Saudi Arabia still sees no role for Assad in Syrian transition

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The Syrian Free Army did not used to be Al Nusra and Kurdish forces.

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

Don't believe I said they were, perhaps my grammar wasn't good enough for your comprehension?

 

"Syrian Free Army, what use to be named as Al Nusra and Kurdish forces were the main combatants against the Assad regime"

Edited August 10, 2017 by simple1

[tonbridgebrit]

46 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Don't believe I said they were, perhaps my grammar wasn't good enough for your comprehension?

 

"Syrian Free Army, what use to be named as Al Nusra and Kurdish forces were the main combatants against the Assad regime"

What you're trying to say is, is that the FSA broke up, and most of them became the Al-Nusra Front and Kurdish forces ?
Well, I would agree, at least partially.



Here's an article from the Guardian, from 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group

And quote "Syria's main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad's regime.  Evidence of the growing strength of al-Nusra, gathered from Guardian interviews with FSA commanders across Syria, underlines the dilemma for the US, Britain and other governments as they ponder the question of arming anti-Assad rebels."

So basically, yes, the Free Syrian Army broke up, with lots of it's soldiers defecting to the Al-Nusra Front, and various Kurdish rebel groups. The war against Assad, Al-Nusra have certainly been one of the main fighting groups.

Edited August 10, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[simple1]

8 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

What you're trying to say is, is that the FSA broke up, and most of them became the Al-Nusra Front and Kurdish forces ?<snip>

No, too many competing assertions. It is known FSA elements fought with Turkish support in Northern Syria against ISIS forces in 2016, haven't bothered to research current status, if any.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

What you're trying to say is, is that the FSA broke up, and most of them became the Al-Nusra Front and Kurdish forces ?
Well, I would agree, at least partially.



Here's an article from the Guardian, from 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group

And quote "Syria's main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad's regime.  Evidence of the growing strength of al-Nusra, gathered from Guardian interviews with FSA commanders across Syria, underlines the dilemma for the US, Britain and other governments as they ponder the question of arming anti-Assad rebels."

So basically, yes, the Free Syrian Army broke up, with lots of it's soldiers defecting to the Al-Nusra Front, and various Kurdish rebel groups. The war against Assad, Al-Nusra have certainly been one of the main fighting groups.

 

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

No, too many competing assertions. It is known FSA elements fought with Turkish support in Northern Syria against ISIS forces in 2016, haven't bothered to research current status, if any.

 

Doesn't take a whole lot of research, really. A short trip to the Wikipedia page can sort things up. What the first poster refers to is a certain point in time, which he repeatedly seeks to highlight. In reality, the situation is far more dynamic than that.

 

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

 

[tonbridgebrit]

24 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

Doesn't take a whole lot of research, really. A short trip to the Wikipedia page can sort things up. What the first poster refers to is a certain point in time, which he repeatedly seeks to highlight. In reality, the situation is far more dynamic than that.

 

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

 

And the latest news about the FSA ?  Here's an article from Reuters, from mid-July, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-syria-idUSKBN1A42KC


The CIA will stop supporting such rebels. A quote from the above Reuters article "the Trump administration has decided to halt the CIA's covert program to equip and train certain rebel groups fighting the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, two U.S. officials said, a move sought by Assad ally Russia."

Another quote "the CIA program began in 2013 as part of efforts by the administration of then-President Barack Obama to overthrow Assad, but produced little success, said the officials, both of whom are familiar with the program and spoke on the condition of anonymity". Notice "but produced little success".


The Reuters link above is actually from the wikipedia page put up above, by Morch. The Reuters report does not heavily mention the FSA, but the wikipedia article does say [ "the Obama administration of the United States admitted to militarily supporting some, so-called "moderate", groups fighting under the banner of the FSA. FSA is said to have received substantial weapons, financing and other support from the Obama administration of the United States, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states." ]

Edited August 10, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[Morch]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And the latest news about the FSA ?  Here's an article from Reuters, from mid-July, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-syria-idUSKBN1A42KC


The CIA will stop supporting such rebels. A quote "the Trump administration has decided to halt the CIA's covert program to equip and train certain rebel groups fighting the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, two U.S. officials said, a move sought by Assad ally Russia."

Another quote "the CIA program began in 2013 as part of efforts by the administration of then-President Barack Obama to overthrow Assad, but produced little success, said the officials, both of whom are familiar with the program and spoke on the condition of anonymity". Notice "but produced little success".

