Trump ends CIA arms support for anti-Assad Syria rebels - U.S. officials

[tonbridgebrit]

On 23/07/2017 at 1:58 PM, Morch said:

 

What you are trying to do is copy paste talking points, while presenting them as accepted truths. You ignore them being addressed and simply drone on. Once more, your description of US "attitude" is your own. It is neither accepted by everyone, nor supported by much other than you saying so.

 

From "establishing" this faux point you go on to a "conclusion", which is yet another set of talking points. Same old simplistic take on who's who, same constant ignoring of other players stake in Syria. Same old lumping together of all those opposing Assad.

 

 

On 24/07/2017 at 0:33 AM, craigt3365 said:

You're still trying to put the blame on Washington without admitting there are other issues at play.  That line of argument gets old.  You've lost any credibility you ever had.

Why is it that you guys have a problem with "Washington's aim always was, to back the rebels, watch them remove Assad, and then look at the rebels, and then bomb any of the rebels who are against America and Europe" ??  Why ?

Okay, we all know that Assad is staying. But let's just imagine, in a few months from now, oh look, the rebellion has worked, Assad has gone. Now what ?  Well, surely, you accept that the victorious rebels are still going to there, right ? After all, these are the people who have won the civil war. And the victorious rebels, some of them are going to be ISIS and the Al Nusra Front, right ? Bear in mind that these rebels don't like America and Europe.

Now what ? Well, surely, we don't want to see bits of Syria in the hands of ISIS and also, bits being held by the Al-Nusra Front ?  Surely, Washington is not going to simply 'leave them alone'. If Washington allows them to simply be there, well, isn't that dangerous ?  I mean, Syria at peace, with Assad in charge, that's not a danger to America/Europe. But Syria, being there, there's no war, but some of the land is held by ISIS and some by the Al Nusra Front, that's not acceptable, right ? Washington is going to have to bomb them, surely ??

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

Why is it that you guys have a problem with "Washington's aim always was, to back the rebels, watch them remove Assad, and then look at the rebels, and then bomb any of the rebels who are against America and Europe" ??  Why ?

Okay, we all know that Assad is staying. But let's just imagine, in a few months from now, oh look, the rebellion has worked, Assad has gone. Now what ?  Well, surely, you accept that the victorious rebels are still going to there, right ? After all, these are the people who have won the civil war. And the victorious rebels, some of them are going to be ISIS and the Al Nusra Front, right ? Bear in mind that these rebels don't like America and Europe.

Now what ? Well, surely, we don't want to see bits of Syria in the hands of ISIS and also, bits being held by the Al-Nusra Front ?  Surely, Washington is not going to simply 'leave them alone'. If Washington allows them to simply be there, well, isn't that dangerous ?  I mean, Syria at peace, with Assad in charge, that's not a danger to America/Europe. But Syria, being there, there's no war, but some of the land is held by ISIS and some by the Al Nusra Front, that's not acceptable, right ? Washington is going to have to bomb them, surely ??

 

 

Why is it that you insist on making up the same supposed policies across multiple topics and then pretend to wonder why other posters do not accept them as true?

 

For you imagined scenarios, contrived as they are, you'd have to do better than lumping all of those opposing Assad as "rebels".  May want to bear in mind that not all "rebels" are ISIS, Al-Nusra (you're behind the times on the current name) - there are the Kurds, and then there are many smaller localized outfits, with shifting allegiances. Not all hold anti-Western views. You'd also need to address how such an scenario would be possible with Russia's and Iran's presence, while the US downgrades its own.

 

The supposed "conclusion" stems from intentionally faulty presentation of "facts". That you opine "surely", doesn't make US foreign policy. To assess that the US foreign policy in the ME is not a success story, and that changing circumstances and administrations makes things even more messy, does not require adopting your own simplistic imaginary version.

 

We've been through all that on more than one topic. Pretending to start from scratch is just another tool to lay out them talking points.

[craigt3365]

13 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

Why is it that you guys have a problem with "Washington's aim always was, to back the rebels, watch them remove Assad, and then look at the rebels, and then bomb any of the rebels who are against America and Europe" ??  Why ?

Okay, we all know that Assad is staying. But let's just imagine, in a few months from now, oh look, the rebellion has worked, Assad has gone. Now what ?  Well, surely, you accept that the victorious rebels are still going to there, right ? After all, these are the people who have won the civil war. And the victorious rebels, some of them are going to be ISIS and the Al Nusra Front, right ? Bear in mind that these rebels don't like America and Europe.

