Military Events in Syria and Iraq thread #3

[Schmelzer]

There are also reports of old WWII-style Russian grad multiple rocket launchers being used by the rebels. Presumably the rockets and their launchers were looted from Syrian army stocks earlier in the civil war.

Some of them. But actually most of them come from the East-European states, old Soviet time weapons. They have been already largely used to support the Ukraine, but there is also an established line to Syria.

It looks to me like both sides in this civil war have a tendency to shoot indiscriminately and don't care very much about how many of the other side's civilian supporters they kill.

For the terrorists, indeed. For the Russian side, this is not the case. They know very well what the Western propaganda would do if they would really hit something like a school with children or a hospital. In this sense, all these fakes (the White Helmets act fortunately quite unprofessional, using the same actor in many different staged pictures is stupid, see http://rusvesna.su/news/1476642213 for a collection) may be even helpful, one can see how one would look like if there would be more than easily detectable fakes.

By the way, two maps to compare: The first one is about the actual gains - very rough and uncertain, combining information from various sources:

The second one is already several days old, and officially simply shows the leading guys of the Russian/Syrian side in Aleppo.

The interesting thing is, of course, the map behind. The blue arrows on the left are exactly the attack directions we see now - a few days later.

This is the sort of information policy known as "intentional leak". They have, by publishing this picture, said them: "We even know where you want to attack. Don't even try."

 

[iceaura]

"Are you trying to deny that Assad did what he did?"
A nonsensical question. Think about it.

It's rhetorical, not nonsensical. It's obvious that you are trying to deny that Assad pulled a Hundred Flowers on the people of Syria, and I could have simply stated the fact rather than play cute. But the grind of dealing with your approach requires occasional relief.

At Stalin as well as Mao time it was certainly not popular to look tolerant. As it would not be, at least in some parts of US population, to be "tolerant to crime". That one has to be "tolerant" to those in the leadership who are yet strong is a triviality and a necessity, not a subtle decision. Those who did not do this would be killed before becoming dictators. So, I simply think that your thesis is a sort of conspiracy theory where no conspiracy is necessary.

So you assert that this pattern in the tactics of strongman governments and other severely authoritarian regimes is a "conspiracy theory", and Stalin, Mao, etc, did not ever "look tolerant". Does that mean you aren't familiar with Stalin's routine when taking power, Mao's "hundred flowers" operation, Hitler's black list of intellectuals he was careful not to threaten until he moved on them, etc?

"You claimed that being arrested meant being beaten by the police."
No. Arrested by the SEK, the German analog of SWAT. And, moreover, at home, so that it is not visible to the public.

That's not quite what you posted. You posted that being arrested means being beaten by the police in general, with the SEK as an example - in America, for example, where you suggested that my denial of that for my area was due to my unfamiliarity with this aspect of American police.

Like this:

Just to clarify: I do not doubt that there is a lot of police brutality in Syria. As everywhere in the world, including Germany, where it is, for example, well-known that if the SEK arrests you at home you will be beaten. (And the SEK is always used if they think it is, for whatever reasons, better not to ring politely, which would give the people some time, say, to shut down their computer or so.) So, the general rule is that police is beating.
- - - -
"There are many countries in which most people can expect not to be beaten when arrested."
Most people expect this - and then wonder if they are beaten when arrested. Quite typical, because this is usually nothing to be propagated, even tough regimes try to hide this. So, if you want to know if police is beating, you have to ask people who know it - for example, criminals.

So when the US outsourced some of its "interrogation" operations to Syrian torture facilities, that was in the early 2000s when Assad was new to power - but clearly set up to handle dissidents, as soon as requested.

 

[Schmelzer]

I could have simply stated the fact rather than play cute.

Nobody objects if you present some "fact". With links or other evidence which support your claim.

So you assert that this pattern in the tactics of strongman governments and other severely authoritarian regimes is a "conspiracy theory", and Stalin, Mao, etc, did not ever "look tolerant".

I simply explain that it is a common feature, that initially the "strongmen" are not that strong, and therefore seem more "tolerant" than later. Stalin, Mao etc. may have looked tolerant to all those fighting for power.

Does that mean you aren't familiar with Stalin's routine when taking power, Mao's "hundred flowers" operation, Hitler's black list of intellectuals he was careful not to threaten until he moved on them, etc?

For Hitler it took two months to present himself as really strong and to establish his power. Mao's "hundred flowers" was, as I understand, a cheat directed toward the communist elites, but I'm not sure about this. Stalin has all the time, already with Lenin in power, worked as an innocent "secretary" with the cadres, but had yet to defeat Trotsky, and I'm indeed not aware of any great things done by Stalin to look tolerant to peasants or bourgeouis. 1928-30 there have been already processes, the first against engineers (Shakhtinsk, Promparty). So, ok, you have some time, 1924-1927, to present him as a nice tolerant guy, ok, imho he has done just nothing (leaving the NEP started by Lenin as it was).
But I did not want to start a thread about history. My point was simply common sense: A yet weak strongman does not have the power yet, which he needs to show himself.
Instead, Assad's situation was different. He was a liberal man, worked as a physician, lived some time in Britain, and only the death of his brother made him a candidate for power in Syria. There is no reason to doubt that his initial liberalism was simply what he wanted. But in Syria, this was interpreted as weakness, and so he was forced to present himself as more tough.

