Syrian troops capture east Aleppo neighborhood from rebels

[rooster59]

Syrian troops capture east Aleppo neighborhood from rebels

BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press

 

BEIRUT (AP) — A Syrian official blasted Turkey Saturday saying it is to blame for the death of its soldiers because it sent them to Syria, as the Syrian army said troops have captured a neighborhood in the northern city of Aleppo days after the government resumed its offensive on the besieged rebel-held eastern part of the city.

 

Syria's deputy foreign minister Faisal Mekdad's comments were the first by a Syrian official since Thursday when three Turkish soldiers were killed in northern Syria in what the Turkish military said was a pre-dawn Syrian airstrike. The account was disputed by Syrian activists who said the soldiers were killed by a suicide attack by the Islamic State group the day before.

 

Since then two more soldiers have been killed over the past two days in fighting near the town of al-Bab, an IS stronghold.

 

"Turkish policies are responsible for the tension in Turkish-Syrian relations," Mekdad told the Lebanon-based Pan-Arab Al-Mayadeen TV. He added that Turkey took part in sending foreign fighters into Syria and armed them "in order to destroy Syria and Syrians."

 

Mekdad did not confirm or deny whether Syrian aircraft were behind the attack that killed the three Turkish soldiers but said that "if the Turks want to complain they should complain to themselves. What happened was inside the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic."

 

Since Syria's crisis began in March 2011, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government has been a strong supporter of Syrian rebels trying to remove President Bashar Assad from power.

 

Turkey sent ground troops into northern Syria in August to help Syrian opposition fighters battle both IS and U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish forces, which Ankara sees as an extension of the Kurdish insurgency in southeastern Turkey.

 

The Turkish troops are not fighting Syrian government forces, and have not been attacked by them, though Damascus has strongly objected to the military intervention.

 

On Saturday, Turkey's state-run news agency said a Turkish soldier was killed and three wounded in an attack during an anti-IS operation in north Syria, raising to five the number of Turkish troops killed in Syria this week. It said the dead and wounded soldiers were brought back to Turkey.

 

The rising Turkish-Syrian tension came as Syrian troops captured Aleppo's Hanano district days after government forces and their allies launched an offensive involving deadly street battles in the area.

 

The army said troops "have seized full control" of the eastern district in Syria's largest city.

 

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said troops now control most of the district, adding that Hanano was the first Aleppo neighborhood to fall into the hands of rebels in 2012.

 

Syrian state media said rebel shelling of west Aleppo killed three people and wounded 15 adding that some 150 residents of east Aleppo have been able to leave the besieged area of 275,000 people on Saturday.

 

The Observatory said that since the government offensive resumed on east Aleppo on Nov. 15, 357 people have been killed in the city and nearby villages and towns.

 

The Observatory also reported that deals have been reached to evacuate fighters from the Tal and Khan al-Shih suburbs of the capital Damascus. It said hundreds of fighters from both suburbs will be evacuated to the northwestern province of Idlib, a rebel stronghold.

 

The two areas have been subjected to government attacks for weeks.

 

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-11-27

 

[coma]

The Turks and their illustrious leader. Tying to steal a few more metres of land for the former Ottoman Empire.

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, coma said:

The Turks and their illustrious leader. Tying to steal a few more metres of land for the former Ottoman Empire.

More like trying to help get rid of a brutal dictator who's killing his own people.

[tonbridgebrit]

10 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

More like trying to help get rid of a brutal dictator who's killing his own people.

 

What ??

Washington has decided to leave Syria alone, to stop backing any rebel groups in Syria (bearing in mind that all the rebel groups in Syria are rebelling AGAINST Assad, none of the rebels are in favour of Assad), and to let Assad and the Russians get on with the job of removing ISIS and all the other rebels. And once ALL the rebels have been removed, then, then Syria will be at peace.

You accept right, without the USA, Turkey has no chance whatsoever of removing Assad ? Even with Washington involved, it always was only a slim chance of removing Assad. Without Washington, there's no chance. All Turkey is doing, is pro-longing the conflict, and as COMA said, using the war as an excuse to grab a bit of territory from Syria.

The Turks, by the way, are fighting against ISIS, good. But they're also fighting against the Kurdish rebels, bearing in mind that the Kurdish rebels are supported by Washington.  Washington should remind the Turks that Turkey needs America, they shouldn't fight people who are backed by the USA.

Edited November 27, 2016 by tonbridgebrit
spelling mistake

[Morch]

Quote

"Turkish policies are responsible for the tension in Turkish-Syrian relations," Mekdad told the Lebanon-based Pan-Arab Al-Mayadeen TV. He added that Turkey took part in sending foreign fighters into Syria and armed them "in order to destroy Syria and Syrians."

 

Mekdad did not confirm or deny whether Syrian aircraft were behind the attack that killed the three Turkish soldiers but said that "if the Turks want to complain they should complain to themselves. What happened was inside the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic."

 

Al Mayadeen is hardly a neutral media source, though - usually aligned with Hezbollah, the Syrian regime and Iran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Mayadeen#Political_alignment

[Morch]

12 hours ago, coma said:

The Turks and their illustrious leader. Tying to steal a few more metres of land for the former Ottoman Empire.

 

11 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

More like trying to help get rid of a brutal dictator who's killing his own people.

 

Not mutually exclusive statements, even if one should probably apply a known doses of cynicism and irony to the latter.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

What ??

Washington has decided to leave Syria alone, to stop backing any rebel groups in Syria (bearing in mind that all the rebel groups in Syria are rebelling AGAINST Assad, none of the rebels are in favour of Assad), and to let Assad and the Russians get on with the job of removing ISIS and all the other rebels. And once ALL the rebels have been removed, then, then Syria will be at peace.

You accept right, without the USA, Turkey has no chance whatsoever of removing Assad ? Even with Washington involved, it always was only a slim chance of removing Assad. Without Washington, there's no chance. All Turkey is doing, is pro-longing the conflict, and as COMA said, using the war as an excuse to grab a bit of territory from Syria.

The Turks, by the way, are fighting against ISIS, good. But they're also fighting against the Kurdish rebels, bearing in mind that the Kurdish rebels are supported by Washington.  Washington should remind the Turks that Turkey needs America, they shouldn't fight people who are backed by the USA.

 

Could you cite such a formal US decision pertaining to Syria?

 

On the face of it asserting that "Washington has decided to leave Syria alone, to stop backing any rebel groups in Syria" doesn't quite fit in with "bearing in mind that the Kurdish rebels are supported by Washington." But why let logic stand in the way of a US bash, eh?

 

Removing Assad from power was not, technically speaking,  much of a problem prior to the Russian deployment in Syria. If anyone got any doubts on this one, please refer to past instance of same (regional or otherwise). It was more a matter of the level of involvement the US cared to exert, and the What Then question.

 

Currently, no. Not much of an option and no good answers with regard to involvement and what follows, nevermind Russian presence.

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Could you cite such a formal US decision pertaining to Syria?

 

On the face of it asserting that "Washington has decided to leave Syria alone, to stop backing any rebel groups in Syria" doesn't quite fit in with "bearing in mind that the Kurdish rebels are supported by Washington." But why let logic stand in the way of a US bash, eh?

 

Removing Assad from power was not, technically speaking,  much of a problem prior to the Russian deployment in Syria. If anyone got any doubts on this one, please refer to past instance of same (regional or otherwise). It was more a matter of the level of involvement the US cared to exert, and the What Then question.

 

Currently, no. Not much of an option and no good answers with regard to involvement and what follows, nevermind Russian presence.

What is Washington going to do in Syria ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/world/middleeast/donald-trump-syria.html?_r=0

The New York Times says that Trump will end support for whatever rebel groups in Syria. Trump himself said " we have no idea who these people are", these people are the rebel groups. So Trump himself says that Washington doesn't actually know who the rebels are.  Most of us are willing to accept that some of the rebels are guys like Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria.


Okay, you wrote "On the face of it asserting that "Washington has decided to leave Syria alone, to stop backing any rebel groups in Syria" doesn't quite fit in with "bearing in mind that the Kurdish rebels are supported by Washington." But why let logic stand in the way of a US bash, eh?"
Okay, let me change my words. The Kurdish rebels were backed by Washington during Obama's time, Washington probably does not want to see the Turks destroying the same Kurdish groups, even though Washington is no longer supporting them.



