You got it, it's not illegal when used as an illuminating device or to flush combatants out of their holes to kill them with high explosive munitions. I do agree that it shouldn't be used near civilians who aren't involved with the fighting, and the US signed up to protocol 3 of the war law of wars treaty in 2009.
Livestream out of Syria
- Thread starter ooeat0meoo
- Start date
Good documentary, worth a watch:
Bombs away in the Middle East! But why is Israel so quiet?
BY GARY BRECHER
ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
Where’s Israel? That’s one of the most interesting, and widely ignored, questions to come out of the US bombing campaign against Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq. Two days into the bombing, and there’s near-silence from Israel, a country not known for shyness about military operations on its borders.
The only public reaction from Bibi Netanyahu so far is this vague mumble about helping behind the scenes:
Netanyahu said Israel was also contributing to the international coalition. “Israel is carrying out its part in the struggle against the IS organization,” he said. “Some of the things are better known and some are less known.”
Bibi Netanyahu is not a shy sort of guy. When he talks like this about a bombing campaign targeting Islamic radicals, something odd is going on.
Israel sent a message about how it views the US campaign against IS without using words at all. On the same day that American forces were attacking IS bases in Syria, Israel shot down a MiG-21 from Assad’s Alawite forces over the Golan Heights. Quite a moment in Middle Eastern military history: While the US was intervening to attack the Sunni jihadis, the IDF underlined its view of the real enemy by knocking down one of Assad’s antique fighters out of the sky.
That ancient MiG wasn’t downed because it was a threat to Israel, or because it was over the line. It was downed as a gesture. Bibi and his Likud allies are sulking, because the way they see it, we’re bombing the wrong Syrians. The Israeli elite has always wanted the US to intervene in the Syrian Civil War—but not against the Sunni jihadists, as we’re doing now. They want American planes and drones to obliterate the other side–the Alawites’ Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its Hezbollah allies.
Nobody ever seems to mention it, but the supposedly fearsome IS now owns the ground right under Israel’s Golan Heights fortifications, after moving in in June 2014 when the weary SAA, tired of being shelled by the IDF, moved out.
So IS has been in place right there on Israel’s border for months now—and there’s been no attack from Israel. Yes, folks, you might actually get the impression that the Israelis—who know a thing or two about threat assessment—just don’t take IS very seriously.
In fact, IS is a convenient little irritant, as seen from Jerusalem, a useful way to annoy the real enemy—the Shia/Alawite/Iran bloc.
And a year ago, when it looked like that might happen, Israel and its stateside proxies weren’t shy at all. They were all for intervention.
Yup, almost exactly one year ago, the US was only a poll or two away from blasting Assad’s bedraggled SAA. Someone in the SAA had given the war party in D.C. all it needed, a perfect provocation, an atrocity so atrocious it seemed like a P.R. man’s fantasy. On August 21, 2013, someone—most likely Assad’s SAA—crossed Obama’s “red line” by using poison gas against Sunni neighborhoods in Ghouta, east of Damascus.
At least 300 people died, most of them women and children. It was the stupid provocation the war party in D.C. had been praying for—and the biggest cheerleaders back then were neocons closely tied to Netanyahu’s Likud Party. There was no silence from Israel or its stateside lobbyists back then. God no. They were weeping TV tears (like crocodile tears but with Nutrasweet) over those dead kids and demanding the USAF start bombing Assad/Hezbollah targets immediately.
The Israeli lobby AIPAC was planning “a major…effort with about 250 activists in Washington to meet with their senators and representatives” and urge them to support air strikes against SAA/Hezbollah.
AIPAC got a big surprise: Its Surge didn’t work. For once, the American people had met a war proposal they didn’t like.
Part of the problem was the difficulty of explaining why the US was going to provide air support for Sunni jihadis who’d already made a few too many snuff videos, and lacked the finesse to soft-pedal their admiration for Al Qaeda. Besides, this was an Obama war, which meant that the right-wing audience, normally suckers for a good bombing campaign, decided they just wouldn’t be able to enjoy it. And Obama’s supporters drew the line at going back into combat in the Arab Middle East—Bush Country.
