Kerry wants Aleppo war crimes probe as UN votes on French peace plan

[Morch]

11 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

You're right, the Russians and the Syrian armed forces are not just attacking ISIS.  They are attacking ALL the rebels. And who are the other rebels ?

Well, the rebels who are not ISIS, who are they ? The most effective fighting group amongst them are the Al-Nusra Front, these guys are Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria. So, Assad and Russia are trying to remove ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. What is Washington doing ?  Washington is directly or in-directly supporting the Al-Nusra Front and other groups who work along-side the Al-Nusra Front.

And you reckon that US foreign policy is flawed ?  Yes, Washington intends to watch the Al-Nusra Front remove Assad. And then, Washington intends to bomb the Al-Nusra Front after Assad has gone. Maybe removing the Al-Nusra Front after Assad has gone will not be easy.  That's assuming that Assad is going to go, but he's not going to leave though.

 

 

 

 

 

The are many more groups of rebels. Narrowing it down to either ISIS or Al-Nusra is misleading. And disregarding non-Islamist rebels, the people of Aleppo can hardly all be terrorists, or even be 100% supportive of one group or another. The Russians (and obviously, Assad) are bombing anyone who rejects the current Syrian regime. They are not very discriminant with regard to civilian lives or to the exact allegiances people hold.

 

There is little argument that the US policy of supporting Islamist outfits is a failure. That said,  at least part of the support was never intended for those groups - that arms and training lavished on others found their way to them is a different kind of failure.

 

I doubt that you, or many others on this forum, possess a good insight as to what the US intentions are. For that matter, I'm not even sure the US knows what its intentions are. 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The are many more groups of rebels. Narrowing it down to either ISIS or Al-Nusra is misleading. And disregarding non-Islamist rebels, the people of Aleppo can hardly all be terrorists, or even be 100% supportive of one group or another. The Russians (and obviously, Assad) are bombing anyone who rejects the current Syrian regime. They are not very discriminant with regard to civilian lives or to the exact allegiances people hold.

 

There is little argument that the US policy of supporting Islamist outfits is a failure. That said,  at least part of the support was never intended for those groups - that arms and training lavished on others found their way to them is a different kind of failure.

 

I doubt that you, or many others on this forum, possess a good insight as to what the US intentions are. For that matter, I'm not even sure the US knows what its intentions are. 

I read an interesting article saying this bombing campaign is actually forcing non IS rebels to side with IS so they can go after Assad better. Good article to read.

 

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

[Morch]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

I read an interesting article saying this bombing campaign is actually forcing non IS rebels to side with IS so they can go after Assad better. Good article to read.

 

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

 

Yeah, can get a bit dizzying keeping up with all the various groups, factions, allegiances, and how they interact. An interesting observation appearing in the article (linking to another source) is that Assad's forces (or those fighting on his side) are almost as fragmented.

[tonbridgebrit]

14 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I read an interesting article saying this bombing campaign is actually forcing non IS rebels to side with IS so they can go after Assad better. Good article to read.

 

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

Hello Craigt, I've looked at the article, where does it actually say about the bombing campaign forcing non IS rebels to side with IS ?  

And who is doing this bombing, to force non IS rebels to side with IS ?

This whole thing is not funny, but I do have a smirk on my face when the article says  "The United States is effectively allied with Iraqi Shiite militias to thwart the Islamic State in Iraq, but in Syria, some of those same militias are fighting on the side of the Assad government, which the United States opposes, and against a mix of rebel groups, some of them backed by the Obama administration."



It's already confusing when we have "Washington is fighting AGAINST ISIS in Iraq, at the same time, ISIS is also trying to remove Assad in Syria, Washington wants to see Assad removed".  Would it really be that absurd if Washington was to fight against ISIS in Iraq, BUT, Washington will support ISIS in Syria ? Or, how about drive ISIS out of Iraq, force them to retreat to Syria, and then, then give them guns and ammunition once they're no longer in Iraq ???

 

[tonbridgebrit]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The are many more groups of rebels. Narrowing it down to either ISIS or Al-Nusra is misleading. And disregarding non-Islamist rebels, the people of Aleppo can hardly all be terrorists, or even be 100% supportive of one group or another. The Russians (and obviously, Assad) are bombing anyone who rejects the current Syrian regime. They are not very discriminant with regard to civilian lives or to the exact allegiances people hold.

 

There is little argument that the US policy of supporting Islamist outfits is a failure. That said,  at least part of the support was never intended for those groups - that arms and training lavished on others found their way to them is a different kind of failure.

 

I doubt that you, or many others on this forum, possess a good insight as to what the US intentions are. For that matter, I'm not even sure the US knows what its intentions are. 

"There is little argument that the US policy of supporting Islamist outfits is a failure."  Thanks for saying that.  But in war, supporting those who are fighting against somebody you hate the most, is actually "sensible".  It's just that in Washington's case, Washington backs whatever group in a fight, and then, later, that group (Al-Qaeda) goes and causes even bigger problems.


"That said,  at least part of the support was never intended for those groups - that arms and training lavished on others found their way to them is a different kind of failure."
I think we should accept that Washington supporting the Al-Nusra Front is something that Washington is/was actively doing. The intent is to help them, because, because they're trying to remove the greater enemy (Assad). Although yes, some of the equipment dished out by Washington accidently fell into some peoples'  hands.




"The are many more groups of rebels. Narrowing it down to either ISIS or Al-Nusra is misleading."
Well, the rebels who are not ISIS, I think Al-Nusra are the most effective group of all. I'm convinced that without the Al-Nusra Front, the rebels will be far less effective. Here's a link from the Jerusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Qaida-fighters-wounded-in-Syria-civil-war-393862

This article says, that the Wall Street Journal (a massively respected publication) claims that Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra Front) fighters have been treated for wounds in Israel !!   Basically, the Al-Nusra Front is of vital importance. Israel knows this, even though Israel are certainly not friends with Al-Qaeda. Without the Al-Nusra Front, and without ISIS, the rebellion against Assad might become nothing.

 

[Mosha]

I agree, just everybody get out and let them sort it out amongst themselves. A fire nèeds fuel.

Too late for that, we (The West) should not have got involved in the 1st gulf war

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, Mosha said:

Too late for that, we (The West) should not have got involved in the 1st gulf war

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk
 

The first Iraq war was sadly necessary.  The second was a disaster.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"There is little argument that the US policy of supporting Islamist outfits is a failure."  Thanks for saying that.  But in war, supporting those who are fighting against somebody you hate the most, is actually "sensible".  It's just that in Washington's case, Washington backs whatever group in a fight, and then, later, that group (Al-Qaeda) goes and causes even bigger problems.


"That said,  at least part of the support was never intended for those groups - that arms and training lavished on others found their way to them is a different kind of failure."
I think we should accept that Washington supporting the Al-Nusra Front is something that Washington is/was actively doing. The intent is to help them, because, because they're trying to remove the greater enemy (Assad). Although yes, some of the equipment dished out by Washington accidently fell into some peoples'  hands.




"The are many more groups of rebels. Narrowing it down to either ISIS or Al-Nusra is misleading."
Well, the rebels who are not ISIS, I think Al-Nusra are the most effective group of all. I'm convinced that without the Al-Nusra Front, the rebels will be far less effective. Here's a link from the Jerusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Qaida-fighters-wounded-in-Syria-civil-war-393862

This article says, that the Wall Street Journal (a massively respected publication) claims that Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra Front) fighters have been treated for wounds in Israel !!   Basically, the Al-Nusra Front is of vital importance. Israel knows this, even though Israel are certainly not friends with Al-Qaeda. Without the Al-Nusra Front, and without ISIS, the rebellion against Assad might become nothing.

 

 

One of the US policies seems to be supporting one armed faction or another, in the hopes that the recipients will do the required dirty work, AND would be expandable/manageable down the line. Didn't work out all too great, to say the least. Then again, these things are easier to assess with hindsight and with perspective. Obviously, there are a growing doubts, if not a realization, even in the US decision making circles, with regards to the efficacy of this modus operandi.

 

You did not demonstrate that the US is actively supporting the Al-Nusra Front, merely asserted that this is the case. The US providing military aid and training to groups later on declaring their allegiance with the Al-Nusra Front is another issue. As pointed out in several posts and topics, this conflict shows that loyalty shifts pretty easy, with whole outfits/clans switching sides overnight. It is undeniably another failed aspect of US policy, but not quite as described in your post.

 

If the Al-Nusra Front was to be dismantled tomorrow, the very same militants would re-appear in other outfits, or form new organizations. This is pretty much how things have gone in Syria the last few years. It will not end the war. As far as I am aware, Israel did not declare an official stand on the conflict or possible outcomes. Mostly, the Israeli policy opts to minimize direct involvement, and to wait things out. I would guess that the main worries for Israel would be Iranian involvement, transfer of arms to Hezbollah and getting inadvertently drawn into the quagmire.

[craigt3365]

I've posted this before.  A must read for some.

 

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

 

[Mosha]

If Syria is so bad, why are the escapees from Mosul fleeing there?

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Mosha said:

If Syria is so bad, why are the escapees from Mosul fleeing there?

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk
 

The refugee camp.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Mosha said:

If Syria is so bad, why are the escapees from Mosul fleeing there?

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk
 

 

Thousands flee Mosul to Syrian refugee camps

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/19/mosul-thousands-flee-syrian-refugee-camps-iraqi-forces-close-city

 

Al-Hawl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hawl