ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
OK guys, let's put this into simple sentences...so we can move on after this. @SampanViking @Jura
1. ISIS left Deir Hafer before the town was completely surrounded by the SAA.
2. Thereby, ISIS abandoned the town.
3. The SAA entered the town 6 days later, no doubt after a lot of mine clearing activities.
Conclusion: Deir Hafer is in Syrian government hands. End of story.
Next chapter please!
The "rebels" have recaptured Ma’ardes from the SAA earlier today. This throws a spanner in the works of the SAA's plans to retake Souran.
1. ISIS left Deir Hafer before the town was completely surrounded by the SAA.
2. Thereby, ISIS abandoned the town.
3. The SAA entered the town 6 days later, no doubt after a lot of mine clearing activities.
Conclusion: Deir Hafer is in Syrian government hands. End of story.
Next chapter please!
The "rebels" have recaptured Ma’ardes from the SAA earlier today. This throws a spanner in the works of the SAA's plans to retake Souran.
Could not agree more with Flyzies and Equation.
Yes lets move on to the current situation.......
Yes lets move on to the current situation.......
solarz
Brigadier
It seems like every time we are close to a solution in Syria, the western media begins drumming up more warmongering disguised as humanitarianism. This article could easily have been pulled from 2016, complete with talking points from the same usual suspects.
We are seeing some pretty heavily entrenched interests at work here.
Broccoli
Senior Member
Nah, just Assad thinking he can use WMD's again because Trump is a president and he believes Russians will deal with it. It's not first time when Assad uses WMD's.
Regime forces also use chlorine (sold by China) bombs against civilians every week in order to break their will.
Regime forces also use chlorine (sold by China) bombs against civilians every week in order to break their will.
solarz
Brigadier
Sure, and he has stockpiles of WMD, just like Saddam Hussein, eh?
Equation
Lieutenant General
Or it could be another forces pretending to be the Assad forces by mimicking the bombs and chemical to match it and than use the soft power (media) to enforce that point of view and claim it was done by Assad.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I see someone has had their full of mainstream media BS.
The key to any story is not the what, the where or even the how, but the why.
And that is what the western media has categorically been unable to provide.
Why would Assad do this? It does not serve his interests in any way, shape or form, and is in fact one of the very worst things he can do.
When was the last time there was a concerted chemical weapons attack news cycle about Syria?
Could be possibly be when the west was hyping itself up to jump in on the side of the 'moderate' terrorists to do another Lybia, but quickly faded when the UK Parliament unexpectedly voted down the government's proposal for military intervention and Obama whossed out at the prospect of going it alone?
You have reports from Iraq, where the same abominable terrorist group have been accused of using chemical weapons. But in Syria we are supposed to believe they are above such acts?
Instead we are supposed to swallow this half baked nonsense about how Assad wants to do the one thing almost gaurenteed to bring the wrath of the world on his head; when his forces have decisively turned the tide and would win hands down if current trends continue.
What military objective does all these chemical attacks sever? Zero!
What political or moral advantage could Assad possible harness from such attacks if he is only going to deny it afterwards?
Moral threat only works when you actually threaten. Look to North Korea of how that's done. You don't shy away from an atrocity. You shout it from the rooftops so all your enemies can see what a piece of work you are, and so are cowed by your viciousness.
Launching nonconsequencial attacks and then denying you did it servers absolutely no purpose or gives Assad any benefits full stop.
When weighed against the risks and costs of such an act, it makes even less sense.
So, either you believe the poorly thought out western media war BS about how Assad is just suicidally evil and comically stupid to not see the blantantly obvious and do something that is diametrically opposed to his own best interest for no discernible reason.
Or you see who such a deception would benefit the most, and ask yourself if these are desperate and ruthless enough to gas a bunch random civilian (who their colleagues in Iraq has shown no qualms about herding to use as human shields, but remember kids, that sort of thing doesn't happen in Syria, so all the civilians killed there were personally and specially targeted by Assad and his evil Russian hunchmen).
For me, the balances of probabilities are overwhelming, and it does not fit the western media party line.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Well Sol you either believe that it was the Syrians who have confirmed chemical weapons and only had to admit to and destroy some to comply with treaty. by treaty you do not have to have an independent body confirm total disposal.
Or
You have to believe that ISIS got ahold of Sadam's old stocks which were confirmed by wikileaks files of small scale uses of chemical weapons post 2003 in Iraq.
or
my opinion Both.
Either way Chemical weapons have been used in Syria and have been confirmed to have been used.
Zool
Junior Member
We don't have a smoking gun either way, but we can apply some critical thinking and view of the current strategic balance to figure out a 'reasonable' conclusion, right? So what do we know...
All Chemical Weapons admitted to by the Government (critical point) that were still in the hands of Government Forces and not Rebels (critical point), were removed and destroyed with UN verification. No evidence (demanded by Russia in the UNSC at the time, and not provided) has been shown that the Syrian Government has additional Chemical Weapon Stores or has ever actually used them.
Chemical Weapons HAVE been confirmed used in Syria and in Iraq. Syrian Forces do not operate in Iraq and those Chemical Weapons were directed against Iraqi Forces. ISIL and other groups have and do operate in both countries.
