“Aleppo is worse than a slaughterhouse” – Ban Ki-moon

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Syria was a rather secular country and yes it does have a lot of religions and a fair number of minority groups.   Left to their own devices, it will end up much like the former Yugoslavia, only on steroids.  

 

The problem with elections is that there are always losers, and in that part of the world people don't take losing lightly.   The problem with dictators is they oversee a very nervous country that can explode on a moments notice.  

 

The people camped inside of Syria are not refugees per se, they are internally displaced people.  

 

You are being a little pedantic with regard to refugees/internally displaced people. My point was that we are not informed that a huge number of Syrians who are bombed out or fleeing the war are camped out in government controlled areas. Nor are we routinely informed about casualties on the government side.

 

Clearly, governments "should" be secular and not organised along religious boundaries. Including "God bless" America.

 

My main concern is to stop the refugee crises before it consigns Europe to a bunch of facist nationalist failed states. If that means putting up with Assad, so be it. I shall not be inviting him for tea.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

A war? In Syria! Who'da thought?!

 

Who would even notice it?

[Scott]

@Grouse

 

Your main concern is a very, very valid one.   My being pedantic is slightly important in that the Syrian gov't taking care of it's own people should not have the them labeled as refugees.  

 

The majority of people who support the Assad gov't and had to flee, have fled into safe areas within Syria.   For logistical reasons some may have ended up out of Syria, but they would have been helped and facilitated to return.   Most of the pro-Assad folks in refugee camps outside of Syria would have been considered as enemies and their welfare would be of great concern to agencies involved in providing protection.  

 

If Assad remains in power, the refugees outside the country are going to have a difficult and dangerous position with regard to returning.   They will not be accepted by Assad and his gov't.   If he is ousted from power and another faction takes over, those internally displaced people will be fleeing Syria, so no matter how you cut it, there are going to be a lot of people headed somewhere for the time being.  

 

Europe needs to strengthen its border controls and they need to do so quickly and firmly.  

 

There are most likely going to be mass movements of people and international groups monitoring the various places where they live.   I suspect it will be a little like Yugoslavia where the Croats when to Croatia, the Serbs went to Serbia and those who were mixed ended up in the mess called Bosnia.   And then there were numerous organizations from Nato to the UN to IOM to keep everyone from causing problems for the other group.  

 

The US will never support Assad, but he is little more than a thorn in a paw for the US.   They would rather see him gone, but pretty much everyone knows that there is no one else to take control of the country.   Assad, if he stays in power, will have to have his power greatly reduced, something which he will resist.  

 

Your post does point out the inherent problems with Syria.   You want to prevent the destruction of Europe by those fleeing.   The US wants to neutralize various Terrorists groups,   Russia wants it's bases.   Not much unity or goals that are mutual to all groups.  

 

I do share your concerns with the influx of people into Europe.   That adds a very volatile and dangerous mix to the entire scenario.  

 

 

 

 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

@Grouse

 

Your main concern is a very, very valid one.   My being pedantic is slightly important in that the Syrian gov't taking care of it's own people should not have the them labeled as refugees.  

 

The majority of people who support the Assad gov't and had to flee, have fled into safe areas within Syria.   For logistical reasons some may have ended up out of Syria, but they would have been helped and facilitated to return.   Most of the pro-Assad folks in refugee camps outside of Syria would have been considered as enemies and their welfare would be of great concern to agencies involved in providing protection.  

 

If Assad remains in power, the refugees outside the country are going to have a difficult and dangerous position with regard to returning.   They will not be accepted by Assad and his gov't.   If he is ousted from power and another faction takes over, those internally displaced people will be fleeing Syria, so no matter how you cut it, there are going to be a lot of people headed somewhere for the time being.  

 

Europe needs to strengthen its border controls and they need to do so quickly and firmly.  

 

There are most likely going to be mass movements of people and international groups monitoring the various places where they live.   I suspect it will be a little like Yugoslavia where the Croats when to Croatia, the Serbs went to Serbia and those who were mixed ended up in the mess called Bosnia.   And then there were numerous organizations from Nato to the UN to IOM to keep everyone from causing problems for the other group.  

 

The US will never support Assad, but he is little more than a thorn in a paw for the US.   They would rather see him gone, but pretty much everyone knows that there is no one else to take control of the country.   Assad, if he stays in power, will have to have his power greatly reduced, something which he will resist.  

 

Your post does point out the inherent problems with Syria.   You want to prevent the destruction of Europe by those fleeing.   The US wants to neutralize various Terrorists groups,   Russia wants it's bases.   Not much unity or goals that are mutual to all groups.  

