Diplomats agree to Syria cease-fire in a week

[Scott]

The big problem with fighting ISIS in the first place was that they are embedded in the local communities. Fighting them either required almost hand-to-hand combat or precision bombing of very specific targets and even then those targets resulted in civilian casualties.

Assad has shown little regard for the killing of innocents, although he may not consider them innocent in the same way that the international community does. Russia has also shown little restraint with regard to collateral damage.

[craigt3365]

craigt3365, on 12 Feb 2016 - 17:31, said:

SgtRock, on 12 Feb 2016 - 11:57, said:

Seriously Craig ?

Age and sex are factors in who are terrorists ? I think you might need to start getting a grip on reality. I could post video's of child soldiers who are currently with ISIS, but they would be deleted for being too graphic. The numbers of women being used as suicide bombers are on the increase.

Get over your tunnel vision, things might become a bit clearly for you.

OK. Please show me a report that says a majority of terrorists are kids and over 60. Would love to see it....instances do occur. But it's a minority.

Be nice...

There are no reports to show you that I am aware of.

The reports that all those killed are innocent civilians, are just that, reports, with nothing verified. Yes, innocent are dying, but to deny that there is dead terrorists among them is ludicrous.

I never said there weren't terrorists among the innocent civilians. Of the 250,000 killed so far, I doubt a majority are ISIS terrorists. There just aren't that many. Just saying indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations with the hope of killing a few "terrorists" is a crime against humanity....and should be punished as such. Even Russia admits they are not 100% bombing ISIS.

[SgtRock]

craigt3365, on 13 Feb 2016 - 09:00, said:

SgtRock, on 13 Feb 2016 - 08:39, said:

There are no reports to show you that I am aware of.

The reports that all those killed are innocent civilians, are just that, reports, with nothing verified. Yes, innocent are dying, but to deny that there is dead terrorists among them is ludicrous.

I never said there weren't terrorists among the innocent civilians. Of the 250,000 killed so far, I doubt a majority are ISIS terrorists. There just aren't that many. Just saying indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations with the hope of killing a few "terrorists" is a crime against humanity....and should be punished as such. Even Russia admits they are not 100% bombing ISIS.

You would be correct in your assumption. The majority will not be ISIS terrorists.

Russia joined the party at the request of Assad. To help him in his fight against other terrorist organisations who were trying to overthrow him.

There is currently around 25 terrorists groups operating in Syria, who are trying to get rid of Assad, not including ISIS.

These were Russia's prime targets before they decided to also go after ISIS.

So out of that 250,000 who have died. With Russia going after 26 different grouping, how many do you think are terrorists ?

[craigt3365]

You would be correct in your assumption. The majority will not be ISIS terrorists.

Russia joined the party at the request of Assad. To help him in his fight against other terrorist organisations who were trying to overthrow him.

There is currently around 25 terrorists groups operating in Syria, who are trying to get rid of Assad, not including ISIS.

These were Russia's prime targets before they decided to also go after ISIS.

So out of that 250,000 who have died. With Russia going after 26 different grouping, how many do you think are terrorists ?

Far short of 250,000...but blame also has to lie with ISIS. They've killed a lot also. It's a horrible civil war.

[SgtRock]

craigt3365, on 13 Feb 2016 - 09:26, said:

SgtRock, on 13 Feb 2016 - 09:19, said:

You would be correct in your assumption. The majority will not be ISIS terrorists.

Russia joined the party at the request of Assad. To help him in his fight against other terrorist organisations who were trying to overthrow him.

There is currently around 25 terrorists groups operating in Syria, who are trying to get rid of Assad, not including ISIS.

These were Russia's prime targets before they decided to also go after ISIS.

So out of that 250,000 who have died. With Russia going after 26 different grouping, how many do you think are terrorists ?

Far short of 250,000...but blame also has to lie with ISIS. They've killed a lot also. It's a horrible civil war.

I should have added, how many civilians have been killed by these 26 or so terrorist groupings ?

We can at least agree on it being a horrible civil war.

[Geoffggi]

craigt3365, on 13 Feb 2016 - 09:00, said:

SgtRock, on 13 Feb 2016 - 08:39, said:

There are no reports to show you that I am aware of.

The reports that all those killed are innocent civilians, are just that, reports, with nothing verified. Yes, innocent are dying, but to deny that there is dead terrorists among them is ludicrous.

I never said there weren't terrorists among the innocent civilians. Of the 250,000 killed so far, I doubt a majority are ISIS terrorists. There just aren't that many. Just saying indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations with the hope of killing a few "terrorists" is a crime against humanity....and should be punished as such. Even Russia admits they are not 100% bombing ISIS.

You would be correct in your assumption. The majority will not be ISIS terrorists.

Russia joined the party at the request of Assad. To help him in his fight against other terrorist organisations who were trying to overthrow him.

There is currently around 25 terrorists groups operating in Syria, who are trying to get rid of Assad, not including ISIS.

These were Russia's prime targets before they decided to also go after ISIS.

So out of that 250,000 who have died. With Russia going after 26 different grouping, how many do you think are terrorists ?

