who believe in democracy and human rights, to have a new era. The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union collapsed. Syria will change."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/co ... 80463.html