 

I do share your concerns with the influx of people into Europe.   That adds a very volatile and dangerous mix to the entire scenario.  

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, well argued. I can see us having a heated agreement!

[Kiwiken]

Watch Hungary to impose the first anti immigrant policies. They may even leave the EU. This is the legacy of meddling in middle east

[OMGImInPattaya]

No worse than a long weekend in Chicago I'd imagine.

[manarak]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

@Grouse

  The US wants to neutralize various Terrorists groups, 

 

 

It's clear that this isn't the US' main goal in the region.

 

In this war, the US are in bed with jihadists, again applying the logic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -  it looks like they learned nothing from Afghanistan in the eighties.

The US ally Turkey is more preoccupied about supporting Turkmen including the terrorist organization "Grey Wolves" and killing Kurds than fighting ISIS, and the US have to do their bidding if they want to keep their Incirlik base.

 

I will say again that the rise of the "Arab spring" that spread to Syria is suspect in my eyes, it smells strongly of Western intelligence services intervention at a time when Syria was becoming more of an East/West geopolitical power issue, and Assad had been seriously irritating the US. But it's not completely clear if he didn't also piss off the Saudi or others who could have helped to convince the US to topple the Assad regime.

 

The dream of a moderate islamist FSA is no more, the FSA doesn't exist anymore beyond a myth and a loosely used label by islamist fighters because it makes their factions look better.

 

Also consider this:

Quote

In an incident concerning such Turkey-backed FSA-labeled islamist groups on 16 September 2016, U.S. special forces were forced out of the northern Allepo town of al-Rai by islamist FSA-labeled groups with whom they had just fought alongside during their battle with ISIL for control of the town.^{[163][164][165]} According to the BBC journalist Riam Dalati who posted the video on twitter, the incident began when those Turkey-backed FSA labeled rebels started chanting "Americans we're coming for your slaughter"^[166] with some saying that "we won't accept any American participating alongside us".^[164] The convoy of trucks and tanks carrying U.S. and Turkish forces was taunted and insulted as it fled the city towards Turkey to shouts of "Christians and Americans have no place among us" and accusations of "the collaborators of America are dogs and pigs; they wage a crusader war against Syria and Islam."^[165][167] Whether the FSA's confrontation was spontaneous or premeditated was not immediately known and a spokesperson for the U.S. Central Command said that they were looking into the incident.^[163]

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

 

This has become a big mess.

 

The situation is that we now have 3 main sides in the conflict:

- ISIS violent islamists

- violent islamists enemies of ISIS, who are supported by Western powers because they supplanted the FSA

- secular Assad government which includes Christians, Sunni Muslims, Chiite Muslims, Alawites and others

 

The USA need to pull back from this mess and hope to catch all the future islamist terrorists who will be "made" by this conflict. Every US bomb falling anywhere makes more of them, and scores of them will flee to other countries as "refugees".

 

Regarding refugee situation, we are in clearly in a lose-lose situation...

 

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

6 minutes ago, manarak said:

 

It's clear that this isn't the US' main goal in the region.

 

In this war, the US are in bed with jihadists, again applying the logic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -  it looks like they learned nothing from Afghanistan in the eighties.

The US ally Turkey is more preoccupied about supporting Turkmen including the terrorist organization "Grey Wolves" and killing Kurds than fighting ISIS, and the US have to do their bidding if they want to keep their Incirlik base.

 

I will say again that the rise of the "Arab spring" that spread to Syria is suspect in my eyes, it smells strongly of Western intelligence services intervention at a time when Syria was becoming more of an East/West geopolitical power issue, and Assad had been seriously irritating the US. But it's not completely clear if he didn't also piss off the Saudi or others who could have helped to convince the US to topple the Assad regime.

 

The dream of a moderate islamist FSA is no more, the FSA doesn't exist anymore beyond a myth and a loosely used label by islamist fighters because it makes their factions look better.

 

Also consider this:

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

 

This has become a big mess.

 

The situation is that we now have 3 main sides in the conflict:

- ISIS violent islamists

- violent islamists enemies of ISIS, who are supported by Western powers because they supplanted the FSA

- secular Assad government which includes Christians, Sunni Muslims, Chiite Muslims, Alawites and others

 

The USA need to pull back from this mess and hope to catch all the future islamist terrorists who will be "made" by this conflict. Every US bomb falling anywhere makes more of them, and scores of them will flee to other countries as "refugees".

 

Regarding refugee situation, we are in clearly in a lose-lose situation...

 

 

 

 

 

The bombs that are reigning down are primarily Russian and Syrian.  

[manarak]

15 minutes ago, Scott said:

The bombs that are reigning down are primarily Russian and Syrian.  