Whilst agreeing with most of what is noted it would also be very interesting to know who is supplying the arms, the supply of munitions is possibly one of the most lucrative businesses in the world so if the western governments stopped supplying both sides maybe things would slow considerably; Unfortunately I believe all countries involved are doing so for purely selfish reasons

[Geoffggi]

Foreign countries should never have interfered in the first place, I have worked in the Middle East for many years and have come to realise that the two cultures will NEVER mix, we can agree to live side by side (sort of) but mixing is not in the Middle Eastern culture; the West made a big mistake in removing the strong Arab Leaders as this is the only type of attitude they respect, there are more wars in this region than ever before and it is only the interest in what other foreign countries can get out of the region and not for the good of the country.

[craigt3365]

Whilst agreeing with most of what is noted it would also be very interesting to know who is supplying the arms, the supply of munitions is possibly one of the most lucrative businesses in the world so if the western governments stopped supplying both sides maybe things would slow considerably; Unfortunately I believe all countries involved are doing so for purely selfish reasons

It's not the West who's supplying most of the weapons and funds. Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iran and Turkey (I believe) are the key players with regards to this. Syria is one of the biggest customers for Russia with regards to weapon sales. Has been for many years. So yes, it's lucrative and sadly, many are profiting off it.

[Andreas2]

Whilst agreeing with most of what is noted it would also be very interesting to know who is supplying the arms, the supply of munitions is possibly one of the most lucrative businesses in the world so if the western governments stopped supplying both sides maybe things would slow considerably; Unfortunately I believe all countries involved are doing so for purely selfish reasons

It's not the West who's supplying most of the weapons and funds. Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iran and Turkey (I believe) are the key players with regards to this. Syria is one of the biggest customers for Russia with regards to weapon sales. Has been for many years. So yes, it's lucrative and sadly, many are profiting off it.

I think, this article supports your suspicion: While Kerry Talks Ceasefire, US Allies Secretly Ship Grad Missiles to Syria Rebels

... "the “rebels” being supplied do not fall under the terms of the agreement spelled out above. In other words, the ceasefire does not apply to ISIS or al-Qaeda or affiliated forces, so perhaps the foreign Grad suppliers decided this is a two-way street: if Russia is still free to bomb the terrorist groups, then Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. are still free to provide them weapons." ...

[bark]

Best news in a long time!

I hope Russia plays ball

Fingers crossed

This will be the first cease fire in history; where they never stop fighting.

[Morch]

I strongly believe the entire "peace" pretense is to get parties into agreeing that "peace" can only come about in interim "good faith" stages; its pretense because it is in essence a military feign by diplomacy. Among the early stages would be the "temporary" assignment of land according to sectarian needs. Of course this is the goal all along but racing toward that goal has been slowed because of the other value added results DAESH achieves; DAESH is now compromised by Russia so Hail Mary. Recently Russia projected to FOBs seemingly not contiguous with where their strength lies in Syria. I suspect Russia knows exactly what is coming and this move is designed to either thwart the carving of Syria or to extract concessions when negotiated. (Now 4 FOBs). Russia is preparing to deny air space to other actors and/or compromise efforts to carve Syria.

The aim has always been to remove Assad and replace him with a western puppet or carve the land up in such a way as to neuter Iranian hegemony and regional power. Russia could be persuaded as an "interim" to allow the carving as long as Assad remains and Tartus remains intact; perhaps. Its so obvious that the "peace talks" are a Hail Mary pass because the existing tools of the US are no longer working. However, the blowback from this US proxy army will continue for years.

While not thrilled to engage in conspiracy debate - would Syria as an Iranian outlet serve a better role as far as regional peace goes? (Mind, not "peace" in the full sense of the word). Wouldn't such an eventuality carry long term consequences as well?

It might have a been folly to imagine that regional strongman regimes set decades ago (granted, mostly by Western powers of the day), would remain a workable proposition for eternity. What we see now is not something which would not make sense in historical sense, nor is there a special imperative to assume all aspects are contrived, manipulated and schemed.

[Morch]

The big problem with fighting ISIS in the first place was that they are embedded in the local communities. Fighting them either required almost hand-to-hand combat or precision bombing of very specific targets and even then those targets resulted in civilian casualties.

Assad has shown little regard for the killing of innocents, although he may not consider them innocent in the same way that the international community does. Russia has also shown little restraint with regard to collateral damage.

Perhaps more accurately, the problem of fighting ISIS without inflicting mass casualties on the local populace. Obviously, not much of an issue for some of the involved parties. Civilian casualties are a major consideration with regards to Western sensibilities, and to a degree, there are some illusions as to how much these can be avoided. This is also makes Western public opinion more receptive to certain forms of propaganda related to the fighting.

The most important aspects in this regard are quality and timeliness of intel, but even with a full array of sources, there is no way to avoid civilian casualties in an urban fighting scenario. ,

On another note...does sound awfully like something taken from topics dealing with another conflict in the region.

[wabothai]

What I don't understand: all but one (IS) agree to stop hostilities.

Seems to me that IS then has free play.

[jpinx]

Ooops -- not everyone is feeling "included"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35566441#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

[craigt3365]

Ooops -- not everyone is feeling "included"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35566441#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Hard to agree to a cease fire when bombing has been intensified and Assad says he plans to take back all of Syria.