So after looking like a sure thing, the September 2013 Syrian bombing campaign never happened. And Israel was not happy at all.
Israel decided long ago that only the Shia are what noted Zionist Walter Sobchak would call “a worthy feckin’ opponent.” If you look at the pattern of Israeli intervention in Syria since the Civil War began there, you find the IDF striking Assad’s SAA targets over and over, especially when the SAA might have been transferring weapons to Hezbollah—but to the best of my knowledge, not once attacking any Sunni jihadi forces like IS.
The Israeli view seems to be that only the Shia forces—the SAA, Hezbollah, and above all their patron Iran—are serious threats. Meanwhile, they’ve been treating Sunni jihadi militias like IS like de facto allies, never once attacking Sunni militias dug in just below the Golan Heights.
Israel considers Sunni militias a useful virus to introduce to the Levantine Shia environment, an organic pesticide that’s effective against Hezbollah and Assad. What that also suggests is that, while most gullible Western news agencies are talking up IS as the reincarnation of Khalid ibn al-Walid’s cavalry, Israel has no fear of IS, or any other Sunni jihadi force in Syria, at all.
Israel fears Hezbollah and its backer, Iran—period. So the next time you hear idiots like Senator Lindsey Graham blithering about IS chopping us all up in our beds one of these days, remind him that his favorite ally is so comfy with IS, so contemptuous of IS’s combat ability, that the IDF has coddled an IS outpost right below its most sensitive strategic position on the Golan Heights.
http://pando.com/2014/09/24/the-war-nerd-bombs-away-in-the-middle-east-but-why-is-israel-so-quiet/
BY GARY BRECHER
ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
Where’s Israel? That’s one of the most interesting, and widely ignored, questions to come out of the US bombing campaign against Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq. Two days into the bombing, and there’s near-silence from Israel, a country not known for shyness about military operations on its borders.
The only public reaction from Bibi Netanyahu so far is this vague mumble about helping behind the scenes:
Netanyahu said Israel was also contributing to the international coalition. “Israel is carrying out its part in the struggle against the IS organization,” he said. “Some of the things are better known and some are less known.”
Bibi Netanyahu is not a shy sort of guy. When he talks like this about a bombing campaign targeting Islamic radicals, something odd is going on.
Israel sent a message about how it views the US campaign against IS without using words at all. On the same day that American forces were attacking IS bases in Syria, Israel shot down a MiG-21 from Assad’s Alawite forces over the Golan Heights. Quite a moment in Middle Eastern military history: While the US was intervening to attack the Sunni jihadis, the IDF underlined its view of the real enemy by knocking down one of Assad’s antique fighters out of the sky.
That ancient MiG wasn’t downed because it was a threat to Israel, or because it was over the line. It was downed as a gesture. Bibi and his Likud allies are sulking, because the way they see it, we’re bombing the wrong Syrians. The Israeli elite has always wanted the US to intervene in the Syrian Civil War—but not against the Sunni jihadists, as we’re doing now. They want American planes and drones to obliterate the other side–the Alawites’ Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its Hezbollah allies.
Nobody ever seems to mention it, but the supposedly fearsome IS now owns the ground right under Israel’s Golan Heights fortifications, after moving in in June 2014 when the weary SAA, tired of being shelled by the IDF, moved out.
So IS has been in place right there on Israel’s border for months now—and there’s been no attack from Israel. Yes, folks, you might actually get the impression that the Israelis—who know a thing or two about threat assessment—just don’t take IS very seriously.
In fact, IS is a convenient little irritant, as seen from Jerusalem, a useful way to annoy the real enemy—the Shia/Alawite/Iran bloc.
And a year ago, when it looked like that might happen, Israel and its stateside proxies weren’t shy at all. They were all for intervention.
Yup, almost exactly one year ago, the US was only a poll or two away from blasting Assad’s bedraggled SAA. Someone in the SAA had given the war party in D.C. all it needed, a perfect provocation, an atrocity so atrocious it seemed like a P.R. man’s fantasy. On August 21, 2013, someone—most likely Assad’s SAA—crossed Obama’s “red line” by using poison gas against Sunni neighborhoods in Ghouta, east of Damascus.
At least 300 people died, most of them women and children. It was the stupid provocation the war party in D.C. had been praying for—and the biggest cheerleaders back then were neocons closely tied to Netanyahu’s Likud Party. There was no silence from Israel or its stateside lobbyists back then. God no. They were weeping TV tears (like crocodile tears but with Nutrasweet) over those dead kids and demanding the USAF start bombing Assad/Hezbollah targets immediately.
The Israeli lobby AIPAC was planning “a major…effort with about 250 activists in Washington to meet with their senators and representatives” and urge them to support air strikes against SAA/Hezbollah.
AIPAC got a big surprise: Its Surge didn’t work. For once, the American people had met a war proposal they didn’t like.
Part of the problem was the difficulty of explaining why the US was going to provide air support for Sunni jihadis who’d already made a few too many snuff videos, and lacked the finesse to soft-pedal their admiration for Al Qaeda. Besides, this was an Obama war, which meant that the right-wing audience, normally suckers for a good bombing campaign, decided they just wouldn’t be able to enjoy it. And Obama’s supporters drew the line at going back into combat in the Arab Middle East—Bush Country.
So after looking like a sure thing, the September 2013 Syrian bombing campaign never happened. And Israel was not happy at all.
Israel decided long ago that only the Shia are what noted Zionist Walter Sobchak would call “a worthy feckin’ opponent.” If you look at the pattern of Israeli intervention in Syria since the Civil War began there, you find the IDF striking Assad’s SAA targets over and over, especially when the SAA might have been transferring weapons to Hezbollah—but to the best of my knowledge, not once attacking any Sunni jihadi forces like IS.
The Israeli view seems to be that only the Shia forces—the SAA, Hezbollah, and above all their patron Iran—are serious threats. Meanwhile, they’ve been treating Sunni jihadi militias like IS like de facto allies, never once attacking Sunni militias dug in just below the Golan Heights.
Israel considers Sunni militias a useful virus to introduce to the Levantine Shia environment, an organic pesticide that’s effective against Hezbollah and Assad. What that also suggests is that, while most gullible Western news agencies are talking up IS as the reincarnation of Khalid ibn al-Walid’s cavalry, Israel has no fear of IS, or any other Sunni jihadi force in Syria, at all.
Israel fears Hezbollah and its backer, Iran—period. So the next time you hear idiots like Senator Lindsey Graham blithering about IS chopping us all up in our beds one of these days, remind him that his favorite ally is so comfy with IS, so contemptuous of IS’s combat ability, that the IDF has coddled an IS outpost right below its most sensitive strategic position on the Golan Heights.
http://pando.com/2014/09/24/the-war-nerd-bombs-away-in-the-middle-east-but-why-is-israel-so-quiet/
ISIS grabbing big ground in Iraq probably has a bit to do with the decision to bomb them. Something that Isreal would not have been that bothered by. And of course their long history of violence with Assad's Syria plays into their view of things.
Presumably Israel is happy to see arabs killing arabs and also to see others bombing arabs.
Syrians In Israel, Seeking Help From The Enemy
http://www.ibtimes.com/syrians-israel-seeking-help-enemy-1559980
http://www.ibtimes.com/syrians-israel-seeking-help-enemy-1559980
I honestly commend any efforts Israel in helping refugees, assuming its only refugees and not Qatar-sponsored FSA terrorists.
But this was an amusing little snippet from Netanyahu:
"The good part is that Israel is saving the lives of those who have been wounded in Syria. The bad part is that Iran is arming those who are carrying out the slaughter.”
Yes Bibi, any excuse to take a potshot at Iran, making no mention of his friends in Qatar or Washington arming Islamist terrorists that murder minorities.
The Syrians getting to Israel on the backs of donkeys don't have FSA tattooed on them. The sick/injured end up in Israeli hospitals and get treatment no questions asked. Syrian women have given birth in Israeli hospitals, and the young boy pictured in that link isn't likely to have been a terrorist (or freedom fighter for that matter
)Bibi is responsible for Israel's security, for which Iran's reigme poses the biggest threat. Combining Iranian rhetoric and neclaer program means Bibi simply has to remain focused on keeping the world from turning a blind eye. Sounds petty at times, but the cause justifies the means and all that.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, but I don't see Iran as this apocalyptical, doomsday menace you portray them to be (but again you'd probably say you expect me to think that etc). Personally, I'd say the collapse of secular regimes being replaced by Islamist lunatics is the more pressing concern in the region but hey that's just me.The Syrians getting to Israel on the backs of donkeys don't have FSA tattooed on them. The sick/injured end up in Israeli hospitals and get treatment no questions asked. Syrian women have given birth in Israeli hospitals, and the young boy pictured in that link isn't likely to have been a terrorist (or freedom fighter for that matter
Bibi is responsible for Israel's security, for which Iran's reigme poses the biggest threat. Combining Iranian rhetoric and neclaer program means Bibi simply has to remain focused on keeping the world from turning a blind eye. Sounds petty at times, but the cause justifies the means and all that.
Bibi has kept very quiet about the ISIL threat, maybe he's getting frustrated that the crosshairs aren't on Iran at the moment?
This forum has seen people making bold predictions based on supposedly expert knowledge (e.g. Raoul's support of the invasion of Iraq). Armed with the opinion of Farsi expert academics, you among others claim that the Iranian regime doesn't REALLY mean it when it calls for the destruction of Israel. Bibi isn't a bored CE forum enthusiast, but instead he's responsible for the security of Israel and he has the right and obligation to treat the Iranain threat (including a potential nuclear threat) seriously. What's at stake here is not oil prices of fishing rights, but the very existence of the Jewish homeland. He has no margin for error.
BTW, Bibi first showed concern for the spread of Islamic lunatic rule a couple of decades ago. I'm not going to hold it against many of you who picked the loons' side back then though. Welcome aboard.
Syrian boy, 5, survives bullet lodged in neck
Syrian boy rushed across the border to field hospital in Israel with bullet millimetres from main blood vessels
A five-year-old Syrian boy "miraculously" survived being hit by a stray bullet in his home after his father rushed him across the border to a field hospital in Israel.
Father and son were in their living room at home in southern Syria when a gun fight erupted outside. The five-year-old boy dived for cover and was hit in the face.
"I decided to run to the border and try and save his life, because everyone knows there is a field hospital there," the father said.
The boy was initially treated for bleeding and later transferred to Rambam hospital in Haifa in Israel.
Surgeons managed to remove the bullet from the child's neck, situated millimetres from the main blood vessels, in a delicate operation lasting several hours.
A five-year-old Syrian boy "miraculously" survived being hit by a stray bullet in his home after his father rushed him across the border to a field hospital in Israel.
Father and son were in their living room at home in southern Syria when a gun fight erupted outside. The five-year-old boy dived for cover and was hit in the face.
"I decided to run to the border and try and save his life, because everyone knows there is a field hospital there," the father said.
The boy was initially treated for bleeding and later transferred to Rambam hospital in Haifa in Israel.
Surgeons managed to remove the bullet from the child's neck, situated millimetres from the main blood vessels, in a delicate operation lasting several hours.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ian-boy-5-survives-bullet-lodged-in-neck.html
Syrian boy rushed across the border to field hospital in Israel with bullet millimetres from main blood vessels
A five-year-old Syrian boy "miraculously" survived being hit by a stray bullet in his home after his father rushed him across the border to a field hospital in Israel.
Father and son were in their living room at home in southern Syria when a gun fight erupted outside. The five-year-old boy dived for cover and was hit in the face.
"I decided to run to the border and try and save his life, because everyone knows there is a field hospital there," the father said.
The boy was initially treated for bleeding and later transferred to Rambam hospital in Haifa in Israel.
Surgeons managed to remove the bullet from the child's neck, situated millimetres from the main blood vessels, in a delicate operation lasting several hours.
A five-year-old Syrian boy "miraculously" survived being hit by a stray bullet in his home after his father rushed him across the border to a field hospital in Israel.
Father and son were in their living room at home in southern Syria when a gun fight erupted outside. The five-year-old boy dived for cover and was hit in the face.
"I decided to run to the border and try and save his life, because everyone knows there is a field hospital there," the father said.
The boy was initially treated for bleeding and later transferred to Rambam hospital in Haifa in Israel.
Surgeons managed to remove the bullet from the child's neck, situated millimetres from the main blood vessels, in a delicate operation lasting several hours.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ian-boy-5-survives-bullet-lodged-in-neck.html
What would we do without your humanism ...
If true, hard to say ISIS is much worse than this.
http://news.yahoo.com/bashar-al-assad-s-syrian-torture-chambers-205323124.html
http://news.yahoo.com/bashar-al-assad-s-syrian-torture-chambers-205323124.html
What do you mean with "if true"? Everybody knows that Assad kills and tortures opposition. The only relevant question is "how many?" Or to be more precise: Is the number closer to 10.000 or to 100.000.
The influence of pictures is astonishing.
The influence of pictures is astonishing.
Of course pictures are relevant. Otherwise its just people arguing, where as photos are visceral and emotive. The point here is that Syrians don't really have much in the way of choices between ISIS and Assad.
I am pretty sure, that any western governments have enough intel (hello, NSA) to know that Assad slaughters at least thousands of people. I´d be seriously surprised if the intelligence agencies and the military wouldn't know fairly precisely whats going on. If that would be the case, they´d be completely useless and should resign to save the taxpayer some bucks.
I dont want politicians who make decisions while being emotional, so emotionalising them up with pictures is not helping at all.
People who are in Syria are fecked. Of course ISIS is not significantly worse than Assad, Saddam, other militias or many other warlords in the world. The idea is ridiculous. Whoever thinks that is either biased, unaware, emotional attached or completely mental.
I dont want politicians who make decisions while being emotional, so emotionalising them up with pictures is not helping at all.
People who are in Syria are fecked. Of course ISIS is not significantly worse than Assad, Saddam, other militias or many other warlords in the world. The idea is ridiculous. Whoever thinks that is either biased, unaware, emotional attached or completely mental.
That's a pretty myopic way of looking at it. The US knows exactly whats going on, which is why they were beating the drum to invade 2 years ago. The problem is that Obama insists on going through the UN, where Russia and China vetoed.
For once Raoul is actually right to be skeptical. It seems that any Rebel Digihadi can simply gather a few unrelated images from Iraq, Syria and Libya and conjure up an atrocity linking it to the government, and the masses end up swallowing all of it like Asa Akira on thanksgiving.
The Syrian civil war must have set a record for the number of unverified images/videos being used to attest headlines.
Raoul, you're not seriously suggesting humanitarian incentives were the reason the US wanted to invade a few years ago?
Come on Kaos. We know Assad indiscriminately shells civilian areas that are rebel held. We know he makes opposition Syrians disappear (most likley into torture chambers) and has been doing that for a long time, along with all of the other 'secular' dictators of the ME. We know his shabiha have carried out massacres (and I have seen videos of them where they're about to torture/ kill sunnis while shouting at them how this is a blow to their Mohammed and their Allah etc etc)
There's a lot of misinformation on both sides, as there is unfortunately in pretty much every conflict in the ME now, due to the dangerous nature of the work for journalists. That doesn't detract from the fact that regardless of how this started, this is a conflict now mostly between two absolutely horrific sides.
There's a lot of misinformation on both sides, as there is unfortunately in pretty much every conflict in the ME now, due to the dangerous nature of the work for journalists. That doesn't detract from the fact that regardless of how this started, this is a conflict now mostly between two absolutely horrific sides.
I'm not disagreeing with anything there. Again, I'm not acting as an apologist for one side, but as a pragmatist I am reluctantly adhering to there being a lesser evil here.
I'm vehemently in support of there being reforms in Syria with Assad making away as I believe no family legacy should reign supreme, but not when the opposition contains elements of extremism that embrace the likes of Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and ISIS. Horrific crimes have been committed by both sides here, but if I was asked who I'd rather win this war the answer would be a no brainer. As it would be for pretty much any minority or secular Sunni in Syria.
As for my initial point, the Syrian rebellion has been notorious for its conjecture and propaganda machine which has been spreading fallacies attesting phantom crimes to the government - some of these crimes having been committed by themselves.
What other incentives are there ? The US has no geopolitical interest in Syria other than to keep the likes of ISIS from plotting attacks in the west.
Marginalising Iran by weakening one of its only allies in the region? Regime change to instill a more compliant leader who's in line with the remaining Arab states?
Except that the relationship with Iran is thawing. Syria really has no geopolitical purpose other than the annoyance that its run by a tin pot dictator.
Syria is also a close ally for russia, a destabilizing factor for Lebanon and the the hawks in the USA hate it to be perceived "weak". The USA wants to be influential in the middle east and not doing anything about Syria would be contradicting to this long-term strategy.
Obama might not want to go out all guns blazing because it would be obviously stupid, but he also doesnt change the long term strategy for this region. He keeps all option open, because the administration doesnt have any clue what they actually want to do about it. He wont be in office for much longer and whoever follows him will be much more hawkish. When hawks are torn between different objectives, they tend to bomb things.
Obama might not want to go out all guns blazing because it would be obviously stupid, but he also doesnt change the long term strategy for this region. He keeps all option open, because the administration doesnt have any clue what they actually want to do about it. He wont be in office for much longer and whoever follows him will be much more hawkish. When hawks are torn between different objectives, they tend to bomb things.
Is that Assad's only fault? Being a dictator? Is that really why the US is after him? Anyway..
It seems that you're again bringing up comparisons between Assad and ISIS, something many are doing these days (comparisons with ISIS). No, ISIS is still much much worse than Assad imo.
For the Syrians, Assad is a dictator, and he does what dictators do whenever somebody is threatening to topple them, and he's mismanaging the economy of the country which makes the living conditions of most Syrians pretty bad.. With ISIS, you have that too, and most probably at a much worse level, but, if you were being put in prison with Assad for threatening the regime, then you could be in prison with ISIS for a thousand more reasons. You smoke? You could be in prison. You're a woman and you don't cover up completely? You go to prison. You're a foreigner, from another religion, from another sect, don't pray... you could be put in prison (or punished). Remember this kid?
Want another example? These men got 25 lashes in public because they didn't pray on Friday. And by the way, this isn't ISIS or even Al-Nusra, this is another group called Ahrar Al-Sham (which was considered by some as a 'moderate' group), so imagine what ISIS would be like.
And keep in mind, these are not "leaked videos", they are the ones publishing it. This is how they operate, publicly.
Under ISIS you're not only deprived the freedom of criticizing the government or electing a new one, you're deprived the freedom of pretty much everything that goes against (or doesn't go with) their extremist ideology. ISIS already murdered thousands of innocent people and those weren't even protesting against them. They're enslaving people and selling women in the markets. They're executing children, beheading people and cutting body parts publicly, with people watching... And they're not even hiding any of that, they actually publish it on the internet themselves. And remember, ISIS is only just started. How can you say that's the same as Assad?
That's for the Syrians. It's already becoming a long post, so I'll just mention quickly the two other factors that makes me think that ISIS is still much much worse than Assad..
The first is how dangerous it is for the world. Assad has been around for many many years, I don't think he brought a comparable danger to the world as the one ISIS already brought to the world a mere couple of months after establishing their "caliphate", and this should be clear without the need to elaborate on.
And the second is how easy it is to remove them. Dictators and regimes like Assad are much easier to remove than terrorist groups like ISIS. It's also much easier to negotiate with them. Assad already gave up his chemical weapons without a bullet shot by the US or its allies, now try to negotiate with ISIS so they give up their chemical weapons.. With terrorist organizations you simply do not have any control over the situation.
Dictators are bad, but in a region like the middle East you can't just topple dictators and then let the whole region descend into a big civil war and let terrorist organizations seize control over large swathes of land, and millions of people. Before toppling dictators in the region, you have to fight ISIS' ideology in the region first. You have to pressure the countries that are supporting their ideology (which incidentally happen to be your allies), so the region will be ready for the change. A change for the better. Otherwise you're just replacing a problem with a much, much bigger problem.
You removed Saddam in 3 weeks. 11 years later and Iraq is still a much bigger problem. You removed Qaddafi in a few weeks, and I don't think you're impressed about the results there either.
I know the US and Israel don't like Assad (I mean really don't like him), and I know he's a dictator, nobody is defending his actions here, but let's keep some perspective and let's stop spreading Al-Qaeda in the name of "toppling dictators", whether you're doing it knowingly, or unknowingly (although that is highly unlikely to be honest).
The point here is there isn't much choice for Syrians who don't want Assad or ISIS. As it stands, Assad is finished as it's highly doubtful he will magically regain any legitimacy or control after what he's done to his own people.
It was a long and reasonable post up to here. Then it did not become short.
there is certainly some reason behind what you are saying. Still I think the important point is, that the states/people of the region have to take over responsibility. ISIS exist because 7-8 major different conflict lines exist in the region. Everytime foreign powers intervene, these conflicts get suppressed by the overwhelming military power of the USA, but when the USA is leaving, these conflicts break out again. The USA is not capable and not willing to solve these issues. Everytime they intervene, more money and more weapons pour into the region, while people end up more radicalised. So interventions might bring shortterm gains in terms of stability, but make things worse in the long run.
It might sound really harsh and cynic, but only if the regional powers are forced to "duke it out" until the coasts for fighting each other becomes too high, they might rethink their approach and come together.
Only if a groups are relatively reasonable, peaceful and stable, they should be supported. Only the kurds qualify for that.
The region is filled with dictators and despots, but the US seems to praise some of them for their "sincerity, candour and frankness," while at best keeping a blind eye towards the crimes committed by others.
The US's annoyance with Syria has nothing to do with it being a dictatorship - they've dealt amicably with dictatorships in the past and present and have gone as far as displacing democratic regimes which don't tow their agenda to instill compliant dictators. The blueprints to invade to Syria was probably drafted years, if not decades ago. The Syrian civil war has just provided a perfect justification for them to put it into action, just as the post 9/11 hysteria had given Bush and Cheney a ripe opportunity to jump into Iraq.
Last edited:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/us/politics/cia-study-says-arming-rebels-seldom-works.html
C.I.A. Study of Covert Aid Fueled Skepticism About Helping Syrian Rebels
"...The still-classified review, one of several C.I.A. studies commissioned in 2012 and 2013 in the midst of the Obama administration’s protracted debate about whether to wade into the Syrian civil war, concluded that many past attempts by the agency to arm foreign forces covertly had a minimal impact on the long-term outcome of a conflict. They were even less effective, the report found, when the militias fought without any direct American support on the ground.
The findings of the study, described in recent weeks by current and former American government officials, were presented in the White House Situation Room and led to deep skepticism among some senior Obama administration officials about the wisdom of arming and training members of a fractured Syrian opposition..."
C.I.A. Study of Covert Aid Fueled Skepticism About Helping Syrian Rebels
"...The still-classified review, one of several C.I.A. studies commissioned in 2012 and 2013 in the midst of the Obama administration’s protracted debate about whether to wade into the Syrian civil war, concluded that many past attempts by the agency to arm foreign forces covertly had a minimal impact on the long-term outcome of a conflict. They were even less effective, the report found, when the militias fought without any direct American support on the ground.
The findings of the study, described in recent weeks by current and former American government officials, were presented in the White House Situation Room and led to deep skepticism among some senior Obama administration officials about the wisdom of arming and training members of a fractured Syrian opposition..."
Syrian Observatory: US-led air strikes in Syria kill 10 civilians
Coalition attacks on Thursday, Friday reportedly killed civilians in the provinces of Deir al-Zor and al-Hassakah; in Douma, Syrian army strikes kill 16 civilians.
