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

[craigt3365]

14 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

From that article:

Quote

No one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown, rather than resulting from “foreign influence,” as alleged by some Middle Eastern leaders.

 

[simple1]

25 minutes ago, manarak said:

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

There are many reports, some detailed, including the names of prisons and so on of the Assad dictatorship deep involvement with Islamists for self serving purposes over a number of years. IMO the article I linked too gave a good overview of the history. if you're so interested I'm sure you can dig up the underpinning empirical info.

[observer90210]

Here is how it began...A long time ago, far far away!!©

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340101/t/bin-laden-comes-home-roost/

 

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by observer90210

[manarak]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

From that article:
No one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown, rather than resulting from “foreign influence,” as alleged by some Middle Eastern leaders.

yes, the article doesn't mention Syria and does state the above. I guess the author wanted to clearly draw a line that he didn't want to cross in order to not get in trouble.

 

But if you read below that line, you will have to ask yourself why "operatives" of these US NGOs, financed by the US Government, undertook ultra-high risk operations to teach opponents in countries such as Yemen how to leverage social media.

 

[Thorgal]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

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

 

From OP :

 

"The government's most recent advances have recovered swathes of territory in eastern Syria from Islamic State, which is being targeted in the same region by U.S.-backed Kurdish and Arab militias."

 

One could ask himself what the US backed rebels contributed in liberating radical Islamism...in Syria (and elsewhere...)

 

Many here like me are convinced that they should sort out a solution between themselves without inter-continental or imperial interference...

Edited September 14, 2017 by Thorgal

[Morch]

18 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

From OP :

 

"The government's most recent advances have recovered swathes of territory in eastern Syria from Islamic State, which is being targeted in the same region by U.S.-backed Kurdish and Arab militias."

 

One could ask himself what the US backed rebels contributed in liberating radical Islamism...in Syria (and elsewhere...)

 

Many here like me are convinced that they should sort out a solution between themselves without inter-continental or imperial interference...

 

The "US backed rebels" received significantly less military support from the US, compared to Russia and Iran's support of Assad's regime. Further, the composition of the US-supported forces is such, that internal issues crop up, and political considerations are applied with regard to operations. The "elsewhere" bit is unclear, but not unusual.

 

Can't recall you objecting to Russian or Iranian involvement.   

[The Deerhunter]

On 14/09/2017 at 3:06 PM, Morch said:

 

Assad's regime was enjoying Russia's and Iran's support from the very start. Not necessarily, to counter expected nitpicking arguments, in the form of troop and weapon deployment - but through maintaining financial and military supply lines, or providing diplomatic protection in the UN. Whether or not Assad's regime would have been able to overcome his secular and sectarian opponents without such support is debatable.

 

 

The world was naively hoping he couldn't and that Russia wouldn't intervene.  That much was a lost hope before it started.  Oil and Russia's much needed influence in the region was at stake.  So obvious.  They would never let Assad be overthrown.

[tonbridgebrit]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The "US backed rebels" received significantly less military support from the US, compared to Russia and Iran's support of Assad's regime. Further, the composition of the US-supported forces is such, that internal issues crop up, and political considerations are applied with regard to operations. The "elsewhere" bit is unclear, but not unusual.

 

Can't recall you objecting to Russian or Iranian involvement.   

Morch, do you reckon that it would have been better if Washington had of given more aid to the rebels ?

I mean, Assad is now going to survive, with Russia and Iran/Hezbollah supporting him. If Washington had of given more aid to the rebels, then, it might be the rebels being victorious, and not Assad being victorious. The rebels being in control of Syria right now, different rebel groups being in control of different parts of Syria, do you reckon this would be a better situation than what we have now ?

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, do you reckon that it would have been better if Washington had of given more aid to the rebels ?

I mean, Assad is now going to survive, with Russia and Iran/Hezbollah supporting him. If Washington had of given more aid to the rebels, then, it might be the rebels being victorious, and not Assad being victorious. The rebels being in control of Syria right now, different rebel groups being in control of different parts of Syria, do you reckon this would be a better situation than what we have now ?

Assad's survival is far from guaranteed.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, do you reckon that it would have been better if Washington had of given more aid to the rebels ?

I mean, Assad is now going to survive, with Russia and Iran/Hezbollah supporting him. If Washington had of given more aid to the rebels, then, it might be the rebels being victorious, and not Assad being victorious. The rebels being in control of Syria right now, different rebel groups being in control of different parts of Syria, do you reckon this would be a better situation than what we have now ?

