Thread: What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If Assad had simply stepped down and allowed free and fair elections, it would have a been a smooth transition to a new, more inclusive government.

What makes you think they would have elected an "inclusive" government?

That's what Harry's handlers have specified in his hand book.

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If Assad had simply stepped down and allowed free and fair elections, it would have a been a smooth transition to a new, more inclusive government.

What makes you think they would have elected an "inclusive" government?

The fact that until the the Alawites Syria had always been ethnically and religiously inclusive. Even the Alawites didn't change that too much. They kept all the power for themselves but the only group they deliberately targetted were extremist islamists. The irony!


What makes you think they wouldn't have elected an inclusive government if the Alawites had been cleanly overthrown?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

What makes you think they wouldn't have elected an inclusive government if the Alawites had been cleanly overthrown?

Their neighbor was given democracy and it didn't happen there. Sunni's and Shia aren't very good at being inclusive of each other these days.

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If Assad had simply stepped down and allowed free and fair elections, it would have a been a smooth transition to a new, more inclusive government.

What makes you think they would have elected an "inclusive" government?

Demographics.

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by DrB0b

What makes you think they wouldn't have elected an inclusive government if the Alawites had been cleanly overthrown?

Their neighbor was given democracy and it didn't happen there. Sunni's and Shia aren't very good at being inclusive of each other these days.

Their neighbour was a very different country thanks to the seppos not being able to make their mind up who was their friend and who was their enemy.

^
The Sunni's and Shiite's didn't get along before America got there.

Given democracy they wouldn't have been inclusive. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Demographics.

One wonders where on earth harry is, believing that an imposed new President of Syria would be the choice of the people.

An "imposed" president is what they had all along, since Hafedh you dumb fart.

Had they deposed the Assad government and allowed free and fair elections, INCLUDING (because I don't think you understand the word "inclusive") all parties involved, I really do believe a civil war could have been avoided.

It was Putin and Assad that started that war; they both knew that turning the rebelliong into a "terrorist" conflict would give them excuses to do what they've been doing.

Now they can't go back: Like Iraq, the slighted parties will all want payback.

One thing about the Arabs, they really fucking know how to bear a grudge.

^ So you don't think Syrians using weapons sent by foreign governments against the Syrian government makes those weapons users "terrorists"?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

a legitimate rebellion of a majority population

One wonders at your initial statement a little, but don't let my concern bother your preconceptions.
conceptions.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

a legitimate rebellion of a majority population

One wonders at your initial statement a little, but don't let my concern bother your preconceptions.
conceptions.

You seem to struggle with big words like "demographics", "inclusive" and "majority" don't you?

And again you reply with more nonsensical quotes, your childish little pet names and a whole host of unintelligible garbage.

Why do you bother?

It's not worth sifting through the shite to see if there is anything worth commenting on.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And again you reply with more nonsensical quotes, your childish little pet names and a whole host of unintelligible garbage.

Why do you bother?

It's not worth sifting through the shite to see if there is anything worth commenting on.

Harry, how do you expect to be taken seriously if you don't randomly highlight words with a yellow font?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And again you reply with more nonsensical quotes, your childish little pet names and a whole host of unintelligible garbage.

Why do you bother?

It's not worth sifting through the shite to see if there is anything worth commenting on.

Harry, how do you expect to be taken seriously if you don't randomly highlight words with a yellow font?

Good point. And also call people silly names like a fucking schoolgirl.

What a c u n t.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Harry, how do you expect to be taken seriously if you don't randomly highlight words with a yellow font?

Random, random, those selected words are chosen with deliberacy, the colour, yellow, is the Sun God's. Media Studies 101, I'm reliably informed, covers the topic well. Probably not offered when you attended your special school.

Incur the wrath of Ra at your peril.


It helps the colonials to understand which words are relevant. Some utilise the "invisible word" option. I didn't understand the "fucking schoolgirl" reference. I have since searched for it, thanks. I believe there is also an "ignore" function available, to the technically able.

One day harry you may be able to follow "the birds over the rainbow". Until then you will have continue having "dreams that you dare to dream" and continue to ask yourself "Why then, oh why, can't I".

Ra is red. Also, learn how to post pictures.

Fuck it I'm colour blind as well? You [at][at][at][at].



Short and some blasphemes, must keep the punters coming/click numbers up.