Syria faced a 'red line' threat from the then Obama Administration and a world wide outcry (certainly in the media) of consequences, while the Syrian Government and Russian Forces maintained their denial of Chemical Weapons use and blamed rebel groups. Tensions were high as everyone will remember.
Since the liberation of Aleppo, the fight has been going badly for the rebels, with the Government taking back control of Damascus' main water supply, Palmyra being once again recaptured and Turkey rolling back YPG forces along the boarder.
Politically it is the same with Russia, Syria and Iran establishing cease-fires with some rebel groups and the general impression from recent summits that the remaining hostile groups (and their backers?) have no political solution they are willing to accept other than total victory, however likely or unlikely that is.
We have a new US administration that came into power critical of past Syria policy and hinting that reality on the ground had changed the game. i.e. regime change.
A few days later, we witness reported deaths in Idlib, linked to Chemical Weapons (just now being described in media as Sarin) after a Government Air Strike.
Western Anti-Government Forces and Media immediately (and I mean immediately) say it was a direct chemical bombing, with the Syrian Government squarely to blame. While the Syrian Government and Russian Forces in country say it was a standard bombing run, which must have hit chemical munition stores held by the rebels (whether bought, stolen, manufactured on site or otherwise obtained).
Now we are back to a world wide outcry for consequences (massive media campaign that none can deny), retaliation against the Syrian Government and removal of Assad as prime policy.
So with all of that said... is it possible Syrian Government Forces launched a Chemical Air Strike in Idlib? Yes. We don't know that absolutely all Chemical Weapons held by the Government were turned over.
Does it make sense for the Government, if it does still have some of these weapons, to use them in the current strategic environment and after the last round of outrage? No. Not to my mind anyway. I've seen a number of interviews with Assad pre and post crisis. He's a Doctor, comes across as pretty intelligent, and not as a ruthless dictator like Saddam.
Is it plausible that Chemical Weapons were on site in the hands of the Rebels, either manufactured or supplied by their backers (Saudi Arabia perhaps?). Yes. This seems like a not unlikely scenario. Either by unhappy accident of location or planned intent, it surely plays well for the Rebels geopolitically... Just look at the media reversal going against Assad and what the near future outlook for the Syrian Government might be.
So what seems more likely to you?
All Chemical Weapons admitted to by the Government (critical point) that were still in the hands of Government Forces and not Rebels (critical point), were removed and destroyed with UN verification. No evidence (demanded by Russia in the UNSC at the time, and not provided) has been shown that the Syrian Government has additional Chemical Weapon Stores or has ever actually used them.
Chemical Weapons HAVE been confirmed used in Syria and in Iraq. Syrian Forces do not operate in Iraq and those Chemical Weapons were directed against Iraqi Forces. ISIL and other groups have and do operate in both countries.
Syria faced a 'red line' threat from the then Obama Administration and a world wide outcry (certainly in the media) of consequences, while the Syrian Government and Russian Forces maintained their denial of Chemical Weapons use and blamed rebel groups. Tensions were high as everyone will remember.
Since the liberation of Aleppo, the fight has been going badly for the rebels, with the Government taking back control of Damascus' main water supply, Palmyra being once again recaptured and Turkey rolling back YPG forces along the boarder.
Politically it is the same with Russia, Syria and Iran establishing cease-fires with some rebel groups and the general impression from recent summits that the remaining hostile groups (and their backers?) have no political solution they are willing to accept other than total victory, however likely or unlikely that is.
We have a new US administration that came into power critical of past Syria policy and hinting that reality on the ground had changed the game. i.e. regime change.
A few days later, we witness reported deaths in Idlib, linked to Chemical Weapons (just now being described in media as Sarin) after a Government Air Strike.
Western Anti-Government Forces and Media immediately (and I mean immediately) say it was a direct chemical bombing, with the Syrian Government squarely to blame. While the Syrian Government and Russian Forces in country say it was a standard bombing run, which must have hit chemical munition stores held by the rebels (whether bought, stolen, manufactured on site or otherwise obtained).
Now we are back to a world wide outcry for consequences (massive media campaign that none can deny), retaliation against the Syrian Government and removal of Assad as prime policy.
So with all of that said... is it possible Syrian Government Forces launched a Chemical Air Strike in Idlib? Yes. We don't know that absolutely all Chemical Weapons held by the Government were turned over.
Does it make sense for the Government, if it does still have some of these weapons, to use them in the current strategic environment and after the last round of outrage? No. Not to my mind anyway. I've seen a number of interviews with Assad pre and post crisis. He's a Doctor, comes across as pretty intelligent, and not as a ruthless dictator like Saddam.
Is it plausible that Chemical Weapons were on site in the hands of the Rebels, either manufactured or supplied by their backers (Saudi Arabia perhaps?). Yes. This seems like a not unlikely scenario. Either by unhappy accident of location or planned intent, it surely plays well for the Rebels geopolitically... Just look at the media reversal going against Assad and what the near future outlook for the Syrian Government might be.
So what seems more likely to you?