Syria - Who's fighting who | GTAMotorcycle.com

Syria - Who's fighting who

Dresden

Dresden

Well-known member
Figured this could use a thread of it's own since the other threads are overrun by the Paris/Turkey situations

Just shows how convoluted the situation really is over there.

[video=youtube;NKb9GVU8bHE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKb9GVU8bHE[/video]


Don't think this one is going to go away any time soon... At least not until Assad is gone and the collective powers can wipe out ISIS.
Then come the lucrative contracts for the western companies who will all want a piece of the action, much like BP back in the ol' over throw of Iran days. Further reading on that front - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company (now known as BP British Petroleum)

Thoughts?
 
This is probably the best laid out timeline of events. Thanks for posting.

Its very clear the instability is being gamed by all sides to gain in the region.
 
Last edited:
Almost a century later there is still a nasty hangover from the Sykes-Picot agreement.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/britain-and-france-conclude-sykes-picot-agreement

I have to wonder how things would play out if all of the dictators and synthetic borders were erased and there were countries there based upon religious and cultural similarities? History suggests that it would still be a violent mess over there but maybe, just maybe, some kind of equilibrium would take place.
 
Not a bad rundown but it's heavily biased against Assad. Syrian Spring was an American/Saudi orchestrated astroturf movement and there are some doubts about how "unarmed" those "peaceful protesters" were and how (even with some defections) they got armed so quickly. Also, the video glosses over the fact that among those "poor rebels", al-Qaeda has been receiving the bulk of "Lavrov's breadbaskets" - the commentator is lumping them with all those supposed peaceful, "moderate" rebels. The same guys who weren't above using chemical weapons themselves and even today, when they saw parachuting Russian pilots, they fired at them, which is a war crime. Also they've been engaged in killing civilians, ethnic cleansing and even teaming up with al-Nusra and ISIS when it was convenient for them.

If you go further back, Syrian Spring was astroturfed in the background of the Russians actively working to topple the USD as the sole world trade currency. The US also had a strategic interest in taking away Russia's only Mediterranean naval base, the same way they astroturfed the rebellion in Ukraine to take Sevastopol away from the Russians. In the Islamic world, the spat has more to do with the proposed pipeline that's supposed to go through Syria and whether it will carry Gulf Arab oil/gas or Iranian oil/gas. So this wasn't a popular uprising for democratic values by any means. People who financed it will put you in jail for tearing up the king's picture and will chop off your head for renouncing Islam. They are our friends and allies :cool:

Another interesting bit is that the Kurds up north are actually not fighting Assad at all. They are focusing their battles on ISIS. Assad is the only truly secular leader in the region. Why do you think the Christians and other minorities are behind him in this fight?

I was born in Europe, spent most of my life in Canada, so I don't have a dog in this fight but the author of this video drank a little too much MSM Kool Aid, so I had to point out a few things that he didn't.

Edit, important bit of info: Take any quotes of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Syrian Network for Human Rights with a BIG lump of salt!!! SOHR is a one-man operation, funded by the EU and the British government (admitted in a NY Times interview). It's a fabric shop owner in Coventry, chatting on the phone with his insurgent buddies and relaying their propaganda. For example, if the dead guy didn't wear a Syrian Arab Army uniform, he's a "civilian casualty," even if he's an Al Nusra Front fighter or an ISIS head-chopper. SNHR is exactly the same, but based in a different part of Great Britain and it's two guys, not one (maybe they should be called the Syrian Line for Human Rights :cool:) Both sources are highly biased, so I only use them for confirmation of Russian/Syrian propaganda (rare, but it happens - when the truth is impossible to hide).
 
Last edited:
Zoodles95 said:
Almost a century later there is still a nasty hangover from the Sykes-Picot agreement.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/britain-and-france-conclude-sykes-picot-agreement

I have to wonder how things would play out if all of the dictators and synthetic borders were erased and there were countries there based upon religious and cultural similarities? History suggests that it would still be a violent mess over there but maybe, just maybe, some kind of equilibrium would take place.
Click to expand...

Erasing boarders drawn on resources would be a big first step. Letting people live along their cultural lines would help the region but the only bigger motivator than religion is power and greed and it wouldn't be long before one group wanted more of what the other group has. Its human nature and a big part of why this entire mess exists. Religion isn't the evil that caused this its human greed.

The U.S. should really look within its own boarders to problem solve. You have a front runner of the GOP using hitlers playbook for support and racists beating up black protestors, shooting black protesters and burning black churches. I'd say the U.S. is trying real hard to re-live its own civil war.
 
AdRath said:
Erasing boarders drawn on resources would be a big first step. Letting people live along their cultural lines would help the region but the only bigger motivator than religion is power and greed and it wouldn't be long before one group wanted more of what the other group has. Its human nature and a big part of why this entire mess exists. Religion isn't the evil that caused this its human greed.

The U.S. should really look within its own boarders to problem solve. You have a front runner of the GOP using hitlers playbook for support and racists beating up black protestors, shooting black protesters and burning black churches. I'd say the U.S. is trying real hard to re-live its own civil war.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that from?
 
Thanks for this OP. I was starting to get confused and am actually getting more interested in the background and history of this conflict.

Anyone recommend some good reading on where to get the 'facts' (or as close to them as possible) without all the western media cover ups and half ******** truths?
 
mimico_polak said:
Thanks for this OP. I was starting to get confused and am actually getting more interested in the background and history of this conflict.

Anyone recommend some good reading on where to get the 'facts' (or as close to them as possible) without all the western media cover ups and half ******** truths?
Click to expand...

Nowhere... I just started following https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/ but every source has its agenda... You have insurgent tweets pushing their party line, the Syrian media agency running theirs, our MSM running American/Saudi party line, RT running the Russian propaganda. Basically you have to read each source with its bias in the back of your mind and try to work out the truth.

Read my analysis as it points out some of the background story and corrects some of the glossed over parts of that video.
 
LePhillou said:
/thread

https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.j.uzan/videos/10204109433770937/?pnref=story
Click to expand...

Wowsa... End thread indeed...

What a mess... Poor people going down the... :pottytrain5:

Just the same though... How well has it turned out when a strong armed dictator has been removed and then it is "mission accomplished" and the forces leave and there is crappy infrastructure rebuilding efforts done? And... Syria is going to be in the :pottytrain5: for some time since their best and brightest will be in countries like Canada helping us and those left behind will be either injured, disabled, suffer from PTSD etc. What a shame. :(
 
LePhillou said:
/thread

https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.j.uzan/videos/10204109433770937/?pnref=story
Click to expand...

Well I have a couple of issues with that video, even though they are not on the crux of the matter...
1) The claim that most Syrians are against Assad. Had that really been the case Assad would have been history a long time ago
2) The claim that he killed 250,000 people. It's the total casualty count for the entire war. That would mean that all those rebel groups and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries didn't kill a single person. That al-Qaeda has been giving flowers to people in Syria. That ISIS didn't chop off a single head. Had Assad killed 250,000 people without even a single one of his guys getting killed, he would have unequivocally won the civil war by now :cool:
 
This went somewhat viral and is a good idea of the clusterf*ck that is the Obama foreign policy. The end is pretty good...



President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
Well I have a couple of issues with that video, even though they are not on the crux of the matter...
1) The claim that most Syrians are against Assad. Had that really been the case Assad would have been history a long time ago
2) The claim that he killed 250,000 people. It's the total casualty count for the entire war. That would mean that all those rebel groups and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries didn't kill a single person. That al-Qaeda has been giving flowers to people in Syria. That ISIS didn't chop off a single head. Had Assad killed 250,000 people without even a single one of his guys getting killed, he would have unequivocally won the civil war by now :cool:
Click to expand...


You're missing the point of the video and argument entirely. The crux of the matter is that the strategy employed by Obama/Kerry/USA has backfired (i.e. they backed the wrong people) and have effectively turned over control of the Syrian region to Russia and Iran.

Furthermore... Here's how much respect the Iranians have for Obama's "Iran Deal"
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-irans-uranium-stockpile-has-grown-un-nuclear-agency-report-2015-11
 
Dresden said:
You're missing the point of the video and argument entirely. The crux of the matter is that the strategy employed by Obama/Kerry/USA has backfired (i.e. they backed the wrong people) ......
Click to expand...

Not the first time and not the last time, sadly. That's what happens when you keep trying to be in the mix all the time, mostly for the wrong reasons and very seldom for good ones. But the list of countries on that list is getting longer and longer ... hard to say what the hell is going on world wide these days.
 
“If they [the United States and its Coalition of Dodgy Opportunists] were serious about dealing with ISIL they would be meeting in Damascus right now with President Assad to ask how they can help him and Russia destroy ISIL instead of playing political games and pretending the Syrian government does not exist,” Christopher Black, a Canadian international criminal lawyer, said last month.
“The United States and its dependencies in Europe and Canada do not want to cooperate with Syria or Russia on this [counterterrorism efforts] because their primary objective is not as they claim to destroy ISIL but to destroy the government of Syria as they did the government in Libya and Iraq.”
 
The Canadian Government seems to be doing the right thing in my opinion when they pull out our aircraft. Its obvious that NATO has no real intention of fighting this war and they have no clue who to support. I dont understand how the US and its so called supporters (NATO) say they are fighting ISIS with one hand while they are supporting them with the other. And why the hell is Turkey still in NATO after they are clearly known to be supporting ISIS by arming them and buying the stolen oil from them.

I dont trust anyone involved in this mess. The US has no clue. The Turks are a member of NATO supporting terrorists. Russians and Iranians can never be trusted.

I only hope the Syrian people will find peace somewhere.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom