How can you write that Isis was never supported by the us? How come the superpower never used it's regulatory tools to stop the isis oil trade via turkey? Do you really think you could make anyone believe that the US did not anticipate the defection of vast parts of its "assets" supplied and trained in turkey to isis al nusra al sham? Do you consider it plausible that the US intelligence services consider a supply of 500 tows via saudi arabia to those a save strategy if one did not intent to supply terrorists? Can you tell me how an air campaign of more than a year that joined 62 countries could achive literally zero and let isis al sham and nusra advance even further, driving happily in huge convoys? Does the US refusing to give air support to its proclaimed proteges combat forces not raise any doubt in you? Do you believe the USAF would drop weapons in the "wrong spot" by accident?
interesting speculation. but before they cut off isis they will most likely disrupt the "moderates" entrance to syria north of aleppo. the moderates are a bigger threat to the saa and destroying one of their important supply lines will damage their logistics and therefore weaken their fighting capacity. In general i agree, that kuweires would be nice for airsupport in northern syria, especially since flying from aleppo airport could be a bit risky. those 50 dudes are a risky manoeuvre, too and i dont see why they would announce their deployment just too monitor the kurds, since the cia, already has their sources there for sure. Still they will probably cooperate, but dont expect too much, the kurds still want their state, and if they can grab much territory from isis they would have a better bargain in the "political solution", therefore russia would not backstab damascus and provide airsupport for a widespread kurdish offensive. since you seem quite interested this map could help you with your theorizing http://militarymaps.info/ i would actually recommend it for juan cole too.
while reading i was already wondering if i might have been misinformed by those well informed guys on twitter like peto lucem, but when watching a few seconds it became already clear that the error if we may call it so came from your side. The video was published on november the 4th and states that the road was occupied by isis for 12 days, but you claim in your article it was closed since "early october" by meddling it with their gains of nearby villages. it's simply wrong.
I doubt that there would be any hesitation on side of the RuAF when it comes to bombing us soldiers meddling with AlSham, Nusra, AQ and their affiliates. Rather then shielding those "moderate" groups it would make them a target of special interest, because it's a perfect pretense for bombing us soldiers without officially targeting them. On the other hand, if the US really want a big war, they might get it this way, who needs WMD anyways?
His try to inscenate a discussion wether it would have been better without an invasion truly is hillarious. Not only that the politics of the western allies deliberately aimed at creating an some kind of ISIS, it's also as you stated completely missing the point (again deliberately so), that he and his friends in the US inscenated a threat on purpose to stage the war they desired, what clearly makes them war criminals and leaves me wondering how those jerks are still wandering around freely puking out their shitstories instead being charged in Den Haag. Ah yeah right i forgot, the exceptional americans don't even recognise the Den Haag court, as a judicative institution. Furthermore it seems highly doubtable that an american president can stage a war against the will of his oligarchs, which therefore are very likely to be guilty of war crimes too. Never will there even be an investigation.
The thing with Aleppo and Mosul is that the Iraq forces are happy to just have retaken Baji but for a bigger offensive the need more support, especially if its for Mossul a town formerly inhabitated by 2,9 Million people compared to 200k in Baji. The US is not willing to provide this support, in fact iraqi officials openly complain about the scarcity of US help of lately and question their whereabouts. Meanwhile they have sided with the evil arch enemy(to US) Iran which is providing ground forces via Shia militias and air support and Russia which will bring in airsupport as soon as they are set up for it. For that purpose they were set up on the very same base the US troops are stationed, and hold their strategic meetings (with Iraq, Iran, Russia, Syria and Hezbollah) within a few hundred metres from them. But to be set up Russia first needs to stabilize the situation in Syria and get enough airbases. Therefore they already closed Latika civil airport, which enables more sorties against those moderate rebel groups but thats still is not sufficient since the numbers of sorties anitcipated are around 300 per day (as of today we are around 80). So i think you get it once Syria is stabilized ISIS will be easily wiped off, and therefore Aleppo is important, and also what PP mentioned it will block an ISIS connection to Turkey which to my amusement lies in the very zone the US established as their ISIS free zone, that splits the kurdish controlled territory.
Good point though i actually think that this conflict will in the end stabilize Syira and Iraq. Turkey on the other hand might get into real trouble once those fighters are driven out of Syria and Iraq, and faces the new kurdish rise along its border. Btw. the US armed both the "moderate" groups and the Kurds and gave Turkey the allowance to bomb the autonomous region of Kurds in north Iraq. Does anyone else see this conflict rising too?