You also wrote "Removing Assad from power was not, technically speaking,  much of a problem prior to the Russian deployment in Syria."
Well yes, IF it was not a case of Russia backing Assad, then, the rebels would have removed Assad a few years ago. Certainly so. But Russia is there, is Russia's right to support Assad just as great as Washington's right to back rebels who want to remove Assad ? Surely, yes ?  And, IF Russia had NOT backed Assad, with Assad gone, then what ?  Oh look, Syria would be a country with guys like ISIS, Al-Qaeda's branch (Al-Nusra Front), and various other rebel groups, in Syria, after Assad's removal. And then what ? What was Washington's plan ? Go and bomb any rebels who don't like America ?
Go and bomb the Al-Nusra Front AFTER they've removed Assad ?


A quote from the article "he (Trump) repeated a position he took often during his campaign: that the United States should focus on defeating the Islamic State, and find common ground with the Syrians and their Russian backers."  Well, to me, Trump's strategy makes far more sense than Obama's. Trump will bring about peace in Syria. Instead of an endless war. Or if not endless war, oh, a Syria without Assad, a Syria that then needs to be bombed, by Washington, because the very rebels who were backed by Washington must then be removed.

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by tonbridgebrit
spelling mistake

[tonbridgebrit]

Turkey should accept that it would be best if Turkey leaves Syria alone. When America was involved in Syria, fine, it was okay for Turkey to get involved, seeing as Turkey is in NATO, hence, Turkey being a US ally.

But Washington is doing a new policy. This new policy means that Assad will certainly survive. And once Assad is fully back in power, with Syria at peace, what might Assad do ?  Assad might remember that Turkey tried to remove him, Assad might re-build Syria's army, and try and remove the Turkish government. Or, Assad might simply back whatever rebel groups in Turkey.  After all, you tried to remove me, that's why I've got to try and remove you.

 

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

What ??

Washington has decided to leave Syria alone, to stop backing any rebel groups in Syria (bearing in mind that all the rebel groups in Syria are rebelling AGAINST Assad, none of the rebels are in favour of Assad), and to let Assad and the Russians get on with the job of removing ISIS and all the other rebels. And once ALL the rebels have been removed, then, then Syria will be at peace.

You accept right, without the USA, Turkey has no chance whatsoever of removing Assad ? Even with Washington involved, it always was only a slim chance of removing Assad. Without Washington, there's no chance. All Turkey is doing, is pro-longing the conflict, and as COMA said, using the war as an excuse to grab a bit of territory from Syria.

The Turks, by the way, are fighting against ISIS, good. But they're also fighting against the Kurdish rebels, bearing in mind that the Kurdish rebels are supported by Washington.  Washington should remind the Turks that Turkey needs America, they shouldn't fight people who are backed by the USA.

It is an absolute mess.  And any of us here who think we really understand this, are fooling ourselves.  I'm just against the massive number of civilian casualties.  As are most western leaders and the UN.  Thus, the proposal for war crimes being made against Assad.  I'd guess the UN knows better than us what's really going on there.

 

Due to the massive amount of civilian casualties, Russia and Syria seem to be doing a terrible job.  The was has been going on for years and not much progress seems to be made.  Except destroying several towns....and killing many innocents.  Assad can stay if he stops the killing.  Which is pushing the moderate rebels into bed with IS. 

 

P.S. Even Russia doesn't care about Assad.  He's being used.  He'll be thrown under the bus the first time he goes against his master.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-idUSKCN0SS0TY20151103

Quote

 

Russia does not see keeping Bashar al-Assad in power as a matter of principle, the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said on Tuesday in comments that suggested a divergence of opinion with Iran, the Syrian president's other main international backer.

 

Fuelling speculation of Russian-Iranian differences over Assad, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps suggested on Monday that Tehran may be more committed to him than Moscow was.

 

 

[Morch]

16 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

What is Washington going to do in Syria ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/world/middleeast/donald-trump-syria.html?_r=0

The New York Times says that Trump will end support for whatever rebel groups in Syria. Trump himself said " we have no idea who these people are", these people are the rebel groups. So Trump himself says that Washington doesn't actually know who the rebels are.  Most of us are willing to accept that some of the rebels are guys like Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria.


Okay, you wrote "On the face of it asserting that "Washington has decided to leave Syria alone, to stop backing any rebel groups in Syria" doesn't quite fit in with "bearing in mind that the Kurdish rebels are supported by Washington." But why let logic stand in the way of a US bash, eh?"
Okay, let me change my words. The Kurdish rebels were backed by Washington during Obama's time, Washington probably does not want to see the Turks destroying the same Kurdish groups, even though Washington is no longer supporting them.



You also wrote "Removing Assad from power was not, technically speaking,  much of a problem prior to the Russian deployment in Syria."
Well yes, IF it was not a case of Russia backing Assad, then, the rebels would have removed Assad a few years ago. Certainly so. But Russia is there, is Russia's right to support Assad just as great as Washington's right to back rebels who want to remove Assad ? Surely, yes ?  And, IF Russia had NOT backed Assad, with Assad gone, then what ?  Oh look, Syria would be a country with guys like ISIS, Al-Qaeda's branch (Al-Nusra Front), and various other rebel groups, in Syria, after Assad's removal. And then what ? What was Washington's plan ? Go and bomb any rebels who don't like America ?
Go and bomb the Al-Nusra Front AFTER they've removed Assad ?


A quote from the article "he (Trump) repeated a position he took often during his campaign: that the United States should focus on defeating the Islamic State, and find common ground with the Syrians and their Russian backers."  Well, to me, Trump's strategy makes far more sense than Obama's. Trump will bring about peace in Syria. Instead of an endless war. Or if not endless war, oh, a Syria without Assad, a Syria that then needs to be bombed, by Washington, because the very rebels who were backed by Washington must then be removed.

 

 

Until Trump assumes office, his statements are not US policy. Considering his tendency to backtrack and flip-flop on a whole lot of issues, there is no reason to believe his words will be reflected in deeds. To put it otherwise, you cannot actually support what you posted - namely that "Washington has decided to leave Syria alone, to stop backing any rebel groups in Syria".

 

Trump haven't shown himself to be overly informed with regard to foreign relations in general, and more specifically so when it comes to the ME. His assertion, which you parrot, that "we have no idea who these people are" is nonsense. There's actually quite a bit of details on specific groups and individuals comprising the opposition to Assad. Some relevant links were supplied on a previous topics where we had a similar exchange. I trust that relevant services are even more informed. I've no idea who are the "us" referred to as "willing to accept", or doubt it means much more than "uninformed".

 

With regard to the Kurds, nope - your new version still doesn't resolve the contradiction. If the US will pressure Turkey to lay off, it would still amount to supporting an anti-Assad faction.

 

IMO, the opposition chances of deposing Assad were not that great, even prior to the Russian intervention. Things were indeed more balanced, but not decisively leaning in their favor. My comment was more to do with the possibility of the US getting rid of Assad, rather than the Syrian opposition forces succeeding in doing so. This door was closed once the Russian massively increased their presence in Syria. 

 

I have never claimed that the US foreign policy with regard to Syria was well-thought-out or successful. Barking up the wrong tree. That the US does not have good answers, does not make those supplied by the Russians/Iranians/Assad regime much better.

 

Trump does not have a strategy and statements do not make peace. That's without accounting for "peace" being an elusive concept, depending on the interpretations laid by involved parties.

 

The long and the short of it, is that it's a messy situation, and one-sided views are usually either partisan or uninformed.

[Morch]

16 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Turkey should accept that it would be best if Turkey leaves Syria alone. When America was involved in Syria, fine, it was okay for Turkey to get involved, seeing as Turkey is in NATO, hence, Turkey being a US ally.

But Washington is doing a new policy. This new policy means that Assad will certainly survive. And once Assad is fully back in power, with Syria at peace, what might Assad do ?  Assad might remember that Turkey tried to remove him, Assad might re-build Syria's army, and try and remove the Turkish government. Or, Assad might simply back whatever rebel groups in Turkey.  After all, you tried to remove me, that's why I've got to try and remove you.

 

 

As pointed in my previous post, there's no official change in US policy. You are making things up, or alluding to how things may change during Trump's term. With Trump being anything but consistent, perhaps better if you wait before citing intentions as actions.

 

Turkey under Erdogan is pretty much doing its own thing, while capitalizing on its unique position and leverage. So far, doesn't seem like the US, the EU or NATO can exert much influence of Turkey without paying up, one way or the other. The refugee/migrant issue is being used to the max as blackmail, human right abuses and tight political control worsen, and Turkish troops are present in both Iraq and Syria. All these were opposed by Western powers. The one time Turkey backed off was when confronted by Russia, which took direct steps and used direct language. But then, the Russians actually had leverage, and less compunction applying it, as opposed to the West.

 

While I doubt Turkey will get everything it shoots for, they'll probably end with some concessions and gains. Maybe a special status with regards to ethnic Turks in northern Syria, probably no support for full Kurdish independence, a bit of territorial gains and some trade deals on the side.

 

The nonsense about Assad rebuilding the Syrian Army and trying to depose Erdogan does not convey much by way of having a clue.

[coma]

The rebels are starting to get pummelled in Eastern Aleppo now. Syrian and Russian forces have near split the Eastern ghetto in half. Opening up a corridor for civvies and a few rebels I guess to escape the area. Hopefully this siege will be over soon and a we will be step closer to Mr Assad gaining full control .

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, coma said:

The rebels are starting to get pummelled in Eastern Aleppo now. Syrian and Russian forces have near split the Eastern ghetto in half. Opening up a corridor for civvies and a few rebels I guess to escape the area. Hopefully this siege will be over soon and a we will be step closer to Mr Assad gaining full control .

Corridors have been open before, but few chose to use them as they got shot at!  And those who did escape, especially men, were never seen from again.  I'm not sure you can negotiate a safe passage with IS. 

 

Assad isn't in full control.  His strings are pulled by Iran and Russia.   Without them, he would have been gone a long time ago.  For better or worse.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 29/11/2016 at 7:18 AM, craigt3365 said:

Corridors have been open before, but few chose to use them as they got shot at!  And those who did escape, especially men, were never seen from again.  I'm not sure you can negotiate a safe passage with IS. 

 

Assad isn't in full control.  His strings are pulled by Iran and Russia.   Without them, he would have been gone a long time ago.  For better or worse.

"Without them, he would have been gone a long time ago.  For better or worse."

Man, I remind you of what happened in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was there, in control of Iraq. Saddam simply did not support whatever Islamic "fundamentalists". So, Saddam was removed, and what happened ?  Rival groups appeared in Iraq, and fought various wars.

I really do reckon that Syria might end up like Iraq, if Assad does actually go. In Iraq, the Sunni and Shia started fighting each other after Saddam had gone.

What about if (or when) Assad goes ? Do you reckon that groups like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front can get together and create a peacefull new government ?  What about the other rebel groups ?  Surely, you accept, IF Assad does go, and if ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are still there, well, it means that Washington and/or Russia will have to bomb them ? As in, bomb the people who were the biggest groups when removing Assad ?

 

[tonbridgebrit]

<hidden post removed>

Well, I think the plan always was, "to back certain rebels, watch them remove Assad, and then bomb any rebel groups who are against NATO, after Assad has gone".  Yes, I think it was a crazy plan. The great danger being, once Assad has gone, well, I don't reckon it's going to be easy to bomb and remove ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. This creates the nightmare situation of Syria being a country, where ISIS controls large tracts of territory, Al-Nusra Front having other territory, and various other rebel groups having their space too. It means ISIS really can declare themselves to be a 'country', and Al-Nusra Front doing the same thing.

 

 

As for Syria having a Western style democracy, well, I don't think people really cared. The important thing was a Syria without Assad, and then a Syria without ISIS, and without any other rebels who are against America/Europe. That was the goal.

 

 

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Without them, he would have been gone a long time ago.  For better or worse."

Man, I remind you of what happened in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was there, in control of Iraq. Saddam simply did not support whatever Islamic "fundamentalists". So, Saddam was removed, and what happened ?  Rival groups appeared in Iraq, and fought various wars.

I really do reckon that Syria might end up like Iraq, if Assad does actually go. In Iraq, the Sunni and Shia started fighting each other after Saddam had gone.

What about if (or when) Assad goes ? Do you reckon that groups like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front can get together and create a peacefull new government ?  What about the other rebel groups ?  Surely, you accept, IF Assad does go, and if ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are still there, well, it means that Washington and/or Russia will have to bomb them ? As in, bomb the people who were the biggest groups when removing Assad ?

 

Saddam was removed because he didn't support Islamic fundamentalists?  I'm confused.  Saddam first invaded Kuwait and was beaten back.  He was then removed due to massive mistakes in US intelligence.

 

No matter what happens, Syria might end up like Iraq.  In Syria, it's Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar against Assad, Russia, and Iran.  A real proxy war.

 

The best outcome would be for Russia and the Coalition to work together to go after only IS.  Sadly, most rebel groups are now working with IS as a last resort.

 

I'm just against bombing innocent civilians.  It happens in war, but so far, few efforts have been made by Assad to stop this.  Thus, the pending crimes against humanity charge against him.

 

Any way you cut it, Syria is a mess.  Made worse by Assad.  Responsibility lies at the top.  And that's where Assad is.

[Morch]

17 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Without them, he would have been gone a long time ago.  For better or worse."

Man, I remind you of what happened in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was there, in control of Iraq. Saddam simply did not support whatever Islamic "fundamentalists". So, Saddam was removed, and what happened ?  Rival groups appeared in Iraq, and fought various wars.

I really do reckon that Syria might end up like Iraq, if Assad does actually go. In Iraq, the Sunni and Shia started fighting each other after Saddam had gone.

What about if (or when) Assad goes ? Do you reckon that groups like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front can get together and create a peacefull new government ?  What about the other rebel groups ?  Surely, you accept, IF Assad does go, and if ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are still there, well, it means that Washington and/or Russia will have to bomb them ? As in, bomb the people who were the biggest groups when removing Assad ?

 

 

Assad will probably remain in place, or at most be replaced with an agreed upon successor. He is not personally material to the issue, no shortage of wannabe strongmen around.

 

You are making an unwarranted connection between Assad being deposed and ISIS taking over the country. ISIS is pretty much on the run now, and in all probability will lose most of its previous territorial gains in the coming months. It well may morph into yet another run of the mill international terrorism outfit, of course, but the current manifestation of the Caliphate fantasy is a goner. If Assad was to be deposed, then someone else from his faction would take control. How this could play with regard to Syria's future and the ongoing civil war is anyone's guess, not a forgone conclusion. There's no specific reason to assume that the regime will capitulate, though.

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

16 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

<hidden post removed>

Well, I think the plan always was, "to back certain rebels, watch them remove Assad, and then bomb any rebel groups who are against NATO, after Assad has gone".  Yes, I think it was a crazy plan. The great danger being, once Assad has gone, well, I don't reckon it's going to be easy to bomb and remove ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. This creates the nightmare situation of Syria being a country, where ISIS controls large tracts of territory, Al-Nusra Front having other territory, and various other rebel groups having their space too. It means ISIS really can declare themselves to be a 'country', and Al-Nusra Front doing the same thing.

 

 

As for Syria having a Western style democracy, well, I don't think people really cared. The important thing was a Syria without Assad, and then a Syria without ISIS, and without any other rebels who are against America/Europe. That was the goal.

 

 

 

And I think you're making up "plans" which fall in line with your persistent anti-US stance. To begin with the US support was afforded to supposed secular (or more cautiously, non-extreme Islamist) anti-Assad forces. The expectation was, probably, that successfully deposing Assad will result in a more pro-Western regime, with greater democracy (or semblance of) an added bonus. Now, I'm not going to defend the wisdom behind these supposed assertions, or the likelihood of them ever coming about. Obviously things didn't go this way, and yes, there were a lot of warning signs that it will all go pear shaped.

 

I seriously doubt that there was a plan which included long term destabilization of Syria by extreme Islamist groups as an end result. Nothing whatsoever to be gained by this.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, gemini81 said:

The Washington Press/Pentagon agent?

That line can not be supported- a sovereign nation trying to reclaim territory and keep itself intact. Anyone who doesn't support trade in petrol dollars is a 'brutal dictator.' Most Syrians support him, voted for him. Those trapped in the east, pity them. The whole dictator/brutal/kill his own propaganda line is getting old with MSM (lybia, Syria, cuba, on and on to anyone who doesn't follow Washington's policies). People are catching on.... Good prevails, and it is nice to see they are mopping up these rag tag western backed mercenary thugs.

 

As posted earlier, things are not mutually exclusive.

 

The US motivations for seeing Assad gone being less noble than some attribute, do not contradict Assad being a brutal dictator who's killing his own people. Assad can be called many things, but "Good" probably isn't one of them.

[simple1]

On 30/11/2016 at 11:51 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

Saddam simply did not support whatever Islamic "fundamentalists".

 

Would be a good idea to refresh your memory / knowledge. Saddam provided support and shelter for a number of terrorist groups, as did Assad. Constant repetition of falsehoods to the contrary by some on this forum does not alter historical facts.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 01/12/2016 at 2:03 PM, Morch said:

 

And I think you're making up "plans" which fall in line with your persistent anti-US stance. To begin with the US support was afforded to supposed secular (or more cautiously, non-extreme Islamist) anti-Assad forces. The expectation was, probably, that successfully deposing Assad will result in a more pro-Western regime, with greater democracy (or semblance of) an added bonus. Now, I'm not going to defend the wisdom behind these supposed assertions, or the likelihood of them ever coming about. Obviously things didn't go this way, and yes, there were a lot of warning signs that it will all go pear shaped.

 

I seriously doubt that there was a plan which included long term destabilization of Syria by extreme Islamist groups as an end result. Nothing whatsoever to be gained by this.

Well, let's consider the following three options.



Option one. Syria will have Assad in charge, no rebels, and with Russia propping up Assad.

Option two. Syria will not have Assad, instead various groups, (inclding ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front) will carve out their own territory.

Option three. Syria will not have Assad, and indeed, no Islamic groups (who are un-friendly to America and Europe) will have large chunks of land, that's because they've all been bombed. There won't actually be a proper government, there will be slight anarchy and a bit of chaos, but America and Europe will not actually be harmed by this chaos.


Now then, those three options, which one do you think will Washington like most ? Off-course, a fourth option of a democratic government being there, and this government will be friends with the rest of the world would be the preferred option. Libya appears to be doing a sort of, "option three".  Would Washington prefer Libya as it is now, or would Washington prefer the previous system, a Libya with Gaddafi in charge ? Surely, Washington prefers the present system ?

 

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, let's consider the following three options.

Option one. Syria will have Assad in charge, no rebels, and with Russia propping up Assad.

Option two. Syria will not have Assad, instead various groups, (inclding ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front) will carve out their own territory.

Option three. Syria will not have Assad, and indeed, no Islamic groups (who are un-friendly to America and Europe) will have large chunks of land, that's because they've all been bombed. There won't actually be a proper government, there will be slight anarchy and a bit of chaos, but America and Europe will not actually be harmed by this chaos.

Now then, those three options, which one do you think will Washington like most ? Off-course, a fourth option of a democratic government being there, and this government will be friends with the rest of the world would be the preferred option. Libya appears to be doing a sort of, "option three".  Would Washington prefer Libya as it is now, or would Washington prefer the previous system, a Libya with Gaddafi in charge ? Surely, Washington prefers the present system ?

The "rebels" have been along a long time.  Research what Assad's father did to them many years ago.  And how many deaths there were.  He's also done business with IS recently.  No saint here.

 

You do remember Pan Am flight 103.  Of course the present system isn't good, but the previous one was not good either.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 01/12/2016 at 6:28 AM, craigt3365 said:

Saddam was removed because he didn't support Islamic fundamentalists?  I'm confused.  Saddam first invaded Kuwait and was beaten back.  He was then removed due to massive mistakes in US intelligence.

 

 

Sorry, I was just trying to say, that Saddam didn't support any Islamic Fundamentalists. He was then, later on, removed. His removal was because, well, because he was a 'bad' man.
Massive mistakes in US intelligence ?   

Anyway, let's hope Syria does not become an repeat of Iraq. Iraq, strong-man dictator is removed, country enters into a phase of anarchy and chaos, a blood bath.

Had we known that the removal of Saddam would have such consequences, well, the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam would not have taken place.

 

 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Sorry, I was just trying to say, that Saddam didn't support any Islamic Fundamentalists. He was then, later on, removed. His removal was because, well, because he was a 'bad' man.
Massive mistakes in US intelligence ?   

Anyway, let's hope Syria does not become an repeat of Iraq. Iraq, strong-man dictator is removed, country enters into a phase of anarchy and chaos, a blood bath.

