Word Association (2024)

[webfact]

Assad adviser says Turkish, U.S. forces 'illegal invaders' in Syria

 

A fighter of the Syrian Democratic Forces takes cover near the stadium in Raqqa. REUTERS/Erik De Castro

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.S. and Turkish troops are "illegal invader" forces on Syrian territory and Syria will "deal with" them, a top adviser to President Bashar al-Assad said on Tuesday.

 

Bouthaina Shaaban also said in a television interview that Damascus would not give up on the northern city of Raqqa, which was liberated from Islamic State last month by the U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

 

"Turkey today is a colonizer country, its forces on our soil are illegal, just as the American forces are on our soil illegally," she told Lebanese channel al-Mayadeen.

 

"We will deal with this issue as we deal with any illegal invader force on our lands," she said, without elaborating.

Assad's forces, helped by Russian air power and Iran-backed militias, have managed to reestablish control over most of Syria over the past two years.

 

The United States and Turkey are backing various rebel groups opposed to both Assad and to Islamic State. Turkey has started setting up observation points in Idlib province in northwest Syria under a deal with Assad's allies, Russia and Iran.

 

The U.S.-led coalition battling Islamic State in Syria has repeatedly said it does not seek to fight Assad's forces, though Washington and Ankara both want the president to step down.

 

The SDF has said Raqqa will be part of a decentralized "federal Syria" and hopes for a new phase of negotiations that will shore up Kurdish autonomy in northern Syria, but last Friday a senior Iranian official said Syrian government forces would advance soon to take the city.

 

"Everything is up to the Syrians and to discussions between Syrians, and there cannot be discussion on the division or cutting up of a part of the country or on so-called federalism," Shaaban said.

 

She added that what happened in Iraqi Kurdistan "should be a lesson" to the SDF, referring to Iraq's Kurdish leaders who suffered a major blow when the central government in Baghdad - backed by Iran and Turkey - retaliated against them for holding an independence referendum last month.

 

Shaaban also said comments by the Syrian foreign minister in September, when he said Damascus was open to negotiations with the Kurds over their demand for autonomy within Syria's borders, had been misinterpreted.

 

"I don't think any government can discuss with any group when it comes to the topic of the country's unity," she said.

 

(Reporting by Sarah Dadouch; Editing by Gareth Jones)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-07

[Dagnabbit]

And he's absolutely right!

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

And he's absolutely right!

 

She is.

[tonbridgebrit]

Turkey, you're against the Kurds in Syria. How about you support Assad, Assad is trying to remove ALL rebels (that includes the Kurdish rebels) in Syria.

So you don't want to see a new Kurdish 'homeland' in northern Syria. There's no need for you to send your soldiers into Syria. Just let Assad get on with it. Maybe you should help Assad.

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Turkey, you're against the Kurds in Syria. How about you support Assad, Assad is trying to remove ALL rebels (that includes the Kurdish rebels) in Syria.

So you don't want to see a new Kurdish 'homeland' in northern Syria. There's no need for you to send your soldiers into Syria. Just let Assad get on with it. Maybe you should help Assad.

 

 

The Kurds and Assad's forces did not really clash during the civil war. Rebels how? The most they talk about is achieving autonomy within Syria. As for "removing" them...what's that about?

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The Kurds and Assad's forces did not really clash during the civil war. Rebels how? The most they talk about is achieving autonomy within Syria. As for "removing" them...what's that about?

 

 

And I'm sure that Assad believes them. Just as I'm sure he's thrilled that the Syrian Kurds right now are in possession of Syria's most productive oil fields. So I'm sure he's not all interested in removing them from said fields. And of course the Iranians and the Turks take great comfort in knowing that the most these Kurds talk about is achieving autonomy. I mean, the Kurds aren't rebels. They're just autonomists. This is a distinction well understood and tolerated in that region of the world.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And I'm sure that Assad believes them. Just as I'm sure he's thrilled that the Syrian Kurds right now are in possession of Syria's most productive oil fields. So I'm sure he's not all interested in removing them from said fields. And of course the Iranians and the Turks take great comfort in knowing that the most these Kurds talk about is achieving autonomy. I mean, the Kurds aren't rebels. They're just autonomists. This is a distinction well understood and tolerated in that region of the world.

 

No one said anything about Assad believing or trusting them. And this cuts both ways. There was nothing said about him being thrilled with their current hold of Syria's oil fields. There's no doubt that Assad wishes to remove the Kurds from this area, but doubt that's quite what the post I replied to was about, or that you didn't get it. As was posted on a recent topic dealing with this issue - the Kurds holding on to extra territory gained while fighting ISIS, is not an option and is not going to happen.

 

How things will pan out for the Syrian Kurds remains to be seen. It wouldn't necessarily be a solution cheered by all parties involved. Neither Turkey, nor Iran are interested in any concessions to Kurds, as it may present a precedent. That said, it is also doubtful that Assad's forces are in position to mount an all out attack on the Syrian Kurds other than in the areas taken from ISIS. Considering the tone of the article, it is hard to imagine an outright Syrian-Turkish cooperation. There's another party not mentioned in this connection, and that's Putin's Russia. There is no indication that he's keen on committing his air support to a full blown operation against the Kurds.

 

The Kurds hold their territorial gains as a bargaining chip, in the hope of getting some concessions. I don't think that their hold on these areas is secure, and they could probably be driven out, if it comes to that. Whether Assad is up for a bigger fight or not is hard to tell. IMO, his priority is getting them oil fields back, with the larger Kurdish issue maybe dealt with post-winter.

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.  

[connda]

Well, put the shoe on the other foot.  Assume the SAA was in the United States blowing the hell up out of American cities in the name of a war on terrorism <or whatever>.  Well, yeah.  That would be exactly the same as what the US is doing in Syria among other regions in the world.  So actually, it's a pretty valid point.
Just an observation. 

[boomerangutang]

Re; US troops stationed there at bases:  Turn off water and electric. Americans in a desert can't last an hour without air conditioning. 

 

US spends $20 Billion/yr on a/c for its troops in the M.East.  That's $548 million/day!    That's more than the entire NASA budget.

 

https://gizmodo.com/5813257/air-conditioning-our-military-costs-more-than-nasas-entire-budget

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by boomerangutang

[Stargeezr]

Assad is a war criminal and needs to be put on trial for his crimes asap. He is lucky to still be breathing air. My opinion of course

Geezer

[Morch]

13 hours ago, connda said:

Well, put the shoe on the other foot.  Assume the SAA was in the United States blowing the hell up out of American cities in the name of a war on terrorism <or whatever>.  Well, yeah.  That would be exactly the same as what the US is doing in Syria among other regions in the world.  So actually, it's a pretty valid point.
Just an observation. 

 

The cities "blown" were held by ISIS, so the "in the name of..." is out of order. Similar cities, some held not by ISIS, but by forces opposed to Assad (and yes, some were Islamic extremists) were "blown" by Russia's forces. Harping on this point is not quite what the OP is about, but rather the question of sovereignty. The USA could argue (but not, I think, very convincingly) that at the time the intervention was initiated, Assad's status as sovereign was challenged. 

[Morch]

13 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Re; US troops stationed there at bases:  Turn off water and electric. Americans in a desert can't last an hour without air conditioning. 

 

US spends $20 Billion/yr on a/c for its troops in the M.East.  That's $548 million/day!    That's more than the entire NASA budget.

 

https://gizmodo.com/5813257/air-conditioning-our-military-costs-more-than-nasas-entire-budget

 

 

 

 

In the context of the OP - which bases would those be, and who do you imagine is interested in or capable of turning off "water and electric"?

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

In the context of the OP - which bases would those be, and who do you imagine is interested in or capable of turning off "water and electric"?

I don't have details, but you can google it.  I've heard there are US troops stationed in SE Syria, in a flat sandy region.  No natural defenses.  If baddies want to harm them, it wouldn't be difficult.  They could probably do it with a stout catapault.   I have a cheapo design for a catapault which uses an array of bundled PVC pipes.  I haven't built one yet, but I could see it sending a package 300 to 400 meters.

 

As for water:  perhaps US forces drill their own wells, I don't know.  It's easy to sabotage a water well.  It would just take one person to drop a toxic mix in the bore hole.  There are actually packaged toxic packages just for that purpose.  They're used in Africa, and maybe other locales, to terrorize local populations.

 

As for electric; US forces use giant town-sized generators.

 

Everything is powered by fossil fuels. I doubt the military over there are using solar, even tho it would save them $billions in costs.  

 

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I don't have details, but you can google it.  I've heard there are US troops stationed in SE Syria, in a flat sandy region.  No natural defenses.  If baddies want to harm them, it wouldn't be difficult.  They could probably do it with a stout catapault.   I have a cheapo design for a catapault which uses an array of bundled PVC pipes.  I haven't built one yet, but I could see it sending a package 300 to 400 meters.

 

As for water:  perhaps US forces drill their own wells, I don't know.  It's easy to sabotage a water well.  It would just take one person to drop a toxic mix in the bore hole.  There are actually packaged toxic packages just for that purpose.  They're used in Africa, and maybe other locales, to terrorize local populations.

 

As for electric; US forces use giant town-sized generators.

 

Everything is powered by fossil fuels. I doubt the military over there are using solar, even tho it would save them $billions in costs.  

 

 

Not surprised in the least that you have no details or that you didn't look them up before posting. Kinda reminiscent of a certain USA president you are fond of denigrating.

 

Similarly, not expecting you to have a clue or even faith as to trained troops knowledge regarding picking suitable positions for bases and camps. Spewing generalized nonsense seems to work just as well. Catapults, toxic packages dropped into boreholes, town-sized generator used in the middle of the desert by exposed troops - compensation by imagination...As for USA armed forces not using solar, may want to apply your own prescription and google some.

[craigt3365]

On 11/8/2017 at 6:35 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

Turkey, you're against the Kurds in Syria. How about you support Assad, Assad is trying to remove ALL rebels (that includes the Kurdish rebels) in Syria.

So you don't want to see a new Kurdish 'homeland' in northern Syria. There's no need for you to send your soldiers into Syria. Just let Assad get on with it. Maybe you should help Assad.

 

Right!  Let's have Assad and his band of warriors kill more innocent civilians.  How about stop the fighting and try to negotiate a truce.  Right...that would require Assad to resign.  Sadly, he'll kill as many as needed just to secure his position of power and keep his lavish life style.  While his people suffer.

 

Amazing some support this.

[NumbNut]

He's carried out chemical weapon attacks on his own people. What more is there to say?

 

 

[craigt3365]

18 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

He's carried out chemical weapon attacks on his own people. What more is there to say?

 

 

Exactly.  Some don't seem to understand this. Or believe it.  Sadly...

[Naam]

Assad is also guilty for not using drones firing ''hellfire'' rockets.

[NumbNut]

He carried out chemical attacks against his own people Naam. You know, the people he's hoping to remain in control of after this tragic civil war is somehow brought to an end.

 

Don't you acknowledge that?

[NumbNut]

9 minutes ago, Naam said:

Assad is also guilty for not using drones firing ''hellfire'' rockets.

 

So dropping 'barrel bombs' from helicopters on your own people, you know, the people you purport to lead and represent, is okay then?

 

Rightio! Next time I get in a blue with my brother I'll fire up the chopper then! He won't know what hit him. That'll teach him!

[Naam]

11 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

So dropping 'barrel bombs' from helicopters on your own people, you know, the people you purport to lead and represent, is okay then?

no it's no ok. killing, maiming or hurting people by any means is not ok. duh!

[Naam]

18 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

He carried out chemical attacks against his own people Naam. You know, the people he's hoping to remain in control of after this tragic civil war is somehow brought to an end.

 

Don't you acknowledge that?

i stand to what i said.  it is hypocritical to single out any method which kills people. period!

[NumbNut]

3 minutes ago, Naam said:

i stand to what i said.  it is hypocritical to single out any method which kills people. period!

 

Of course! No argument from me on this. But I still can't get my head around the use of chemical weapons against your own people

 

 

[Rimmer]

An off topic post has been removed

[Naam]

3 hours ago, NumbNut said:

3 hours ago, Naam said:

i stand to what i said.  it is hypocritical to single out any method which kills people. period!

 

Of course! No argument from me on this. But I still can't get my head around the use of chemical weapons against your own people

and i still can't get my head around why the use of chemical weapons is singled out without mentioning that killing ''own'' or ''strange'' people by any means is wrong.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Naam said:

and i still can't get my head around why the use of chemical weapons is singled out without mentioning that killing ''own'' or ''strange'' people by any means is wrong.

100% agreed.  But this thread is about Syria.  And chemical weapons are particularly nasty.  Thus, the reason they are banned by the UN.

[Naam]

Quote

Naam said:

and i still can't get my head around why the use of chemical weapons is singled out without mentioning that killing ''own'' or ''strange'' people by any means is wrong

 

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

100% agreed.  But this thread is about Syria.  And chemical weapons are particularly nasty.  Thus, the reason they are banned by the UN.

because this thread is about Syria it is justified to single out one particular method to kill people? 

 

UN puppet organisation =