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

[craigt3365]

18 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, I have to admit you do have a point about what Morch said. But that the Syrian non fundamentalist oppostion was ever a serious threat to the regime is a dubious proposition.  It was only with the advent of money and materiel from the Sunni states, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar with their aid to fundamentalist forces, that the Syrian regime became seriously endangered.

The Syrian non fundamentalist opposition was the initial threat to Assad.  The nuts came in after Assad and the Russians starting killing innocent civilians.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

The Syrian non fundamentalist opposition was the initial threat to Assad.  The nuts came in after Assad and the Russians starting killing innocent civilians.

And by itself, it wasn't much of a threat.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

His secular or at least relatively secular opponents as recent history shows would have been easily overcome without help from any outsiders. Militarily speaking, they weren't up to much. And let's not forget Turkish invasion of Syria or the American aided Kurdish incursion.

What we do know is that Syria is a sovereign nation, and its government does have a right to get military aid from other nations. Whether outside nations have a right to support rebels is a dicier question. And it stops being dicey when the aid is massive., 

Assad would have been easily overcome without the help from any outsiders. LOL

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

His secular or at least relatively secular opponents as recent history shows would have been easily overcome without help from any outsiders. Militarily speaking, they weren't up to much. And let's not forget Turkish invasion of Syria or the American aided Kurdish incursion.

What we do know is that Syria is a sovereign nation, and its government does have a right to get military aid from other nations. Whether outside nations have a right to support rebels is a dicier question. And it stops being dicey when the aid is massive., 

 

Let's try this again.

 

Your original post was about the involvement of countries opposed to Assad's regime prolonging the war. The counter claim is that to begin with, it was Assad's regime which enjoyed foreign support.

 

Some of the main advantages the Assad regime had over the rebels were ongoing military supplies, ongoing financial support and shielding from international diplomatic initiatives. Had these been absent, or indeed, if Russia was to exert its influence on Assad, things could have been resolved earlier.

 

That you declare that Assad's forces would have easily overcome their opponents even without outside support is not supported by anything much, and anyway - there were no such circumstances.

 

As a sovereign country, Syria may ask and receive foreign aid. Some countries place limitations on arms sales to such countries, perhaps more so when the regime in question's conduct is less then exemplary. Some do not. Iran, and more so, Russia, went the extra mile there. Hard to claim that their actions had nothing to do with prolonging the war. As to how legitimate Assad's regime was at the outset of the civil war, there could be various opinions (or perhaps rather, how illegitimate was the opposition).

 

[observer90210]

Why should all this mess Stop in the first place?....What will become of our poor arms dealing nations if peace set's in?!!!!

[onthesoi]

40 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The Syrian non fundamentalist opposition was the initial threat to Assad.  The nuts came in after Assad and the Russians starting killing innocent civilians.

 

I see you're rewriting history again Craig:

 

Rise of Islamists

 

2013 December - US and Britain suspend "non-lethal" support for rebels in northern Syria after reports that Islamist rebels seized bases of Western-backed Free Syrian Army.

 

2014 June - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants declare "caliphate" in territory from Aleppo to eastern Iraqi province of Diyala.

 

2014 September - US and five Arab countries launch air strikes against Islamic State around Aleppo and Raqqa.

 

2015 January - Kurdish forces push Islamic State out of Kobane on Turkish border after four months of fighting.

 

2015 May - Islamic State fighters seize the ancient city of Palmyra in central Syria and proceed to destroy many monuments at pre-Islamic World Heritage site.

 

Russian intervention

2015 September - Russia carries out its first air strikes in Syria, saying they target the Islamic State group, but the West and Syrian opposition say it overwhelmingly targets anti-Assad rebels.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

I see you're rewriting history again Craig:

 

Rise of Islamists

 

2013 December - US and Britain suspend "non-lethal" support for rebels in northern Syria after reports that Islamist rebels seized bases of Western-backed Free Syrian Army.

 

2014 June - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants declare "caliphate" in territory from Aleppo to eastern Iraqi province of Diyala.

 

2014 September - US and five Arab countries launch air strikes against Islamic State around Aleppo and Raqqa.

 

2015 January - Kurdish forces push Islamic State out of Kobane on Turkish border after four months of fighting.

 

2015 May - Islamic State fighters seize the ancient city of Palmyra in central Syria and proceed to destroy many monuments at pre-Islamic World Heritage site.

 

Russian intervention

2015 September - Russia carries out its first air strikes in Syria, saying they target the Islamic State group, but the West and Syrian opposition say it overwhelmingly targets anti-Assad rebels.