 

most probably yes, however there is no shortage of US-induced deaths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria#September_2016

 

I think the jihadists won't count who threw the most bombs :-/

[manarak]

I did some more research about the Syrian revolution and the Arab Spring, and stumbled upon the following, which I had missed in earlier searches:

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2060788,00.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-arab-spring-made-in-the-usa/5484950

https://rielpolitik.com/2016/09/29/realpolitik-psyops-operation-syria-by-manlio-dinucci/

https://stuartjeannebramhall.com/?s=syria

 

except for time magazine, I know the three other sites aren't exactly considered reliable (that's an understatement, haha) , and I didn't try to verify their claims - yet there are official documents and photos included, and the claims made by Ahmed Bensaada in his book "Arabesque$" are just huge. Even if just some of the facts he researched are true, some major dots would be connected.

 

funnily enough, neither Ahmed Bensaada nor Stuart Jeanne Bramhall have a Wikipedia page.

 

I would really like to see serious journalists researching Bensaada and others' allegation the Arab Spring was a US psyop aiming to "promote democracy".

Is there some truth in this or is it all disinformation, a.k.a. "conspiration theory" ?

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by manarak

[Scott]

Anyone who has spent much time in that part of the world knows that everything is a conspiracy caused by the US.   Given the Obama administrations policy, I doubt very much such accusations are true.  

 

Oh, and inside of those countries, the conspiracies are just as strong against their own leaders.   While in Iraq, everyone was sure that Saddam's spies were everywhere, that he knew everything that was happening and he was responsible everything, including droughts, fires, floods and disease.  

 

The intel that the Bush and Blair administrations used about the WMD came from these same type of sources.   Everyone knew that Saddam had all these hidden everywhere and could produce them on a moments notice.   Most knowledgeable people working in those countries knew that most the information was bogus.

 

 

[Andreas2]

Additional information by Vanessa Beeley, a British investigative journalist.

Unsurprisingly, it gives a different picture than what we are told by the mainstream media.

Why Everything You Hear About Aleppo Is Wrong (Youtube interview)

[Morch]

16 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Regardless of who has committed atrocities (and not one Party has clean hands in this conflict. It is sad in this war that the USA and its Allies do not force the grounding of Syrian Air power. That way only the Russian would shown to have committed atrocities on Civilian areas. Shoot down any Assad aircraft only engage Russian aircraft if they lock on you. I think you would find a scramble of Assad and his allies to negotiate. To continue as we are now is to condone the deliberate targeting of civilians. Which is a breach of the Geneva convention and considered a war crime especially as they are now deliberately targeting Hospitals and Rescue Teams.

 

Currently, the US cannot enforce or force much in Syria, never mind "grounding of Syrian Air Power". Might have been doable earlier in the conflict, before Russia stepped up its military presence. As is stands, the risk of accidental conflagration with Russian forces is simply too great. That's without factoring the Russian air defense array in Syria, which will curb (at least to a degree) US air superiority.

 

Wonder how such a hypothetical move would handle Syrian Air Force staying on ground, but Russian airstrikes going on.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, schlog said:

Interview With Al-Nusra Commander "The Americans stand on our side"

 

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/09/todenhöfer-interview-with-al-nusra-commander-the-americans-stand-on-our-side.html

 

Quote

Momentous Syria Interview Under Fire

German journalist Jürgen Todenhöfer filmed an interview with an alleged rebel commander near Aleppo. The claims made by the commander -- that the US was supporting al-Qaida -- made headlines around the world. But was the interview authentic?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-journalist-interview-in-syria-under-fire-a-1114892.html

 

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, manarak said:

 

most probably yes, however there is no shortage of US-induced deaths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria#September_2016

 

I think the jihadists won't count who threw the most bombs :-/

 

Quote

The website Airwars which "maintains an extensive database of all known allegations in which civilians and friendly forces have been reported killed by the Coalition since August 2014" reports between 503 and 700 civilians killed by Coalition airstrikes in Syria as of April 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria#Civilian_casualties

 

Quote

According to the pro-opposition SOHR, Russian airstrikes in Syria killed 8,139 people, of which: 2,574 were ISIS fighters, 2,476 militants from the Al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front and other rebel forces and 3,089 civilians. The air strikes occurred in the period between 30 September 2015 and 20 August 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Syria#Casualties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Syria#Reports_of_war_crimes_and_attacks_on_civilians

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, manarak said:

I did some more research about the Syrian revolution and the Arab Spring, and stumbled upon the following, which I had missed in earlier searches:

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2060788,00.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-arab-spring-made-in-the-usa/5484950

https://rielpolitik.com/2016/09/29/realpolitik-psyops-operation-syria-by-manlio-dinucci/

https://stuartjeannebramhall.com/?s=syria

 

except for time magazine, I know the three other sites aren't exactly considered reliable (that's an understatement, haha) , and I didn't try to verify their claims - yet there are official documents and photos included, and the claims made by Ahmed Bensaada in his book "Arabesque$" are just huge. Even if just some of the facts he researched are true, some major dots would be connected.