 

Assad's survival was hardly a sure thing until later stages of the civil war. Perhaps, if Assad's regime was lacking the support afforded by Russia and Iran (as opposed to rebels getting minimal support to begin with), or if Russia wasn't bent on blocking almost all UNSC initiatives, things would have panned out differently.

 

Implying that some of the conditions which became prevalent later on (such as fragmentation of the opposition, Islamic groups becoming more prominent) were inevitable is not necessarily true. At least in part, they could be attributed for the civil war dragging on, and support for the rebels being inconsistent.

 

Would deposing Assad's early on have meant the fragmentation of Syria? Hard to say. I don't think it would have resulted in anything resembling the civil war as it actually evolved. There may have been a restructuring of sorts, or a different distribution of power, but perhaps with less bad blood, loss of life and destruction involved.

 

[tonbridgebrit]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Assad's survival was hardly a sure thing until later stages of the civil war. Perhaps, if Assad's regime was lacking the support afforded by Russia and Iran (as opposed to rebels getting minimal support to begin with), or if Russia wasn't bent on blocking almost all UNSC initiatives, things would have panned out differently.

 

Implying that some of the conditions which became prevalent later on (such as fragmentation of the opposition, Islamic groups becoming more prominent) were inevitable is not necessarily true. At least in part, they could be attributed for the civil war dragging on, and support for the rebels being inconsistent.

 

Would deposing Assad's early on have meant the fragmentation of Syria? Hard to say. I don't think it would have resulted in anything resembling the civil war as it actually evolved. There may have been a restructuring of sorts, or a different distribution of power, but perhaps with less bad blood, loss of life and destruction involved.

 

So, what you're saying is this "when the fighting first started, Washington should have sent massive aid to the rebels, this should have been done BEFORE Russia and Iran/Hezbollah did their massive support for Assad, and this would have removed Assad early on, and this would have prevented the mass destruction of Syria due to the civil war"  ??

So, Washington's error was to support the rebels, but not support the rebels earlier on. 

[tonbridgebrit]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Assad's survival is far from guaranteed.

Yes, it's possible that Washington might actually re-start the support, and give massive support, to the rebels. And this will take us back to the previous situation, where there is a big chance of Assad being removed. I don't think this will happen.

What might happen is this. Once Assad has got complete control of Syria, then, Russia might remove Assad, and replace him with a new man. That way, Washington and Europe will be happy. It means that the man that Washington did not want, Assad, will no longer be there. However, I don't think the Russians will bother doing this.

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Yes, it's possible that Washington might actually re-start the support, and give massive support, to the rebels. And this will take us back to the previous situation, where there is a big chance of Assad being removed. I don't think this will happen.

What might happen is this. Once Assad has got complete control of Syria, then, Russia might remove Assad, and replace him with a new man. That way, Washington and Europe will be happy. It means that the man that Washington did not want, Assad, will no longer be there. However, I don't think the Russians will bother doing this.

You're like a broken record.  Everything is about Washington.  You've got a real fixation here.  Support is from his people.  Which right now, is not strong.  Without the backing of Russia and his army, he'd be gone.  Washington or not.

 

As you say, Russia doesn't care about him.  They only want puppets.

[Morch]

59 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

So, what you're saying is this "when the fighting first started, Washington should have sent massive aid to the rebels, this should have been done BEFORE Russia and Iran/Hezbollah did their massive support for Assad, and this would have removed Assad early on, and this would have prevented the mass destruction of Syria due to the civil war"  ??

So, Washington's error was to support the rebels, but not support the rebels earlier on. 

 

I concur with the previously made broken record observation.

 

The post I made was qualified. Your twisted version of it, isn't. Didn't say the US should have done anything, but was commented on how things may have taken a different turn, under different conditions. There was no definitive assertion that had the US and Russia acted other than how they did, things would have panned out in a specific way.

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You're like a broken record.  Everything is about Washington.  You've got a real fixation here.  Support is from his people.  Which right now, is not strong.  Without the backing of Russia and his army, he'd be gone.  Washington or not.

 

As you say, Russia doesn't care about him.  They only want puppets.

Okay, I'm saying that I will criticise Washington massively if Washington decides to re-start giving aid to the rebels. Giving aid, massive aid, will simply take us back to Assad struggling to remove the rebels. Do you feel the same way ? Do you reckon that it would be a bad idea if Washington (as in, the US government) re-starts giving aid to the rebels ?

