Syria - whose side are we on
Discussion
Just listening to the lunchtime news and I cant really decide whose side we are on
Are we on the side of the Syrian Government, Islamic State or someone else?
The thousnads of refugees coming our way - are they fleeing the government, Islamic State or both?
If both what happens when they both get here?
Anyone managed to work out what's what?
Are we on the side of the Syrian Government, Islamic State or someone else?
The thousnads of refugees coming our way - are they fleeing the government, Islamic State or both?
If both what happens when they both get here?
Anyone managed to work out what's what?
We don't know who to support - it's a f
king horrible mess.
I read the below recently which did a pretty good job of summarising the current situation:
"Syria has been ruled for decades by a military dictatorship run by a minority Islamic sect, the Alawites. As with most dictatorships they were reputed to have been brutal and repressive, but not incompetent. Although a minority sect, the substantial Christian minorities of Syria have backed them, possibly because if a regime representing the large Sunni Muslim majority took over, Christians could become oppressed (Egypt). Also, the regime receives substantial support from Shi'ite Iran, experts say it's to counterbalance the Sunni regimes in the rest of the Middle East, from China and especially Russia, for various geopolitical reasons.
Dictator Hafez al-Assad died in 2000, his heir apparent was killed in a car crash, so second son Bashshar (educated in London), gets the job. For most of the 2000’s, he tries to implement some gradual reforms.
Around 2006-2010 some natural events hurt Syria, their oil production slows down, plummeting by nearly half, from a peak of just under 610,000 barrels per day to approximately 385,000 bpd in 2010. Leading to huge food price increases and the country suffers severe drought. Their wheat harvest fails, farms fail, people move to cities so the infrastructure like water supply starts to fail. The Assad Government isn’t very sympathetic and doesn't implement effective solutions.
Then comes the 2011 'Arab Spring' protests. the Syrian government badly overreacts to these, killing protestors in ways guaranteed to inflame the people, especially the middle classes. They're very hard on journalists, and Sunni-run Al Jazeera takes great glee in endlessly replaying poor quality mobile phone videos of Syrian troops doing awful things to teenage protestors they caught spray painting Arab Spring slogans on a wall. The country's Internet is cut off. small rebel groups start a guerrilla war. Hundreds of thousands flee immediately, mostly to Turkey, who for reasons I’ll go into later (pipeline theory) don't much care for the Syrian regime.
Now the rebel armies show up. They're made up of civilians who've just had enough, Syrian defectors, and jihadists [not many at all at first, but as you’ll know now has significantly increased as time has passed]. At first, they're all about liberalising and freeing Syria; soon, they become all about jihad and imposing Sharia Laws on the country. Many Christians and urban liberals begin to have second thoughts, but it's too late. The regime troops have no qualms at all about killing non-combatants, and the rebels none about summarily executing anyone suspected of collaborating with the regime.
So expect a horrifying, entrenched civil war to continue on for another year or ten until the rebels get lucky and take out Assad. Then expect years of sectarian turmoil as anyone not willing to bow to Salafism gets killed or exiled. Then another military dictatorship, this time with extra fundamentalist Islam.
Nothing good will come of it for at least 20 years without intervention.
Who do we root for and who should we hate.. Assad’s Government, FSA or ISIS?
Syria’s military dictatorship isn’t what anyone would determine a good team to run a country, the list of atrocities committed and the happy killing of non-combat civilians and the flattening of villages and towns doesn't shout we’re going to look everyone once we win.
The Free Syrian Army was primarily Syrian army defectors and formerly peaceful protesters who were fed up with arbitrary arrest and torture. Their aim was to be like the other freedom loving arab spring people from a few years ago, but they joined up with ISIS and its not clear if their objective is now also Islamic State, there is some internal fighting but they're the same side.
ISIS is predominantly Iraq focused, but funding the Syria side too. I’ve got nothing good to say about ISIS their atrocities covered in the main stream media are I’m sure are the tip of the iceberg and we’re going to hear some horrible stuff in the future.
The country has been effectively destroyed by the fighting. Assad is losing, but slowly, and he's going down fighting.
Is this war all about gas pipelines?
As always the “familiar money interests” are at stake. a few years ago just as Syria's civil war was spreading , Iraq gave the green-light for the signing of a framework agreement for construction of pipelines to transport natural gas from Iran's South Pars field across Iraq, to Syria. The pipeline, which could be extended to Lebanon and into Europe, would potentially solidify Iran's position as a formidable global player.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan is a not in the interests of Qatar, who have plans for a countervailing pipeline running from Qatar's North field, part of the same reserve as Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, also with a view to supply European markets.
The difference is that this non-Iran pipeline would bypass Russia.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have received covert support from Washington in the funnelling of arms to the most virulent Islamist elements of the rebel movement, while Russia and Iran have supplied arms to Assad.
So without casting aspersions, is this another “Cold War but being fought in Syria” for the right to control who provides you the gas to heat your home & boil your kettle.
The origins of Syria's 'war by proxy' are therefore unmistakeable - the result of converging climate, oil and debt crises within a politically repressive state, the conflict's future continues to be at the mercy of rival foreign geopolitical interests in dominating the energy corridors of the Middle East and North Africa.
But whoever wins this New Game of Thrones, the Syrian people will end up losing.
Should we back our troops being sent in to Syria?
the first question is… whoes side will we be on? suppose we’re definitely not on ISIS’ side, we could fight them. But we’re not on Assad’s side, the government bombing is whats flattening and killing most of the civilians. Can you pick the non ISIS Free Syrian Army out? don't think so.
Then maybe a full intervention to take all side out, it could be problematic because:
Syria is much more heavily armed, especially with air defences, than Iraq or Libya were; the rebels too have billions of dollars of weapons, including the US weapons left by the retreating Iraqi troops.
who are we doing it for, if the rebels aren’t really the good guys either. which Syrian people or is it for the Oil pipelines?
Syria's state sponsors, specifically Iran and Russia, will make way more trouble than anyone did about Libya. Rebel supporters like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have the ear of the US and the EU.
king horrible mess.I read the below recently which did a pretty good job of summarising the current situation:
"Syria has been ruled for decades by a military dictatorship run by a minority Islamic sect, the Alawites. As with most dictatorships they were reputed to have been brutal and repressive, but not incompetent. Although a minority sect, the substantial Christian minorities of Syria have backed them, possibly because if a regime representing the large Sunni Muslim majority took over, Christians could become oppressed (Egypt). Also, the regime receives substantial support from Shi'ite Iran, experts say it's to counterbalance the Sunni regimes in the rest of the Middle East, from China and especially Russia, for various geopolitical reasons.
Dictator Hafez al-Assad died in 2000, his heir apparent was killed in a car crash, so second son Bashshar (educated in London), gets the job. For most of the 2000’s, he tries to implement some gradual reforms.
Around 2006-2010 some natural events hurt Syria, their oil production slows down, plummeting by nearly half, from a peak of just under 610,000 barrels per day to approximately 385,000 bpd in 2010. Leading to huge food price increases and the country suffers severe drought. Their wheat harvest fails, farms fail, people move to cities so the infrastructure like water supply starts to fail. The Assad Government isn’t very sympathetic and doesn't implement effective solutions.
Then comes the 2011 'Arab Spring' protests. the Syrian government badly overreacts to these, killing protestors in ways guaranteed to inflame the people, especially the middle classes. They're very hard on journalists, and Sunni-run Al Jazeera takes great glee in endlessly replaying poor quality mobile phone videos of Syrian troops doing awful things to teenage protestors they caught spray painting Arab Spring slogans on a wall. The country's Internet is cut off. small rebel groups start a guerrilla war. Hundreds of thousands flee immediately, mostly to Turkey, who for reasons I’ll go into later (pipeline theory) don't much care for the Syrian regime.
Now the rebel armies show up. They're made up of civilians who've just had enough, Syrian defectors, and jihadists [not many at all at first, but as you’ll know now has significantly increased as time has passed]. At first, they're all about liberalising and freeing Syria; soon, they become all about jihad and imposing Sharia Laws on the country. Many Christians and urban liberals begin to have second thoughts, but it's too late. The regime troops have no qualms at all about killing non-combatants, and the rebels none about summarily executing anyone suspected of collaborating with the regime.
So expect a horrifying, entrenched civil war to continue on for another year or ten until the rebels get lucky and take out Assad. Then expect years of sectarian turmoil as anyone not willing to bow to Salafism gets killed or exiled. Then another military dictatorship, this time with extra fundamentalist Islam.
Nothing good will come of it for at least 20 years without intervention.
Who do we root for and who should we hate.. Assad’s Government, FSA or ISIS?
Syria’s military dictatorship isn’t what anyone would determine a good team to run a country, the list of atrocities committed and the happy killing of non-combat civilians and the flattening of villages and towns doesn't shout we’re going to look everyone once we win.
The Free Syrian Army was primarily Syrian army defectors and formerly peaceful protesters who were fed up with arbitrary arrest and torture. Their aim was to be like the other freedom loving arab spring people from a few years ago, but they joined up with ISIS and its not clear if their objective is now also Islamic State, there is some internal fighting but they're the same side.
ISIS is predominantly Iraq focused, but funding the Syria side too. I’ve got nothing good to say about ISIS their atrocities covered in the main stream media are I’m sure are the tip of the iceberg and we’re going to hear some horrible stuff in the future.
The country has been effectively destroyed by the fighting. Assad is losing, but slowly, and he's going down fighting.
Is this war all about gas pipelines?
As always the “familiar money interests” are at stake. a few years ago just as Syria's civil war was spreading , Iraq gave the green-light for the signing of a framework agreement for construction of pipelines to transport natural gas from Iran's South Pars field across Iraq, to Syria. The pipeline, which could be extended to Lebanon and into Europe, would potentially solidify Iran's position as a formidable global player.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan is a not in the interests of Qatar, who have plans for a countervailing pipeline running from Qatar's North field, part of the same reserve as Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, also with a view to supply European markets.
The difference is that this non-Iran pipeline would bypass Russia.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have received covert support from Washington in the funnelling of arms to the most virulent Islamist elements of the rebel movement, while Russia and Iran have supplied arms to Assad.
So without casting aspersions, is this another “Cold War but being fought in Syria” for the right to control who provides you the gas to heat your home & boil your kettle.
The origins of Syria's 'war by proxy' are therefore unmistakeable - the result of converging climate, oil and debt crises within a politically repressive state, the conflict's future continues to be at the mercy of rival foreign geopolitical interests in dominating the energy corridors of the Middle East and North Africa.
But whoever wins this New Game of Thrones, the Syrian people will end up losing.
Should we back our troops being sent in to Syria?
the first question is… whoes side will we be on? suppose we’re definitely not on ISIS’ side, we could fight them. But we’re not on Assad’s side, the government bombing is whats flattening and killing most of the civilians. Can you pick the non ISIS Free Syrian Army out? don't think so.
Then maybe a full intervention to take all side out, it could be problematic because:
Syria is much more heavily armed, especially with air defences, than Iraq or Libya were; the rebels too have billions of dollars of weapons, including the US weapons left by the retreating Iraqi troops.
who are we doing it for, if the rebels aren’t really the good guys either. which Syrian people or is it for the Oil pipelines?
Syria's state sponsors, specifically Iran and Russia, will make way more trouble than anyone did about Libya. Rebel supporters like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have the ear of the US and the EU.
Well based on who we have bombing we could be determined to be on the side of Assad, as we have been bombing one of his foes.
There was a brief moment when major Western intervention could have led to the victory of a reasonably moderate faction, that moment has passed.
If we want a united Syria the two options are to support either Assad or IS. If we want peace then a partition, backed up by a threat of significant force if any party breaches a cease-fire, will probably be the only way to achieve it in the near future. With Assad controlling a rump state, and the rest of the country falling under the control of a government dominated by IS.
There was a brief moment when major Western intervention could have led to the victory of a reasonably moderate faction, that moment has passed.
If we want a united Syria the two options are to support either Assad or IS. If we want peace then a partition, backed up by a threat of significant force if any party breaches a cease-fire, will probably be the only way to achieve it in the near future. With Assad controlling a rump state, and the rest of the country falling under the control of a government dominated by IS.
There was a brief window of opportunity to support the Free Syrian Army when that represented an alternative to Assad. Now that ISIL represent the main opposition to Assad, supporting Assad looks like the least worst of two horrible options, and the one that will do most for regional stability.
Bluebarge said:
There was a brief window of opportunity to support the Free Syrian Army when that represented an alternative to Assad. Now that ISIL represent the main opposition to Assad, supporting Assad looks like the least worst of two horrible options, and the one that will do most for regional stability.
Though supporting a regime that has slaughtered, gassed and raped tens of thousands of Sunni's is only going to make the west even more beloved by that sect. I have no support for those who tried to justify acts of terrorism due to the west trying to build democratic states in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we start supporting Assad future terrorists might well have a point....
JagLover said:
Bluebarge said:
There was a brief window of opportunity to support the Free Syrian Army when that represented an alternative to Assad. Now that ISIL represent the main opposition to Assad, supporting Assad looks like the least worst of two horrible options, and the one that will do most for regional stability.
Though supporting a regime that has slaughtered, gassed and raped tens of thousands of Sunni's is only going to make the west even more beloved by that sect. I have no support for those who tried to justify acts of terrorism due to the west trying to build democratic states in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we start supporting Assad future terrorists might well have a point....
The UK position is a simple one yet at the same time extremely complicated .
UK position is anti Assad . UK will continue to back opposition forces provided they are not involved with Isis or war crimes . We are watching the (Syrian) Kurds with great interest , they have proven to be the only group capable of defeating Isis in battle . A decision has yet to Mede regarding assisting them fully because of a fear of their closeness to the pkk and an unwillingness to irritate Turkey who are completely horrified by anything Kurdish .
The policy should be 1 back the Kurds , 2 unite the acceptable opposition , 3 reevaluate the Turkish involvement , 4 modify the position regarding Assad slightly to leave room for the alawists , 5 attempt annihilation of Isis and cut of their support from othe Middle Eastern States .
This is a somewhat simplified solution but you get the gist of it . The problem we have in the west is we must deal with these matters but still be on the moral high ground yes this makes solution more difficult but it's really the only way to go .
UK position is anti Assad . UK will continue to back opposition forces provided they are not involved with Isis or war crimes . We are watching the (Syrian) Kurds with great interest , they have proven to be the only group capable of defeating Isis in battle . A decision has yet to Mede regarding assisting them fully because of a fear of their closeness to the pkk and an unwillingness to irritate Turkey who are completely horrified by anything Kurdish .
The policy should be 1 back the Kurds , 2 unite the acceptable opposition , 3 reevaluate the Turkish involvement , 4 modify the position regarding Assad slightly to leave room for the alawists , 5 attempt annihilation of Isis and cut of their support from othe Middle Eastern States .
This is a somewhat simplified solution but you get the gist of it . The problem we have in the west is we must deal with these matters but still be on the moral high ground yes this makes solution more difficult but it's really the only way to go .
Edited by wtdoom on Monday 7th September 14:29
saaby93 said:
If Turkey is the nearest EU state - what would best serve their interests?
becoming more friendly with the Kurds or the other two?
What about Jordan?
All the surrounding areas have taken in millions of refugees . I think a quarter of the population of Lebanon are now Syrian refugees . Let me repeat that , a quarter of lebanons population are Syrian refugees . Iraq , Jordan etc etc are all in the same boat . Makes me laugh how some in Europe think we bear the brunt of refugees , that's simply not true . becoming more friendly with the Kurds or the other two?
What about Jordan?
Another myth is blurring the lines between Isis and Islam as a whole . Remember the majority of persons killed by Isis are Muslim . The majority of those fighting Isis on the ground are Muslim , these inconvenient facts are often forgotten by our "press".
The problem with Turkey is that as little as 2 months ago in an official speech it was stated that Kurds are a bigger threat to Turkey than Isis . I have almost given up on turkeys ability to assist us in this action . They are blinded by their own paranoia .
saaby93 said:
Just listening to the lunchtime news and I cant really decide whose side we are on
Are we on the side of the Syrian Government, Islamic State or someone else?
The thousnads of refugees coming our way - are they fleeing the government, Islamic State or both?
If both what happens when they both get here?
Anyone managed to work out what's what?
IMO, IS is being used to destroy Assad, and US/UK forces are simply containing them to a degree. Once (if) Assad is gone, they will then sweep in and save us from the terrible threat that is IS. So, two birds dead with one stone from a FP stand point. Assad gone, and a great PR moment.Are we on the side of the Syrian Government, Islamic State or someone else?
The thousnads of refugees coming our way - are they fleeing the government, Islamic State or both?
If both what happens when they both get here?
Anyone managed to work out what's what?
Meanwhile, thousands are killed or forced to flee, and priceless artifacts and irreplaceable cultural treasures are destroyed. Quite cynical and truly disgusting.
scherzkeks said:
IMO, IS is being used to destroy Assad, and US/UK forces are "managing" the damage caused. Once (if) Assad is gone, they will then sweep in and save us from the terrible threat that is IS. So, two birds dead with one stone from and FP stand point. Assad gone, and a great PR moment.
Meanwhile, thousands are killed or forced to flee, and priceless artifacts and irreplaceable cultural treasures are destroyed. Quite cynical and truly disgusting.
