War in Syria 3

572 posts / 0 new
Last post
ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Now that the jihadists have lost, and there is nothing to cheer for in Aleppo, the Western MSM will "lose interest" in that great city. I can't imagine why.

Still, there's always the resistance of the "heroic rebels" in Palmyra.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Nobody here thinks that, and it's been made clear to you repeatedly.  Please just stop.

Rev Pesky

Actually, it's fairly simple for ISIS personnel to transition from terrorists into legitimate opponents of a tyrannical government. All they have to do is cross the border from Iraq into Syria. How easy was that!

No one has to 'be on the ground' to know this. For the last 35+ years, the USA has supported Islamic fundamentalist groups, using them as a proxy army, dealing out death and destruction in the Middle East, Central Asia and the former Soviet Union. The fact that ISIS, Daesh, al-Qaeda and whosoever have no agenda besides death and destruction should tell people something.

I well remember when the left was warning people of the dangers of Reagan's policy of creating and nurturing these groups. The left was dismissed as commie sympathyzers then. How little times have changed.

 

6079_Smith_W

ikosmos wrote:

Victory Morning.

Source: Syrian Arab Republic.

Though I think they missed a couple of buildings. Not quite done yet.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The crocodile tears are astonishing. And we see lots of people in the West, poorly informed and/or just brainlessly lapping up the MSM drivel, pleading for the children of Aleppo, perhaps buried alive, or allegedly cannibalized by a regime that loves to kill children, etc., etc., - there's just no end to it.

But others see. And that's encouraging.

Adam Garrie wrote:
The fact that those at the BBC and CNN cannot wish the people of Aleppo well says a lot. Their faith in their 'fake news' over-rides any humanity they may have had and have now unilaterally surrendered. They care for millionaires weeping at their loss of power (Hillary Clinton), but offer nothing but sardonic indifference to grown men crying tears of joy at the fact that their homeland is now free.

Mainstream media objectivity? More like inhumanity.

What a disgrace. I can see now why some denounce the moral turpitude which seems to envelope the Western countries and their captive MSM. Syrians must think that we're all f^&*^&*^^ savage animals.

JKR

Hopefully Syria will soon have democratic elections to unite their country.

NDPP

Propaganda War? MSM Paints Grim Picture of Aleppo as Residents Celebrate (and vid)

https://www.rt.com/news/370218-western-media-aleppo-propaganda/

 

'Quietest Night in Months':

http://rt.com/news/370208-aleppo-quietest-night-ceasefire

Lizzie Phelan reports from the scene

 

 

6079_Smith_W

The lengths to which some have gone to try and prove that a 7year-old girl in Aleppo is not real:

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/12/14/bana-alabed-verification...

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

 

Western MSM: Bashar al-Assad .. the new Jenghiz Khan!

lagatta4

Aleppo was far more technologically advanced and "hooked in". Yes, of course US forces are killing civilians and destroying infrastructure in Mosul, as they and the "Coalition" have done throughout Iraq and Afghanistan. Many people here have gone to countless demonstrations, often in bitterly cold weather, to protest that barbaric action. You aren't talking to people who support US imperialism, or any other imperialism.

Rev Pesky

I look forward to tweets from Mosul, detailing the bombing of hospitals and the killing of civilians by the USA. I'm not holding my breath...

I remember as well the terrible accounts of Iraqi soldiers tearing  babies out of incubators, testimony given by a real living human to the US congress. How heart rending was that? A 15 year-old girl sobbing out eyewitness accounts of the terror unleashed by Iraqi soldiers against innocent babies.

Keith McClary

Rev Pesky wrote:

I look forward to tweets from Mosul, detailing the bombing of hospitals and the killing of civilians by the USA. I'm not holding my breath...

I remember as well the terrible accounts of Iraqi soldiers tearing  babies out of incubators, testimony given by a real living human to the US congress. How heart rending was that? A 15 year-old girl sobbing out eyewitness accounts of the terror unleashed by Iraqi soldiers against innocent babies.

And the Yemen genocide has fallen off the MSM radar.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Where the FUCK is the UN?

 

You stinking bastards!

NDPP

'Final Messages' From Aleppo

https://youtu.be/jVavSHSAN48

"Final messages are flying out of Aleppo, Syria. One day saying goodbye to the world on social media, the next day giving interviews to BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera..."

 

Syrian Heat (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/370343-syria-aleppo-media-coverage-debates

Pro and anti-US intervention journalists face off over Aleppo

 

Assad Interview

https://youtu.be/vn1QNppXsvM

"West is telling Russia that Syrian Army went too far in defeating terrorism."