Now what ? Well, surely, we don't want to see bits of Syria in the hands of ISIS and also, bits being held by the Al-Nusra Front ?  Surely, Washington is not going to simply 'leave them alone'. If Washington allows them to simply be there, well, isn't that dangerous ?  I mean, Syria at peace, with Assad in charge, that's not a danger to America/Europe. But Syria, being there, there's no war, but some of the land is held by ISIS and some by the Al Nusra Front, that's not acceptable, right ? Washington is going to have to bomb them, surely ??

 

Washington's aim was never to bomb rebels.  Where'd you get that?  An alternate reality? LOL

 

Why am I against Assad?  Because he's responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.  Nobody to blame but the person at the top.

 

You are aware of how many his father killed?  And you are also OK with that?  Brutal dictators have no right to exist in this world.  Sadly, some seem to think so.

[tonbridgebrit]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Washington's aim was never to bomb rebels.  Where'd you get that?  An alternate reality? LOL

 

Why am I against Assad?  Because he's responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.  Nobody to blame but the person at the top.

 

You are aware of how many his father killed?  And you are also OK with that?  Brutal dictators have no right to exist in this world.  Sadly, some seem to think so.

"Washington's aim was never to bomb rebels.  Where'd you get that?  An alternate reality? LOL"

Washington's intent was to bomb the rebels (the ones who are against America and Europe) AFTER Assad had been removed. Surely, you accept that ?

Let's put it this way. A Syria without Assad, wth bits of land being held by ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. This is not acceptable to most of us on ThaiVisa. And Washington won't accept it either. Got to bomb them after they've removed Assad.

[craigt3365]

Just now, tonbridgebrit said:

"Washington's aim was never to bomb rebels.  Where'd you get that?  An alternate reality? LOL"

Washington's intent was to bomb the rebels (the ones who are against America and Europe) AFTER Assad had been removed. Surely, you accept that ?

Let's put it this way. A Syria without Assad, wth bits of land being held by ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. This is not acceptable to most of us on ThaiVisa. And Washington won't accept it either. Got to bomb them after they've removed Assad.

The rebels were the ones against Assad.  But Russia and Assad also called ISIS rebels.  Just so they could bomb everybody. 

 

For once, just once, admit Syria, Russia and China aren't lilly white.  Until then, you've got zero credibility.  I'll be the first to say the US is far from lilly white.  But far from the worst nation on this planet.

[Rancid]

Well lets see according to Pat Buchanan: “One knowledgeable official estimates that the CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies,”

 

Additionally: “The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. … 11 million Syrians … driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine.

 

Now consider how many Syrians do you imagine will be missing CIA backed terrorists? I really don't get the armchair generals that think there is anything positive whatsoever about this wholesale murder and carnage, how would you feel if it was inflicted on your country, your people or your families?

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Washington's aim was never to bomb rebels.  Where'd you get that?  An alternate reality? LOL"

Washington's intent was to bomb the rebels (the ones who are against America and Europe) AFTER Assad had been removed. Surely, you accept that ?

Let's put it this way. A Syria without Assad, wth bits of land being held by ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front. This is not acceptable to most of us on ThaiVisa. And Washington won't accept it either. Got to bomb them after they've removed Assad.

 

There is a difference between lumping all those opposing  (as you do in some posts), and differentiating between groups (which you crudely apply on others). Calling them all "rebels", and then using the moniker in different ways is just muddying the waters.

 

I doubt that you can substantiate US policy revolving around the view presented. The same goes for supposed sequence of events touted.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Rancid said:

Well lets see according to Pat Buchanan: “One knowledgeable official estimates that the CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies,”

 

Additionally: “The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. … 11 million Syrians … driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine.

 

Now consider how many Syrians do you imagine will be missing CIA backed terrorists? I really don't get the armchair generals that think there is anything positive whatsoever about this wholesale murder and carnage, how would you feel if it was inflicted on your country, your people or your families?

 

What is it with posters insisting on ignoring Assad's part in the bloodshed? Or Iran? Or Russia?

This is not a denial that the US played a part.

[LannaGuy]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What is it with posters insisting on ignoring Assad's part in the bloodshed? Or Iran? Or Russia?

This is not a denial that the US played a part.

What is it with American's downplaying USA's meddling in other countries? not recognizing that Russia saved Syria from ISIS?  open your minds

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

What is it with American's downplaying USA's meddling in other countries? not recognizing that Russia saved Syria from ISIS?  open your minds

What is it with posters ignoring the fact Assad was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands.  He was the president, he ordered the initial strike against peaceful protesters.  Just like his father before him.

 

What is it with posters who can't seem to believe Russia wasn't perfectly innocent in all this. 

 

Open your minds!

 

Are you saying Russia never meddles in other countries?  Seriously? Wow....

[simple1]

14 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

What is it with American's downplaying USA's meddling in other countries? not recognizing that Russia saved Syria from ISIS?  open your minds

Think you will find that US coalition & supported groups have been more effective in countering ISIS in Syria and such groups have been more on the receiving end of Russian cluster, phosphorous and thermobaric weapons illegal use in civilians areas than Daesh. If it were not for the Russian veto in the Security Council would not be surprised if a resolution was passed accusing Russia of War Crimes in Syria.

Edited July 26, 2017 by simple1

[LannaGuy]

16 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

What is it with posters ignoring the fact Assad was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands.  He was the president, he ordered the initial strike against peaceful protesters.  Just like his father before him.

 

What is it with posters who can't seem to believe Russia wasn't perfectly innocent in all this. 

 

Open your minds!

 

Are you saying Russia never meddles in other countries?  Seriously? Wow....

No not saying that Craig I believe USA and Russia are cut from the same cloth. Neither are Angelic nor Demons but a clique on here tries to paint one as on the side of Light and one Dark and it's not like that.

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Think you will find that US coalition & supported groups have been more effective in countering ISIS in Syria and such groups have been more on the receiving end of Russian cluster, phosphorous and thermobaric weapons illegal use in civilians areas than Daesh. If it were not for the Russian veto in the Security Council would not be surprised if a resolution was passed accusing Russia of War Crimes in Syria.

I also think the rebel and associate terrorist groups significantly morphed over time.  It was a changing landscape except from Assad's and Putin's perspective.  Anybody against Assad was ISIS! LOL

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

No not saying that Craig I believe USA and Russia are cut from the same cloth. Neither are Angelic nor Demons but a clique on here tries to paint one as on the side of Light and one Dark and it's not like that.

I don't see any poster saying the US is pitch perfect in this mess.  But I notice a few posters who only blame the US.  Which isn't right.  Many players are involved.  Iran being another that's causing huge problems.

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

What is it with American's downplaying USA's meddling in other countries? not recognizing that Russia saved Syria from ISIS?  open your minds

 

We are talking about Syria, not "other countries" in general. At best, lump in the situation in Iraq as related.

There is a difference between totally ignoring some parties' role (such as Assad's regime, Russia, Iran), and saying not all fault lies with the US. Granted, accepting that other parties bear responsibility as well, implies by default that the US role is not unique. Doubt most reasonable people would treat this as "downplaying", but rather as being a more balanced take.

 

Russia did not save Syria from ISIS. Russian operations were not limited to attacking ISIS, even. Russia was there to prop Assad's regime. If it was worried about ISIS, it could have avoided blocking most international efforts to do something about it prior to carrying out its own intervention.

 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

We are talking about Syria, not "other countries" in general. At best, lump in the situation in Iraq as related.

There is a difference between totally ignoring some parties' role (such as Assad's regime, Russia, Iran), and saying not all fault lies with the US. Granted, accepting that other parties bear responsibility as well, implies by default that the US role is not unique. Doubt most reasonable people would treat this as "downplaying", but rather as being a more balanced take.

 

Russia did not save Syria from ISIS. Russian operations were not limited to attacking ISIS, even. Russia was there to prop Assad's regime. If it was worried about ISIS, it could have avoided blocking most international efforts to do something about it prior to carrying out its own intervention.

 

I think there's also a fallacy when trying to compare Syria to other conflicts int he ME.  Each one is unique.  Iraq II was a major screwup.  Iraq I wasn't.  Libya's situation is completely different.  People try to say...but, but, but....look at Iraq.  No comparison.  IMHO.

 

It's well documented why Russia got involved.   Though some don't seem to want to hear the reasons why. LOL

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.