You are not correct . Coalition forces are attempting to bomb Isis to extinction and turning a blind eye to other forces attempting to hurt Isis in Iraq . Forces the coalition would not usually do this for . They are also arming Kurds in Iraq and increasing training / support for other military operators involved in the fight .Meanwhile, thousands are killed or forced to flee, and priceless artifacts and irreplaceable cultural treasures are destroyed. Quite cynical and truly disgusting.
The longer Isis exist the stronger they will be and the more difficult "victory" over them will come .
As far as I am concerned the US, UK, Germany etc are supporting Isis. They went against Assad from the start and have been doing everything possible to topple him mostly at the behest of America and certain oil rich arab states.
The US provided training in evasion tactics and medical care as well as it is believed weapons to so called friendly rebels who are more "terrorists" as they are fighting both Assads regime as well as Isis but at the same time many of the so called friendly rebels have joined forces with the Isis regime taking the training weapons etc with them to Isis.
The US and other western governments have declared that they do not recognise Assad and his government as the leaders of Syria even though there were free and fair elections and they were elected by the syrian people.
The US and other western Governments have declared Assad is not president even though humanitarian and election monitoring teams who were in Syria at the time of the elctions said the majority of those they spoke to who were queuing to vote said they were going to vote for Assad and they also stated that it was an open and free process of elections and they saw no signs of corruption or forcing people to vote one way or another.
The US and everyone else has ignored this and brushed it under the carpet.
The only people who have called this right from the start have been the Russians who have stated Assad and his regime should be asssisted to crush the Isis threat however no western government is prepared to work with him. Assad has been made out to be some form of evil dictator who murders his own people and while he has allowed deaths and torture a lot of what has been reported has been PR staged set ups by the "friendly rebels" and ISis proof of which is out there.
The big one that kicked off the absolute outrage was the massacre at homs or wherever it was. Woman and children murdered, heads cut off etc. Only problem is it happened in a rebel held stronghold and cutting off heads is a speciality of the rebels and ISIS not the Assad regime. Apparently we were to believe the Assad regime got soldiers into the rebel stronghold without any trouble, massacred a bunch of people and got away clean. hhhhm unlikely me thinks.
The US provided training in evasion tactics and medical care as well as it is believed weapons to so called friendly rebels who are more "terrorists" as they are fighting both Assads regime as well as Isis but at the same time many of the so called friendly rebels have joined forces with the Isis regime taking the training weapons etc with them to Isis.
The US and other western governments have declared that they do not recognise Assad and his government as the leaders of Syria even though there were free and fair elections and they were elected by the syrian people.
The US and other western Governments have declared Assad is not president even though humanitarian and election monitoring teams who were in Syria at the time of the elctions said the majority of those they spoke to who were queuing to vote said they were going to vote for Assad and they also stated that it was an open and free process of elections and they saw no signs of corruption or forcing people to vote one way or another.
The US and everyone else has ignored this and brushed it under the carpet.
The only people who have called this right from the start have been the Russians who have stated Assad and his regime should be asssisted to crush the Isis threat however no western government is prepared to work with him. Assad has been made out to be some form of evil dictator who murders his own people and while he has allowed deaths and torture a lot of what has been reported has been PR staged set ups by the "friendly rebels" and ISis proof of which is out there.
The big one that kicked off the absolute outrage was the massacre at homs or wherever it was. Woman and children murdered, heads cut off etc. Only problem is it happened in a rebel held stronghold and cutting off heads is a speciality of the rebels and ISIS not the Assad regime. Apparently we were to believe the Assad regime got soldiers into the rebel stronghold without any trouble, massacred a bunch of people and got away clean. hhhhm unlikely me thinks.
Bluebarge said:
It would be, if it weren't just a ludicrous conspiracy theory that you have fabricated yourself.
After all, not much "sweeping" has gone on in Iraq, where ISIS are just as active.
Nothing wrong with a little conspiracy now and then. Its rather naive to think you have any real insight into this campaign. You have 0 access to meaningful reliable information on the subject. OTOH, we do at least know that IS consists of leftovers from past US ventures to control and shape the region's future, we know the US wants Assad out of power, and we know IS has been more successful at this point than any layman could have predicted. The idea that they are being used as a tool is not far-fetched at all IMO, and would fit with the Wolfowitz Doctorine. But I digress, you must have security clearances the rest of us could only dream of. After all, not much "sweeping" has gone on in Iraq, where ISIS are just as active.
Edited by scherzkeks on Monday 7th September 15:28
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff