Syria September 2015 ~ What's up?

[Schmelzer]

Just for illustration. The text is Russian, but the screenshots are English http://rusvesna.su/news/1442522791 It is claimed that one of the big guys of IS, Abu Omar al Shishani, appears to be a guy trained by the US and fighting on the side of US-puppet Saakashvili in Georgia 8.8.8 against the Russians.

PS: Found another nice article about the background of the actual issue in Syria, which also mentions this guy. http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/09/14/russia-exposes-us-hidden-agenda-in-syria/

 

[CptBork]

Just for illustration. The text is Russian, but the screenshots are English http://rusvesna.su/news/1442522791 It is claimed that one of the big guys of IS, Abu Omar al Shishani, appears to be a guy trained by the US and fighting on the side of US-puppet Saakashvili in Georgia 8.8.8 against the Russians.

PS: Found another nice article about the background of the actual issue in Syria, which also mentions this guy. http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/09/14/russia-exposes-us-hidden-agenda-in-syria/

Right, CIA agents stationed in Russia must be bribing Russian FSB agents to recruit Chechen militants to ISIS. I hear they also planted a genetic virus in the Russian population to give them alcoholism and lower their IQ's by over 20 points, and they're the ones who gave Putin syphilis (unless you didn't know about that last one, in which case "Lord President Putin is as healthy as fresh baby") .

 

[CptBork]

Effect on petro-dollar?

It'll crush the economies of any dictatorships presently relying on the sales of non-renewable resources to western democracies. For the west, the economic damage will be far less than that caused by constant engagement in foreign wars, especially if economic disengagement can successfully hold belligerents such as Russia and China in check.

 

[sculptor]

And yet, most of our politicians seem to want us to stay involved.
What in hell are they playing at?

 

[joepistole]

And yet, most of our politicians seem to want us to stay involved.
What in hell are they playing at?

Because it isn't over oil anymore. A destabilized region with access to wealth and technology and so close to the West can be a very dangerous threat to world peace (e.g. 9/11).

 

[sculptor]

Perhaps, Our funding of terrorists, and destabilizing one secular government after another is the real danger to world peace.

 

[CptBork]

Perhaps, Our funding of terrorists, and destabilizing one secular government after another is the real danger to world peace.

Name these terrorists allegedly receiving US funds, and the secular governments they're presently destabilizing? Even though the puppet Iran uses to run Syria happens to be a psychotic drug-abusing Middle East playboy, and even though the country is now filling up with drunk Russian rapists, that doesn't make its regime in any way secular, and it never promoted secular equality amongst the Syrian people before the war either. Secular countries and regimes are the ones where you can march down the streets openly mocking other peoples' baseless archaic superstitions, not the ones where you have to bow down before every poster of Hassan Nasrallah and Ayatollah Khamenei.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Just a thought:
Seeing as over half of Syria's population is in refugee camps or on their way to Europe perhaps most if not all income produced by the Syrian government could be used to fund the welfare of those refugees?
A UN sponsored global "oil dollars for refugees" type solution...

Have often thought that, for example, for every Iranian asylum seeker landing in Australia the Australian government should raise an invoice against Iran for the accommodation and welfare of that refugee. A debt probably not paid but an ongoing debt all the same...
12M Syrian refugees , say at 10K USD each per year, soon adds up...

I believe there is a way that the global community can prevent funding rogue regimes by redirecting the regimes export profits to the victims of their behavior. Holding the regime financially accountable for their actions by managing their oil export dollars more effectively.

c/o Mercy Corps

 

[joepistole]

Perhaps, Our funding of terrorists, and destabilizing one secular government after another is the real danger to world peace.

Hmm, and what terrorists are we funding and what secular governments are we destabilizing or have destabilized recently?

 

[Yazata]

The Russians have been moving aircraft into their new base just south of Latakia, Syria. The nature and numbers of these aircraft make Russian intentions a lot clearer.

The planes that have been generating the most comment in the Western press are 4 advanced SU-30 multirole fighters. While capable of ground attack, these are primarily air-superiority fighters. The Russians also have an unknown number of surface-to-air missiles set up at the base. Western newspapers point out that ISIS has no real air force and are quick.to suggest that the Russians intend to challenge the anti-ISIS air coalition.

The Pentagon says however that these kind of assets appear consistent with force protection, able to raise the cost for anyone who tries to attack the Russian base from the air, but not sufficient to challenge the coalition aircraft attacking ISIS. The Russians appear to have moved several hundred naval infantry (marines) to the base as well, along with 6 top-of-the-line tanks, about 35 armored personnel carriers and several artillery batteries, which also appear to be intended for force protection and base security. It makes sense, seeing as how a number of Assad military bases have been attacked by rebels and overwhelmed (sometimes leading to mass killings of captured POWs). Jaish al Islam says that it attacked the Russian base in just the last few days, boasting of destroying a Russian transport aircraft with a rocket. Satellite imagery reportedly shows no signs of damage at the base and Russian activities continue.

Ok, if we've established that the Russians want to protect their base, what do they intend to use the base for? The rest of their aircraft inventory gives some indication of that.

September 20 satellite imagery shows 12 SU-25 ground attack jets. There also appear to be 15 MI-24 Hind attack helicopters.

Video on the internet seems to show 4 SU-24 long range attack jets flying over Syria, and leaks from US intelligence suggest that 12 of these planes have arrived in Syria subsequent to Sept 20.

All of this amounts to 43 aircraft total, of which 39 are ground attack jets and helicopters. So pretty clearly, the Russians intend to be flying air support for the Syrian army.

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/russian-fighter-aircraft-arrive-syria

 

[sculptor]

We have funded and/or supplied and/or trained members of al qaeda & isis, &, through proxies radical Islamist in Libya and Syria.
Either Machiavellian, or blundering about like a bull in a china shop, the governments we have destroyed have been replaced by ineffective profiteers, local war loards, and/or radical Islamist.

Our government seems to think it has the right to overthrow any government it chooses.
We get to pay for this military adventurism.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The Russians also have an unknown number of surface-to-air missiles set up at the base.

...after all .. what air base in a conflict zone doesn't have SAMS's installed?
Operating in a confused international military arena would requires some sort of contingency planning.

Yazata, I think you're correct in :

So pretty clearly, the Russians intend to be flying air support for the Syrian army.

or at least focus on ISIL irrespective of the Syrian Gov.

I think that concern about pilots or other personnel being captured, tortured and held hostage by ISIL it is not to be underestimated.
Any military deployment on the ground in or near an ISIL conflict zone would reflect this concern IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

We have funded and/or supplied and/or trained members of al qaeda & isis, &, through proxies radical Islamist in Libya and Syria.
Either Machiavellian, or blundering about like a bull in a china shop, the governments we have destroyed have been replaced by ineffective profiteers, local war loards, and/or radical Islamist.

Our government seems to think it has the right to overthrow any government it chooses.
We get to pay for this military adventurism.

Unfortunately significant power of influence ( USA Foreign Affairs ) requires the support of significant wisdom. Power is relatively easy to gain but the wisdom takes time to mature and is often sorely lacking.. so it seems...
You only have to look at the general community and see that having "power" (leverage) is not managed very well.

 

[sculptor]

Unfortunately significant power of influence ( USA Foreign Affairs ) requires the support of significant wisdom. Power is relatively easy to gain but the wisdom takes time to mature and is often sorely lacking.. so it seems...
You only have to look at the general community and see that having "power" (leverage) is not managed very well.

Part of me thinks that nobody could be that stupid, ergo the Machiavellian alternative.

 

[sculptor]

Is seems that Oliver Stone has a new "american history" series coming up. In which he decries the brainwashing of our schools and media.