They are actually not part of the FSA, though they are said to be coordinating with them to hold their area, where contested by ISIS and were as far as I know never involved in fights against the SAA. In fact the general commander seems rather keen on cooperation with the alliance of Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah, Russia and China. _ “Russia should fight not only against IS, but also against al-Nusra. There is no difference between Nusra and IS – they are both al-Qaeda,”Hemo is quoted as saying. “We have asked for help from several countries in the fight against IS, we want it from Turkey, we want it from Russia, and we want it from the United States,” was stated by Idriss Nassan. Since Turkey prefers bombing those very kurds, and the US seems to be occupied with their moderate Allies and destroying powerplants in Aleppo, there's only one left and as far as i know they are in contact, though the Kurds of course would love to keep their regions which they defended from ISIS, especially with an eye on Turkey i assume autonomy within Syria is what they could achieve if they get lucky.
One can hardly say that those differences were put aside during the war, nor that they reemerged afterwards. Fascist und Communist movements in England had been imprisoned for the duration of the war, and their activities and medias shut down. Same goes for nationalities suspected of being a potential threat. Same in the USA back then. It's a common effect in states that for whatever reason start to mobilize and militarise it's people.
Well then let's topple the Sauds! You are not in? I guessed so. Exceptionalism truly is a yoke. That the elected government around Assad has killed and tortured hundreds of thousands is really an interesting claim. Same with your statement of Russia and Iran being against Assad, which is not the case. Russia (and China) call for a political solution with Assad, Iran though seems not so interested in keeping Assad. The situation for the escalation for this former political and national conflict could also have been created by US led armament and training of Sunni rasdicals that turned into Al Nusra and ISIS fighters (noone could have foreseen that^^) and the continued support of those groups intending to intrdoduce an Islamic state with sharia law ( includes all "moderate" rebels) by the new alliance of the willing around the US, that leads to the hilarious situation in which even Israel openly supports Al Qaeda in southern Syria. Can you imagine Al Nusra fighters beeing rescued by the Israel army and treated in israel, and brought back to their forces? You dont have to, just watch this https://news.vice.com/video/the-war-next-door-full-length
Lets just deliver more weapons and train people willing to use them and send them into states with political friction, then moan about the lost lives, keep inefficient bombing campaigns going for years, and when the old leader was toppled, support the new guy, and give him IMF loans so he stays dependend on our funds. Mission accomplished, i guess?
Good question Kathleen. Were they better of before a huge war, that so far already got thousands killed, millions seeking refugee in foreign countries and a brutal sharia law enforced in vast parts of syria was incited?
I do not agree with the tone of this article. The focus of turkish airstrikes did not increasingly shift, from ISIL to PKK after those bombings, but were the main actions the turkish gouvernment considered an apropriate reaction to the preceding bombing in suruc, which targeted the kurdish community on turkish ground. Furthermore the gathering that had been attacked, was something we'd call an charity event (without tax saving millionaires) that had the purpose of providing aid to the inhabitants, of kobane. This enclave in ISIS territory and it's people had been under the threat of extermination the months before, whilst Erdogan figured it to be more purposefull to, hinder Kurdish fighters from defending the population and provide a more than leaking border to ISIL, what gained the turkish-syrian border the pretty stupid name "jihad highway". Telling a story that frames, a non existant shift from bombing ISIL to bombing the PKK as a mere rational and justifiable reaction to kurdish aggression is either extremely ignorant or a blatant ly.
That he predicted troubles for the EU and EURO Union doesnt makes his critic accurate. For example do the Greece retire at the same age as Germans do. Privatizing the lucrative mines will make the state lose money. But with the taxes there really seems to be some issues though its hillarious to declare them as the cause of the crisis and it's persistence.
But EU actually originated from the centralised control of steel output in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, it think (may be i missed some?). And though most money is being spend on agriculture (if one ignores ECB) the EU is not only a Common Agricultural Policy. To influence the shaping of things you can just wirte the laws instead of spending money on it right? With the rest i agree, they ignored risks (or took?) to expand the EU, and the Euro framework. Germany mainly because it's economy needs a big market.
Since when is the ECB president democratically elected by the european people? And the major player's chancellor Merkel and minister of finance Schäuble were elected in Germany and not as gouvernors of europe by all europeans.
Jerusalem Tensions: It's that the Israelis are ruling Palestinians there. Fixed it for you.