Had we known that the removal of Saddam would have such consequences, well, the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam would not have taken place.

Saddam was a bad man, no denying that.  And US intelligence was also flawed.  A new paradigm is needed.  One that doesn't involve strong-man dictators.

[tonbridgebrit]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

The "rebels" have been along a long time.  Research what Assad's father did to them many years ago.  And how many deaths there were.  He's also done business with IS recently.  No saint here.

 

You do remember Pan Am flight 103.  Of course the present system isn't good, but the previous one was not good either.

Assad's father and Assad have controlled Syria for decades. During these decades, there was NO mass exit of Syrian people. The actual war, rebels fighting against Assad, this is what's caused the mass exit of people.

Pan Am 103 ?  Yes, "they" blamed Gaddafi, but lots of people reckon it was not Gaddafi's Libya. Iran did it, using Syria. And why did Iran do it ?  Supposedly, Iran was not happy when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet in the Arabian Gulf. Iran responded by carrying out that act of horrendous of terrorism, bomb on Pan Am 103.

 

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, let's consider the following three options.



Option one. Syria will have Assad in charge, no rebels, and with Russia propping up Assad.

Option two. Syria will not have Assad, instead various groups, (inclding ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front) will carve out their own territory.

Option three. Syria will not have Assad, and indeed, no Islamic groups (who are un-friendly to America and Europe) will have large chunks of land, that's because they've all been bombed. There won't actually be a proper government, there will be slight anarchy and a bit of chaos, but America and Europe will not actually be harmed by this chaos.


Now then, those three options, which one do you think will Washington like most ? Off-course, a fourth option of a democratic government being there, and this government will be friends with the rest of the world would be the preferred option. Libya appears to be doing a sort of, "option three".  Would Washington prefer Libya as it is now, or would Washington prefer the previous system, a Libya with Gaddafi in charge ? Surely, Washington prefers the present system ?

 

 

Let's consider things are not that easily definable, nor limited to your tailor made options. Not playing your game, thanks.

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Saddam was a bad man, no denying that.  And US intelligence was also flawed.  A new paradigm is needed.  One that doesn't involve strong-man dictators.

 

I doubt there's much of a future for Western style democracy in present day ME. Such things require overall higher levels of education, pluralism, and a something of a national identity (or at the very least, something exceeding exceeding the tribal). ME culture, history and tradition largely runs counter these. Democracy can be foisted upon countries, but that doesn't mean a whole lot with regard to its staying power or its quality. In realistic terms, I think the West would be content with a semblance of democracy, as long as a relative peace is kept. One way or another, than means a strong-man, though not necessarily Assad Jr.

[Scott]

Countries which operate under a dictatorship take a long time to establish what would be considered as a reasonable gov't structure.    There aren't a lot of people with opposing ideas in the wings to take power; they quickly get eliminated or imprisoned or flee the country.   In Iraq, Saddam would have been succeeded by his son(s), who were also eliminated.   In North Korea, eliminating Kim Jong Un, would result in a similar power vacuum.  

 

In countries with dictatorships, the structure and function is so concentrated on a very, very small group that the country is unable to cope with the removal.   It requires a lot of assistance from outside entities to help these countries move back to some sort of sustainable level of operation.  

 

There's a high degree of risk in these countries.  

 

[craigt3365]

Very interesting article on BBC. Basically saying even if Syria retakes Allepo, Iraq retakes Mosul and the Kurds retake Raqqa, IS will not go away.  Assad is too weak and his army is in shambles. Same in Iraq.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38209766

Quote

 

What exactly "defeating" IS means is also unclear.

 

For in many ways it is an abstraction - an idea - born out of the failure of the new Shia-dominated Iraqi state to fulfil its commitments to good governance and inclusion of the Sunni minority.

 

In this sense, the Iraqi government's own policies: the evictions by Kurdish forces - and the threat from pro-Iranian militias - are all recreating the very conditions that prompted the eruption of IS in the first place.

 

 

Another interesting comment:

Quote

 

But will the defeat of IS in Mosul and Raqqa or the recapture of Aleppo by the Syrian government actually bring peace any closer?

 

The grim truth is that they may simply herald the next equally bitter stage in the conflict.