The War in Syria - ISIS et al

[Tarne]

Also an unstable middle East is good for business. Can sell arms to them, and it prevents them from becoming strong.

[quilp]

It was always thus.

[woolley]

So who thought the ceasefire was going to hold and allow the rebels in Eastern Aleppo to fade away into the night? You're Assad with Russia backing you. You have your enemies surrounded in a small enclave. Then you say there is a ceasefire and they and the civilians are going to be bussed out. However, you know that if they go, they will regroup with others up the road in Idlib and you will then have to fight the same war against the same people all over again in a different place a bit later on.

 

Not gonna happen is it?

[Tarne]

Bingo. Assad is right on that point - why should he let his enemy fade away into the night just to come back and bite him in the ass. That's the kind of idiotic thing we would do, but not one who doesn't give a shit about "civilian" casualties.

 

Doesn't matter though, if we act in anyway you'll have the rmanxs of the world out and decrying the West.

[guzzi]

It now needs Russia to step up to the plate and prevent the militias summarily killing civilians. There is no prospect of any other party acting in this way.

[Tarne]

Russia will continue to do airstrikes and let the Syrians do the messy ground work. A useful tactic as it's not your troops you're sending home in a bodybag then.

 

Interestingly Russia has lost 23 soldiers according to the latest figures. Something to be said for letting other people do the dying for you as you massacre them from the skies. US could learn a lesson from them on propaganda and not letting the anti war brigade run your wars.

[the stinking enigma]

Lol. Thats quite high level trolling there

[the stinking enigma]

By your standards admittedly

[Tarne]

I'm not trolling. I'm very anti Russia but their not give a shit policy with regards to a few civilian casualties is interesting. It's still bad that civilians die, but it's war, it's going to happen and at least the West tries to limit them.

 

But as I say, bugger all people protest Russia and instead decry the UK and US when they try and do good

[guzzi]

Russia will continue to do airstrikes and let the Syrians do the messy ground work. A useful tactic as it's not your troops you're sending home in a bodybag then.

 

Interestingly Russia has lost 23 soldiers according to the latest figures. Something to be said for letting other people do the dying for you as you massacre them from the skies. US could learn a lesson from them on propaganda and not letting the anti war brigade run your wars.

 

 

It depends who you see as dying for whom. Syria requested help from a long time ally, namely Russia, and they have supplied it.

 

I think 'the West's' policy has been a disaster. The militias that we are acting to support are a hotchpotch of anti-Assad groups. Strikes against daesh are understandable and justifiable, but in other respects our support has done little except extend the civil war. It looks as if it may now be moving into an end-game.

 

Bus-convoys are now taking opposition forces out of the city of Aleppo under Russian guarantee of safety. That does at least have the benefit that remaining civilians can't now be seen as combatants and must have their safety respected by Assad and his allies.

 

In a situation where right and wrong are hard to discern, I never understood why 'the West' did not support Assad. He may be an undemocratic dictator, but he is highly Westernised, and has a wife who looks and sounds as if she would rather be shopping in Bond Street than toughing it out in an embattled country. Above all, he has the will to defend his country against Islamic extremism.

[the stinking enigma]

Aleppo is only the focus because russia are doing it. The americans need to learn nothing about propaganda or how to kill civillians in syria or elsewhere. Shock and awe sounds pretty good when you say it, but not many people who have experienced it in any way would agree. The russians should just blame any civillian casualties on isis using human shields like we do. and dont forget, isis are basically the coalition ground forces

[the stinking enigma]

Watch this and dont weep. Note the date

[Tarne]

Supposedly Assad has never been weaker...

 

http://news.sky.com/story/Russian-backed-assad-has-never-been-weaker-10697363

 

I guess it's one way of looking at it, but Russia now has a stronghold in the middle east.

[pongo]

Assad - has the will to defend his country against Islamic extremism.

Assad, and his father before him, have for decades propagated versions of Islamic extremism and factionionalism in general. They more or less invented and specifically legitimised the tactic of suicide bombing - as part of Syria's proxy terrorist war against Israel - and to undermine democracy in Lebanon which the Assad faction sees as a satellite. The chaos and tactics they promoted inevitably metamorphosed and then came back to bite them.

 

It makes no difference that it happens to be the other flavour of Islamic terrorism which the Assads prefer to support.

[guzzi]

 

Assad - has the will to defend his country against Islamic extremism.

Assad, and his father before him, have for decades propagated versions of Islamic extremism and factionionalism in general. They more or less invented and specifically legitimised the tactic of suicide bombing - as part of Syria's proxy terrorist war against Israel - and to undermine democracy in Lebanon which the Assad faction sees as a satellite. The chaos and tactics they promoted inevitably metamorphosed and then came back to bite them.

 

It makes no difference that it happens to be the other flavour of Islamic terrorism which the Assads prefer to support.

 

 

 

 

Rather a selective quote! I wrote:

 

"In a situation where right and wrong are hard to discern, I never understood why 'the West' did not support Assad. He may be an undemocratic dictator, but he is highly Westernised, and has a wife who looks and sounds as if she would rather be shopping in Bond Street than toughing it out in an embattled country. Above all, he has the will to defend his country against Islamic extremism"

 

​There has of course been open warfare between Israel and Syria, off and on, for decades. That is well known, so I don't think you need to invoke a 'proxy' war. He's hardly alone in intervening in Lebanon, either, Israel does so with apparent impunity whenever it deems that it is in its interest.

 

I don't see a moral high ground anywhere, frankly, and I argue solely from the POV of European best interest in the face of a persistent terrorist threat from the daesh and fellow travellers and from the assumption that what would best serve humanitarian interest is an end to war.