Hezbollah declares Syria victory, Russia says much of country won back

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

More deflections.

Topic is quite obviously not about Lebanon's domestic issues.

 

There are various areas of Syria not under Assad's control. Some are held by Islamic groups (not supported by the US) and some are held by predominantly Kurdish organizations (supported by the US). Just like you to muddy the waters in order to make a faux argument:

 

 

The point made by others, is that had Assad's regime not been afforded massive support from Iran and Russia, the war may have ended earlier, and perhaps with different result:

 

 

 

And if the opponents of Assad had not been given massive support, the same might be said. Or perhaps had Russian and Iran not given aid, Syria would be under the murderous rule of Salafists who would need to be dislodged the same bloody way they they have been in Iraq and parts of Syria.

[sanuk711]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Research my posts.  You'll see I mainly counter those who post anti-American comments that aren't correct.  Like yours.

Is that your humour coming out,? I think everyone accepts your the American Poodle on here. That's OK as long as you recognise it, & dont get silly pretending your fair and balanced.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed.  I'm amazed anybody supports the Syrian regime.  Mostly those who are anti-American do so.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/russian-air-strikes-kill-34-civilians-deir-az-zor-170910162742746.html

 

 

This is exactly the same kind of thinking that preceded the second Iraq war: if you didn't support the war that meant that you were a supporter of Hussein. Good thing that those Saddam supporters didn't prevail and the clear thinkers who pushed them aside did.

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, oxo1947 said:

Craig really...if you look back at your posts and feel your really are even handed....then its you that's should be researching them....there is always going to be someone who disagrees with an American stance...and there is always going to be you --defending, no matter what the subject.

 

Please show one of my posts that defends the US even if wrong. I'm the first one to admit the US isn't perfect. But also the first one to admit they aren't the worst country. I just don't like troll posts. They derail the topic.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

This is exactly the same kind of thinking that preceded the second Iraq war: if you didn't support the war that meant that you were a supporter of Hussein. Good thing that those Saddam supporters didn't prevail and the clear thinkers who pushed them aside did.

I didn't support that war and didn't support a brutal dictator like Hussein. The world would be a better place without dictators like him and Assad.

[ilostmypassword]

Here's something from those terrorist apologists at Human Rights Watch:

“He Didn’t Have to Die”
Indiscriminate Attacks by Opposition Groups in Syria

Human Rights Watch found that in the areas we could visit, neighborhoods under government control inhabited predominately by religious minorities were subject to more indiscriminate attacks by opposition groups than areas that were largely majority Sunni. Public statements by opposition armed groups provided strong evidence that these groups considered the religious minorities to be backing the Syrian government or that the attacks were in retaliation for government attacks on Sunni civilians elsewhere in the country.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/03/22/he-didnt-have-die/indiscriminate-attacks-opposition-groups-syria

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Please show one of my posts that defends the US even if wrong. I'm the first one to admit the US isn't perfect. But also the first one to admit they aren't the worst country. I just don't like troll posts. They derail the topic.

And if we were to cite your posts from another thread..say about Yemen, would you call that a deflection?

[sanuk711]

No he would call it....Your a troll....

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎13‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 11:47 PM, Morch said:

 

Obviously not a word regarding Assad's dealings with his supposed opponents, or treatment of demonstrations contributed to the mess. And, of course, one might entertain the thought that countries supporting Assad could have avoided jumping in, thereby facilitating a new regime, or doing more to promote negotiation months and years ago.

Another USA backed regime?

[ilostmypassword]

26 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I didn't support that war and didn't support a brutal dictator like Hussein. The world would be a better place without dictators like him and Assad.

Your alleged lack of support is entirely irrelevant. Who knows and who cares? I do know that it's extremely difficult nowadays to find people who will admit to supporting the war on Iraq. Back then there was a certain class of supporters who argued that Saddam was so bad that the war was justified. Does that argument sound familiar?

[tonbridgebrit]

Okay, if we're not going to thank Russia and Iran/Hezbollah for ending this war, well, who are we going to thank ?

Oh, I know, we need to thank Washington for stopping it's support for the rebels. The rebels who were against Assad.
Yes, that's right. Thanks Washington, for ending your support to whatever rebels you was backing, this has ended the war in Syria.

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, if we're not going to thank Russia and Iran/Hezbollah for ending this war, well, who are we going to thank ?

Oh, I know, we need to thank Washington for stopping it's support for the rebels. The rebels who were against Assad.
Yes, that's right. Thanks Washington, for ending your support to whatever rebels you was backing, this has ended the war in Syria.

The war isn't over.  What about Turkey, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, etc.  You seem to focus on Washington.  A bit of a one track mind?

 

The US hasn't ended support for the rebels.  And the war hasn't ended.

[tonbridgebrit]

8 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The war isn't over.  What about Turkey, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, etc.  You seem to focus on Washington.  A bit of a one track mind?

 

The US hasn't ended support for the rebels.  And the war hasn't ended.

Craigt, do please get real. France and the UK being involved in Syria ?? 

We all know, the impact of France and Britain in this Syria conflict is almost nothing compared to Washington's impact. The military resources of France and Britain are almost nothing compared to Washington's. The whole Syria thing, Washington decided to get involved, and France and Britain decided to follow Washington. If Washington was not involved, then, no way would France and Britain have stepped in and got involved with the rebels. What's the most important point regarding France and Britain being in Syria ? Well, France and Britain being involved means that Washington can say to the media "oh look, it's not just America that is supporting some of the rebels, France and Britain are as well, hence, it's an international effort". Yes, it's very important that Washington can say this, it's looks better in front of the general public.

[craigt3365]

55 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Craigt, do please get real. France and the UK being involved in Syria ?? 

We all know, the impact of France and Britain in this Syria conflict is almost nothing compared to Washington's impact. The military resources of France and Britain are almost nothing compared to Washington's. The whole Syria thing, Washington decided to get involved, and France and Britain decided to follow Washington. If Washington was not involved, then, no way would France and Britain have stepped in and got involved with the rebels. What's the most important point regarding France and Britain being in Syria ? Well, France and Britain being involved means that Washington can say to the media "oh look, it's not just America that is supporting some of the rebels, France and Britain are as well, hence, it's an international effort". Yes, it's very important that Washington can say this, it's looks better in front of the general public.

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

Quote

 

Opération Chammal is the name of the French military operation which is currently ongoing in Iraq and Syria in an attempt to contain the expansion of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to support the Iraqi Army. Its name comes from the Shamal (Chammal in French), a northwesterly wind blowing over Iraq and the Persian Gulf states.^[10]

Airstrikes over Iraq started 19 September 2014, airstrikes over Syria started by the end of September 2015.

 

You should do some research before posting.  So yes, it's real.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/syrian-troops-advancing-towards-us-british-special-forces/

Quote

Syrian troops advancing towards US and British special forces

 

You're typical rant about Washington.  It gets old.

[tonbridgebrit]

10 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The US hasn't ended support for the rebels.  And the war hasn't ended.

And Washington has ended it's support for the rebels.

Donald Trump, God bless him for doing this, has already said so. And the war will end soon. Hezbollah has already declared victory, the Russians know that the remaining rebels are still there, Russia knows that bits of Syria still need to be re-taken by Assad.


And the two articles you've put above. It doesn't change the issue of how France and Britain are only there because Washington is there. It doesn't change the issue that the amount of action being done by Washington is far greater that the stuff being done by France and Britain.
Okay, the impact of France and Britain in Syria is greater than their impact in the South China Sea and North Korea, but that just means the impact is greater than very little.

[tonbridgebrit]

I would like to add to the above point, I don't wish to see British soldiers (ground forces) in Syria. That's because I don't think British soldiers should be put into a dangerous situation. And I reckon that any British soldiers inside Syria means that they are in a dangerous situation.

[craigt3365]

13 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And Washington has ended it's support for the rebels.

Donald Trump, God bless him for doing this, has already said so. And the war will end soon. Hezbollah has already declared victory, the Russians know that the remaining rebels are still there, Russia knows that bits of Syria still need to be re-taken by Assad.


And the two articles you've put above. It doesn't change the issue of how France and Britain are only there because Washington is there. It doesn't change the issue that the amount of action being done by Washington is far greater that the stuff being done by France and Britain.
Okay, the impact of France and Britain in Syria is greater than their impact in the South China Sea and North Korea, but that just means the impact is greater than very little.

Covert CIA support for the rebels has ended.  But not other efforts to support rebel groups.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-haley/u-s-ambassador-haley-u-n-has-exhausted-options-on-north-korea-idUSKCN1BS0IN

 

Quote

 

A separate effort by the U.S. military effort to train, arm and support other Syrian rebel groups with air strikes and other actions will continue, the officials said.

 

However, aside from air strikes after the Syrian military launched a chemical weapons attack, the Trump administration has not increased military support from the limits set by the Obama administration.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I would like to add to the above point, I don't wish to see British soldiers (ground forces) in Syria. That's because I don't think British soldiers should be put into a dangerous situation. And I reckon that any British soldiers inside Syria means that they are in a dangerous situation.

I don't wish to see any soldiers on the ground.  None should be put into a dangerous situation like this.  Why are you only concerned about British soldiers and none of the others?

[ilostmypassword]

13 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I would like to add to the above point, I don't wish to see British soldiers (ground forces) in Syria. That's because I don't think British soldiers should be put into a dangerous situation. And I reckon that any British soldiers inside Syria means that they are in a dangerous situation.

34 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Covert CIA support for the rebels has ended.  But not other efforts to support rebel groups.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-haley/u-s-ambassador-haley-u-n-has-exhausted-options-on-north-korea-idUSKCN1BS0IN

 

 

 

I don't wish to see any soldiers on the ground.  None should be put into a dangerous situation like this.  Why are you only concerned about British soldiers and none of the others?

I'm going to take a really wild guess here and surmise that tonbridgebrit is a uk citizen and was speaking as such. You might have had a point if he written that he doesn't care what other nations do but he doesn't want british soldiers to participate. But he didn't. And given the tenor of his remarks about the situation in Syria,  to assert that he's only concerned about British soldiers is ludicrous.

 

 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I'm going to take a really wild guess here and surmise that tonbridgebrit is a uk citizen and was speaking as such. You might have had a point if he written that he doesn't care what other nations do but he doesn't want british soldiers to participate. But he didn't. And given the tenor of his remarks about the situation in Syria,  to assert that he's only concerned about British soldiers is ludicrous.

 

 

Guessing?  How about letting him reply?  LOL. 

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Guessing?  How about letting him reply?  LOL. 

It wasn't much of a guess and maybe you need to be reminded that this is an open forum.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

It wasn't much of a guess and maybe you need to be reminded that this is an open forum.

No reminders needed.  Just strange for you to be replying for others you don't even know. LOL.  Or just trolling my posts?

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

No reminders needed.  Just strange for you to be replying for others you don't even know. LOL.  Or just trolling my posts?

As far as I know, I don't know anyone on this forum.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

As far as I know, I don't know anyone on this forum.

Too bad.  I've met dozens.  A few are some of my best friends now.  A few....well.....LOL

[Morch]

On 9/17/2017 at 7:27 PM, Machiavelli said:

Implicated! Who is the implicator? Who is this all knowing country god who implicates other countries? Who gave this so called implicator this power? Last time I checked these all knowing implicators plunged a country into horrible chaos after falsely accusing it of having WMDs. 

 

What I posted was "stand to be implicated" - meaning, that if investigations concludes that Assad's forces carried out an aerial chemical attack on civilians, then there is very little chance that the Russian were not aware of it. Considering that Russia effectively controls Syria's airspace, it may imply at least a measure of responsibility, if not culpability. Further, as Russia repeatedly denied and rejected almost all past instances in which allegations of chemical weapons used against civilians by Assad's forces, they are not about to change their tune. Russia wouldn't be too happy if the horse it backs would have to face ICC level charges.

 

There was nothing said about "all knowing country god", or other hyperbole. There was an earlier topic, following the attack, in which the known and plausible sources of information were discussed. Quite a few nations around with ongoing surveillance of military activity and communications. No idea which "power" you imagine someone was given. The UN sponsored investigations are sponsored by the UN and related bodies.

 

Last time I checked, the off-topic and deflection WMD "argument" was past it's sale-by-date.

 

[Morch]

On 9/17/2017 at 7:28 PM, ilostmypassword said:

And if the opponents of Assad had not been given massive support, the same might be said. Or perhaps had Russian and Iran not given aid, Syria would be under the murderous rule of Salafists who would need to be dislodged the same bloody way they they have been in Iraq and parts of Syria.

 

The point made was that things could have panned out in different ways than they did. It was presented as an alternative to the "linear" presentation which seems to hold that events would have unfolded in similar ways regardless of certain factors. I am not suggesting that the above is how things would surely have happened "if only...".

 

Assad's regime wasn't doing so great until the Russian's stepped in, and initiated their aerial campaign on his behalf. At that point, he already receiving significant support from Iran. Hence, it is not far-fetched to contemplate that had Russia and Iran not been massively involved, Assad's regime could have been toppled earlier on, or brought to the negotiation table.

 

Similarly, the rise to prominence of Islamic groups is at least somewhat tied to the fortunes of war - and not, as some posters seem to hold, an inevitable part of the situation. If the outcome of the civil war would have been decided early on, perhaps they would have played a diminished role.

[Morch]

On 9/17/2017 at 7:52 PM, FritsSikkink said:

Another USA backed regime?

 

Possibly, although when it comes to the ME that doesn't mean all that much nowadays. My post had less to do with the supposed loyalties of such a hypothetical regime, and more with presenting an alternative to taken for granted views. As posted on past topics, the issues dealt with were more about Assad's rule, and less with the Russia/USA affiliation of an alternative government. For example, not much issues if Assad's Russian patrons would have "advised" on a assured safe "retirement", followed by another of their cronies (if less murderous) taking Assad's place. If it would have meant the civil war being brought to an earlier end, with less blood spilled and less bad blood between various factions - all for it.

[Morch]

On 9/17/2017 at 7:31 PM, ilostmypassword said:

This is exactly the same kind of thinking that preceded the second Iraq war: if you didn't support the war that meant that you were a supporter of Hussein. Good thing that those Saddam supporters didn't prevail and the clear thinkers who pushed them aside did.

 

And the mirror image would be - either you denounce the USA or you support the war. Pointing out that there are various parties involved (many of which are not the USA nor affiliated with) bearing responsibility to the current state of things seems to annoy some posters.

 

[Morch]

On 9/17/2017 at 7:34 PM, Machiavelli said:

I knew you were going to say that. I posted that intentionally knowing that you are so deeply plugged into American mainstream propaganda you don't even realise its government controlled. You think CNN is not controlled by interests?  You are so naive. 

 

On 9/17/2017 at 9:02 PM, Machiavelli said:

I could try CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes and all liberal gibberish but the American president says they are FAKE NEWS. Which source did you have in mind?

 

Which is it, then? "government controlled" or "fake news"?

 

 

[Morch]

On 9/18/2017 at 5:52 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

And Washington has ended it's support for the rebels.

Donald Trump, God bless him for doing this, has already said so. And the war will end soon. Hezbollah has already declared victory, the Russians know that the remaining rebels are still there, Russia knows that bits of Syria still need to be re-taken by Assad.


And the two articles you've put above. It doesn't change the issue of how France and Britain are only there because Washington is there. It doesn't change the issue that the amount of action being done by Washington is far greater that the stuff being done by France and Britain.
Okay, the impact of France and Britain in Syria is greater than their impact in the South China Sea and North Korea, but that just means the impact is greater than very little.

 

Guess going from feigning ignorance of involvement to a relative claim can be called progress. But if adopting a relative approach as to various countries' involvement, then Russia and Iran would come way ahead - not sure if that's quite the argument you wished to make.

 

The Trump administration declared a halt with regard to one venue of support, not all. Main example being US support to the SDF was not stopped. The SDF is controlling quite a bit of Northern Syria, and although focused on fighting ISIS, doubtful that it will submit to Assad's rule when the Islamists are dispensed with.

 

Quote

Lapin made no reference to a swathe of territory held in northern Syria by an alliance of U.S.-backed militias - the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) which is led by the Kurdish YPG and is not at war with Assad. The Observatory said SDF-held territory amounts to 23 percent of Syria.

 

[Morch]

On 9/18/2017 at 5:57 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

I would like to add to the above point, I don't wish to see British soldiers (ground forces) in Syria. That's because I don't think British soldiers should be put into a dangerous situation. And I reckon that any British soldiers inside Syria means that they are in a dangerous situation.

 

Being put in dangerous situations comes with the territory of being a soldier. One can argue whether or not troop presence in Syria is justified in terms of national security etc. - but that's not exactly the same thing as what you posted.