Reuters, AP
US-led forces which are bombing Islamic State militants in Syria killed ten civilians in two recent air strikes, a group monitoring the violence said on Saturday.
The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said seven civilians were killed when an air strike hit a gas plant near the town of al-Khasham in the eastern Deir al-Zor province on Friday, and three civilians were killed in an air strike on Thursday night in the north east province of al-Hassakah.
Reuters cannot independently confirm the reports due to security restrictions.
The coalition has been bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq since August and extended the campaign to Syria in September.
Coalition strikes against suspected Islamic State targets in the besieged Syrian town of Kobani continued on Saturday after fierce shelling by the insurgents hit the town center. Shelling continued after the two strikes, according to witnesses.
Meanwhile, both the Observatory and local activist Hassan Taqulden reported that at least five Syrian government airstrikes on a rebel-held town of Douma have killed at least 16 people on Friday evening.
Taqulden said most of those killed were civilians. The Observatory said at least three children and one woman were killed. Both said the death toll was likely to rise because people were still buried under rubble.
Syria's military stepped up its shelling of Douma during the summer as part of its intensified battle to wrest back rebel-held towns around the capital, Damascus.
Close to 200,000 people have been killed in Syria's three-year civil war, according to the United Nations.
At last Obama and Bashar are on the same wavelength. New Middle East.
Coalition attacks on Thursday, Friday reportedly killed civilians in the provinces of Deir al-Zor and al-Hassakah; in Douma, Syrian army strikes kill 16 civilians.
Reuters, AP
US-led forces which are bombing Islamic State militants in Syria killed ten civilians in two recent air strikes, a group monitoring the violence said on Saturday.
The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said seven civilians were killed when an air strike hit a gas plant near the town of al-Khasham in the eastern Deir al-Zor province on Friday, and three civilians were killed in an air strike on Thursday night in the north east province of al-Hassakah.
Reuters cannot independently confirm the reports due to security restrictions.
The coalition has been bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq since August and extended the campaign to Syria in September.
Coalition strikes against suspected Islamic State targets in the besieged Syrian town of Kobani continued on Saturday after fierce shelling by the insurgents hit the town center. Shelling continued after the two strikes, according to witnesses.
Meanwhile, both the Observatory and local activist Hassan Taqulden reported that at least five Syrian government airstrikes on a rebel-held town of Douma have killed at least 16 people on Friday evening.
Taqulden said most of those killed were civilians. The Observatory said at least three children and one woman were killed. Both said the death toll was likely to rise because people were still buried under rubble.
Syria's military stepped up its shelling of Douma during the summer as part of its intensified battle to wrest back rebel-held towns around the capital, Damascus.
Close to 200,000 people have been killed in Syria's three-year civil war, according to the United Nations.
At last Obama and Bashar are on the same wavelength. New Middle East.
Two wrongs don't make a right, eh Raoul?
How does it feel blowing civilians to pieces again? Quite disproportionate if you ask me, considering the US wasn't even attacked.
That's a weird thing to say after a systematic obliteration of a civilian population just a couple of months back. Gotta love your sense of compassion and make yourself feel better by scoring points in an internet debate.Two wrongs don't make a right, eh Raoul?
How does it feel blowing civilians to pieces again? Quite disproportionate if you ask me, considering the US wasn't even attacked.
Your country is responsible for more civilian deaths in Iraq alone in comparison to the total casualties in the Israeli-Arab conflict put together. Including combatants. Ans we've actually been attacked 5 or 6 times.
If you're into scoring points too I suggest you quit the moral high ground for good. You kill lots because you can. We will never use your favourite indiscriminate killing tactics. Perhaps not because of morals, but because it will compromise our military goals. Perhaps this is why using human shields tactics against the US army is not a viable option.
I never claimed any moral high ground in this debate. Its certainly bizarre that your response to anything questionable Israel has done regarding killing civilians is to point to other instances where its happened as if it makes the Israeli case legitimate.
This wasn't "anything questionable". The accusation was that my country was insdiscriminately killing civilians, and rather than being "bizzare" I think that my response refutes that claim.