Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

BoJack Horseman

donaghs wrote: »

You can't be a "moderate" if you'd consider joining ISIS or Al Qaeda

Usually not, but it is often not as simple as a persons inner barbarian wanting to let loose

The FSA took the brunt of the conflict in its first 2-3 years, with very modest support & accordingly lost momentum as casualties mounted.
...... If militia in a given neighborhood of a given city see these new black-clad lads, with plenty of cash, good kit & a ferocious motivation, then some will drift away from the entities they were originally part of.

An aspect of what drew men to ISIS was the promise of being paid.
Sometimes it's as simple as that.

Having said that, I agree with your point... but there can be shades of grey.

JJJJNR

donaghs wrote: »

You can't be a "moderate" if you'd consider joining ISIS or Al Qaeda

isis pay their soldiers, its not a volunteer based army, when all the jobs, food, water, electricity is gone and there's only one place to get money, of course there will be plenty of people signing up to fight for isis. What choice do they have, some people are handing their young daughters over to them, because they have nothing, this has happened in the past three years, can you imagine it happening in Blackrock or Greystones where people are giving up their children to be raped but fed..

glued

donaghs wrote: »

You can't be a "moderate" if you'd consider joining ISIS or Al Qaeda

Of course you can. The lure of money, women and power will attract all sorts of men. There is also the viability of joining a group that could actually sustain a ground war against Assad and Russia. Obviously these groups attract religious nuts who will swallow all of their propaganda but for every nutter there's a mercenary.

Scores of men who would have been identified by the CIA as moderate and supported by US have gone on to join Jihadist groups. Not all of these men are religious nutters. Most of the Jihadist groups have a constant flow of funding from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other private Salafists. These men are paid well, are armed better and have good intelligence on Assad. Most of these men can see that the unorganised rebel movement won't last long if the war intensifies. These groups offer much better resistance, order and support than the rebels.

JJJJNR

BoJack Horseman

Assuming that life is too short for 23 mins of 'RT - live from Kremlin command centre', what does it say?

glued

Turkey's claim that they don't buy oil from ISIS is on par with Assad claiming that Syria has a democratically elected government. Not only do they purchase oil from ISIS but they're the biggest purchaser of stolen oil. I would have naturally assumed that Erdogan isn't that stupid but he has a record. Turkish trucks have been pictured collecting the oil from ISIS refineries and travelling back to Turkey.

Lockstep

leavingirl wrote: »

He'll be coming after you next.

Leavingirl, this is well below the standard of this forum. Posting this rubbish isn't acceptable

glued

I don't agree with Cameron when he says that anyone who doesn't support him is a terrorist sympathiser but Corbyn is delusional if he thinks you can defeat ISIS through dialogue.

Gatling

glued wrote: »

I don't agree with Cameron when he says that anyone who doesn't support him is a terrorist sympathiser but Corbyn is delusional if he thinks you can defeat ISIS through dialogue.

That's wrong he never said that ,

He said voting against is siding with terrorist sympathisers,
Not anyone who doesn't support him a terrorist sympathiser

bilston

glued wrote: »

I don't agree with Cameron when he says that anyone who doesn't support him is a terrorist sympathiser.

He said that those voting against military action were siding with terrorist sympathisers. He didn't say those voting against were terrorist sympathisers. It was a poor choice of words, but let's not beat about the bush there are those in the Labour leadership (both parliamentary and otherwise) who have in the past sympathised with what many people (not everyone I'm sure) would describe as terrorists.

glued

bilston wrote: »

He said that those voting against military action were siding with terrorist sympathisers. He didn't say those voting against were terrorist sympathisers. It was a poor choice of words, but let's not beat about the bush there are those in the Labour leadership (both parliamentary and otherwise) who have in the past sympathised with what many people (not everyone I'm sure) would describe as terrorists.

Ah right fair enough. The BBC quote earlier said that he called them Terrorist sympathisers but it's been corrected since.

ancapailldorcha

Right, I've cleaned up this thread and issued a ban. Unfortunately, this had to include the deletion of posts in response to a troll.