That's not quite what you posted. You posted that being arrested means being beaten by the police in general, with the SEK as an example - in America, for example, where you suggested that my denial of that for my area was due to my unfamiliarity with this aspect of American police.

Your quote does not support this. The claim I have made for Germany was well specified by "SEK" and "at home". That there are many countries where you can expect to be beaten when arrested is what I hear around the world. I'm travelling a lot, and not through its Western part. You think "many" is too much, that these are only a few, even if under some (even if quite restricted) circumstances you have to expect this even in the classical Rechtsstaat Germany? Really? And about the problems with police brutality in the US you can read a lot in the net - but based on a lot of such cases it is hard to conclude from outside if it is really a problem.

So when the US outsourced some of its "interrogation" operations to Syrian torture facilities, that was in the early 2000s when Assad was new to power - but clearly set up to handle dissidents, as soon as requested.

Of course, you can be sure he was ready to fight islamists all the time. He was a young men during the last big salafi insurrection in Syria, so that you cannot expect him to like salafists. That you prefer to name them "dissidents" is your choice.

 

[Schmelzer]

Today, the situation looks quite nice in Aleppo, there are informations about counterattacks as well as repelled attacks. The weather is better now than yesterday, so it is easier to use airforce, which can make the difference. Given that during the next days there will be rain, one may think that the terrorists will simply prefer not to attack very much today.

I think it makes sense to put a map of West Ghouta here too, simply because there is information that now above remaining big towns - Zakya as well as Khan al Shih - are now in negotiations with the Syrian side on peace, so that after the successful splitting of the two, and encirclement of Khan al Shih, we may not have new frontlines here for the time necessary for the negotiations.

 

[iceaura]

I could have simply stated the fact rather than play cute.
Nobody objects if you present some "fact". With links or other evidence which support your claim.

I did. I quoted you, attempting to deny Assad's "hundred flowers" two step. A "conspiracy theory", you called it.

I simply explain that it is a common feature, that initially the "strongmen" are not that strong, and therefore seem more "tolerant" than later. Stalin, Mao etc. may have looked tolerant to all those fighting for power.

Mao made an actual overt, named, propaganda campaign out of it - that's where I got the name "hundred flowers". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign

But I did not want to start a thread about history. My point was simply common sense: A yet weak strongman does not have the power yet, which he needs to show himself.

My common sense tells me that a so often repeated and so clearly effective pattern in the consolidation of power by a strongman - especially one as sophisticated and well-prepared as Assad, taking over an established brutally oppressive regime (with - for example - the torture prisons already built and routinely operational, the electrical equipment and special cell features and so forth installed, the institutional structure and capable minions in place, so that the US could securely outsource torture to Syria even in the first couple of years of Assad's power),

is not a presumptive coincidence. It may be coincidence, but that's not the way to bet.

Instead, Assad's situation was different. He was a liberal man, worked as a physician, lived some time in Britain, and only the death of his brother made him a candidate for power in Syria. There is no reason to doubt that his initial liberalism was simply what he wanted.

So you vote for accident of a kind, coincidental circumstance that merely happens to have aligned Assad's behavior with that of the dozens of other strongmen throughout history of which we know better. Ok - there is no proof of Assad's intentions or strategy, you may be right.

In which case the failure of this initial approach you ascribe to him - the collapse into what he is doing now - was not an expression of strength but an acknowledgment of weakness.

Your quote does not support this. The claim I have made for Germany was well specified by "SEK" and "at home". That there are many countries where you can expect to be beaten when arrested is what I hear around the world. I'm travelling a lot, and not through its Western part.

This is what you wrote:

Just to clarify: I do not doubt that there is a lot of police brutality in Syria. As everywhere in the world, including Germany, - - -

I objected to the "everywhere in the world" ascription to the level of police brutality long established and present in Syria. It's a false claim. There are lots of places in this world where most people arrested by the police can safely expect to be treated reasonably and not beaten, even, let alone be put in danger of the kinds of abuse common in Syrian detention.

You think "many" is too much, that these are only a few, even if under some (even if quite restricted) circumstances you have to expect this even in the classical Rechtsstaat Germany? Really?

"even"? German police are commonly described - in everything one hears and reads, novels and news and traveller's tales in my region - as notably rougher and more brutal than average for Europe. (There's a common joke that describes heaven vs hell as contrasting combinations of the cultural features of various places in Europe - iirc heaven had English police and French food, hell had German police and English food, to illustrate)

So while I am sure there are "many" such as you describe, there are also a good number such as I describe - enough to establish the common reality of decent police forces enforcing the law reasonably and with respect. Assad's regime is not excused by the existence of such brutality elsewhere.