You are spot on!  Islamists didn't come onto the scene until 2013.  The civil war started in 2011.  Proved my point.  Thanks!  And yes, Russia came in later, but with the bombings, helped suck in the nuts in even greater numbers. 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

You are spot on!  Islamists didn't come onto the scene until 2013.  The civil war started in 2011.  Proved my point.  Thanks!  And yes, Russia came in later, but with the bombings, helped suck in the nuts in even greater numbers. 

Islamists came on the scene  early in 2012 or possibly even earlier.

The group [Jabhat al-Nusra], which has parallels with al-Qaeda, is the largest and most hardline of a score of jihadist organisations whose brutal methods – including beheadings – have shifted the dynamics of what had previously been a mostly moderate Sunni opposition.

The first attack for which Jabhat al-Nusra claimed responsibility came on Jan 6 this year – 10 months after the first anti-Assad protests began – when a suicide bomber blew up buses in the central Damascus district of Al-Midan that were carrying riot police to an anti-government protest. More than 26 people, mostly civilians, were killed.

Since then the use of suicide bombings or remotely detonated car bombs has dramatically increased, with Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups launching dozens of attacks against government positions each month. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9716545/Inside-Jabhat-al-Nusra-the-most-extreme-wing-of-Syrias-struggle.html

 

 

 

 

[onthesoi]

18 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You are spot on!  Islamists didn't come onto the scene until 2013.  The civil war started in 2011.  Proved my point.  Thanks!  And yes, Russia came in later, but with the bombings, helped suck in the nuts in even greater numbers. 

 

Ah. not even man enough to admit you are wrong, instead moving the goal posts with some unrelated nonsense not being discussed

 

I'll just put these two posts side by side with the real timeline so everyone can see how dishonest you are ;0

 

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

The Syrian non fundamentalist opposition was the initial threat to Assad.  The nuts came in after Assad and the Russians starting killing innocent civilians.

 

Rise of Islamists

 

2013 December - US and Britain suspend "non-lethal" support for rebels in northern Syria after reports that Islamist rebels seized bases of Western-backed Free Syrian Army.

 

2014 June - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants declare "caliphate" in territory from Aleppo to eastern Iraqi province of Diyala.

 

2014 September - US and five Arab countries launch air strikes against Islamic State around Aleppo and Raqqa.

 

2015 January - Kurdish forces push Islamic State out of Kobane on Turkish border after four months of fighting.

 

2015 May - Islamic State fighters seize the ancient city of Palmyra in central Syria and proceed to destroy many monuments at pre-Islamic World Heritage site.

 

Russian intervention

2015 September - Russia carries out its first air strikes in Syria, saying they target the Islamic State group, but the West and Syrian opposition say it overwhelmingly targets anti-Assad rebels.

 

 

[simple1]

Seems some of you are forgetting Assad released Islamists from his prisons at the beginning on the Syrian Arab Spring, as well as a long history of enabling Islamists to enter the war in Iraq and elsewhere. Good article covering these issues...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/assad-fanned-the-flames-of-extremism-the-syrian-dictator-is-already-responsible-for-more-deaths-than-a6762361.html

[onthesoi]

15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Islamists came on the scene  early in 2012 or possibly even earlier.

Bang on, ....it was only officially acknowledged in 2012,  it took the US/UK a few years to work out how they would spin to the media the fact they were supplying ISIS with weapons and air support.

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Seems some of you are forgetting Assad released Islamists from his prisons at the beginning on the Syrian Arab Spring, as well as a long history of enabling Islamists to enter the war in Iraq and elsewhere. Good article covering these issues...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/assad-fanned-the-flames-of-extremism-the-syrian-dictator-is-already-responsible-for-more-deaths-than-a6762361.html

based on the notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is from the article:

"Professor Peter Neumann, the London-based expert on security and radicalisation, has detailed how Assad and his intelligence chiefs actively encouraged Syrian extremists to fight in Iraq after the 2003 invasion led by America. Their logic was many would die or disappear, while the insurgency would weaken Western resolve to topple despotic regimes (since many senior figures feared their nation might be next.) They even released Islamist prisoners and gave them military training."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/assad-fanned-the-flames-of-extremism-the-syrian-dictator-is-already-responsible-for-more-deaths-than-a6762361.html

 

Assad is hardly the only person to have made that mistake.

Come to think of it, was it an understandable mistake. At the time some close advisors of the Bush adminstration  were talking about leading an army across the mideast once Iraq was taken care of  to overthrow tyrannies and to establish other democracies. 

[onthesoi]

20 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Seems some of you are forgetting Assad released Islamists from his prisons at the beginning on the Syrian Arab Spring, as well as a long history of enabling Islamists to enter the war in Iraq and elsewhere. Good article covering these issues...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/assad-fanned-the-flames-of-extremism-the-syrian-dictator-is-already-responsible-for-more-deaths-than-a6762361.html

 

I would suggest the greatest motivation for militants heading for Iraq was the US invasion and the tens/hundreds of thousands civilians murdered in the process, the article seems to shy away from that fact and tries to blame Assad.

 

Professor Peter Neumann, the London-based expert on security and radicalisation, has detailed how Assad and his intelligence chiefs actively encouraged Syrian extremists to fight in Iraq after the 2003 invasion led by America. Their logic was many would die or disappear, while the insurgency would weaken Western resolve to topple despotic regimes (since many senior figures feared their nation might be next.) They even released Islamist prisoners and gave them military training. The result was Syria became the key entry point for foreign jihadists heading to Iraq and a hotbed for fundamentalists.

 

 

The logic in bold is sound if you consider the US aggression right on Assad's doorstep.

 

[craigt3365]

30 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

Ah. not even man enough to admit you are wrong, instead moving the goal posts with some unrelated nonsense not being discussed

 

I'll just put these two posts side by side with the real timeline so everyone can see how dishonest you are ;0

 

 

Rise of Islamists

 

2013 December - US and Britain suspend "non-lethal" support for rebels in northern Syria after reports that Islamist rebels seized bases of Western-backed Free Syrian Army.

 

2014 June - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants declare "caliphate" in territory from Aleppo to eastern Iraqi province of Diyala.

 

2014 September - US and five Arab countries launch air strikes against Islamic State around Aleppo and Raqqa.

 

2015 January - Kurdish forces push Islamic State out of Kobane on Turkish border after four months of fighting.

 

2015 May - Islamic State fighters seize the ancient city of Palmyra in central Syria and proceed to destroy many monuments at pre-Islamic World Heritage site.

 

Russian intervention

2015 September - Russia carries out its first air strikes in Syria, saying they target the Islamic State group, but the West and Syrian opposition say it overwhelmingly targets anti-Assad rebels.

 

 

The initial argument was that Islamists were not a major force until later in the civil war.  That was the point I was trying to make.  Sadly, a few seem to like to nitpick things to death.

[craigt3365]

29 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Seems some of you are forgetting Assad released Islamists from his prisons at the beginning on the Syrian Arab Spring, as well as a long history of enabling Islamists to enter the war in Iraq and elsewhere. Good article covering these issues...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/assad-fanned-the-flames-of-extremism-the-syrian-dictator-is-already-responsible-for-more-deaths-than-a6762361.html

Assad had worked with terrorists for years.  Spot on.

 

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n07/peter-neumann/suspects-into-collaborators

Quote

In the years that preceded the uprising, Assad and his intelligence services took the view that jihad could be nurtured and manipulated to serve the Syrian government’s aims. It was then that foreign jihadists first entered the country and helped to build the structures and supply lines that are now being used to fight the government. To that extent Assad is fighting an enemy he helped to create.

 

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Islamists came on the scene  early in 2012 or possibly even earlier.

The group [Jabhat al-Nusra], which has parallels with al-Qaeda, is the largest and most hardline of a score of jihadist organisations whose brutal methods – including beheadings – have shifted the dynamics of what had previously been a mostly moderate Sunni opposition.

The first attack for which Jabhat al-Nusra claimed responsibility came on Jan 6 this year – 10 months after the first anti-Assad protests began – when a suicide bomber blew up buses in the central Damascus district of Al-Midan that were carrying riot police to an anti-government protest. More than 26 people, mostly civilians, were killed.

Since then the use of suicide bombings or remotely detonated car bombs has dramatically increased, with Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups launching dozens of attacks against government positions each month. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9716545/Inside-Jabhat-al-Nusra-the-most-extreme-wing-of-Syrias-struggle.html

 

 

 

 

 

There were, back when, several articles linked including first hand accounts on how Islamic terrorists became more of a factor within the resistance to Assad's regime. Some of these accounts associated recent defeats suffered by anti-Assad forces (which, at the time were not enjoying all that much material support) and the following low moral, as the background.

 

These Islamic terrorists were more adept than civilian rebels or Syrian army deserters, when it came to fighting dirty within cities. They were also more ruthless, owing to their convictions. These things contributed to their appeal.

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

Bang on, ....it was only officially acknowledged in 2012,  it took the US/UK a few years to work out how they would spin to the media the fact they were supplying ISIS with weapons and air support.

 

Not "bang on" at all. The article linked wasn't about ISIS.

 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

I would suggest the greatest motivation for militants heading for Iraq was the US invasion and the tens/hundreds of thousands civilians murdered in the process, the article seems to shy away from that fact and tries to blame Assad.

 

Professor Peter Neumann, the London-based expert on security and radicalisation, has detailed how Assad and his intelligence chiefs actively encouraged Syrian extremists to fight in Iraq after the 2003 invasion led by America. Their logic was many would die or disappear, while the insurgency would weaken Western resolve to topple despotic regimes (since many senior figures feared their nation might be next.) They even released Islamist prisoners and gave them military training. The result was Syria became the key entry point for foreign jihadists heading to Iraq and a hotbed for fundamentalists.

 

 

The logic in bold is sound if you consider the US aggression right on Assad's doorstep.

 

 

I would suggest that there is a difference between what you assert as "the greatest motivation"  and defining it as "fact". Amazing how many hoops some posters are willing to jump through.

[onthesoi]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not "bang on" at all. The article linked wasn't about ISIS.

 

 

I wasn't referring to the article, I was referring to the fact that extremists were operating in Syria prior to 2012.

 

It should have been obvious from the post content I quoted:

 

Islamists came on the scene  early in 2012 or possibly even earlier.

 

No mention of the article or any links,

 

Just holler if you need more help using the internet.

 

[onthesoi]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I would suggest that there is a difference between what you assert as "the greatest motivation"  and defining it as "fact". Amazing how many hoops some posters are willing to jump through.

 

I think your making stuff up now, I said:

 

I would suggest the greatest motivation for militants heading for Iraq was the US invasion

 

Where did I declare it as being fact?

 

& Why is "fact" in quotation marks, who are you quoting?

 

It makes me laugh Morch, how you always rush for the strawman reply when you have nothing.

[onthesoi]

18 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Assad had worked with terrorists for years.  Spot on.

 

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n07/peter-neumann/suspects-into-collaborators

 

 

The US has been working with terrorists for even longer and in greater numbers:
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/us-support-for-al-qaeda-l_b_10089410.html

----------

 

Your point is?

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

I wasn't referring to the article, I was referring to the fact that extremists were operating in Syria prior to 2012.

 

It should have been obvious from the post content I quoted:

 

Islamists came on the scene  early in 2012 or possibly even earlier.

 

No mention of the article,

 

Just holler if you need more help using the internet.

 

 

 

The line in @ilostmypassword's post which you quoted appeared as it's part of the article. The line was referencing "Islamists", while the article dealt with Jabhat al-Nusra. Your post mentioned ISIS. ISIS wasn't present in Syria at the time, and was not directly armed by the US anyway.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

I think your making stuff up now, I said:

 

I would suggest the greatest motivation for militants heading for Iraq was the US invasion

 

Where did I declare it as being fact?

 

It makes me laugh Morch, how you always rush for the strawman reply when you have nothing.

 

 

Here is what you posted:

 

Quote

I would suggest the greatest motivation for militants heading for Iraq was the US invasion and the tens/hundreds of thousands civilians murdered in the process, the article seems to shy away from that fact and tries to blame Assad.

 

[manarak]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Seems some of you are forgetting Assad released Islamists from his prisons at the beginning on the Syrian Arab Spring, as well as a long history of enabling Islamists to enter the war in Iraq and elsewhere. Good article covering these issues...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/assad-fanned-the-flames-of-extremism-the-syrian-dictator-is-already-responsible-for-more-deaths-than-a6762361.html

this article is an opinion column ("voices"), not a factual article. It shouldn't be used to prove anything.

[onthesoi]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

The line in @ilostmypassword's post which you quoted appeared as it's part of the article.

 

Maybe your device settings need adjusting, here is how the post looks to everyone else:

 

 

[manarak]

this is a factual article in the NY Times that may shed some light on why Assad may have been forced to act the way he did:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html

[Morch]

Just now, onthesoi said:

 

Maybe your device settings need adjusting, here is how the post looks to everyone else:

 

 

 

I was referring as to how the original post you quoted from appeared...

[craigt3365]

27 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

The US has been working with terrorists for even longer and in greater numbers:
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/us-support-for-al-qaeda-l_b_10089410.html

----------

 

Your point is?

Ummm...this is about Syria, Hexbollah, Russia.  Amazing how far some get off topic.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, manarak said:

this is a factual article in the NY Times that may shed some light on why Assad may have been forced to act the way he did:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html

 

Other than being off topic, the article doesn't mention Syria. Even if  it did, there would be nothing in it that would support the assertion that Assad was "forced to act the way he did". 

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I was referring as to how the original post you quoted from appeared...

More nitpicking. LOL.  Amazing how it derails the entire conversation.