ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

If the US had told us that they were bombing Daesh tankers delivering oil to the Syrian government they might have lied, but if there were such tanker deliveries they would have bombed them, even when they were not bombing those delivering oil to Turkey, and they would have told us all about it. So from the fact that they didn't tell us I concluded that there were no such tankers to bomb.
They might have documentary evidence by now but that can be manufactured. The main point is that there were no tanker deliveries.

I should have formulated more carefully.

delft am not sure how your reasoning would fare against
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(at first glance it seems you're making an assumption of a bombing of the delivery to be necessary for proving a Government-with-ISIL oil-business), but I thank you for responding, as it inspired me to look for more info on
HASWANI, George (a.k.a. AL HASAWANI, George; a.k.a. HASAWANI, George; a.k.a. HASWANI, Jurj; a.k.a. HESSWANI, Georges; a.k.a. HESWANI, George; a.k.a. HEWANI, George; a.k.a. KHESOUANI, George; a.k.a. KHESOUANI, Georges); DOB 26 Sep 1946; POB Yabrud, Syria; nationality Syria; alt. nationality Russia (individual) [SYRIA].
(that's from the US Treasure Department files :)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Interestingly,
  1. the EU banned him already this Spring:
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  2. and
    Haswani told Reuters his company was currently building a gas installation in an area of central Syria that falls under Islamic State influence, adding "this is maybe how these fantasies were constructed".
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(from what I figured, that factory is in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which was lost by Government to ISIL after
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

last Summer)

I'll try to follow news related to this gentleman :)
 

Janiz

Senior Member
Putin has gone on record to state that Russia gave the US-led coalition the flight plans of the downed Su24 in advanced.
There's no 'US-led coalition' there. There are countries that all have different objectives and from time to time they're having common goal. It's more like the final days of WWII and when the cold war started. It seems like you know much more than what's written in the article claiming that Turks knew and ambushed Russian jets. Of course it isn't written in the article nor Mr Putin said it.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
There's no 'US-led coalition' there. There are countries that all have different objectives and from time to time they're having common goal. It's more like the final days of WWII and when the cold war started. It seems like you know much more than what's written in the article claiming that Turks knew and ambushed Russian jets. Of course it isn't written in the article nor Mr Putin said it.

Well I really wish I quoted the entire article when I first posted the link, because the Guardian has massively changed it since I last read it.

I really hate it when they do that, they very least they can do when they does such a thing is put on a note informing people that changes had been made to the original text and when it was made.

But what you are doing is desperate denial now. " No US-led coalition", really? :rolleyes: Is that what you want to go with? Are you frigging kidding me?

Just do a search of "US-led coalition against ISIS" and see what comes up. :rolleyes:
 
found this interesting account, just hope it won't be considered "political" (I sure don't mean to discuss here the position of respective UK Parties, but only that of the Government/Military):
UK's Cameron: Britain must expand anti-IS airstrikes to Syria to deny group safe haven
British Prime Minister David Cameron urged skeptical lawmakers to back airstrikes on the Islamic State group in Syria, saying Thursday that the Paris attacks have given the fight new urgency and Britain owes it to key allies to act.

Cameron told the House of Commons that President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande had urged Britain to join the military campaign in Syria.

"These are our closest allies and they want our help," he said.

"We have to hit these terrorists in their heartlands. We have not and we must not shirk our responsibility for security or hand it to others."

Some previously skeptical lawmakers said they were convinced, but Cameron has not yet announced a date for a House of Commons vote on airstrikes.

The Royal Air Force is part of a U.S.-led coalition attacking IS militants in Iraq, but not in Syria. Cameron has been reluctant to seek backing for strikes in Syria since lawmakers voted down his 2013 plan to launch RAF strikes against the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Many Britons are wary of getting drawn in to another Middle Eastern conflict after messy, bloody wars in Iraq and Libya.

Earlier this month, Parliament's Foreign Affairs Select Committee said British airstrikes would be "incoherent" and ineffective without a plan to end Syria's four-year civil war.