Of course, you can be sure he was ready to fight islamists all the time. He was a young men during the last big salafi insurrection in Syria, so that you cannot expect him to like salafists. That you prefer to name them "dissidents" is your choice.

I needed a word to cover the range of targets of Assad's brutality - which is not at all limited to "salafists", as we see in the current distribution of bombs and gas and so forth.

 

[Schmelzer]

A "conspiracy theory", you called it. ...
My common sense tells me that a so often repeated and so clearly effective pattern in the consolidation of power by a strongman - especially one as sophisticated and well-prepared as Assad, taking over an established brutally oppressive regime (with - for example - the torture prisons already built and routinely operational, the electrical equipment and special cell features and so forth installed, the institutional structure and capable minions in place, so that the US could securely outsource torture to Syria even in the first couple of years of Assad's power), is not a presumptive coincidence. It may be coincidence, but that's not the way to bet.

Let's clarify: First, I agree with you that this pattern exists. And that it is not coincidence. My only point was that there is an objective problem which the strongman has yet to overcome: Namely that at the start of the takeover he is not yet as strong.

I think this general problem is sufficient to explain your observed pattern - in general. To distinguish it from other things, which may require different explanations, I see up to now only one way: The pattern would predict that the strongman presents himself as tolerant to the ruling elite. Which is different from presenting himself tolerant to the general population. This difference will be especially large, in particular, in established dictatorships, where tolerance to the population would be considered betrayal and opposition to the whole ruling elite.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the initial tolerance shown by Assad was along the Western ideology lines, toward liberalization or so, at least this was my impression, and is also quite plausible given that he lived, pseudonymously as a physician in Britain. So, I see here a difference between the natural (caused by objective reasons) behavior of typical strongmen, which show some "tolerance" against their competitors (to cheat them) to become stronger, and Assad's tolerance, which objectively weakened his position, and lead to betrayal and desertions given that he was considered to be weak, unable to defend his power.

In which case the failure of this initial approach you ascribe to him - the collapse into what he is doing now - was not an expression of strength but an acknowledgment of weakness.

This would be one possibility. For me, it is not even clear if there was any change in his real behavior - and not only a change in what his environment thought about him. His "weakness" may have, as well, simply been a wrong impression.

This is what you wrote: I objected to the "everywhere in the world" ascription to the level of police brutality long established and present in Syria.

Ok, my formulation was misleading here. I know very well that the level of police brutality is quite different in different parts of the world. There is some police brutality everywhere. But there are also large differences.

"even"? German police are commonly described - in everything one hears and reads, novels and news and traveller's tales in my region - as notably rougher and more brutal than average for Europe.

In everyday life you see no difference. What one can observe openly - for example, visiting the traditionally violent 1 Mai demonstrations in Berlin in the 1990s - looked quite normal and professional to me. Of course, on the level of cultural stereotypes this is what one has to expect - given the history, especially of the Nazi time. I would actually expect much more police brutality than in Germany in all Eastern European countries, less in Holland, Swiss, but this is on the level of prejudices, not more. And if you want to talk about cultural stereotypes, then be sure - American police is, in this question, today considered much worse than all the European police.

So while I am sure there are "many" such as you describe, there are also a good number such as I describe - enough to establish the common reality of decent police forces enforcing the law reasonably and with respect. Assad's regime is not excused by the existence of such brutality elsewhere.

The point is not excuse, it is that the black/white picture is wrong. There are different levels of grey. There are objective (badly payed policemen will be more brutal, because they need deterrence to extract bribes) and cultural (expect more police brutality in Arab countries) influences. The strongest influence is, of course, a civil war. And not only during the war itself - the winning side may be expected to be more brutal quite a long time after the war too.

I needed a word to cover the range of targets of Assad's brutality - which is not at all limited to "salafists", as we see in the current distribution of bombs and gas and so forth.

And here you simply follow joepistole facts. Gas is completely propaganda nonsense. It makes no sense from a military point of view, and would be politically extremely stupid, but is extremely useful in Western propaganda. And the distribution of the bombs is cheap propaganda too. Once the West has to fake even bombed schools, and this in a civil war where schools are often used by militants as barracks, and in such cases are legitimate targets, this is only for joepistole level propaganda believers.

 

[Schmelzer]

Good news from Syria: First, https://www.almasdarnews.com/articl...ssive-area-isis-blitz-offensive-north-aleppo/ writes that in the North of Aleppo the Syrian army has taken six villages, the Muslamiyah Cement Factory and Aleppo Infantry College:

This is the region directly North of Aleppo. This is important for several reasons: First, it essentially thickens to defenses of the Syrian army against a possible attack from the North. One could imagine that the "Euphrat shield" offensive could have, instead, taken this region. It would have been a nice starting point for an attack on Aleppo. Some of the terrorist groups from this coalition have made claims in this direction. Now, the Infantry school there is a site which was extremely difficult to attack, there have been a lot of unsuccessful attempts of this in the past. So, taking it for free is very important.