The link above is actually from the wikipedia page put up above. The Reuters report does not heavily mention the FSA, but the wikipedia article does say [ "the Obama administration of the United States admitted to militarily supporting some, so-called "moderate", groups fighting under the banner of the FSA. FSA is said to have received substantial weapons, financing and other support from the Obama administration of the United States, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states." ]

 

Your point being?

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Don't believe I said they were, perhaps my grammar wasn't good enough for your comprehension?

 

"Syrian Free Army, what use to be named as Al Nusra and Kurdish forces were the main combatants against the Assad regime"

You've got it backwards. The FSA started as a breakaway group headed by former Syrian officers. Eventually, lots of them defected and went over to Al Nusra or Isil.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You've got it backwards. The FSA started as a breakaway group headed by former Syrian officers. Eventually, lots of them defected and went over to Al Nusra or Isil.

 

I think what he meant was more like:

 

Syrian Free Army

+

what use to be named as Al Nusra

+

and Kurdish forces

----------------------------------------------------

were the main combatants against the Assad regime

 

[simple1]

31 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think what he meant was more like:

 

Syrian Free Army

+

what use to be named as Al Nusra

+

and Kurdish forces

----------------------------------------------------

were the main combatants against the Assad regime

 

Correct. I understand the main umbrella group fighting Assad forces, Daesh and god knows who else is now named the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) which includes some remaining elements of what was the FSA. 

 

Just came across an article claiming that ex Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, ex Al Nasra Front, has merged with a few other Salifist groups and now branded as Tahir al-Sham and so it goes on...

Edited August 10, 2017 by simple1

[tonbridgebrit]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your point being?

Well, we're taking about the FSA.

Okay, let's get back to Assad. This tackles the issues you've raised in previous posts. Morch, which one of the following two options do you think is better ? Option one, Assad is removed, and we're left with ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, Kurdish rebels groups, and various other rebels, in Syria. Or option two, Assad survives, and that's because Assad manages to remove all the rebels.

If option two happens, do you agree, that there is no need to bomb Assad ? Iran will be in Syria, yes, but there is no need to bomb the Iranians in Syria, right ? I mean, the Iranians are in Iran, there's certainly no need to bomb the Iranians in Iran, right ?

If option one happens, then what ? As well as bombing the rebels who are against America and Europe, we will also see Turkey being against the Kurdish rebels. What has the FSA got to do with all this ? Well, if the FSA was a big fighting force, well armed with lots of motivated soldiers, well, the FSA could end up being (by far) the biggest of all the rebel groups. And if the FSA is the biggest, or only, rebel group after Assad has gone, well, yes, that makes Assad's removal look better. But the FSA playing a big role is not going to happen, is it ? We've already established that the FSA is not, or never was, an effective fighting force.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, we're taking about the FSA.

Okay, let's get back to Assad. This tackles the issues you've raised in previous posts. Morch, which one of the following two options do you think is better ? Option one, Assad is removed, and we're left with ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, Kurdish rebels groups, and various other rebels, in Syria. Or option two, Assad survives, and that's because Assad manages to remove all the rebels.

If option two happens, do you agree, that there is no need to bomb Assad ? Iran will be in Syria, yes, but there is no need to bomb the Iranians in Syria, right ? I mean, the Iranians are in Iran, there's certainly no need to bomb the Iranians in Iran, right ?

If option one happens, then what ? As well as bombing the rebels who are against America and Europe, we will also see Turkey being against the Kurdish rebels. What has the FSA got to do with all this ? Well, if the FSA was a big fighting force, well armed with lots of motivated soldiers, well, the FSA could end up being (by far) the biggest of all the rebel groups. And if the FSA is the biggest, or only, rebel group after Assad has gone, well, yes, that makes Assad's removal look better. But the FSA playing a big role is not going to happen, is it ? We've already established that the FSA is not, or never was, an effective fighting force.

 

Why do you repeatedly insist on framing issues in simplistic ways? Most situations relating to the ME do not lend themselves to such either/or formulations. Certainly not given the contrived premises you apply. Reality is not some made up flow chart, as you try to present. And kindly, cease with the constant "we know", "we established" nonsense.

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Why do you repeatedly insist on framing issues in simplistic ways? Most situations relating to the ME do not lend themselves to such either/or formulations. Certainly not given the contrived premises you apply. Reality is not some made up flow chart, as you try to present. And kindly, cease with the constant "we know", "we established" nonsense.