How can you write that Isis was never supported by the us? How come the superpower never used it's regulatory tools to stop the isis oil trade via turkey? Do you really think you could make anyone believe that the US did not anticipate the defection of vast parts of its "assets" supplied and trained in turkey to isis al nusra al sham? Do you consider it plausible that the US intelligence services consider a supply of 500 tows via saudi arabia to those a save strategy if one did not intent to supply terrorists? Can you tell me how an air campaign of more than a year that joined 62 countries could achive literally zero and let isis al sham and nusra advance even further, driving happily in huge convoys? Does the US refusing to give air support to its proclaimed proteges combat forces not raise any doubt in you? Do you believe the USAF would drop weapons in the "wrong spot" by accident?
Dude they are moderates^^
interesting speculation. but before they cut off isis they will most likely disrupt the "moderates" entrance to syria north of aleppo. the moderates are a bigger threat to the saa and destroying one of their important supply lines will damage their logistics and therefore weaken their fighting capacity. In general i agree, that kuweires would be nice for airsupport in northern syria, especially since flying from aleppo airport could be a bit risky. those 50 dudes are a risky manoeuvre, too and i dont see why they would announce their deployment just too monitor the kurds, since the cia, already has their sources there for sure. Still they will probably cooperate, but dont expect too much, the kurds still want their state, and if they can grab much territory from isis they would have a better bargain in the "political solution", therefore russia would not backstab damascus and provide airsupport for a widespread kurdish offensive. since you seem quite interested this map could help you with your theorizing http://militarymaps.info/ i would actually recommend it for juan cole too.
while reading i was already wondering if i might have been misinformed by those well informed guys on twitter like peto lucem, but when watching a few seconds it became already clear that the error if we may call it so came from your side. The video was published on november the 4th and states that the road was occupied by isis for 12 days, but you claim in your article it was closed since "early october" by meddling it with their gains of nearby villages. it's simply wrong.
I doubt that there would be any hesitation on side of the RuAF when it comes to bombing us soldiers meddling with AlSham, Nusra, AQ and their affiliates. Rather then shielding those "moderate" groups it would make them a target of special interest, because it's a perfect pretense for bombing us soldiers without officially targeting them. On the other hand, if the US really want a big war, they might get it this way, who needs WMD anyways?
His try to inscenate a discussion wether it would have been better without an invasion truly is hillarious. Not only that the politics of the western allies deliberately aimed at creating an some kind of ISIS, it's also as you stated completely missing the point (again deliberately so), that he and his friends in the US inscenated a threat on purpose to stage the war they desired, what clearly makes them war criminals and leaves me wondering how those jerks are still wandering around freely puking out their shitstories instead being charged in Den Haag. Ah yeah right i forgot, the exceptional americans don't even recognise the Den Haag court, as a judicative institution. Furthermore it seems highly doubtable that an american president can stage a war against the will of his oligarchs, which therefore are very likely to be guilty of war crimes too. Never will there even be an investigation.
The border north of Aleppo is not the only supply route for the "moderate" rebels (aka all rebels inside syria) and while the south is being supplied via Jordan mainly there are also plenty of airdrops happening, so there surely will still be some supply for those forces but they wont be as prosperous as before. You might be interested in these pieces of information https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/19/1978460_re-discussion-turkey-syria-mil-turkish-options-to-undermine.html
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/crs/RL31794.pdf
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06ANKARA6705_a.html
The thing with Aleppo and Mosul is that the Iraq forces are happy to just have retaken Baji but for a bigger offensive the need more support, especially if its for Mossul a town formerly inhabitated by 2,9 Million people compared to 200k in Baji. The US is not willing to provide this support, in fact iraqi officials openly complain about the scarcity of US help of lately and question their whereabouts. Meanwhile they have sided with the evil arch enemy(to US) Iran which is providing ground forces via Shia militias and air support and Russia which will bring in airsupport as soon as they are set up for it. For that purpose they were set up on the very same base the US troops are stationed, and hold their strategic meetings (with Iraq, Iran, Russia, Syria and Hezbollah) within a few hundred metres from them. But to be set up Russia first needs to stabilize the situation in Syria and get enough airbases. Therefore they already closed Latika civil airport, which enables more sorties against those moderate rebel groups but thats still is not sufficient since the numbers of sorties anitcipated are around 300 per day (as of today we are around 80). So i think you get it once Syria is stabilized ISIS will be easily wiped off, and therefore Aleppo is important, and also what PP mentioned it will block an ISIS connection to Turkey which to my amusement lies in the very zone the US established as their ISIS free zone, that splits the kurdish controlled territory.
Good point though i actually think that this conflict will in the end stabilize Syira and Iraq. Turkey on the other hand might get into real trouble once those fighters are driven out of Syria and Iraq, and faces the new kurdish rise along its border. Btw. the US armed both the "moderate" groups and the Kurds and gave Turkey the allowance to bomb the autonomous region of Kurds in north Iraq. Does anyone else see this conflict rising too?
They are actually not part of the FSA, though they are said to be coordinating with them to hold their area, where contested by ISIS and were as far as I know never involved in fights against the SAA. In fact the general commander seems rather keen on cooperation with the alliance of Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah, Russia and China. _ “Russia should fight not only against IS, but also against al-Nusra. There is no difference between Nusra and IS – they are both al-Qaeda,”Hemo is quoted as saying. “We have asked for help from several countries in the fight against IS, we want it from Turkey, we want it from Russia, and we want it from the United States,” was stated by Idriss Nassan. Since Turkey prefers bombing those very kurds, and the US seems to be occupied with their moderate Allies and destroying powerplants in Aleppo, there's only one left and as far as i know they are in contact, though the Kurds of course would love to keep their regions which they defended from ISIS, especially with an eye on Turkey i assume autonomy within Syria is what they could achieve if they get lucky.
One can hardly say that those differences were put aside during the war, nor that they reemerged afterwards. Fascist und Communist movements in England had been imprisoned for the duration of the war, and their activities and medias shut down. Same goes for nationalities suspected of being a potential threat. Same in the USA back then. It's a common effect in states that for whatever reason start to mobilize and militarise it's people.
Well then let's topple the Sauds! You are not in? I guessed so. Exceptionalism truly is a yoke. That the elected government around Assad has killed and tortured hundreds of thousands is really an interesting claim. Same with your statement of Russia and Iran being against Assad, which is not the case. Russia (and China) call for a political solution with Assad, Iran though seems not so interested in keeping Assad. The situation for the escalation for this former political and national conflict could also have been created by US led armament and training of Sunni rasdicals that turned into Al Nusra and ISIS fighters (noone could have foreseen that^^) and the continued support of those groups intending to intrdoduce an Islamic state with sharia law ( includes all "moderate" rebels) by the new alliance of the willing around the US, that leads to the hilarious situation in which even Israel openly supports Al Qaeda in southern Syria. Can you imagine Al Nusra fighters beeing rescued by the Israel army and treated in israel, and brought back to their forces? You dont have to, just watch this https://news.vice.com/video/the-war-next-door-full-length
Lets just deliver more weapons and train people willing to use them and send them into states with political friction, then moan about the lost lives, keep inefficient bombing campaigns going for years, and when the old leader was toppled, support the new guy, and give him IMF loans so he stays dependend on our funds. Mission accomplished, i guess?
Good question Kathleen. Were they better of before a huge war, that so far already got thousands killed, millions seeking refugee in foreign countries and a brutal sharia law enforced in vast parts of syria was incited?
I do not agree with the tone of this article. The focus of turkish airstrikes did not increasingly shift, from ISIL to PKK after those bombings, but were the main actions the turkish gouvernment considered an apropriate reaction to the preceding bombing in suruc, which targeted the kurdish community on turkish ground. Furthermore the gathering that had been attacked, was something we'd call an charity event (without tax saving millionaires) that had the purpose of providing aid to the inhabitants, of kobane. This enclave in ISIS territory and it's people had been under the threat of extermination the months before, whilst Erdogan figured it to be more purposefull to, hinder Kurdish fighters from defending the population and provide a more than leaking border to ISIL, what gained the turkish-syrian border the pretty stupid name "jihad highway". Telling a story that frames, a non existant shift from bombing ISIL to bombing the PKK as a mere rational and justifiable reaction to kurdish aggression is either extremely ignorant or a blatant ly.
That he predicted troubles for the EU and EURO Union doesnt makes his critic accurate. For example do the Greece retire at the same age as Germans do. Privatizing the lucrative mines will make the state lose money. But with the taxes there really seems to be some issues though its hillarious to declare them as the cause of the crisis and it's persistence.
But EU actually originated from the centralised control of steel output in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, it think (may be i missed some?). And though most money is being spend on agriculture (if one ignores ECB) the EU is not only a Common Agricultural Policy. To influence the shaping of things you can just wirte the laws instead of spending money on it right? With the rest i agree, they ignored risks (or took?) to expand the EU, and the Euro framework. Germany mainly because it's economy needs a big market.
Since when is the ECB president democratically elected by the european people? And the major player's chancellor Merkel and minister of finance Schäuble were elected in Germany and not as gouvernors of europe by all europeans.