Then, it shows a working cooperation between the Syrian army and the Kurds. Essentially, the Kurds have pressured from the North, and ISIS essentiall withdraw from the area. The Syrian army has taken the whole region without any conflicts with the Kurds. The various comments about this all agree on the point that the Afrin Kurds have to be distinguished in their politics from the Hasaka Kurds, which are much more pro-American, while the Afrin Kurds cooperate with the Russians and Syrians. (Even if this may be a purely pragmatical decision, given the geography.) There are claims about negotiations between Afrin Kurds and the Syrian army about how to continue this cooperation. The Syrian side is, obviously, in favor of taking some more ISIS territory, and leaving some other to the Kurds, so that the Kurds become a sort of buffer between the openly Turkish supported terrorists and the Syrian army, a buffer which can be supported by airforce and artillery if necessary, but the Kurds have to provide the ground forces. This makes sense.

On the West Aleppo front, not much has happened. Some attacks repelled, one attack seemed, initially, successful, the Syrian army retreated, but this appeared to be a trap, with nice minefields prepared, resulting in a lot of dead terrorists and the region recovered later. We will see what follows. Something will follow, this is clear, because they have yet large enough reserves, and this is the last hope for their Eastern Aleppo enclave. There seems agreement that the terrorists have not reached what was planned for the initial phase.

Then, there have been some advances in North Hama (some hills taken), in Jobar (some command center destroyed, which https://www.almasdarnews.com/articl...ahman-command-center-jobar-damascus-pictures/ claims to have been quite important) and in East Ghouta, with good advances aroung Tal Kurdi. So, the Syrian army seems strong enough now to attack at several fronts, despite the natural concentration on the Aleppo front.

 

[iceaura]

My only point was that there is an objective problem which the strongman has yet to overcome: Namely that at the start of the takeover he is not yet as strong.

I think this general problem is sufficient to explain your observed pattern - in general.

But we see the pattern in cases where we know the strongman was strong enough to prevent such dissent - that the timing of the crackdown phase is completely his choice.

To distinguish it from other things, which may require different explanations, I see up to now only one way: The pattern would predict that the strongman presents himself as tolerant to the ruling elite. Which is different from presenting himself tolerant to the general population.

There is also the critical and most often central matter of the culturally dominant - the important intellectuals, entertainers, communicators, students, etc. The strongman needs to identify his enemies among them, and that is not easy from the outside over time.

So, I see here a difference between the natural (caused by objective reasons) behavior of typical strongmen, which show some "tolerance" against their competitors (to cheat them) to become stronger, and Assad's tolerance, which objectively weakened his position, and lead to betrayal and desertions given that he was considered to be weak, unable to defend his power.

That is of course possible. Not the way to bet, though - not the presumption.

""even"? German police are commonly described - in everything one hears and reads, novels and news and traveller's tales in my region - as notably rougher and more brutal than average for Europe."
In everyday life you see no difference.

But everybody knows better - there is a difference, and it's common knowledge (jokes, etc).

The point is not excuse, it is that the black/white picture is wrong. There are different levels of grey.

Your point was to dissemble and deflect from the nature of the Syrian government, under Assad as well is his father.

 

[Schmelzer]

News from Syria are quite good today. Tal Kurdi has been really taken:

Then, in Aleppo have claimed they start today the real, serious offensive - and they have failed. Instead, there was a serious counter-offensive of the Syrian army, which has liberated Manian completely and the Al Assad district partially with leaving some terrorists encircled in some blocks. Some Syrian forces attack now Eastern Aleppo from the East. This may be simply support for the parts fighting in the West, given that this may prevent the forces inside to concentrate in the South-West and to try seriously to break out.

A bad news is that negotiations in Khan al Sheih in West Ghouta have failed, thus, the Syrian army has to fight for the town. Some farms in the Eastern environment have been already taken.

But we see the pattern in cases where we know the strongman was strong enough to prevent such dissent - that the timing of the crackdown phase is completely his choice.

Maybe. But such power game questions are very subtle, and it is hard for historians to decide if this was the case or not - much harder than for the strongman himself, who often also acts without being sure that he is strong enough.

Your point was to dissemble and deflect from the nature of the Syrian government, under Assad as well is his father.

Nonsense. It is a typical Baath party Arabian dictatorship. With everything which has to be expected from them. My point was a rejection of a typical propaganda method - personal demonization of the leader of the political enemy. The Western propaganda presents Assad as some sort of devil, a second Hitler or so. Which is quite stupid. He is, in comparison with other Arabic dictators, personally quite moderate and tolerant. So, if you, for example, simply kill him, there would come another guy from the same political camp (secular, Baath party tradition) simply because this is the strongest one. And this new guy would be, with quite high probability, less moderate, less tolerant, kill and torture more, make less negotiations with enemy factions.

 

[iceaura]

Nonsense. It is a typical Baath party Arabian dictatorship. With everything which has to be expected from them.

Ok. So? That's pretty bad. That's much worse than a lot of places, as I noted.

My point was a rejection of a typical propaganda method - personal demonization of the leader of the political enemy. The Western propaganda presents Assad as some sort of devil, a second Hitler or so.

You were replying to my posts, not "Western propaganda".

 

[Schmelzer]

A new map from Aleppo, judging from the general view a quite pro-terrorist one, even if taken von Al Masdar:

Not much has changed during the last two days in Aleppo. Which is good news, because what the terrorists have planed would have been a lot of change in their favor. And, another news, it is now finally clear that Tal Kurdi has been really taken by the Syrian army in East Ghouta.

That this important hill is now under Syrian control simplifies the general situation for the Syrian army in East Ghouta. I think the Syrian army will in the next days increase the pressure against Douma, which looks now like a candidate for encirclement.

Ok. So? That's pretty bad. That's much worse than a lot of places, as I noted.

So don't expect that the son of the leader will be a pure liberal democrat with pure Western values. Even if this would happen, his failure would have been predefined.

Once utopia is not an option, the question is if the situation can somehow be improved. With removing Assad, the situation will become much worse. Except, maybe, for some people in Israel, who prefer that all the Arab states around them degenerate into a civil war forever, so that they will be never able to attack Israel. Those would have no problems at all if Al Qaida and Daesh create a genocide against Alewites, Christians and various other non-Jews.

You were replying to my posts, not "Western propaganda".

So what? Once I can identify in your posts a typical pattern of standard (not only Western) war propaganda, namely personal demonization of the leader of the enemy, I will criticize it.

 

[iceaura]

So don't expect that the son of the leader will be a pure liberal democrat with pure Western values.

And don't object when I agree with that assessment, and expect or observe quite otherwise.

Once utopia is not an option, the question is if the situation can somehow be improved. With removing Assad, the situation will become much worse.

Always the excuse, for bad government. Maybe so, maybe no, and so what? The motives of those attempting to remove him are nevertheless good ones, easily understood.

So what? Once I can identify in your posts a typical pattern of standard (not only Western) war propaganda, namely personal demonization of the leader of the enemy, I will criticize it.

Which you were mistaken in doing. I did no demonization, engaged in the opposite of war propaganda, and confined my remarks on Assad to likely and well-supported interpretation of rather obvious and well known facts you posted yourself. Mistaking the nature and pattern of my posts so badly is something you should have learned to avoid, by now.

 

[Schmelzer]

It looks like the big terrorist offensive against Aleppo is over. If so, it has given essentially nothing - some part of the Al Assad suburb, some advance in 1070, which is anyway a region where buildings are easily taken and lost many times.

At least the Russians seem to be sure that that's already all, and have declared about a new humanitarian ceasefire at 4. November 9.00-19.00.

The motives of those attempting to remove him are nevertheless good ones, easily understood.

Good intentions .... with horrible consequences. As usual.

Which you were mistaken in doing.

You think so? I'm not. By the way, quite symmetric, we above think now that the other is a victim of some propaganda.

Of course, sometimes we all risk to become a victim of propaganda. Such is life. I know about this danger and care about it. Once you localize propaganda on the enemy side, some Breitbard or whatever, there is a higher probability that you become a victim of propaganda lies shared by your own side.

Mistaking the nature and pattern of my posts so badly is something you should have learned to avoid, by now.

I indeed already know that saying you made some error is always mistaken. But, for some reason, I do not care about this.

 

[iceaura]

Once you localize propaganda on the enemy side, some Breitbard or whatever, there is a higher probability that you become a victim of propaganda lies shared by your own side.

You continue to overlook the fact that nothing I posted here is part of the propaganda lies, from any side.

You also seem to be assigning me to a side I am not on, or two sides at once, or possibly you are confused about the "sides" altogether - the demonization of Assad via propaganda in the US is being done by the Breitbart side you label my "enemy", for example (http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...campaign-kills-people-syria-always-beautiful/) -

or (increasingly likely) you are consciously bullshitting for some reason, posting confusion on purpose.

Good intentions .... with horrible consequences. As usual.

That remains to be seen. The consequences of the status quo were rapidly worsening, under Assad - with of course the Iraq War and climate change drought as key precipitating factors, not Assad's doing, but nevertheless his situation to govern.

"Which you were mistaken in doing."
You think so? I'm not. By the way, quite symmetric, we above think now that the other is a victim of some propaganda.

I no longer think you are a simple victim of propaganda regarding Syria. You are too cooperative in your confusion. You were, for example, provided the chance to correct your "mistaken" post, here:

I did no demonization, engaged in the opposite of war propaganda, and confined my remarks on Assad to likely and well-supported interpretation of rather obvious and well known facts you posted yourself. Mistaking the nature and pattern of my posts so badly is something you should have learned to avoid, by now.

You did not.

So how is all this relevant to the military events in Syria? It helps explain Russia's role, the behavior of the Russian and Syrian "allied" forces, and so forth,

and thereby helps reveal (if the matter is in doubt) the nature of Putin's governance and agenda in Syria. This is I think your central concern.

 

[Schmelzer]

It seems, the hope that the terrorists attack against Aleppo is over was not fulfilled, they have continued the attacks. So there are actually heavy fightings, in the same places as before, so no new map about this.

You also seem to be assigning me to a side I am not on, or two sides at once, or possibly you are confused about the "sides" altogether - the demonization of Assad via propaganda in the US is being done by the Breitbart side you label my "enemy", for example

LOL, you seem simply unaware that there are many different levels of propaganda bullshit. Some Breitbart against your side, some you share against Russia and Syria, some you share even with Russia. The world is not that simple that one side (your own) tells the truth and all others lie.

That remains to be seen.

We have already seen the consequences, as in Iraq, as in Libya. What else do you need?

You were, for example, provided the chance to correct your "mistaken" post, here: You did not.

Horrible, I did not. But, ok, I will also give you a chance to correct your completely mistaken post here: I guess, you will not use this chance, but so what, in this case we are quit.

So how is all this relevant to the military events in Syria? It helps explain Russia's role, the behavior of the Russian and Syrian "allied" forces, and so forth,
and thereby helps reveal (if the matter is in doubt) the nature of Putin's governance and agenda in Syria. This is I think your central concern.

What you write is quite irrelevant to the military events in Syria. I simply answer because of a personal weakness, I do not like not to answer. Sometimes I answer even joepistole and the CptBork or so. And even if this is off-topic.

 

[iceaura]

LOL, you seem simply unaware that there are many different levels of propaganda bullshit. Some Breitbart against your side, some you share against Russia and Syria, some you share even with Russia. The world is not that simple that one side (your own) tells the truth and all others lie.

It was you, not me, who claimed Breitbart propaganda was on an "enemy side" of me. The inability to recognize different levels of propaganda that revealed was a feature of your posting, not mine, as was the simplistic demarcation into "sides" that I have objected to in your posting many times before - this has been going on in your posting for some time now.

The immediate confusion was your having assigned "demonization of Assad" propaganda to "my side". You were wrong about that.

We have already seen the consequences, as in Iraq, as in Libya. What else do you need?

As I stated in the post, we need a comparison with the consequences expected otherwise, from the other people's - such as Assad's - bad motives and bad behaviors. The drought and the Iraq War spillover effects had shaken the State, possibly collapsed it, already. Assad's responses to these spillover factors had already spawned easily understood and justified reactions nevertheless likely to create a scene even uglier than Assad's governance. So it is still possible that this civil war, justifiably motivated as it was, could produce a better situation in the region than continued governance by Assad would have produced, despite the badly motivated instigation and interference of Russia and others.

 

[Schmelzer]

I had already explained that there have been failed negotiations in Khan Al-Sheih, West Ghouta. After the government has reopened the battle and taken another village near the town, it is now completely encircled and the negotiations have started again.
https://www.almasdarnews.com/articl...nder-key-west-ghouta-town-negotiations-begin/
describes an interesting detail, namely the reason of failure. They wanted to be transported toward the South, Daraa. But Syria is in no way interested to have there more fanatical jihadists from Al Qaida - in the South, there have not been many battles during the last time, ceasefire as the main situation, with some exceptions - mostly connected with Al Qaida. More of this in the South? No, thank you. So the government offer was the usual one - Idlib. Al Qaida refused. Maybe they will accept Idlib now. We will see.

In Aleppo, the terrorists heavily attack from the West, but reach almost nothing, loosing a lot of people.

It was you, not me, who claimed Breitbart propaganda was on an "enemy side" of me. The inability to recognize different levels of propaganda that revealed was a feature of your posting, not mine, as was the simplistic demarcation into "sides" that I have objected to in your posting many times before - this has been going on in your posting for some time now.

Maybe, I hope for you that you are not as much a victim from the propaganda of "your side" as it seems to me. I do not plan to get a PhD in iceauraology, so I will somehow survive with a not completely adequate picture of your honorable person. Your picture about me has even less to do with reality, so I think this is sufficiently fair.

So it is still possible that this civil war, justifiably motivated as it was, could produce a better situation in the region than continued governance by Assad would have produced, despite the badly motivated instigation and interference of Russia and others.

Sorry, I see no justification at all for such a thesis.
Any reasonable politician would have known before that the only reasonably strong forces to oppose Assad would be the Rifat Assad clan based in the West, and known to be even more corrupt that Assad and the jihadists. With Assad's past as a physician living pseudonymously in the West, it was quite clear that this guy is less power-hungry than whatever alternative, secular or jihadi. So, he would be a quite optimal choice. Therefore, maniacs from Saudi Arabia and Israel, who were simply interested in destroying Syria, should simply have been stopped, and Syria be supported during the drought. Adding some pressure on Erdogan to take less water away from Euphrat to minimize the harm. And sending some economic specialists to Assad to help him improve the economy by reducing corruption and so on. This as a background with the outlook of some peaceful transition to democracy, like it has happened in Eastern Europe or Chile.

But, no, the US supported Saudi Arabia and Qatar who simply tried to destroy the enemies country ruled by an Alawite subhuman, to replace him by wahabi jihadist in a civil war.

 

[iceaura]

Maybe, I hope for you that you are not as much a victim from the propaganda of "your side" as it seems to me.

There you go again - setting up these silly "sides", assigning me to one of them, and ascribing my posts to my gullibility in the face of the propaganda you have assigned to the side you have assigned to me. None of it with any basis in reality.
Between the two of us, for example, you are the only one to have displayed gullibility with respect to Breitbart's offerings, for example - Hillaryhate nonsense, including videos, you have posted here as evidence supporting your propaganda-addled claims.

Or as I pointed out: "The immediate confusion was your having assigned "demonization of Assad" propaganda to "my side". You were wrong about that."

Sorry, I see no justification at all for such a thesis

Maybe if you quit referring to anyone and everyone fighting against the Assad/Putin alliance as a "terrorist" or a "jihadist", your ability to see things would improve?

With Assad's past as a physician living pseudonymously in the West, it was quite clear that this guy is less power-hungry than whatever alternative, secular or jihadi.

That is not at all clear.

Therefore, maniacs from Saudi Arabia and Israel, who were simply interested in destroying Syria, should simply have been stopped, and Syria be supported during the drought. Adding some pressure on Erdogan to take less water away from Euphrat to minimize the harm. And sending some economic specialists to Assad to help him improve the economy by reducing corruption and so on.

Sounds like a very good program, far superior to the invasion of Iraq and consequent disaster.

Of course, Assad himself was open to no such thing, there were no maniacs from Israel involved (the Golan heights matter long past being an invasion, and never a product of mania), Turkey has been intransigent in the matter of the Kurds and their need for water (and Russia has shown its colors regarding the Kurds and any needs of Syrian people other than Assad's army, so no help pressuring Turkey there), and so forth. So a very unlikely program. But well worth trying anyway.

This as a background with the outlook of some peaceful transition to democracy, like it has happened in Eastern Europe or Chile.

Is that a joke?

 

[Schmelzer]

There you go again - setting up these silly "sides", assigning me to one of them, and ascribing my posts to my gullibility in the face of the propaganda you have assigned to the side you have assigned to me. None of it with any basis in reality.
Between the two of us, for example, you are the only one to have displayed gullibility with respect to Breitbart's offerings, for example - Hillaryhate nonsense, including videos, you have posted here as evidence supporting your propaganda-addled claims.

Very funny. Whining about my behavior (completely ignoring that I have put the "sides" in scare quotes). And then showing exactly the same behavior.

You completely ignore that videos showing the person itself are simply direct evidence, hard to be distorted by propaganda, especially if made in full agreement with that person, so that she can present herself from her best side. That I use such considerations to get rid of the propaganda-laden parts of what I see you completely ignore. Breitbart is, according to you, somehow able to magically transform interviews with Hillary into Hillaryhate nonsense. Of course, he chooses the worst of her videos - but, sorry, everybody is doing this, Hillarylovers also don't use a "best of Trump" video collection in their propaganda.

These are points I have explained in various detail often enough, you ignore them completely, so that your accusation is nothing but a repetition of a claim rejected many times. You also ignore completely that I have already modified my position, in the light of new evidence. What seemed to me, at that time, as an indication that she is a maniac, seems not that clear to me now, given that something with her eyes is so completely off that the usual ways to interpret faces don't work. And I know now that she is corrupt, and nicely cooperated even with Russian oligarchs. And corrupt guys will not start nuclear wars.

On the other side, what do I have except "you are wrong" claims to show me that you are not influenced by the personal demonization campaign against Assad which can be seen in all of the Western media over many years now? What you have presented here were parts of this campaign.

Or as I pointed out: "The immediate confusion was your having assigned "demonization of Assad" propaganda to "my side". You were wrong about that."

How can I be wrong about this if there is no such animal as "your side"? In this case, the claim would have no truth value, because it would be a claim about a non-existing entity. By the way, I have not attributed it to any of the sides in the actual election campaign, nor to any particular US party. The personal demonization of Assad is a shared propaganda item of the West as a whole.

Maybe if you quit referring to anyone and everyone fighting against the Assad/Putin alliance as a "terrorist" or a "jihadist", your ability to see things would improve?

No. I know very well that there are also a lot of local self-defense groups. People had to defend themselves from the FSA thugs which robbed everything, as well as from jihadis, in a situation where the Syrian state no longer provided such a defense in many regions. To defend themself against the FSA thugs, they were usually strong enough. With the jihadis, the Sunni villages preferred to find some arrangements to avoid fighting, by joining some alliances and allowing a few local guys to go fighting. There are hundreds of such small groups. They do not receive Western or Saudi money and weapons, and if the Syrian army comes, they do not resist much but accept a local ceasefire. I see it, the Russians and the Syrians see it and do a lot to separate terrorists and jihadis from such local self-defense forces. But these forces are not a serious military force, they do not attack Aleppo (even if some of them sit even now in East Aleppo), so, if I talk about military events, there is no need to mention them.

See my last post about Khan Al-Sheih, West Ghouta. The guys who decide about peace and war in this town are Al Qaida (in its renamed Al Nusra incarnation). They see themselves encircled, thus, no chance. They want to continue fighting, but in better conditions. They will be (one would hope) transferred to Idlib to do this. But there are also all the non-terrorists, local self-defense. They will remain. The condition is to return the weapons and to receive an amnesty. Or they prefer to emigrate. In this case, they will go with the terrorists to Idlib, and there they can emigrate to Turkey.

That is not at all clear.

Nothing is all clear in the East. But it is a reasonable guess. And this guess tells me that the Western "Assad must go" is stupid.

Of course, Assad himself was open to no such thing, there were no maniacs from Israel involved, ... Turkey has been intransigent in the matter of the Kurds and their need for water (and Russia has shown its colors regarding the Kurds and any needs of Syrian people other than Assad's army, so no help pressuring Turkey there), and so forth. So a very unlikely program. But well worth trying anyway.

If Assad was open or not is unknown, given that it was not tried.

The maniacs from Israel are simply a little bit less open and more clever. But that Israel is interested in civil war in Syria and other Arab states, because it thinks that this weakens its enemies, is something they have admitted openly enough. And what it really does - medical help for the terrorists, and from time to time air attacks, justified by claims that it is retaliation for attacks from Syrian side, but for some reason hitting only Syrian army and Hisbollah positions, above not interested in war with Israel now, and, therefore, hardly attacking Israel now - is clearly not neutral at all.

The Russian politics regarding the Kurds is quite subtle. It will not support a Kurdish state, ruled essentially by the US, for geopolitical reasons, but support local autonomy. It is different for Afrin Kurds and Hasaka Kurds, because they behave differently. It has, in particular, essentially stopped now the attacks of the Turks and the Turkish terrorists against the Afrin Kurds. The Russian support of Assad's army has a clear reason - it is the only reasonable way to stop the civil war. And the Russians also pressure Assad to negotiate more. All these green buses and so on are used today much more, and in a much wider way, with less restrictive conditions, and therefore give better results.

Is that a joke?

????????
The transition from communism to democracy was peaceful except Romania and Yugoslavia, with the violence in Romania not that big. Even if you include the collapse of the Soviet Union, this would add only the split between Moldova and Pridnestrowje, which was also not a big war, in comparison with the whole. And in Chile the transition from Pinochet to the actual democratic regime has been peaceful too.

Unfortunately, the later attacks against the person Pinochet have quite unfortunate consequences - they have told all the dictators on Earth that they should not trust if democrats offer immunity in exchange for power. They will probably break their promises. Stupid. Putin behaved more reasonable. What he offered the Yeltsin family and the oligarchs who accepted to stay out of politics - leaving them their money - he fulfilled. (And, once they cannot be sure that some, say, Chodorkowski will leave them their money, they become Putin supporters not because they like him, but out of own security considerations.)

 

[iceaura]

How can I be wrong about this if there is no such animal as "your side"? In this case, the claim would have no truth value, because it would be a claim about a non-existing entity.

There is such an animal as my side. You are always wrong about it.

You completely ignore that videos showing the person itself are simply direct evidence, hard to be distorted by propaganda, especially if made in full agreement with that person, so that she can present herself from her best side.

I didn't ignore that. I denied it, explicitly.

To repeat: You are wrong about that. The videos are not direct evidence of anything, for you, because you are completely ignorant of the context of them and have been induced to replace it with the propagandist's preference. The result is that you have no idea what you are looking at. You even fell for a blatantly deceptive edit of one of the videos, visible immediately on the video itself, because you were so captive to the induced propaganda context it never registered. People had to go hunting around on the net to find the missing piece and show it to you explicitly, remember?

On the other side, what do I have except "you are wrong" claims to show me that you are not influenced by the personal demonization campaign against Assad which can be seen in all of the Western media over many years now?

You have the fact that I have not personally demonized Assad.

What you have presented here were parts of this campaign.

No, they weren't. They were facts of his regime - not his person - you were denying, for some reason.

The maniacs from Israel are simply a little bit less open and more clever.

Not maniacs, in other words. Not as cynical as Putin, either:

The Russian politics regarding the Kurds is quite subtle.

"Subtle", that's the word of the day? There's nothing new about the cynical power politics of divide and conquer, or anything particularly subtle about bringing soldiers and bombs to force the issues.

Unfortunately, the later attacks against the person Pinochet have quite unfortunate consequences - they have told all the dictators on Earth that they should not trust if democrats offer immunity in exchange for power

Assuming for the moment that your description and claim of such a deal is accurate (it appears not to be): dictators don't make such deals unless forced, as Pinochet was in the first place, and if any dictator is as silly in their reasoning as you are - extrapolating from some deal in a far off corner of the planet to their immediate situation, instead of analyzing for themselves - they will have short tenures anyway.