 

[CptBork]

We have funded and/or supplied and/or trained members of al qaeda & isis, &, through proxies radical Islamist in Libya and Syria.

So you don't know any specifics about what exactly was done where or with whom, but you're 100% certain all the same that it's all America's fault. I give my props to you for your thorough research and citations.

Either Machiavellian, or blundering about like a bull in a china shop, the governments we have destroyed have been replaced by ineffective profiteers, local war loards, and/or radical Islamist.

Say what you want about America's actions in places like Libya. To date, Libya's still looking much better than it did under Gadhaffi, who was already losing control of the country to radicals in any case. Without foreign intervention, there would have almost certainly been a mass genocide, although it's understandable why Russia fails to see the problem with that.

Some nations have suffered from Western influence and intervention, others have prospered from it tremendously. How many South Koreans do you see crying in agony because they have food on their tables? Since when did this fantasy emerge that America and its allies are the only countries that intervene in others' affairs, or that despotic nations run by imperial rapists somehow have exclusive rights to wreak havoc in their local neighbourhoods? America has just as much of a right to be wherever it deems fit as do China, Russia, Iran and anyone else.

Our government seems to think it has the right to overthrow any government it chooses.
We get to pay for this military adventurism.

Every democratic nation has the right to come to the defense of any and all oppressed peoples seeking democracy and self-determination. Governments such as China's and Russia's have less of a right to murder their own citizens for their political views, than America does to arm those citizens for their own self-defense, just as France had every right to send arms to the US during the American Revolution (even though admittedly France was still a monarchy at the time, and mainly interested in undermining the UK).

I don't advocate for a guns-blazing approach to foreign policy, but America and all other free peoples of the world have the fundamental right to use any level of physical or economic force as is needed to defend other free peoples and/or those seeking to become free peoples. It's irrelevant what the UN, Russian mafia, Iranian false prophets, Chinese triads/communists or any other form of domestic or international law says on the matter- it's a basic issue of fundamental human rights.

 

[sculptor]

The United States is not sending arms directly to the Syrian opposition. Instead, it is providing intelligence and other support for shipments of secondhand light weapons like rifles and grenades into Syria, mainly orchestrated from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The reports indicate that the shipments organized from Qatar, in particular, are largely going to hard-line Islamists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/w...eceiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html

 

[CptBork]

The United States is not sending arms directly to the Syrian opposition. Instead, it is providing intelligence and other support for shipments of secondhand light weapons like rifles and grenades into Syria, mainly orchestrated from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The reports indicate that the shipments organized from Qatar, in particular, are largely going to hard-line Islamists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/w...eceiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html

The same report says those shipments ending up in the hands of radical Islamists are going against the Obama administration's explicit wishes. If you want to end US backing for Syrian rebels out of fear that hardliners will end up overtaking what remains of the moderate insurgency, then it has to come with economic and/or military sanctions against Assad and his backers as well, or they will simply take advantage of the power vacuum to commit a regional genocide and spark a much larger global conflict.

As it stands, I think the best option is for the US to engage and supply moderate rebels directly rather than through Islamist-supporting proxies, and to create military safe zones inside Syria if necessary for their protection.

 

[sculptor]

Cpt:
Words are one thing, actions another. did you read anything which suggested that we had stopped supplying intel?

 

[CptBork]

Cpt:
Words are one thing, actions another. did you read anything which suggested that we had stopped supplying intel?

It doesn't say anything about the US supplying intel to Al Qaeda or ISIS as per your accusation. All it talks about is how the US supplies weapons and intel intended for moderate factions via its regional allies, and how those allies are instead passing most of those weapons and intel onto hardline Islamists (who themselves hold a wide range of differing political and religious views).

Blaming the US for the rise of terrorists in this crisis is about as sensible as blaming America for the rise of Russian and Chinese imperialism. That having been said, I'm of the opinion that no long-term good will come of free nations having economic, political and military relationships with power-hungry dictatorships, whether it be in Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China or elsewhere.