Rev Pesky

lagatta4 wrote:
...Yes, of course US forces are killing civilians and destroying infrastructure in Mosul...

The USA, and their proxies, are also killing civilians and destroying infrastructure in Syria. They are not absent from the fight, they are in the mddle of it, supporting some of the most vile criminals imaginable.

Rev Pesky

An editorial in the Globe & Mail today:

In Aleppo, Assad and Russia win

Quote:
...Mr. Assad has divided and conquered, while his opponents have divided themselves. The various oppositions couldn’t unite, and Mr. Assad’s most high-profile opponent – ISIS – was party fostered by the regime itself, to present Syrians and the world with a false choice between the old dictator and a new apocalypse.

Beginning to realize their support for ISIS was becoming a bit embarrassing, the story suddenly changes. Now ISIS is Assad's fault. Yup, that makes a lot of sense.

Despite the fact ISIS began in Iraq, despite the fact the Saudi regime sponsored ISIS with money and arms, despite the fact ISIS has a central tenet of destroying the secular state, despite all this, it is suddenly obvious to the Globe & Mail editorial department that ISIS is really a creation of Assad.

Here's a little different story from Alistair Crookes, ex-MI6, and author of a book on the Islamic revolution. This is from the Huffington Post, prior to the realization Assad had to be blamed for ISIS:

You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism

Quote:
...Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised — knowing a little about Wahhabism — that “moderate” insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of “One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed” could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

Or, perhaps, we never imagined.  

Or why not just imagine it's all Assad's fault? Yeah, that's a better idea...

 

sherpa-finn

C'mon Rev, your political naivete is embarrassing. 

The Globe simply said that Assad "fostered" ISIS so as to discredit all of its opponents, - including of course many more mainstream anti-Assad groups that dated back to the initial democracy movements and fragmentation of the Syrian Army when he turned the military's guns on his own people.

There is plenty of evidence of how both Assad and the Russians have done exactly that.  Successfully too, if we observe the hook, line and sinker approach of the assorted Assad apologists on public display, here and elsewhere. 

Basement Dweller

sherpa-finn wrote:

There is plenty of evidence of how both Assad and the Russians have done exactly that.  Successfully too, if we observe the hook, line and sinker approach of the assorted Assad apologists on public display, here and elsewhere. 

I'd like to see this evidence. Right now, it appears Assad loyalists are in raging battles with ISIS in at least a couple areas of Syria. Or am I naive to believe that?

 

Unionist

ikosmos wrote:

The CBC is a disgrace. Nothing they say can be trusted on this file. Zero.

I don't "trust" anything anyone says on this file.

But at least the CBC occasionally offers a platform for a slightly more balanced voice. Had he mentioned Libya and Afghanistan as well as Iraq, I would have respected the article more. But at least it doesn't buy into the "we freedom-loving humanitarian westerners need to save the inferior savage races from themselves and from the Russians!!" mantra.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/syria-war-neil-macdonald-1.3898371]The fall of Aleppo isn't humanity's disgrace: Neil Macdonald[/url]

 

Basement Dweller

I've been following this conflict for a while and I've heard many theories about who has "fostered" ISIS. Just about everyone has been accused of doing this, even some Kurdish organizations. Also Assad, USA (NATO), Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and various opposition groups (who were even fighting alongside ISIS a few years ago). I haven't heard anything yet about Russia and Iran, but I'm sure they've been accused too. Well, I guess they have, by proxy through Assad.

Name your boogeyman and come up with theories as to how they've helped ISIS.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:
Beginning to realize their support for ISIS was becoming a bit embarrassing, the story suddenly changes. Now ISIS is Assad's fault. Yup, that makes a lot of sense.

Despite the fact ISIS began in Iraq, despite the fact the Saudi regime sponsored ISIS with money and arms, despite the fact ISIS has a central tenet of destroying the secular state, despite all this, it is suddenly obvious to the Globe & Mail editorial department that ISIS is really a creation of Assad.

This diversion has been going on for some time. The scum bag Globe and Mail is simply re-gurgitating the missives of the master in Washington - at a suitable occassion. And today, now that the terrorists have been driven out of Aleppo, is such an occassion. 

For example, the US Treasury Department, in shining Orwellian double think,  banned the President of the world governing body of chess (FIDE) from the US, and threatened to arrest him if he came to the US, for his alleged connections to a Syrian bank, which, of course, is connect to the Syrian government that the odious Treasury Department says "is sponsoring terrorism". These fuckers have been doing this for several years now. So, for example, the FIDE President could not come to the US for the recently held World Championship - despite the fact that he arranged for it to take place in NYC - without the threat of imprisonment and likely US torture and/or death at the hands of the US regime in one of their many dungeons.

The only relations the FIDE President has with Syria is that he goes there to promote chess. But the barbarians in Washington want to politicize ... a board game. Because freedom.

This is the sort of garbage that the US regime has been doing for some time. So the lap dog - excuse me, the Canadian chihuahua barks away at the "terrorist sponsoring" Syrian regime.

The directions from the master in Washington were, in fact, already given. The bootlicking Canadian MSM press - in the form of the G & M - just had to "look" for their "orders".

Brainwashed. Bootlickers. What's the difference if the result is the same?

 

 

sherpa-finn

Basement Dweller wrote:

sherpa-finn wrote:

There is plenty of evidence of how both Assad and the Russians have done exactly that.  Successfully too, if we observe the hook, line and sinker approach of the assorted Assad apologists on public display, here and elsewhere. 

I'd like to see this evidence. Right now, it appears Assad loyalists are in raging battles with ISIS in at least a couple areas of Syria. Or am I naive to believe that?

Fair enough. If you are talking about "right now", you can't get much more obvious than the decision of the Assad-Putin coalition to bomb the shit out of rebel held Aleppo (no ISIS in that 'hood) while down the road letting ISIS forces walk back into Palmyra.

If you want to look back before this past week, there are plenty of additional examples, - including evidence of commercial cooperation between the Syrian Gov't and ISIS. Google is our friend.

Its no great mystery to anyone but the Russophiles here: while teh rebels have made removal of Assad central to their cause, ISIS hasn't. It is happy enough to have its own caliphate and let the rest of the country go to hell in Assad's handbasket. Such is realpolitik.   

 

 

NDPP

Journalists Face Off Over Syria

https://youtu.be/3JFEmCKHVME

Canadian independent journalist and Rabble contributor vs Dilly Hussain, deputy editor of 5 Pillars UK on Syria

.'Canada is illegally in Syria.'

True.

 

 

 

Basement Dweller

sherpa-finn wrote:

Fair enough. If you are talking about "right now", you can't get much more obvious than the decision of the Assad-Putin coalition to bomb the shit out of rebel held Aleppo (no ISIS in that 'hood) while down the road letting ISIS forces walk back into Palmyra.

If you want to look back before this past week, there are plenty of additional examples, - including evidence of commercial cooperation between the Syrian Gov't and ISIS. Google is our friend.

Its no great mystery to anyone but the Russophiles here: while teh rebels have made removal of Assad central to their cause, ISIS hasn't. It is happy enough to have its own caliphate and let the rest of the country go to hell in Assad's handbasket. Such is realpolitik.   

The fact that ISIS started this offensive right now is a bit of a mystery. It doesn't make sense when they are collapsing in Iraq and losing ground in both non-urban Aleppo and Raqqa. Where did the resources suddenly come from for them to be able to do this?

I'm willing to believe this was simply a miscalculation by Assad (really Russia), and an embarrassing one too. Assad loyalists are stretched out while re-capturing Eastern Aleppo City and someone decided to take advantage of that. Maybe it was to stop Assad/Russia from moving on to non-urban Aleppo. Maybe someone just grabbing the resources.

As for commercial cooperation, a few years ago Assad was on the verge of losing his head and would have made a deal with Satan himself. Some of Assad's followers did lose their heads when Raqqa fell. So I think it's totally possible Assadists made deals with ISIS out of fear (and greed), but in no way did they want to foster it to make it stronger.

I believe Assad has pretty much lost his independence and does what Russia and Iran tell him to do. He can barely foster himself, nevermind ISIS.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

BREAKING: 14 US-Led Coalition Military Advisers Captured by Syrian Special Forces in Aleppo

So, the "genuine humanitarian concern" for the Aleppo pocket by the brutal NATO regimes probably has nothing to do with helping Syrian civilians and everything to do with extricating the NATO regime mercenaries ....

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Basement Dweller wrote:
I believe Assad has pretty much lost his independence and does what Russia and Iran tell him to do. He can barely foster himself, nevermind ISIS.

I believe Assad said, in a recent interview, (link upthread) that the help that Russia has provided Syria, under President Putin, has been disinterested and without strings. He even tries to attribute this genorosity to the Russian moral character, etc. His remarks are quite touching and it is the first time I have seen anyone comment on the excellent foreign policy of the Russian Federation and try to ascribe reasons for it. 

OTOH, the monstrous support for terrorism, and the sanctions against Syria, by the barbarous NATO regimes (including our own) reflects a shocking moral bankrupcy by the brutal Western states.

Incidently, some US and Israeli "advisors" just got caught in Aleppo. They were directing terrorist traffic. How noble.

 

edited to add: here is Bashar Al Assad's remarks from upthread.

Quote:

As for Russia, we have dealt with many Russians recently, in addition to our knowledge of them for decades, through the relationship with the Soviet Union and then with Russia. In the different circumstances this relationship has undergone – circumstances that have brought radical changes – not once the Russians tried to impose anything on us, even when there were differences, including Syria’s role in Lebanon. Despite our differences with the Soviet Union at that time, they did not try to impose certain decisions on us although we used to depend greatly on them, particularly when it comes to weapons. Today, the same applies to the Russian Federation. It is not merely a style adopted by the President or the Russian leadership. It is a form of popular culture for them. When we meet on all levels, and in all sectors, they have one culture based on morality. They have self-respect and they respect sovereignty. That’s why the Russian policy today is based on principles, because these principles constitute an existing popular and cultural condition. When they say that they emphasize Security Council resolutions, state sovereignty, respect for others, respect for the will of the Syrian people, or any other people, they reflect their culture and apply it on a daily and continuous manner. That’s why I can confirm that they haven’t carried out one simple or complicated, major or important step, regardless of the labels, except in consultation with Syria.

..."it is a form of popular culture for them... it is not merely a style adopted by the [Russian] President ... they have one culture based on morality. They have self-respect and they respect sovereignty. "

 

...........................................

Wouldn't it be decent if Canada, for example, instead of imposing SANCTIONS on a country fighting terrorists, and draining Syria's well educated middle-class as (refugee) immigrants, actually HELPED that country??

 

sherpa-finn

ikosmos wrote:

I believe Assad said, in a recent interview, (link upthread) that the help that Russia has provided Syria, under President Putin, has been disinterested and without strings. He even tries to attribute this genorosity to the Russian moral character, etc. His remarks are quite touching and it is the first time I have seen anyone comment on the excellent foreign policy of the Russian Federation and try to ascribe reasons for it. 

I think most Babblers can probably agree that this was the defining moment that ikosmos jumped the Syrian shark.  

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:
...Fair enough. If you are talking about "right now", you can't get much more obvious than the decision of the Assad-Putin coalition to bomb the shit out of rebel held Aleppo (no ISIS in that 'hood) while down the road letting ISIS forces walk back into Palmyra...

ISIS spokesman killed in Alepppo

Quote:
Mohammad al-Adnani, the official spokesman of ISIS and one of its most senior members, has died in Syria, the terror group said in a rare public statement.

...A statement from ISIS' Amaq news agency on Tuesday said al-Adnani died while inspecting military operations in the area of Aleppo, Syria.

If there ain't no ISIS in Aleppo. which military operations was al-Adnani inspecting?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

BREAKING: 14 US-Led Coalition Military Advisers Captured by Syrian Special Forces in Aleppo

Quote:

Fares Shehabi, a prominent Syrian Parliamentarian and head of Aleppo’s Chamber of Commerce published the names of the Coalition officers on his Facebook page on the 15th December (emphasis added):

Mutaz Kanoğlu – Turkey
David Scott Winer – USA
David Shlomo Aram – Israel
Muhamad Tamimi – Qatar
Muhamad Ahmad Assabian – Saudi
Abd-el-Menham Fahd al Harij – Saudi
Islam Salam Ezzahran Al Hajlan – Saudi
Ahmed Ben Naoufel Al Darij – Saudi
Muhamad Hassan Al Sabihi – Saudi
Hamad Fahad Al Dousri – Saudi
Amjad Qassem Al Tiraoui – Jordan
Qassem Saad Al Shamry – Saudi
Ayman Qassem Al Thahalbi – Saudi
Mohamed Ech-Chafihi El Idrissi – Moroccan

I wonder what furious "negotiations" are being attempted by these regimes. Syria is know as "the land of the dead" when it comes to Israeli spies and mercenaries.  It's said they don't survive if they're caught.

But a captured American mercenary is like a gift from God ...

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

I believe Assad said, in a recent interview, (link upthread) that the help that Russia has provided Syria, under President Putin, has been disinterested and without strings. He even tries to attribute this genorosity to the Russian moral character, etc. His remarks are quite touching and it is the first time I have seen anyone comment on the excellent foreign policy of the Russian Federation and try to ascribe reasons for it. 

I think most Babblers can probably agree that this was the defining moment that ikosmos jumped the Syrian shark.  

Assad said in the interview that I quoted that Russia (actually the old Soviet Union) did not interfere even when they had differences with Syria over the Syrian role in Lebanon.

Do you have any evidence to dispute this claim? Or just looking for an opportunity to urinate on those that disagree with your "carefully considered opinion" ? lol

sherpa-finn

Rev Pesky wrote: If there ain't no ISIS in Aleppo. which military operations was al-Adnani inspecting?

Actually, Rev - geography is complicated.

You see, there is Aleppo the city (subject of cited siege, fighting and bombing). And then there is Aleppo Province, - the larger area around the city. (Just think 'Quebec the city' and 'Quebec the province'. Though not as big.)

As across much of Syria, ISIS holds (or at least moves about and contests) much of the countryside, including Aleppo Province.  But everyone agrees that there has been no significant presence of ISIS in Aleppo City since teh beginning of the conflict.

Where Al-Adnani was inspecting troops and was killed depends on who you choose to believe: the Russians say they killed him in Maarat Umm Hawsh which is 50 kms north of the city in what was an ISIS contested rural area.  OTOH, the Americans say they killed him in Al Bab, which is 50 kms north east of the city, also in an ISIS-contested rural area.

So, no - ISIS was not the focus of the sustained Syrian and Russian bombing (and likely crimes against humanity) in Aleppo. It was the forces of the Syrian Free Army and assorted allied militias and of course the 250,000 or so remaining civilians that were the focus.

Happy to clarify your confusion. 

NDPP

Western Capitals Reeling Over Syria, 'Consumed by Mass Hysteria and Propaganda' - Catherine Shakdam

http://rt.com/op-edge/370551-syria-liberation-aleppo-russia

 

It is Now Beyond Question that Prolonged Violence in Syria is in Washington's Interest

http://rt.com/op-edge/370282-syria-palmyra-isis-us

 

'If I Write in Line with Russian Media It's Because We Both Tell the Truth' - Eva Bartlett

http://rt.com/op-edge/370618-syria-sources-bartlett-rt

"If people do not wish to hear the voices of Syrian civilians and if they want to maintain their narrative in line with the NATO narrative, which is in line with destabilizing Syria and vilifying the government of Syria and ignoring the overwhelming wishes of the people of Syria - then they do this by accusing me of spreading propaganda..."

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote: If there ain't no ISIS in Aleppo. which military operations was al-Adnani inspecting?

... But everyone agrees that there has been no significant presence of ISIS in Aleppo City since teh beginning of the conflict.

Not quite everyone, although I will admit this comment is about al-Nusra rather than specifically ISIS.

Defense Department has a new line...

Quote:
...US Army Col. Steve Warren, the spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq, was asked whether Russian airstrikes on Aleppo, the current epicenter of the war, meant that Moscow was preparing to end the cessation of hostilities (CoH) agreement between government forces and the opposition signed on February 29.

Warren responded that it was "complicated" because al-Nusra "holds Aleppo" and is not party to the agreement.

"What I do know is that we have seen, you know, regime forces with some Russian support as well begin to mass and concentrate combat power around Aleppo. ... That said, it's primarily al-Nusra who holds Aleppo, and of course, al-Nusra is not part of the cessation of hostilities. So it's complicated

Happy to clarify your confusion. 

And let's put this bullshit about who supports ISIS to bed, shall we:

How Saudi Arabia helped ISIS

Quote:
How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world? Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."

The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria.

...Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar's words, saying that they constituted "a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed".

He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq.

...Dearlove's explosive revelation about the prediction of a day of reckoning for the Shia by Prince Bandar, and the former head of MI6's view that Saudi Arabia is involved in the Isis-led Sunni rebellion, has attracted surprisingly little attention.

...Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Isis.

...Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia "militancy" is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups." She said that, in so far as Saudi Arabia did act against al-Qa'ida, it was as a domestic threat and not because of its activities abroad.

...The West may have to pay a price for its alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which have always found Sunni jihadism more attractive than democracy. A striking example of double standards by the western powers was the Saudi-backed suppression of peaceful democratic protests by the Shia majority in Bahrain in March 2011.

...What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. "I guess they just didn't believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad," said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.

...Nor is this the only point on which Prince Bandar was dangerously mistaken. The rise of Isis is bad news for the Shia of Iraq but it is worse news for the Sunni whose leadership has been ceded to a pathologically bloodthirsty and intolerant movement, a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, which has no aim but war without end.

And that is the truth. War without end brought to you by the USA, and their client states.

 

 

iyraste1313

– First published … December 17,  2016 –

At least 14 US-led coalition military advisers have been captured by the Syrian Special Forces in a bunker in the city of Aleppo, according to media reports.

The event allegedly took place in the morning on December 16, 2016 (Voltaire.net):

“The Security Council is sitting in private on Friday, December 16, 2016, at 17:00 GMT, while NATO officers were arrested this morning by the Syrian Special Forces in a bunker in East Aleppo.”

21stcenturywire.com also provided a list of names of the coalition’s military advisers captured in Aleppo, citing a Syrian member of Parliament:

Fares Shehabi, a prominent Syrian Parliamentarian and head of Aleppo’s Chamber of Commerce published the names of the Coalition officers on his Facebook page on the 15th December (emphasis added):

Mutaz Kanoğlu – Turkey
David Scott Winer – USA
David Shlomo Aram – Israel
Muhamad Tamimi – Qatar
Muhamad Ahmad Assabian – Saudi
Abd-el-Menham Fahd al Harij – Saudi
Islam Salam Ezzahran Al Hajlan – Saudi
Ahmed Ben Naoufel Al Darij – Saudi
Muhamad Hassan Al Sabihi – Saudi
Hamad Fahad Al Dousri – Saudi
Amjad Qassem Al Tiraoui – Jordan
Qassem Saad Al Shamry – Saudi
Ayman Qassem Al Thahalbi – Saudi
Mohamed Ech-Chafihi El Idrissi – Moroccan

Damascus-based Syrian journalist Said Hilal Alcharifi also reported on the issue in his Facebook account:

Very urgent
The Syrian authorities were able, thanks to information thorough, arrive at the headquarters of senior officers and western regional in the basement of a district of Aleppo-is, and capture them all alive.
A few names have already been ex filtered to Syrian journalists including me.
Seen the nationalities (us, French, British, German, Israelis, Turks, Saudis, Moroccans, Qatari, etc.. etc) of these scumbags and their military ranks, I assure you
Syria holds in this moment a big treasures to carry out the negotiations with the countries that have destroyed.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I found this article to be informative about the various factions in Syrian society and mostly fits with my view of what is happening in Aleppo. When the guns come out everyone loses. Another country being actively destroyed and like Libya my tax dollars are helping to pay to destabilize a society to make its wealth more available for Western corporations.. 

Quote:

So you get 70% of the people in the country who, having been given the unpalatable choice between the Baath regime of al-Assad and being ruled by Salafi Jihadis, reluctantly chose al-Assad.

That is why the Aleppo pocket fell.  There had been 250,000 Sunni Arabs of a more religious mindset and from a working class background living there under rebel control since 2012.  But next door in West Aleppo, which our television stations won’t talk about, were 800,000 to a million people who much preferred to be under the rule of the regime.  This numerous and relatively well off population took occasional mortar fire from the slums of East Aleppo.  They weren’t in the least interested in saving the rebels from the Russians or the Iraqi Shiite militias or from the regime itself.

The Kurdish forces likewise didn’t rush to the defense of the Sunni Arab fighters in the East Aleppo pocket.

By militarizing the revolution and by moving ideologically to the religious far right, the rebel fighters deprived themselves of support among most Syrians.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/aleppo_rebels_were_defeated_because_...

 

sherpa-finn

Hope Krop isn't too horrified, but I tend to agree that the Cole article he links to above provides a pretty fair and accurate summary of the Syrian context and the evolution of the conflict. 

I would just highlight an early extract from Cole's narrative: 

"The Syrian youth revolution of 2011 appealed to virtually all these groups except maybe the Alawite Shiites, who depend on the al-Assad regime for their prominent position and prosperity in Syrian society.  The early Syrian revolutionaries talked about a democratic society in which all these groups would have representation. ... But when the regime used heavy weaponry on the revolutionaries, the latter militarized their struggle.  They weren’t able to get funding from democratic countries for their militias or for the purchase of weapons.  Many turned to Turkey and the Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia, and these patrons wanted them to adopt a clear Muslim fundamentalist identity.  Most Syrians are not Muslim fundamentalists.  But that is the mindset of the Saudi elite."

Bottom-line: there was a moment (2012?) when another future seemed possible, and the popular, largely secular and democratic rebellion of the day stood poised to make a breakthrough. But for the reasons stated, it didn't happen and the rest as they say is history. 

sherpa-finn

Its been two days now since that story about US-led / NATO advisors being captured in Aleppo first began to circulate in Assad-apologist media, to be promptly shared here by the usual suspects. 

Given that there seems to have been no pick up to date by the MSM (including RT), and the claimed source (a Facebook page of a Syrian MP) appears to be non-functional, and the same MP's active twitter account makes no mention of this story, - well, perhaps Babble mods could flag these posts with a 'FAKE NEWS' alert.  Caveat lector, - or whatever. 

NDPP

The Syrian War Condensed

https://t.co/KlvRXg0fwG

"A more rigorous way to look at the conflict."

