The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[peterms]

I cant recall where I saw that syria gave the ok for bombing. It was a credible source though, or i wouldnt have repeated it. I think its highly probable that the US has had talks with the Assad regime, either directly or through an intermidiary, despite what they say. In any event, Assad has not denounced it, as far as i know. And he shouldnt, because bombing IS helps him.

The Today programme has just confirmed that Syria has stated it has not approved this action (about 8.18 if you want to hear the replay when it's available).

They also mentioned that there is concern among the UK government about the legality of such action, which seems to be an acknowledgement that it's illegal without wanting to say so in plain terms.

[TrentVilla]

The US and Iran in military action together, the world in 2014 is indeed a strange and dangerous place. I wonder what other odd match up's this decade has in store? Hammas and Israel combined forces taking on Belgium is available at 16/1 on betfair.

[TrentVilla]

 

I cant recall where I saw that syria gave the ok for bombing. It was a credible source though, or i wouldnt have repeated it. I think its highly probable that the US has had talks with the Assad regime, either directly or through an intermidiary, despite what they say. In any event, Assad has not denounced it, as far as i know. And he shouldnt, because bombing IS helps him.

The Today programme has just confirmed that Syria has stated it has not approved this action (about 8.18 if you want to hear the replay when it's available).

They also mentioned that there is concern among the UK government about the legality of such action, which seems to be an acknowledgement that it's illegal without wanting to say so in plain terms.

 

 

Which is much as I expected. I just don't see the US dealing with Syria on any real level, I think they are far more likely to view it as a failed state and pursue their own objectives irrespective of the Syrian leadership. Dangerous ground indeed and not just legally.

[peterms]

...the lack of any response by Syria's top class air defence system indicates the strikes had their tacit consent...

More like they are well aware that the US would rather bomb the regime and are looking for an excuse to do so, so a military response would be playing into their hands.

[LondonLax]

...the lack of any response by Syria's top class air defence system indicates the strikes had their tacit consent...

More like they are well aware that the US would rather bomb the regime and are looking for an excuse to do so, so a military response would be playing into their hands.

Why would they rather bomb the regime?

[peterms]

 

Which is much as I expected. I just don't see the US dealing with Syria on any real level, I think they are far more likely to view it as a failed state and pursue their own objectives irrespective of the Syrian leadership. Dangerous ground indeed and not just legally.

It is plainly not a failed state, but a state the US doesn't like. A failed state would be one where there is no functioning government to deal with.

It's true the US has sought to reduce Syria to that level by funding, arming and training rebel forces (the ones who handed the hostages to IS to be beheaded).

The difference is that with a failed state, there would be no-one from whom to seek consent. In this case there is, and it's a political choice not to seek consent.

[peterms]

...the lack of any response by Syria's top class air defence system indicates the strikes had their tacit consent...

More like they are well aware that the US would rather bomb the regime and are looking for an excuse to do so, so a military response would be playing into their hands.

Why would they rather bomb the regime?

Because achieving regime change by arming and training rebels hasn't worked.

[TrentVilla]

 

 

Which is much as I expected. I just don't see the US dealing with Syria on any real level, I think they are far more likely to view it as a failed state and pursue their own objectives irrespective of the Syrian leadership. Dangerous ground indeed and not just legally.

It is plainly not a failed state, but a state the US doesn't like. A failed state would be one where there is no functioning government to deal with.

It's true the US has sought to reduce Syria to that level by funding, arming and training rebel forces (the ones who handed the hostages to IS to be beheaded).

The difference is that with a failed state, there would be no-one from whom to seek consent. In this case there is, and it's a political choice not to seek consent.

 

 

I wasn't suggesting it was a failed state, just suggesting that is a more likely way for the US to view it. 

[peterms]

Which is much as I expected. I just don't see the US dealing with Syria on any real level, I think they are far more likely to view it as a failed state and pursue their own objectives irrespective of the Syrian leadership. Dangerous ground indeed and not just legally.

It is plainly not a failed state, but a state the US doesn't like. A failed state would be one where there is no functioning government to deal with.

It's true the US has sought to reduce Syria to that level by funding, arming and training rebel forces (the ones who handed the hostages to IS to be beheaded).

The difference is that with a failed state, there would be no-one from whom to seek consent. In this case there is, and it's a political choice not to seek consent.

 

I wasn't suggesting it was a failed state, just suggesting that is a more likely way for the US to view it.

Yes, I know, but it's important that we don't all accept their self-serving propaganda.

[LondonLax]

...the lack of any response by Syria's top class air defence system indicates the strikes had their tacit consent...

More like they are well aware that the US would rather bomb the regime and are looking for an excuse to do so, so a military response would be playing into their hands.

Why would they rather bomb the regime?

Because achieving regime change by arming and training rebels hasn't worked.

If they wanted to bomb the regime they would be bombing the regime, not bombing the other side.

[TrentVilla]

Meanwhile.....

 

Israel has this morning shot down a Syrian fighter jet over the Golan Heights....

[Ads]

 

I cant recall where I saw that syria gave the ok for bombing. It was a credible source though, or i wouldnt have repeated it. I think its highly probable that the US has had talks with the Assad regime, either directly or through an intermidiary, despite what they say. In any event, Assad has not denounced it, as far as i know. And he shouldnt, because bombing IS helps him.

The Today programme has just confirmed that Syria has stated it has not approved this action (about 8.18 if you want to hear the replay when it's available).

They also mentioned that there is concern among the UK government about the legality of such action, which seems to be an acknowledgement that it's illegal without wanting to say so in plain terms.

 

 

Syria, as was drawn up, no longer exists beyond black lines on a map. The Syrian government isn't in charge of the area around al Raqqa and hasn't been for some considerable time. It is questionable whether they have the means to stop IS hitting and getting a foothold in Aleppo, which is perhaps why these containment strikes have been commenced.  

 

Awol has the measure of this; the lack of a Syrian government response is a loud indicator that the US are welcome to degrade IS, as far as the Syrian Government is concerned. As I said previously, it wouldn't surprise me if Syria have called this on in an attempt to bring themselves in from the cold and it would be interesting to hear Terhan's view on this and whether they have given the nod too. The consequence may be it alienates the Sunni's in Iraq further, making a formal partition more likely.

 

The US talk of arming rebels in Syria is an interesting one, considering there is an admission that they don't understand what is happening on the ground in enough detail and they want to avoid a vacuum situation for our "close friends" to fill again with their brand of Takfiri. It's also worth noting, that in this sort of conflict, the moderates will be marginalised as part of the brutalisation of the conflict, so who really is acceptable to arm in Syria?

 

Interesting about Israel. I haven't read anything about Golan since Nursa Front took some key crossings there and would imagine the IDF have had their finger on the trigger ever since.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Ads

[peterms]

If they wanted to bomb the regime they would be bombing the regime, not bombing the other side.

They're not quite at the stage of being able to act with total impunity, much as they would like to be.  They have to have some regard to domestic and international opinion.

 

Creating and arming rebels is one thing, a direct assault on a sovereign state quite another.

 

They need a pretext, and the false flag chemical attacks a few months back failed to provide it.  Downing a US plane would give one, even if it is engaged in attacks over Syria which amount to an act of war, because it could be presented as not an attack on Syria, just a limited action with unfortunate but inevitable deaths of Syrian civilians (I'm waiting to hear both "surgical strike" and "collateral damage" in the same sentence).

[Ads]

… Or, it could be that you're not going to be able to contain IS in Iraq without hitting their safe heaven, where they train, recruit and re-supply forces from. Pity it's taken so long for some properly directed air-strikes to come about, in light of IS and their genocidal rampage against minorities up that way, their semi-industrialised slaughter of captured Syrian troops and the mass raping of women and children, but better late than never.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Ads

[peterms]

Interesting about Israel. I haven't read anything about Golan since Nursa Front took some key crossings there and would imagine the IDF have had their finger on the trigger ever since.

When considering anything Israel does with regard to the Golan Heights, I think it's helpful to substitute the phrase "the oil-rich Golan Heights".

[DanishVillan]

 

 

Please give me a logical answer to my question on the Iraqi soldiers leaving weapons and then laugh and point.

30.000 soldiers running from 800 Isis after 3 days of sporadic fighting at Mosul leaving loads of weaponry behind.

They would surely also be accompagnied by some western advisors.

I am not asking for sofisticated booby trapping, but blow the shit up.

Both duty and survival instincts should kick in.

 

I'm struggling to understand who your question about the actions of the Iraqi army is in any way linked to the question regarding a potential threat posed by ISIS to the West. The two things aren't linked in any way I see.

 

So before I answer that, do you now accept that quote I provided is likely to be genuine? And that it is a stated instruction of ISIS rather than an opinion based on a quote from the Mail? If so do you accept that the is at some level a threat or potential threat to the West posed by ISIS? 

 

I ask because you seem to be wanting to just brush that under the carpet and return to a previous question you asked on a different topic, a question which also seemed more rhetorical than an actual question.

 

But in answer, I don't know and I'm not quite sure about the numbers you quote to be honest AWOL and Ads are probably in a far better position to answer than I am. But from my perspective I'd imagine the main reasons they deserted were a combination of fear and the desertion of their command.

 

Should they have destroyed what they left behind? Again, others are better placed to comment but yes I'd imagine they should. But I'm not sure that them leaving their positions and their weapons is somehow evidence that they were complicit in some huge conspiracy theory of the West in order to arm ISIS indirectly. 

 

I don´t know why you put so much weight on a quote from someone you had never heard of a month ago.

How do you know it isn´t pure propaganda intended to swell their ranks?

So i´m sure the quote is genuine but not sure he isn´t Bagdad Bob v2.

I got my numbers from the MSM, who surely painted a picture of a scary group with their description of the army running

despite outnumbering them almost 40/1.

Awol seem to agree with me that it was an ordered stand-down, but I disagree with his reasoning.

It doesn´t explain why western personel or drones didn´t take/booby-trap/destroy those weapons.

 

[TrentVilla]

I don´t know why you put so much weight on a quote from someone you had never heard of a month ago.

How do you know it isn´t pure propaganda intended to swell their ranks?

So i´m sure the quote is genuine but not sure he isn´t Bagdad Bob v2.

I got my numbers from the MSM, who surely painted a picture of a scary group with their description of the army running

despite outnumbering them almost 40/1.

Awol seem to agree with me that it was an ordered stand-down, but I disagree with his reasoning.

It doesn´t explain why western personel or drones didn´t take/booby-trap/destroy those weapons.

 

I don't see that it is relevant if I or anyone else had heard of this guy a month ago, a week ago or a year ago. He is seemingly a spokesman for IS now, in the hear and now that is what is relevant, certainly more relevant than the quote you used of someone who died decades before the inception of IS. But at least you've read the article now and realise it wasn't a quote from a Mail journalist that is something I guess.

 

Your suggestion it could be just propaganda to swell their ranks is frankly a little daft given that it is calling on people in their homelands to take action against non believers not encouraging them to travel to join them. But even if it was propaganda, which I don't think it was, then it seems that it is still having a real result given that just hours later a French tourist was taken by an group in Algeria that support IS.

 

Despite your efforts to shift the point, my original post was never about the actions of the Iraqi army but about the possibility of IS posing a threat at whatever level to the West and Westerners because you seemed to dismiss out of hand the possibility.

 

But on the topic of the Iraqi army I agree that it was either an ordered stand down or that they stood down as a result of the actions of their officers and as always I agree with much of what AWOL says on the topic.

 

However, your suggestion that it was in some way orchestrated by the West and that the West actually controlls IS(IS) is in my opinion utterly crazy.

[Ads]

Destroying kit you're leaving behind requires organisation. An army in rout lacks organisation, because it isn't an army any more, in this case just Shia boys heading for the hills.

 

I am not really sure of what you're implying here? Are you suggesting that IS is some sort of phantom?

[TrentVilla]

I am not really sure of what you're implying here? Are you suggesting that IS is some sort of phantom?

 

 

Seemingly he is implying that in some way ISIS are a construct of the West and under their control.

 

We arm them, fund them and trade with them. They are controlled opposition.

Think about all those Iraq soldiers just leaving their weapons.

Even if it wasn´t standard procedure, wouldn´t they take the few seconds to destroy them before they ran?

They didn´t, because they were ordered to leave them in crisp condition.

Blair is just warmongering. Again.

[Chindie]

You're talking to a 9/11 'truther'.

I'm not sure it's worth the bandwidth.