Shurimgreat

Hard left ideologues do 9 times out of 10 end up sympathising with anyone opposing the west. Maybe not sympathising with someone as bad as ISIS, but other groups and in particular brutal dictators. George Galloway ended up sympathising and saluting Saddam. They also think Assad should stay in power, Gaddafi should have been kept in power. These people actually admire dictators I am afraid to say. For some reason they see every dictator no matter how personally wealthy as a "socialist" and someone they could work with. I really don't like the hard lefts view of the world or hard left ideologues in general who are stuck in the past.

FTA69

That's nonsense, and to be honest the establishments in "the West" have been far more adept at supporting dictators and brutal regimes in the Middle East and across the world than the token left in Europe. I wasn't a particular fan of Ghadaffi and there can be no doubt that Hussein was a horrendous tyrant; but I think it is pretty obvious at this stage that arbitrarily toppling these leaders has led to a very negative effect in these countries. Libya once had the highest living standards in Africa (thereabouts) and was a stable and relatively safe place, now it has gone down the toilet and only recently ISIS affiliates committed a mass beheading of 100 odd men on a beach. Black Africans are still being lynched in public there and the place is in complete disarray.

Opposing this process doesn't make one some sort of anti-Western lefty, it's simply common sense that pulverising complex societies with bombs isn't going to help matters.

Shurimgreat

FTA69 wrote: »

That's nonsense, and to be honest the establishments in "the West" have been far more adept at supporting dictators and brutal regimes in the Middle East and across the world than the token left in Europe. I wasn't a particular fan of Ghadaffi and there can be no doubt that Hussein was a horrendous tyrant; but I think it is pretty obvious at this stage that arbitrarily toppling these leaders has led to a very negative effect in these countries. Libya once had the highest living standards in Africa (thereabouts) and was a stable and relatively safe place, now it has gone down the toilet and only recently ISIS affiliates committed a mass beheading of 100 odd men on a beach. Black Africans are still being lynched in public there and the place is in complete disarray.

Opposing this process doesn't make one some sort of anti-Western lefty, it's simply common sense that pulverising complex societies with bombs isn't going to help matters.

Leaving Saddam aside, there was no deliberate pre conceived plan to topple either Gaddafi or Assad. Both these leaders fell victim to the Arab Spring, the legitimate wishes of their people to have a democratic say in their country.

Now, would it have been right to align ourselves with Assad and Gadaffi and help them crush these democratic aspirations?

Both Gadaffi and Assad were faced with a problem. Their people wanted democracy and a say. Both reacted violently when they could have at least listened to their people. Let's really put the blame where it lies. Blaming the west for Gaddafi and Assad's brutality won't work. These guys had and have free will. They aren't merely puppets of the west. They can step down anytime they want.

The Arab Spring demise of dictators bears no resemblance to the ultimate demise of Saddam. 3 or 4 dictators across the Arab World stepped down or were overthrown as a result of the Arab Spring.

But like I said hard left ideologues basically hate the west and will always blame the west for everything. The hope is most people will have the sense to take a more sophisticated and nuanced view of it as opposed to a simplistic "west is bad, evil and to blame for everything bad in the world".

FTA69

I can only speak for myself but I'd like to think I have a basic understanding of the situation, at least enough to know that bombing the sh*t out of places already embroiled in conflict probably won't help matters. "You just hate the West" is a common rebuke thrown by certain people but in my experience they're usually the ones whose answer for everything is military intervention coupled with a myopic 'goodies' and 'baddies' view. As I said above, the same establishment figures lecturing us on democracy and freedom etc have zero compunction in supporting Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and a host of other dictatorships when it suits them; ironically the above are also people actively funding ISIS.

In the case of Libya, both the UK and France played an extremely active role in toppling Ghadaffi and we were all sold the narrative that the rebels were cheery democrats yearning for freedom when the reality now is that half of them have proved themselves to be brigands, racists and fundamentalists. The country has gone down the toiled. As has Iraq. I mean at the end of the day, how many more examples do you need to demonstrate that military meddling in these conflicts simply does not work?

If anyone seriously believes the anti-Assad crop will be benevolent democrats (70,000 strong) they are deluding themselves.

Shurimgreat

FTA69 wrote: »

I can only speak for myself but I'd like to think I have a basic understanding of the situation, at least enough to know that bombing the sh*t out of places already embroiled in conflict probably won't help matters. "You just hate the West" is a common rebuke thrown by certain people but in my experience they're usually the ones whose answer for everything is military intervention coupled with a myopic 'goodies' and 'baddies' view. As I said above, the same establishment figures lecturing us on democracy and freedom etc have zero compunction in supporting Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and a host of other dictatorships when it suits them; ironically the above are also people actively funding ISIS.

In the case of Libya, both the UK and France played an extremely active role in toppling Ghadaffi and we were all sold the narrative that the rebels were cheery democrats yearning for freedom when the reality now is that half of them have proved themselves to be brigands, racists and fundamentalists. The country has gone down the toiled. As has Iraq. I mean at the end of the day, how many more examples do you need to demonstrate that military meddling in these conflicts simply does not work?

If anyone seriously believes the anti-Assad crop will be benevolent democrats (70,000 strong) they are deluding themselves.

Again this is not really a nuanced view of it. The hard left, and I am not saying you belong to that group, view all bombing as evil and bad, period. Although its a pity they spend far more time and energy focusing on western bombing and largely ignore Russian and Syrian bombing.

So for example an ISIS group about to attack a Kurdish, Yazidi or Christan village, the hard left would oppose bombing them. They wouldn't really care what happened the villagers, just so long as we didn't bomb anyone. Better the entire village be over-run and everyone taken captive, murdered, etc by ISIS, than the west intervene. Because intervening might make it worse!

Not all bombing makes things worse, but the Hard Left will always focus on times when it might have made things worse and say "there I told you so".

Using the example of the village again, there's a time for action and there's a time for discussion, debate and hand wringing. No-one does discussion, debate and hand wringing better than the Hard Left, but its pretty useless a lot of the time.

Finally ISIS couldn't give a sh*t about history or the lessons from Iraq.

FTA69

Well the people defending the Kurdish villages are the Kurdish YPJ militias, who are a banned organisation and are currently being attacked by Turkey, a NATO ally with a disgraceful approach to human rights. The Turks have also pledged to invade Iraq or Syria if an autonomous Kurdish state emerged.

The people attacking your village are ISIS, an organisation with some murky connections to the same Turkish state (NATO ally) and also being funded and ideologically supported by Saudi Arabia, a country ran by brutal autocrats to whom David Cameron was bowing in front of a few weeks back.

So as you can see, it isn't a simple case at all and figures like Cameron and other establishment figures are rank hypocrites for advocating the bombing of Assad/ISIS/whoever on one hand in the name of democracy while actively supporting anti-democrats on the other.

These military interventions by the likes of the USA, UK etc are not based on good motives, rather the projection of power and geo-strategic advancement.

Shurimgreat

It's too late to support anyone at this stage thanks to the general and deliberate muddying of the waters, mostly by the hard left. The west could have supported the FSA in the early stages. It didn't. Instead groups like ISIS and AQ were allowed gain ground and traction.

Now the hard left tell us we should support Assad or not oppose him. FFS, he's by far the biggest terrorist in Syria.
He is also the number one reason for the rise of ISIS in Syria.

glued

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It's too late to support anyone at this stage thanks to the general and deliberate muddying of the waters, mostly by the hard left. The west could have supported the FSA in the early stages. It didn't. Instead groups like ISIS and AQ were allowed gain ground and traction.

Now the hard left tell us we should support Assad or not oppose him. FFS, he's by far the biggest terrorist in Syria.
He is also the number one reason for the rise of ISIS in Syria.

But you can't support the FSA as a force. There is no central command and the rebel groups that claim to be part of the FSA don't receive the same level of support. Also, this is why the CIA identified their own various moderate rebel groups to support, some of which would of claimed to be part of the FSA. The result was a massive failure as all the groups disbanded or turned over their weapons or joined extremists groups. The FSA and the SNC also provide a poor opposition to Assad. The only thing a lot of the rebel movement can actually agree on is opposing Assad.

The west aren't going to commit to support the SNC and FSA as they don't stand a chance of actually beating Assad under their current structure. A rebel structure needs to be formed with a central command and without a religious ideology. Putting the SNC and FSA in power would be a massive mistake by the West. There is no current moderate alternative to Assad.

Gatling

So we now have turkish boots on the ground in Iraq and an American airbase been built as we speak in syria ,
Assad's forces hit from isreal last week and a new russian base been built ,

Interesting times ahead

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

an American airbase been built as we speak in syria ,

Where?
Kurdish areas?

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Where?
Kurdish areas?

Yeah

eastern Hasakeh controlled by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG).

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

Yeah

eastern Hasakeh controlled by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG).

Do you have a link?

I cannot find anything about it?

It must be a former Syrian AF base?
Building something from scratch would take a lot of time.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Do you have a link?

I cannot find anything about it?

It must be a former Syrian AF base?
Building something from scratch would take a lot of time.

It's actually an old agricultural airport

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Do you have a link?

I cannot find anything about it?

It must be a former Syrian AF base?
Building something from scratch would take a lot of time.

It's just a rumour at the minute but it would be excellent news and it shows that the US are prepared to piss off Turkey to do the right thing. It's the third positive step the Obama administration has taken in Syria to date.

There is very little risk of Russia bombing the Kurds too.

stevejazzx

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Leaving Saddam aside, there was no deliberate pre conceived plan to topple either Gaddafi or Assad. Both these leaders fell victim to the Arab Spring, the legitimate wishes of their people to have a democratic say in their country.

Now, would it have been right to align ourselves with Assad and Gadaffi and help them crush these democratic aspirations?

Both Gadaffi and Assad were faced with a problem. Their people wanted democracy and a say. Both reacted violently when they could have at least listened to their people. Let's really put the blame where it lies. Blaming the west for Gaddafi and Assad's brutality won't work. These guys had and have free will. They aren't merely puppets of the west. They can step down anytime they want.

The Arab Spring demise of dictators bears no resemblance to the ultimate demise of Saddam. 3 or 4 dictators across the Arab World stepped down or were overthrown as a result of the Arab Spring.

But like I said hard left ideologues basically hate the west and will always blame the west for everything. The hope is most people will have the sense to take a more sophisticated and nuanced view of it as opposed to a simplistic "west is bad, evil and to blame for everything bad in the world".

You completely ignore all geo-political issues that were directly involved and of course the large scale bombing that ultimately toppled Gaddafi.

In the case of Syria it is clear that the US is using disenfranchised elements to help destabilize the region by indirectly funding them and by not bombing them - claiming that they could be factions of anti Assad fighters.

The Arab spring in a vacuum delusion that you print above is naive to say the least. The problem is that the west is 'bad' (as you put it). There is an insatiable drive for influence and oil in the middle east and the majority of its stems from the West.

The lie we have been told and the one you repeat above is that somehow this export of democracy, the one touted as the solution for Iraq, is working or has worked - and even that democracy has grown organically in other pasts of the middle east. The reality is very different.

The US backed 'organic' democratic movement in the Ukraine illegally ousted a corrupt yet officially elected president and then proceeded to have a series of elections without the east of the country being able to participate.

A quick look at history in this regard takes us from the documented and by now an uncontested Iranian coup in 1953 - where the US and the UK installed their own puppet regime. We then have a very long and violent interventionist period in South America (Guatemala - Dominican republic - Chile - Brazil etc) of regime change backed by the US for Dictators friendlier to US policy.

Back to the middle east, happy to sell arms to the primitive barbarians that run Saudia Arabia (even today while they fiance ultra extremist Wahhabists who frequently join the ranks of ISIS) and happy to prop up dictators - like Gaddafi and Hussein in their time - before eventually toppling them - it should be clear to anyone but the most naive and propaganda swallowing member of Joe Public that yes the west is in fact bad and conscience free enough to be ok with the murder of millions of Iraqis on the back of what the world now knows where absolute lies.

If you want to take a more nuanced view as you claim in your last paragraph
I would advise a series of lectures by Noam Chomsky - like him or loathe him he certainly cannot be accused of not being able to support his arguments with cold hard facts and figures. It may indigestible for many people to listen to the horrors committed by so called civilized west - but there's little chance of a nuanced view without it.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Do you have a link?

I cannot find anything about it?

It must be a former Syrian AF base?
Building something from scratch would take a lot of time.

https://mobile.mmedia.me/lb/en/newsreports/566329-us-preparing-airbase-in-northeast-syria-reports


A few military sites are reporting it and unlike MSM their usually correct when they post a story like this

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

https://mobile.mmedia.me/lb/en/newsreports/566329-us-preparing-airbase-in-northeast-syria-reports

hmmm.... well, we'll see.
I'll believe it when I see it.
A 2.5km runway won't spring up out of the earth easily (same length of Dublin Airport)...

It may help for the planes based in Qatar...
it will still be further away from Al-Raqqa than the base in Turkey.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

hmmm.... well, we'll see.
I'll believe it when I see it.
A 2.5km runway won't spring up out of the earth easily (same length of Dublin Airport)...

It may help for the planes based in Qatar...
it will still be further away from Al-Raqqa than the base in Turkey.

Found this apparently the location of the new base and there happens to be a international airport not far from it too (if my reading of a map is correct )

https://mobile.twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/673042522302578689/photo/1

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

Found this apparently the location of the new base and there happens to be a international airport not far from it too (if my reading of a map is correct )

https://mobile.twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/673042522302578689/photo/1

Nearest proper airport is over the border in Turkey.... there doesnt seem to be any proper civilian airport in western Syria (according to FlightRadar24)

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Nearest proper airport is over the border in Turkey.... there doesnt seem to be any proper civilian airport in western Syria (according to FlightRadar24)

From Deir ez-Zor you can only fly to Damascus and that's the only real public airport in Westen Syria. Assad didn't care about the infrustructue in the West.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Nearest proper airport is over the border in Turkey.... there doesnt seem to be any proper civilian airport in western Syria (according to FlightRadar24)

near Al Qamisil airport listed as an international airport isnt too far away again if I read the maps properly

donaghs

glued wrote: »

From Deir ez-Zor you can only fly to Damascus and that's the only real public airport in Westen Syria. Assad didn't care about the infrustructue in the West.

The West is more desert, less fertile and less populated. Assad maybe bad, but he didn't make the climate and the terrain!

Water access tends to determine why places like Deir ez-Zor are populated.

Back in the noughties, tourists could make a cycle trip from Damascus to there in 7 days: http://travellingtwo.com/resources/syria/the-desert-to-the-euphrates-damascus-to-deir-ez-zor-and-halabiayh

They're Canadians, but I heard a similar account from an RTE radio journalist. Even the present ISIL capital could be taken in: "A nice route out of Deir-ez-Zor is to head north along the river towards Raqqa".

cerastes

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Leaving Saddam aside, there was no deliberate pre conceived plan to topple either Gaddafi or Assad. Both these leaders fell victim to the Arab Spring, the legitimate wishes of their people to have a democratic say in their country.

Now, would it have been right to align ourselves with Assad and Gadaffi and help them crush these democratic aspirations?

Both Gadaffi and Assad were faced with a problem. Their people wanted democracy and a say. Both reacted violently when they could have at least listened to their people. Let's really put the blame where it lies. Blaming the west for Gaddafi and Assad's brutality won't work. These guys had and have free will. They aren't merely puppets of the west. They can step down anytime they want.

The Arab Spring demise of dictators bears no resemblance to the ultimate demise of Saddam. 3 or 4 dictators across the Arab World stepped down or were overthrown as a result of the Arab Spring.

But like I said hard left ideologues basically hate the west and will always blame the west for everything. The hope is most people will have the sense to take a more sophisticated and nuanced view of it as opposed to a simplistic "west is bad, evil and to blame for everything bad in the world".

That's complete horse manure and if you can't see it or simply deny it, then that's astonishing, Assad was named in an axis of evil, Britain and France both went after Gaddafi, Isis have been funded and raised in Iraq, if you think this all just happened and these extremists all managed to just turn up in Libya or syria armed and funded and pointing at the countries and leaders that have already been named as enemies of the west
If you think countries in the west would do any different if a large and even popular revolution turned up on their doorstep, its foolish.


Also this airport others seem to be referring to is surely in the east of syria and not the west,

Shurimgreat

cerastes wrote: »

That's complete horse manure and if you can't see it or simply deny it, then that's astonishing, Assad was named in an axis of evil, Britain and France both went after Gaddafi, Isis have been funded and raised in Iraq, if you think this all just happened and these extremists all managed to just turn up in Libya or syria armed and funded and pointing at the countries and leaders that have already been named as enemies of the west
If you think you cointries in the west would do any different if a large and even popular revolution turned up on their doorstep, its foolish.


Also this airport others seem to be referring to is surely in the east of syria and not the west,

Er no he wasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

Iran, Iraq and North Korea were named as the Axis of Evil.

I have no problem discussing this with you but if you are going to make up stuff there is no point really.

cerastes

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Er no he wasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

Iran, Iraq and North Korea were named as the Axis of Evil.

I have no problem discussing this with you but if you are going to make up stuff there is no point really.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1971852.stm

Apparently they were in, maybe not originally, but soon after

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1988810.stm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/sep/29/20030929-090653-2022r/

K-9

Mod:

Moved to the new International Politics Forum.

MRnotlob606

Interesting discussion. I think the war in Syria is a very complicated situation. I just don't think Saudi Arabia and Qatar can be trusted.

Gatling

So it seems the Iranians aren't hanging around in syria

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-10/western-officials-iran-retreating-from-syria-fight

Gatling

A russian media's look on the current situation for russsia in syria.
Most of the view has been predicted for the last 2+ months on here and other forums

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/mobile/business/article/no-end-in-sight-for-russias-syria-escapade/552351.html

WarZ

Gatling wrote: »

So it seems the Iranians aren't hanging around in syria

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-10/western-officials-iran-retreating-from-syria-fight

You really believe anything so long as it comes out of Western mouths don't you?

Iran aren't just going to let the Sunni's have Syria. You are naive in the extreme to believe everything that is spun to you. Common sense ought to dictate here.

Gatling

WarZ wrote: »

You really believe anything so long as it comes out of Western .

As opposed to wholm exactly

WarZ

Gatling wrote: »

As opposed to wholm exactly

I am saying that you don't have to believe every single word you read. There is a propaganda war going on in both sides. You seem completely blinded to that fact and take everything you read from Western sources as gospel while dismissing anything you hear from Russian/Iranian sources.

There is no way Iran is going to just leave Syria. It borders Lebanon and if Syria goes to the Sunnis then Hezbollah and Lebanon will be massively under threat along with Iraq. Once again, its naive in the extreme to believe as you do.

Gatling

WarZ wrote: »

I am saying that you don't have to believe every single word you read. There is a propaganda war going on in both sides. You seem completely blinded to that fact and take everything you read from Western sources as gospel while dismissing anything you hear from Russian/Iranian sources.

There is no way Iran is going to just leave Syria. It borders Lebanon and if Syria goes to the Sunnis then Hezbollah and Lebanon will be massively under threat along with Iraq. Once again, its naive in the extreme to believe as you do.

See this is it most people don't just take their information from one source and the information i posted earlier has been getting regularly posted across middle east media for over a year now and the reports of iranian top officers down to soldiers getting killed or assassinated has been varied from multiple sources .
Only last week iranian forced to retreat from several areas in syria due to suffering heavy losses .

Same applies to the isrealie strikes against Assad regime forces rarely gets a mention in western media if at all

glued

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Interesting discussion. I think the war in Syria is a very complicated situation. I just don't think Saudi Arabia and Qatar can be trusted.

Nobody can really be trusted in this instance. Russia, the US and everyone involved have made some massive mistakes in Syria. The US-Russian agreement that we're seeing unfolding in Saudi Arabia is nothing but an absolute farce and shows the lack of willingness on either countries behalf to actually commit to solving this crisis. I haven't read through the whole agreement but some of the organisations involved are nothing but religious nuts. How many times do these countries, particularly the US, want to make the same mistake over and over again?

Firstly, Syria cannot exist within its current borders, does anybody really believe that the Alawis, Shias, Christian and Sunni secular minorities are going to be happy under, what will essentially be, a Salafist government? One of the key 'rebel' representative at the talks in Riyadh is Ahrar ash-Sham who are nothing but complete religious nutters. The fact that the talks are in Saudi Arabia tells you a lot about the groups involved in this meeting and it also shows the lack of appetite from the US and Russia to actually solve the issues in Syria. We have a situation here where everybody wins but the Syrian people who will be forced to live under even more oppressive conditions than under Assad; particularly as the various rebel groups try to further their funders religious ideologies which will no doubt erupt into further civil war down the road.

Saudi Arabia are as responsible as anyone for the mess we see today. They're a disgusting bunch who should be treated the very same as Assad was, but the US's foreign policy has been a continuous disaster since WWII and they're unlikely to ever shift any pressure onto the Saudis. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world and should be treated as such.

Gatling

Putin now backing and supporting the FSA ( free Syrian army)
The same FSA that has been batting the assad regime since the start of the Syrian civil war


MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Friday Russia supports the opposition Free Syrian Army, providing it with air support, arms and ammunition in joint operations with Syrian troops against Islamist militants.

His statement appeared to be the first time Moscow said it was actually supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's opponents in the fight against Islamic State forces. Putin said last month the Russian air force had hit several "terrorist" targets provided by the Free Syrian Army.

WarZ

Gatling wrote: »

Putin now backing and supporting the FSA ( free Syrian army)
The same FSA that has been batting the assad regime since the start of the Syrian civil war


MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Friday Russia supports the opposition Free Syrian Army, providing it with air support, arms and ammunition in joint operations with Syrian troops against Islamist militants.

His statement appeared to be the first time Moscow said it was actually supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's opponents in the fight against Islamic State forces. Putin said last month the Russian air force had hit several "terrorist" targets provided by the Free Syrian Army.

I don't think that says that at all. All it says is that the FSA provided Russia with ISIS targets and Russia used the intel.

Gatling

WarZ wrote: »

I don't think that says that at all. All it says is that the FSA provided Russia with ISIS targets and Russia used the intel.

Paragraph 1 clearly states we are supporting the FSA and proving arms and munitions .
Must be Putin's way of coming out of this backing a winner ,
back assad and back the FSA fighting assad

WarZ

Gatling wrote: »

Paragraph 1 clearly states we are supporting the FSA and proving arms and munitions .
Must be Putin's way of coming out of this backing a winner ,
back assad and back the FSA fighting assad

Here's what you're missing. It's not saying he is supporting the FSA against Syrian forces. It simpy says he has been supporting them when given targets, most likely ISIS targets.

Putin isn't going to publicly start attacking the Syrian government when he has a base there and planes flying over Syria's missile defence systems.