 

The New Plan To Complicate Rapprochment in Syria

https://t.co/geV5H4rsxM

"Latest increased mention of Iran is part of an attempt to complicate and block any attempt at rapprochment between DC and Russia/Assad."

swallow swallow's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

Its been two days now since that story about US-led / NATO advisors being captured in Aleppo first began to circulate in Assad-apologist media, to be promptly shared here by the usual suspects. 

Given that there seems to have been no pick up to date by the MSM (including RT), and the claimed source (a Facebook page of a Syrian MP) appears to be non-functional, and the same MP's active twitter account makes no mention of this story, - well, perhaps Babble mods could flag these posts with a 'FAKE NEWS' alert.  Caveat lector, - or whatever. 

Maybe babble does need a "flag as fake" function. Maybe that would be dangerous. Topic for reactions?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

OK, but then the vast majority of MSM "News" would have to be flagged as fake. And who would do the work? Those that noisily "agree" with the claims of the MSM? lol.

I'm not even sure about this complaint-driven model we now seem to have at babble. It smacks of a neo-liberal approach, the "broken window" approach of the right in NYC, that is used to silence dissent and impose a kind of ideological gentry.

 

Boze

I am personally grateful to this thread and to ikosmos and NDPP for their work here. Unsurprising that people complain about it. Sad, but unsurprising.

sherpa-finn

I haven't heard too many complaints about ikosmos and NDPP.  Some critique to be sure. And plenty of mockery, usually well deserved. IMHO.

Like ikosmos's latest contribution that "the vast majority of MSM "News" would have to be flagged as fake."

Clearly, ikosmos has crossed over to the George Bush school of truthiness... for if you believe something hard enough, its just GOT to be true!  And even if its provably not true, well who cares? My beliefs and opinions are just as valid as your so-called objective, provable facts. 

Its kind of sad and pathetic for anyone actually interested in substantive discussion and debate. But its a central part of our shared struggles of the modern day. Dealing with the dangerously delusional. Sigh.

A luta continua.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So Sherpa-Fin do you actually think the majority of the US MSM can be believed on international issues involving countries in dispute with the US?

Now that deserves mocking.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Russian President Putin proposes a Peace Conference to seek a settlement of the Syrian conflict.

See Vladimir Putin outlines road map for Syrian peace settlement

Quote:
 What is striking about the latter proposal is that it appears to cut across the existing UN led peace conference, which is supposed to be taking place in Geneva, and which the US, the other Western powers, and the Gulf Arab states, have been attending.  By contrast, at Saudi Arabia’s insistence, Iran’s role in the Geneva conference has been restricted even though Iran is a major player in the Syrian conflict.  Putin’s proposed conference at Astana would by contrast place Iran centre stage, and appears to be intended to limit the negotiations to settle the conflict to the leading powers directly involved in the conflict in Syria: Russia, Turkey and Iran.

Putin’s proposal is a follow up on the negotiations that led to the final agreement for the withdrawal of the Jihadis in Aleppo, which in the end took place bilaterally between Russia and Turkey, cutting out the US.

It reflects Russian disillusion with the US and its negotiating stance over Syria.  The Russians feel that they twice painstakingly negotiated deals with the US in February and September in Syria, with commitments from the US to separate ‘moderate rebels’ from the Jihadis and to withdraw the Jihadis from Aleppo, which the US in the end never honoured.

And, as long as they leave out the blood-sucking, terrorist-sponsoring, regime-change-insisting, fundamentalist Western states , there is a good chance of success.

And it looks like they are. Too bad! aha ha ha ha!

How about some genuine aid instead of sending weapons to Syria?

I doubt it. I expect to see more peevish spite from the lame duck Obama regime. And that means more intensive sanctions from the chihuahua* in Canada.

You know. Because freedom.

 

* NO chihuahuas or small, defenseless creatures were hurt in the composition of this comment.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:
So Sherpa-Fin do you actually think the majority of the US MSM can be believed on international issues involving countries in dispute with the US?

Now that deserves mocking.

Aw, c'mon! If one takes a position halfway between the "extremes" of the Russians and the Americans, then surely that's closer to the truth? I mean, the truth is always "somewhere in the middle" right?

NDPP

Dozens of Buses Evacuate 3,000 People From Aleppo's Last Rebel-Held District (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/370742-aleppo-evacuates-buses-syria

"At least 3,000 people have been evacuated from the last rebel-held district of Aleppo."

 

UN Security Council Unanimously Passes Resolution on Monitoring Aleppo Evacuations

http://rt.com/news/370750-unsc-aleppo-resolution-monitoring

"The resolution asked UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon 'to take urgent steps to make arrangements, including security arrangements in consultation with interested parties to allow the observation by the UN and other relevant institutions of the well-being of civilians inside the eastern districts of the city of Aleppo..."

Alas there appears no such concern over the plight of up to a million caught in an active western-led attack on Aleppo...

'We Have Nothing Left'

https://youtu.be/KFd6MFx2VZA

ikosmos ikosmos's picture
sherpa-finn

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Sherpa-Fin do you actually think the majority of the US MSM can be believed on international issues involving countries in dispute with the US?

Now that deserves mocking.

An interesting question, Krop, worthy of discussion. But of course wholly unrelated to the issue under immediate discussion. ie, the propensity of certain folks to promote fake (ie provably) false news and/or make provably false assertions on Babble, as a simple matter of on-going discourse. 

FWIW, I have no problem debating editorial slants and biases, as well as sins of journalistic omission and commission, varying interpretations of reality, etc.  But if we do not have the cojones to call out 100% bullshit when folks are actively spreading it here, it is IMHO wholly to our discredit. This misguided tolerance of BS will surely come back to bite progressives and progressive causes, just as pandering to fake news has distorted discourse on the right. There is no reason for us to think we are immune. 

On the difficultues of extracting truth from a contemporary war zone, I have no illusions about the challenges involved. On the specifics about the news coming out of Aleppo, this article from The Independent was as good an overview as I have seen: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-crisis-syrian-war-bashar-al-a...

 

Sean in Ottawa

sherpa-finn wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Sherpa-Fin do you actually think the majority of the US MSM can be believed on international issues involving countries in dispute with the US?

Now that deserves mocking.

An interesting question, Krop, worthy of discussion. But of course wholly unrelated to the issue under immediate discussion. ie, the propensity of certain folks to promote fake (ie provably) false news and/or make provably false assertions on Babble, as a simple matter of on-going discourse. 

FWIW, I have no problem debating editorial slants and biases, as well as sins of journalistic omission and commission, varying interpretations of reality, etc.  But if we do not have the cojones to call out 100% bullshit when folks are actively spreading it here, it is IMHO wholly to our discredit. This misguided tolerance of BS will surely come back to bite progressives and progressive causes, just as pandering to fake news has distorted discourse on the right. There is no reason for us to think we are immune. 

On the difficultues of extracting truth from a contemporary war zone, I have no illusions about the challenges involved. On the specifics about the news coming out of Aleppo, this article from The Independent was as good an overview as I have seen: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-crisis-syrian-war-bashar-al-a...

 

It is an interesting article. There is no doubt that the more powerful interests have silenced, in many cases permanently, any other voices.

The Us, no doubt, is also aware of just how tangled their interests are. Backing the rebels a couple years ago may have been viable but it is very clear that this, for the US is a war between its rivals. The US has seen how support of convenience backfires. This may be its own rationale for avoiding more committed support to either rebels who are as much ISIS as they are anything else and Assad, backed by rival Russia who is not pleasant in any case. The US, who have little real interest in the people of other countries, lacks any strategic interest on any side here. This is not a defence of the US by any means -- it is a mean, destructive interfering party when it gets involved. But we can see that the US has determined that there is nothing here it has any interest in supporting.

If overseas oil wanes in value, are we near a more general retraction from the Middle East by the US? The US must now see that it is close to being in a position where it can only lose more than it can gain there. Only the makers of things that go bang have a strong interest in being there, and we cannot minimize their power in the US. The other costs and benefits will soon become a wash.

Perhaps the US might be persuaded to behave or go away once they have fewer interests there. The rest of the world, where they still have interests ought to be worried. If you think the next most important resource rising as oil declines is water then Canadians might have reasons to pause.

 

Rev Pesky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...The Us, no doubt, is also aware of just how tangled their interests are. Backing the rebels a couple years ago may have been viable but it is very clear that this, for the US is a war between its rivals. The US has seen how support of convenience backfires.

This would only be true if, in fact, the USA was trying to do something other than just destroying the infrastructure of Syria.

But the real trajectory of USA involvement is always the same. The undermining of the government, the encouragement of opposition, the financial and materiel support of fundamentalists, the complete destruction of the infrastucture, the leaving of a power vacuum, most often occupied by the most organized 'mad max' group, and then, inevitably, the acceptance a few years on that it was all a 'mistake'.

How many times do we have to listen to this before we begin to realize that it isn't a 'mistake'. It is a deliberate policy to destroy, to 'bomb back to the stone age', any country that the USA feels is not responding as it should, or for any other reason, including just trying out the new stuff (within the same old plan).

Pages

Topic locked