About Assad. Would it make you happier if Russia removes Assad after Assad has re-taken the whole of Syria ? Or, do you reckon "well, once Assad has re-taken the whole of Syria with Russia and Hezbollah/Iran supporting him, well, what on earth difference does it make if Assad stays or goes away". I think Washington doesn't really care if Assad goes or stays after he has re-taken the whole of Syria. The whole point of giving aid to the rebels was surely, to prevent Assad re-taking Syria in the first place. Once Assad  has re-taken the whole of Syria (with Russia and Hezbollah/Iran) well, that's it, Washington is longer interested in seeing him gone.

That's why I reckon that Russia won't bother to remove Assad. I mean, why do it, when nobody is interested in his removal ? His removal, after re-taking Syria.

[craigt3365]

17 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, I'm saying that I will criticise Washington massively if Washington decides to re-start giving aid to the rebels. Giving aid, massive aid, will simply take us back to Assad struggling to remove the rebels. Do you feel the same way ? Do you reckon that it would be a bad idea if Washington (as in, the US government) re-starts giving aid to the rebels ?

About Assad. Would it make you happier if Russia removes Assad after Assad has re-taken the whole of Syria ? Or, do you reckon "well, once Assad has re-taken the whole of Syria with Russia and Hezbollah/Iran supporting him, well, what on earth difference does it make if Assad stays or goes away". I think Washington doesn't really care if Assad goes or stays after he has re-taken the whole of Syria. The whole point of giving aid to the rebels was surely, to prevent Assad re-taking Syria in the first place. Once Assad  has re-taken the whole of Syria (with Russia and Hezbollah/Iran) well, that's it, Washington is longer interested in seeing him gone.

That's why I reckon that Russia won't bother to remove Assad. I mean, why do it, when nobody is interested in his removal ? His removal, after re-taking Syria.

[Thorgal]

On 15-9-2017 at 4:12 AM, Morch said:

 

The "US backed rebels" received significantly less military support from the US, compared to Russia and Iran's support of Assad's regime. Further, the composition of the US-supported forces is such, that internal issues crop up, and political considerations are applied with regard to operations. The "elsewhere" bit is unclear, but not unusual.

 

Can't recall you objecting to Russian or Iranian involvement.   

The claim of "less military support from the US" can't be proven. The real figures will never be published, which is obvious. You've just provided another assumption.

The US-supported forces create sectarian separation all over the country. You must have missed that one too.

The 'elsewhere' is rather off topic, but not excluding Lybia, Egypt, Tunesia and Yemen.

 

I won't object Russia or Iran, because they had nothing to do with all the above...

[tonbridgebrit]

5 hours ago, Thorgal said:

The claim of "less military support from the US" can't be proven. The real figures will never be published, which is obvious. You've just provided another assumption.

The US-supported forces create sectarian separation all over the country. You must have missed that one too.

The 'elsewhere' is rather off topic, but not excluding Lybia, Egypt, Tunesia and Yemen.

 

I won't object Russia or Iran, because they had nothing to do with all the above...

"The real figures will never be published, which is obvious."
They never will be.  Washington does not want the American people to know what's really happening with American foreign policy in the Middle East.

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, Thorgal said:

The claim of "less military support from the US" can't be proven. The real figures will never be published, which is obvious. You've just provided another assumption.

The US-supported forces create sectarian separation all over the country. You must have missed that one too.

The 'elsewhere' is rather off topic, but not excluding Lybia, Egypt, Tunesia and Yemen.

 

I won't object Russia or Iran, because they had nothing to do with all the above...

All belligerents there are creating sectarian separation all over the country.  You seem to forget it's turned into a religious war. 

 

Iran has nothing to do with the above?  You're not following the events in the Middle East very closely.  They are at the heart of the problems.  Amazing you don't see that and only blame the US.

 

As for Russia, well....

http://time.com/4739488/isis-iraq-syria-tunisia-saudi-arabia-russia/

 

Quote

 

The Top 5 Countries Where ISIS Gets Its Foreign Recruits

Russian President Vladimir Putin himself estimates that between 5,000 and 7,000 people from Russia and other former Soviet republics have traveled to Syria to take up arms with ISIS and other militants. For Russia, the fight against Islamic terrorism is oftentimes a fight with itself.

 

 

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"The real figures will never be published, which is obvious."
They never will be.  Washington does not want the American people to know what's really happening with American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Name one belligerent that publishes exact into on their involvement? LOL  Again, only focusing on "Washington".

[Morch]

15 hours ago, Thorgal said:

The claim of "less military support from the US" can't be proven. The real figures will never be published, which is obvious. You've just provided another assumption.

The US-supported forces create sectarian separation all over the country. You must have missed that one too.

The 'elsewhere' is rather off topic, but not excluding Lybia, Egypt, Tunesia and Yemen.

 

I won't object Russia or Iran, because they had nothing to do with all the above...

 

The usual nonsense.

 

The rebels did not have anything resembling the military support afforded to Assad's forces by Russia and Iran. Not in terms of direct aerial support, not in terms of boots on the ground, and not in terms of the weapons provided. You are simply out there asserting otherwise. Assad's forces were not even (except for isolated instances) targeted by US forces or their allies.

 

As for the "real figures", there were various estimates, several based on official records as to the extent of US support to groups involved in the Syrian civil war. Similar reports with regard to the extent of Iranian and Russian support. Spin as you like, it will not be more than Iranian and Russian arms deal with Assad's regime, nor the cost of maintaining their operations and presence in country. As pointed out elsewhere in topic, countries do not normally provide a full public accounting of all such related expenditure, or all inclusive exact details of such dealings. Most of the reports rely on estimates, which are fairly grounded in reality, regardless of your dismissal.

 

Sectarianism was present in Syria long before US forces were ever involved. It is embedded in the country's essence. Just another nothing talking point. Perhaps is it your learned view that Assad's Alawaite elite rule, Turkmen discontent, or Kurdish ambitions all stem from something to do with the US.

 

You won't object to Russia and Iran because it goes against the pushed anti-US narrative. Nothing more. Your original comment was about "inter-continental or imperial interference". This may describe both Iranian and Russian interests as well. Asserting that neither had anything to do with "all of the above" is a contrived nothing retort.  

[Morch]

10 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"The real figures will never be published, which is obvious."
They never will be.  Washington does not want the American people to know what's really happening with American foreign policy in the Middle East.

 

There were figures approved and released detailing some of the aid provided to Assad's opposition. There were further, unofficial, but serious reports and estimates as to other, undisclosed efforts. These have been linked numerous times, or appeared in various OP's on this forum. Similar reports, if less detailed and less forthcoming, dealt with the extent of the support received by Assad's regime from both Russia and Iran - again, some are matter of official record (such as major arms deals), some are well-researched  estimates. Don't see you rushing to denounce either Russia's or Iran's less than full disclosure, or asserting that they are trying to hide anything.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

All belligerents there are creating sectarian separation all over the country.  You seem to forget it's turned into a religious war. 

 

Iran has nothing to do with the above?  You're not following the events in the Middle East very closely.  They are at the heart of the problems.  Amazing you don't see that and only blame the US.

 

As for Russia, well....

http://time.com/4739488/isis-iraq-syria-tunisia-saudi-arabia-russia/

 

 

 

And then there's this...

 

Iran recruits Pakistani Shi'ites for combat in Syria

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-pakistan-iran/iran-recruits-pakistani-shiites-for-combat-in-syria-idUSKBN0TT22S20151210

 

Iran recruits Afghan and Pakistani Shia to fight in Syria

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/iran-recruits-afghan-and-pakistani-shiites-to-fight-in-syria/articleshow/60709801.cms

 

That's without counting Hezbollah, of course.

 

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And then there's this...

 

Iran recruits Pakistani Shi'ites for combat in Syria

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-pakistan-iran/iran-recruits-pakistani-shiites-for-combat-in-syria-idUSKBN0TT22S20151210

 

Iran recruits Afghan and Pakistani Shia to fight in Syria

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/iran-recruits-afghan-and-pakistani-shiites-to-fight-in-syria/articleshow/60709801.cms

 

That's without counting Hezbollah, of course.

 

But, but, but...It's all "Washington's" fault. LOL

[Thorgal]

 
The usual nonsense.
 
The rebels did not have anything resembling the military support afforded to Assad's forces by Russia and Iran. Not in terms of direct aerial support, not in terms of boots on the ground, and not in terms of the weapons provided. You are simply out there asserting otherwise. Assad's forces were not even (except for isolated instances) targeted by US forces or their allies.
 
As for the "real figures", there were various estimates, several based on official records as to the extent of US support to groups involved in the Syrian civil war. Similar reports with regard to the extent of Iranian and Russian support. Spin as you like, it will not be more than Iranian and Russian arms deal with Assad's regime, nor the cost of maintaining their operations and presence in country. As pointed out elsewhere in topic, countries do not normally provide a full public accounting of all such related expenditure, or all inclusive exact details of such dealings. Most of the reports rely on estimates, which are fairly grounded in reality, regardless of your dismissal.
 
Sectarianism was present in Syria long before US forces were ever involved. It is embedded in the country's essence. Just another nothing talking point. Perhaps is it your learned view that Assad's Alawaite elite rule, Turkmen discontent, or Kurdish ambitions all stem from something to do with the US.
 
You won't object to Russia and Iran because it goes against the pushed anti-US narrative. Nothing more. Your original comment was about "inter-continental or imperial interference". This may describe both Iranian and Russian interests as well. Asserting that neither had anything to do with "all of the above" is a contrived nothing retort.  

No problem if you prefer to continue with estimates while you claim exactitude.

A Russian rescue helicopter in Turkmen region was neutralised with a TOW missile by US backed Turkmen rebels. TOW missile is not really an equipment that you can find on Amazon or eBay.

The Kurdish combatants have US special forces with them as 'military advisors'. Still no link to the US?

Bringing up these facts has nothing to do with anti-US sentiments. It's highly advised to analyse and check facts and figures from this conflict, instead of promoting estimates with no relevancy.





Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Thorgal said:

 

No problem if you prefer to continue with estimates while you claim exactitude.

A Russian rescue helicopter in Turkmen region was neutralised with a TOW missile by US backed Turkmen rebels. TOW missile is not really an equipment that you can find on Amazon or eBay.

The Kurdish combatants have US special forces with them as 'military advisors'. Still no link to the US?

Bringing up these facts has nothing to do with anti-US sentiments. It's highly advised to analyse and check facts and figures from this conflict, instead of promoting estimates with no relevancy.





Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Again, some of the related figures were made public some weren't. There are quite a few reports and serious assessments of overall support. These were linked and discussed on previous topics, dismissing it all in a one liner won't change facts. To illustrate, the cost of one aircraft, or helicopter (not to mention maintenance and fuel costs) delivered to or operated on in support of Assad's forces puts a whole lot of TOW missiles to shame. I did not even mention exact figures, that's just another spin.

 

So, the having a TOW missile is direct evidence of massive US aid and intervention, while having a Russian operated helicopter is not indicative of anything. Got to love the logic.

 

US special forces embedded, training and working with Kurdish combatants was not denied in my post. Rather, it was the broad brush, and off mark labeling the US as somehow responsible for sectarianism and separatism in Syria. And the same "logic" exhibited in the previous example is up again - US forces aiding opposition combatants is bad, not a word about Iranian and Russian forces lending similar (and greater) assistance to Assad's forces.

 

Putting up out of context "facts", ignoring any real facts not in line with the narrative pushed - these do nothing to strengthen you argument, or to hide the anti-US sentiment.

[craigt3365]

31 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

No problem if you prefer to continue with estimates while you claim exactitude.

A Russian rescue helicopter in Turkmen region was neutralised with a TOW missile by US backed Turkmen rebels. TOW missile is not really an equipment that you can find on Amazon or eBay.

The Kurdish combatants have US special forces with them as 'military advisors'. Still no link to the US?

Bringing up these facts has nothing to do with anti-US sentiments. It's highly advised to analyse and check facts and figures from this conflict, instead of promoting estimates with no relevancy.

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Please provide a credible link to this.  RT doesn't cut it.

 

How about we discuss all the times the rebels (not IS) have been killed by Russian weapons?  

[Thorgal]

 

To my knowledge it's still a war for regime change. No religious war at all...

Hezbollah militants counts mainly Shia Muslims, but also Sunni Muslims and Christians.

Russian troops have mainly Russian Orthodox soldiers fighting with their Syrian Army soldiers against all Syrian rebels.
The Syrian Army counts Christians, Alawites, Alevites, Sunni & Shia, Yazedi soldiers.

The Syrian rebels and franchise, are Sunni Salafist iconoclasts.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Thorgal]

Please provide a credible link to this.  RT doesn't cut it.

 

How about we discuss all the times the rebels (not IS) have been killed by Russian weapons?  

 

Credible link to what and what is credible to you ?

 

http://kurdishdailynews.org/2015/11/24/turkmen-and-al-nusra-terrorists-destroy-russian-helicopter-with-tow-missile/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/30/kurdish-fighters-us-special-forces-isis-combat

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

To my knowledge it's still a war for regime change. No religious war at all...

Hezbollah militants counts mainly Shia Muslims, but also Sunni Muslims and Christians.

Russian troops have mainly Russian Orthodox soldiers fighting with their Syrian Army soldiers against all Syrian rebels.
The Syrian Army counts Christians, Alawites, Alevites, Sunni & Shia, Yazedi soldiers.

The Syrian rebels and franchise, are Sunni Salafist iconoclasts.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Same old off topic deflections.