Cameron replied Thursday with a 36-page letter, arguing that Britain should act to deny the Islamic State group a "safe haven" from which to plot mass-casualty attacks like the Nov. 13 rampage that left 130 dead and hundreds wounded in Paris.

He said airstrikes should be part of a "comprehensive overall strategy" to destroy IS, end the Syrian war and help rebuild the country.

Attempting to allay legislators' concerns, Cameron answered questions for more than two hours in the House of Commons.

He argued that military action was legal under the U.N. charter's right to self-defense. And he said while ground forces would also be needed, they would not be British.

Cameron said airstrikes would not increase the already-high risk of an attack in Britain. He said British authorities have foiled seven attacks in the past year either planned or inspired by IS.

Cameron said he would only seek a vote in Parliament if "there is a clear majority for action," so as not to hand IS "a publicity coup."

The main opposition Labour Party remains divided. Leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose left-wing views are at odds with some of his lawmakers, said military action could have "unintended consequences" — as it did in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. He wrote Thursday to Labour legislators to say he wouldn't back airstrikes because Cameron had not set out "a coherent strategy" to defeat IS.

Labour's leadership in Parliament met Thursday, but didn't decide whether to allow the party's lawmakers a free vote. Another meeting is scheduled for Monday.

The Scottish National Party's Angus Robertson said his legislators would not support airstrikes without effective ground support and "a fully costed reconstruction and stability plan."

The debate is shadowed by the legacy of Parliament's divisive 2003 decision to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. That decision was made on the basis of flawed intelligence about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and without an adequate plan for postwar reconstruction.

"This is about learning the lessons of Iraq," Cameron said, adding that — unlike in Iraq — "we are not taking or proposing to take military action to achieve regime change in Syria."
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

delft

Brigadier
(at first glance it seems you're making an assumption of a bombing of the delivery to be necessary for proving a Government-with-ISIL oil-business),
Politicians are often strangers to logic.
Can you imagine the Anti-Syrian-government US, finding out Daesh is delivering oil to that Syrian government, not bombing the tankers? And when they do, not calling a large press conference to tell the World about it? :)
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Hard to believe you'd fall into the trap of relying on western media to support an opinion plawolf.

I do not trust their analysis much (although the Guardian is generally ok), but unless you have evidence that the western media would outright fabricate direct quotes from world leaders, I have no idea why anyone would take issue to using them as a source for such information.
 

delft

Brigadier
found this interesting account, just hope it won't be considered "political" (I sure don't mean to discuss here the position of respective UK Parties, but only that of the Government/Military):
UK's Cameron: Britain must expand anti-IS airstrikes to Syria to deny group safe haven

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I listened to Cameron's quarter of an hour speech to the Lower House and to some of the comments by MP's. I was most truck by his allegation that the main ground force would be the 70 000 man FSA!!!!! He was quite clear that he as yet saw no certainty that he would win a vote in the House but still hoped for parliamentary agreement before Christmas. Fairy tales.
 
delft you're relentless, Like for this :)
Politicians are often strangers to logic.
Can you imagine the Anti-Syrian-government US, finding out Daesh is delivering oil to that Syrian government, not bombing the tankers?
that's what you're saying, but why don't you comment on this quote:
"Instead of merely being a customer for Isil's oil, the regime is understood to be running some oil and gas installations jointly with the terrorist movement."
from the Reuters article (the link is in my post you just quoted) I mean what if Mr. George (by the way Jura is a regional word whose English equivalent would be George LOL) Haswani was still paying taxes to Syrian Government, for example from the facility he's built, according to his own words quoted in that article, in Tabqah on ISIL-controled territory?? I of course don't know if he does, or if he does not! I'm just pointing to another possibility (out of many I could come up with) to link him to an alleged Government-ISIL business.
And when they do, not calling a large press conference to tell the World about it? :)
they don't :) I think you're just using some imaginary scenario in an attempt to infer something
 
Last edited:

dtulsa

Junior Member
Seems like politics and money go together every where doesn't it and the ones that actually pay for it are on the battlefield for all of history to see and judge we do live in a very strange world indeed
 
Top