Morch, I've just written down option one and option two. If you don't like the word option, fine, you can use the word 'scenario'.

Morch, what other scenarios can happen ? If you don't support option one, and you don't wish to see option two, well, how about you write down an option or scenario yourself ?

Lets have options that will certainly not be happening. Oh, NATO soldiers turn up and take over Syria, they remove the rebels who are against America and Europe, and remove Assad as well. Then NATO sets up a new Syrian government. Or, how about a ceasefire, Assad survives with some of Syria, and pockets of Syria remain in the hands of the rebels. So, ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, various Kurdish groups, other groups, FSA, etc, they all end up having bits of Syria. Obviously, this last option will never happen. Both NATO and Assad will simply not allow this fourth option.

Please come forward and say what scenario you want to see. Write down a scenario that I haven't mentioned, if you want. And you want me to stop this 'we know' nonsense ? Morch, what did I say ? I said that we know that the FSA is simply not an effective fighting force, and that the Al-Nusra Front certainly is. Surely, we agree on that point ?

Edited August 10, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[Morch]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, I've just written down option one and option two. If you don't like the word option, fine, you can use the word 'scenario'.

Morch, what other scenarios can happen ? If you don't support option one, and you don't wish to see option two, well, how about you write down an option or scenario yourself ?

Lets have options that will certainly not be happening. Oh, NATO soldiers turn up and taje over Syria, they remove the rebels who are against America and Europe, and remove Assad as well. How about a ceasefire, Assad survives with some of Syria, and pockets of Syria remain in the hands of the rebels. So, ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, various Kurdish groups, other groups, FSA, etc, they all end up having bits of Syria. Obviously, this last option will never happen. Both NATO and Assad will simply not allow this fourth option.

Please come forward and say what scenario you want to see. Write down a scenario that I haven't mentioned. And you want me to stop this 'we know' nonsense ? Morch, what did I say ? I said that we know that the FSA is simply not an effective fighting force, and that the Al-Nusra Front certainly is. Surely, we agree on that ?

 

Call it whatever you like. Reality doesn't necessarily lend itself to simplistic formulations, especially not contrived ones. No intention of making up stuff, just to lend your nonsense credibility. You seem bent on pushing a certain agenda, regardless of facts, nuance or anything that doesn't fit. Not interested.

 

Surely we agree that you cherry-pick. Gets repetitive and boring.

 

 

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Call it whatever you like. Reality doesn't necessarily lend itself to simplistic formulations, especially not contrived ones. No intention of making up stuff, just to lend your nonsense credibility. You seem bent on pushing a certain agenda, regardless of facts, nuance or anything that doesn't fit. Not interested.

 

Surely we agree that you cherry-pick. Gets repetitive and boring.

 

 

 

 

Morch, I'm asking you to write down the scenario (any scenario) that you think is the best scenario. You're refusing to reveal this scenario. Why is that ? A scenario where Assad survives, or one where Assad is removed, and a few details. I ask again, why are you refusing to reveal whatever scenario you think is the best one ?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, I'm asking you to write down the scenario (any scenario) that you think is the best scenario. You're refusing to reveal this scenario. Why is that ? A scenario where Assad survives, or one where Assad is removed, and a few details. I ask again, why are you refusing to reveal whatever scenario you think is the best one ?

I'm asking you to stop trolling. Not into playing your silly "scenario" games. I don't think that your short "scenarios" capture reality very well, they tend to oversimplify things, and they bear little on how things can develop. There is no obligation to engage you on your terms.

[tonbridgebrit]

55 minutes ago, Morch said:

I'm asking you to stop trolling. Not into playing your silly "scenario" games. I don't think that your short "scenarios" capture reality very well, they tend to oversimplify things, and they bear little on how things can develop. There is no obligation to engage you on your terms.

Morch, you mention the word 'reality'. Okay, the reality is, is that Assad is going to be removed, or Assad is going to survive. So, come on Morch, reveal what do you reckon is the more likely outcome ? Do you think that Assad is more likely to survive, rather than be removed ?  I can say, that, I think Assad is more likely to survive than be removed. Do you reckon the same ? Do you think it's better for Syria that Assad is removed, or do you think it's better for Syria if Assad survives ? Yes, what next for Assad, that is reality, we cannot get away from this issue when talking about Syria. The OP itself is headlined "Saadi Arabia sees no role for Assad".

You're telling me to stop trolling ? I said that the FSA is/was not an effective fighting force, and I don't think it ever was. You refuse to say whether you agree with that comment or not. I point out that the Al-Nusra Front are certainly one of the effective fighting units that are against Assad, do you dislike this comment ?  Trump has ordered the CIA to stop supporting the 'rebels', my link from Reuters says that, the report was from mid-July. Do you think I'm a troll for putting up that link ? Do you think Trump is wrong or right to do this ? I think Trump is doing the right thing in this case.

I'm asking you these questions, I've provided my own answers/opinions to these questions, and ask you to provide yours. But you refuse to comment and tackle the issue, and say that I am 'trolling' !!!

Edited August 10, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, you mention the word 'reality'. Okay, the reality is, is that Assad is going to be removed, or Assad is going to survive. So, come on Morch, reveal what do you reckon is the more likely outcome ? Do you think that Assad is more likely to survive, rather than be removed ?  I can say, that, I think Assad is more likely to survive than be removed. Do you reckon the same ? Do you think it's better for Syria that Assad is removed, or do you think it's better for Syria if Assad survives ? Yes, what next for Assad, that is reality, we cannot get away from this issue when talking about Syria. The OP itself is headlined "Saadi Arabia sees no role for Assad".

You're telling me to stop trolling ? I said that the FSA is/was not an effective fighting force, and I don't think it ever was. You refuse to say whether you agree with that comment or not. I point out that the Al-Nusra Front are certainly one of the effective fighting units that are against Assad, do you dislike this comment ?  Trump has ordered the CIA to stop supporting the 'rebels', my link from Reuters says that, the report was from mid-July. Do you think I'm a troll for putting up that link ? Do you think Trump is wrong or right to do this ? I think Trump is doing the right thing in this case.

I'm asking you these questions, I've provided my own answers/opinions to these questions, and ask you to provide yours. But you refuse to comment and tackle the issue, and say that I am 'trolling' !!!

Just a friendly piece of advice. I think if you keep at this you're on the way to being suspended for stalking.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, you mention the word 'reality'. Okay, the reality is, is that assad is going to be removed, or Assad is going to survive. So, come on Morch, reveal what do you reckon is the more likely outcome ? Do you think that Assad is more likely to survive, rather than be removed ?  I can say, that, I think Assad is more likely to survive than be removed. Do you reckon the same ? Do you think it's better for Syria that Assad is removed, or do you think it's better for Syria if Assad is removed ? Yes, what next for Assad, that is reality, we cannot get away from this issue when talking about Syria. The OP itself is headlined "Saadi Arabia sees no role for Assad".

You're telling me to stop trolling ? I said that the FSA is/was not an effective fighting force, and I don't think it ever was. You refuse to say whether you agree with that comment or not. I point out that the Al-Nusra Front are certainly one of the effective fighting units that are against Assad, do you dislike this comment ?  Trump has ordered the CIA to stop supporting the 'rebels', my link from Reuters says that, the report was from mid-July. Do you think I'm a troll for putting up that link ? Do you think Trump is wrong or right to do this ? I think Trump is doing the right thing in this case.

I'm asking you these questions, I've provided my own answers/opinions to these questions, and ask you to provide yours. But you refuse to comment and tackle the issue, and say that I am 'trolling' !!!

 

Assad is, at least currently, not going anywhere. That's not a "scenario", but a current realistic assessment. Whether he will manage to remain a permanent fixture, or even a long term one, is less certain. Whether this is "better for Syria" is a loaded question - which Syria would that be? Which Syrians are referred to? Better in what way?

 

Your trolling is not FSA specific, just another nonsense argument you put up. At the beginning of the civil war/uprising/whatever the FSA was one of the main groups engaging Assad's forces. That you wish to disregard that, and highlight how things panned out later on is in not surprising.

 

I don't see loaded yes-or-no questions as a constructive mode of discussion. I don't see your faux "scenarios", the supposedly neat flow chart descriptions as an honest presentation.

[craigt3365]

Worth a read. About Assads long relationship with ISIS.

 

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n07/peter-neumann/suspects-into-collaborators

[sandmike]

There seems to be one point that has not been mentioned here, except in passing, and the point is that Assad is an alawite muslim, which is basically shia muslim.

Iran is predominantly shia muslim. Hezbollah is backed by Iran, hence their involvement in the conflict.

All of the groups fighting Assad are sunni muslim. Saudi, Qatar and other countries who are funding the rebel groups are sunni Muslim.

Saudi hates Iran with passion, and regards shia muslims as not part of Islam.

The whole conflict in Syria is a battle between the sunni and shia sides of Islam.

Just my two fils worth ...

Carved on slate using Tapatalk

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, sandmike said:

There seems to be one point that has not been mentioned here, except in passing, and the point is that Assad is an alawite muslim, which is basically shia muslim.

Iran is predominantly shia muslim. Hezbollah is backed by Iran, hence their involvement in the conflict.

All of the groups fighting Assad are sunni muslim. Saudi, Qatar and other countries who are funding the rebel groups are sunni Muslim.

Saudi hates Iran with passion, and regards shia muslims as not part of Islam.

The whole conflict in Syria is a battle between the sunni and shia sides of Islam.

Just my two fils worth ...

Carved on slate using Tapatalk
 

Do you reckon that ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are two of the biggest rebel groups in Syria ? Yes, Hezbollah are in Syria, they're backed by Iran. Do you reckon, that Hezbollah has done far less harm to America and Europe when compared to ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front ? Al-Nusra Front are, off-course, Al-Qaeda in Syria.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Do you reckon that ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are two of the biggest rebel groups in Syria ? Yes, Hezbollah are in Syria, they're backed by Iran. Do you reckon, that Hezbollah has done far less harm to America and Europe when compared to ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front ? Al-Nusra Front are, off-course, Al-Qaeda in Syria.

You're splitting hairs. They are all terrorist groups.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Do you reckon that ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are two of the biggest rebel groups in Syria ? Yes, Hezbollah are in Syria, they're backed by Iran. Do you reckon, that Hezbollah has done far less harm to America and Europe when compared to ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front ? Al-Nusra Front are, off-course, Al-Qaeda in Syria.

 

Muddying them waters again.

 

Repetitively claiming that the Al-Nusra Front (may want to keep up with current moniker) is synonymous with AQ (or AQ in Syria) won't cover them facts - group broke up with AQ long ago, and is not focused on attacks outside of Syria. As for ISIS, there were a total of 4 attacks associated with the organization in the US.

 

The above stacks up to a series of attacks on US forces and assets in Lebanon which were carried out by Hezbollah (and/or affiliates / precursors) guided and supported by Iran.

 

Without making the AQ connection, claiming "far less harm" is, at best, a matter of perspective.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Muddying them waters again.

 

Repetitively claiming that the Al-Nusra Front (may want to keep up with current moniker) is synonymous with AQ (or AQ in Syria) won't cover them facts - group broke up with AQ long ago, and is not focused on attacks outside of Syria. As for ISIS, there were a total of 4 attacks associated with the organization in the US.

 

T

Al-Nusra Front cuts ties with al-Qaida and renames itself

Thursday 28 July 2016 21.13 BST

"The leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the most powerful jihadi groups in Syria, has announced that the group is breaking its link with al-Qaida and changing its name, in an apparent attempt to be removed from the US list of proscribed terror groups.

Within hours of its announcement, however, Washington declared that the rebrand did not amount to a remake and said the faction remained a target for US fighter jets, which have sought the group across northern Syria for the past two years.

The name change was announced by al-Nusra Front leader Abu Mohamed al-Jolani in a debut video appearance."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/al-qaida-syria-nusra-split-terror-network"

 

A distinction without a difference.

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

55 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Al-Nusra Front cuts ties with al-Qaida and renames itself

Thursday 28 July 2016 21.13 BST

"The leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the most powerful jihadi groups in Syria, has announced that the group is breaking its link with al-Qaida and changing its name, in an apparent attempt to be removed from the US list of proscribed terror groups.

Within hours of its announcement, however, Washington declared that the rebrand did not amount to a remake and said the faction remained a target for US fighter jets, which have sought the group across northern Syria for the past two years.

The name change was announced by al-Nusra Front leader Abu Mohamed al-Jolani in a debut video appearance."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/al-qaida-syria-nusra-split-terror-network"

 

A distinction without a difference.

 

 

Breaking away with AQ does not make them into "good guys" in any way. They are and they will continue to be a terrorist threat. But a direct association with 9/11 is rather tenuous. The poster's argument (that ISIS and the Al Nusra Front did more harm to the US than Hezbollah) rests on this association.