 

funnily enough, neither Ahmed Bensaada nor Stuart Jeanne Bramhall have a Wikipedia page.

 

I would really like to see serious journalists researching Bensaada and others' allegation the Arab Spring was a US psyop aiming to "promote democracy".

Is there some truth in this or is it all disinformation, a.k.a. "conspiration theory" ?

 

 

As you point out, not the most reliable of sources. Details on both Bensaada and Bramhall are not actually that hard to find, and neither really warrants having a Wikipedia page, although interested posters may give it a shot.

 

I don't know that any claim made on an unreliable websites needs to be researched by "serious journalists". What I do know is that often, when the outcome of such investigations falls short of corroborating claims, the fallback option is to denounce the very same "serious journalists".

 

Between outright conspiracy theory websites, heavily biased blogs, online activists and a myriad of loons - sometimes hard to keep focus. 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

Additional information by Vanessa Beeley, a British investigative journalist.

Unsurprisingly, it gives a different picture than what we are told by the mainstream media.

Why Everything You Hear About Aleppo Is Wrong (Youtube interview)

 

Vanessa Beeley is more of an activist than an "investigative journalist".

Considering this interview is with Ron Paul's Liberty Report, "Unsurprisingly" indeed.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Morch

[manarak]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

As you point out, not the most reliable of sources. Details on both Bensaada and Bramhall are not actually that hard to find, and neither really warrants having a Wikipedia page, although interested posters may give it a shot.

 

I don't know that any claim made on an unreliable websites needs to be researched by "serious journalists". What I do know is that often, when the outcome of such investigations falls short of corroborating claims, the fallback option is to denounce the very same "serious journalists".

 

Between outright conspiracy theory websites, heavily biased blogs, online activists and a myriad of loons - sometimes hard to keep focus. 

well, I would consider the result of serious investigations debunking Bensaada's claims to be quite a result. 

 

instead, we have nothing, just Bensaada's research, and the details he gives are troubling enough.

 

and such psyops wouldn't be a first, there are documented examples from the past of manipulations done by the US and others not by the US.

 

but of course i remain vigilant as to what to believe. 

 

[manarak]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

As you point out, not the most reliable of sources. Details on both Bensaada and Bramhall are not actually that hard to find, and neither really warrants having a Wikipedia page, although interested posters may give it a shot.

 

I don't know that any claim made on an unreliable websites needs to be researched by "serious journalists". What I do know is that often, when the outcome of such investigations falls short of corroborating claims, the fallback option is to denounce the very same "serious journalists".

 

Between outright conspiracy theory websites, heavily biased blogs, online activists and a myriad of loons - sometimes hard to keep focus. 

well, I would consider the result of serious investigations debunking Bensaada's claims to be quite a result. 

 

instead, we have nothing, just Bensaada's research, and the details he gives are troubling enough.

 

and such psyops wouldn't be a first, there are documented examples from the past of manipulations done by the US and others not by the US.

 

but of course i remain vigilant as to what to believe. 

 

[craigt3365]

On 10/02/2016 at 10:20 AM, manarak said:

 

most probably yes, however there is no shortage of US-induced deaths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria#September_2016

 

I think the jihadists won't count who threw the most bombs :-/

The differences are vast.  No comparison.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

Quote

 

American-led interventionEdit

According to SOHR, U.S.-led Coalition airstrikes have killed 6,213 people across Syria, of which: 5,359 dead were ISIL fighters, 147 Al-Nusra Front militants and other rebels, 90 government soldiers and 617 civilians. The air strikes occurred in the period between 22 September 2014 and 22 September 2016.[195]

Russian InterventionEdit

According to SOHR, Russian airstrikes in Syria killed 9,364 people, of which: 2,746 were ISIL fighters, 2,814 militants from the Al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front and other rebel forces and 3,804 civilians. The air strikes occurred in the period between 30 September 2015 and 30 September 2016.[196]

 

 

[Ahab]

Great that the UN decided to stop nip this in the bud and not allow it to drag on for a long period of time. The UN is a completely gutless organization that is and always will be useless at anything other than employing the relatives and friends of third world leaders.

[gemini81]

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 6:52 PM, Kiwiken said:

Regardless of who has committed atrocities (and not one Party has clean hands in this conflict. It is sad in this war that the USA and its Allies do not force the grounding of Syrian Air power. That way only the Russian would shown to have committed atrocities on Civilian areas. Shoot down any Assad aircraft only engage Russian aircraft if they lock on you. I think you would find a scramble of Assad and his allies to negotiate. To continue as we are now is to condone the deliberate targeting of civilians. Which is a breach of the Geneva convention and considered a war crime especially as they are now deliberately targeting Hospitals and Rescue Teams.

Foreign countries/mercenaries/proxy armies and meddling in Syria's space is a breach of international law/Geneva.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, gemini81 said:

Foreign countries/mercenaries/proxy armies and meddling in Syria's space is a breach of international law/Geneva.

Agreed! That would include Russia,  Iran,  Saudi Arabia,  Turkey,  Lebanon,  US, etc, etc, etc.

[gemini81]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed! That would include Russia,  Iran,  Saudi Arabia,  Turkey,  Lebanon,  US, etc, etc, etc.

Russia, Iran are allies and not unwelcomingly invading a sovereign country to destabilize it, with proxy armies- but trying to stabilize it and keep it intact. Planted mercenaries flowing in from Turkey, US presence, all NATO presence would be in violation.

[simple1]

3 hours ago, gemini81 said:

Russia, Iran are allies and not unwelcomingly invading a sovereign country to destabilize it, with proxy armies- but trying to stabilize it and keep it intact. Planted mercenaries flowing in from Turkey, US presence, all NATO presence would be in violation.

 

By law enacted e.g. Australia and USA, the areas controlled by the likes of Daesh are legally treated as ungoverned territory, not sovereign territory of the Assad dictatorship. The US led coalition has the legal right to attack forces in Syria who do not respect the Iraqi / Syrian border and invade Iraqi sovereign territory.

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, gemini81 said:

Russia, Iran are allies and not unwelcomingly invading a sovereign country to destabilize it, with proxy armies- but trying to stabilize it and keep it intact. Planted mercenaries flowing in from Turkey, US presence, all NATO presence would be in violation.

Read this.  Hopefully,  it will change your views.  The rag tag group supporting Assad are in this for their own reasons,  mostly supported by Iran.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/world/middleeast/aleppo-syria.html?emc=edit_ae_20161006&nl=todaysheadlines-asia&nlid=58582962&_r=0

[manarak]

On 7.10.2016 at 5:16 AM, simple1 said:

 

By law enacted e.g. Australia and USA, the areas controlled by the likes of Daesh are legally treated as ungoverned territory, not sovereign territory of the Assad dictatorship. The US led coalition has the legal right to attack forces in Syria who do not respect the Iraqi / Syrian border and invade Iraqi sovereign territory.

 

No, lol.

Ridiculous claim.

No law made in US, Australia or whereever can supercede official territorial law for these territories. They have no special "legal" right - they just have the right of waging a war there, they just do it, that's all, and they make some domestic law to make themselves feel good - US laws are only binding for the USA on US territory and are sometimes bullied upon US persons and non-US persons abroad.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, manarak said:

 

No, lol.

Ridiculous claim.

No law made in US, Australia or whereever can supercede official territorial law for these territories. They have no special "legal" right - they just have the right of waging a war there, they just do it, that's all, and they make some domestic law to make themselves feel good - US laws are only binding for the USA on US territory and are sometimes bullied upon US persons and non-US persons abroad.

I have read articles debating whether the rebels have sovereignty or not.  I will try to find the link. It's not from the US but from a global think tank.

[manarak]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

I have read articles debating whether the rebels have sovereignty or not.  I will try to find the link. It's not from the US but from a global think tank.

 

what is there to debate ?

the law of the strongest / the winner prevails, that's it. if "the law" goes unchallenged then it is valid if the bully can enforce it. 

all these claims of legality are just smoke and mirrors.

but small minds get easily disturbed and need a "legal basis"...

 

[simple1]

7 hours ago, manarak said:

 

No, lol.

Ridiculous claim.

No law made in US, Australia or whereever can supercede official territorial law for these territories. They have no special "legal" right - they just have the right of waging a war there, they just do it, that's all, and they make some domestic law to make themselves feel good - US laws are only binding for the USA on US territory and are sometimes bullied upon US persons and non-US persons abroad.

 

It is what it is. Law was enacted to enable compliance to the Laws of Warfare in the national interest, thereby, at least in the case of Oz, protecting operational military in / over Syria. Oz government enacted laws against refugees in contraction to international conventions to which it had ratified, don't recall anyone on this forum calling those laws 'ridiculous'.