According to this, the US should just pack up and go home which is what I have been saying all along.

If Islamic State and al-Qaida’s Nusra Front lose control of their strongholds in Syria, Bashar Assad’s army will likely supply the boots on the ground to supplant them, with help from Russian air strikes and Iranian and Hezbollah forces.

The US-led air strikes and occasional special forces missions to take out high quality targets are not enough to break these terrorist groups’ hold on territory.

And the failure of US-trained rebel forces means that besides the Kurds, no other party has the forces to take on Islamic State and Nusra Front on the ground.

“Today, only two militaries are in a position to take the eastern province of Deir al-Zor that borders Iraq or Raqqa. They are the US-backed Kurdish forces and the Syrian Army,” Joshua Landis, a Syria expert and the director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

The Democratic Unity Party (PYD), the main political organization in Syria’s Kurdish-administrated areas, is demanding recognition for their autonomous enclave in exchange for expending the blood necessary to take either Arab city, Raqqa or Deir al-Zor, explained Landis.

The PYD is backed by the US in fighting Islamic State. The fragile cease-fire between the Syrian regime and the rebels does not include Islamic State or the Nusra Front.


“Assad spoke about taking both cities recently, but his ability to do so will depend on Russian support and the threat posed by rebel militias in the western region of Idlib and eastern Aleppo. They are supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey and have been resuming their attacks on Assad forces,” continued Landis.

Therefore, he said, if these rebel forces abandon the cease-fire completely, Assad will be forced to concentrate his forces instead back in the west of the country, the Syrian heartland.

“So long as the Kurds do not take further Islamic State held cities, Assad need be in no rush to retake them. The US is holding down Islamic State and degrading its forces and economy,” said Landis.

“Thus, the longer the Syrian Army holds off retaking the region, the fewer of their soldiers will be killed in retaking it,” he said, adding, “Military logic suggests going slow and allowing the coalition to further destroy Islamic State.”

The Syria expert points out that despite US abhorrence of the Assad regime, it finds itself in what is in practical terms an alliance with it.

The Syrian expert points out that despite US abhorrence of the Assad regime, it finds itself in an objective alliance with it.

“The refusal of the US to embrace Assad over Islamic State leads to odd battlefield alliances,” he said, noting that when Islamic State was attacking Palmyra last year, the US refrained from attacking the group’s convoys and fighters that remained massed on the outskirts of the ancient city.

And when Syrian forces recently retook Palmyra, US forces did not attack either side in the battle.

In effect, President Barack Obama “is allowing both sides to kill each other without overtly taking sides.”

“Although the US insists it is prioritizing the fight against Islamic State, its efforts are limited by the refusal to help Assad forces retake Syrian territory,” Landis concluded.

Joel Parker, a researcher on Syria at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University, told the Post the Syria-Russia-Iran axis’s operations have quickly evolved into a much more sophisticated campaign than what we saw in Zabadani last summer, located near Damascus and the border with Lebanon.

“What happened there was that a small group of Syrian rebels and others joined with them in a mountain town surrounded on every side by allies of the regime. Nevertheless, Hezbollah forces and the regime could not fully liberate the town from the rebels, or at least not quickly,” said Parker.

Since them, Russian support has put the momentum back on the regime’s side, making a critical difference.

He points out that the struggle against the Islamic State seems to be going well now, “but it isn’t clear whether the group has any cards up its sleeves. For instance, what kind of tunnels they have and whether they are still able to move supplies around.”

In addition, the Turkish government’s current focus on countering the Kurds and supporting allied rebel groups means that “as long as the Assad regime is seen as fighting Islamic State and the rebels are seen as having lost the major battle against Assad, things are going to continue to go well for the regime, even if there are setbacks.”

The Jerusalem Post

No problem... Libya is primed and ready to keep those weapons stock prices up.

Yeah, looks like Puter is going to take the prize.

They say the Cold War is over, but Russia and the U.S. remain the leading supplier of weapons to countries around the world and are the two biggest military powers. Lately, tensions have been pretty high, too.

The U.S. supplies much of NATO and Middle Eastern allies like Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Russia supplies other BRIC nations, as well as Iran, much of Southeast Asia, and North Africa.

We took numbers from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute for 2012-2013 to see whom the two rivals were supplying with weaponry. The U.S. dealt to 59 nations that Russia doesn't sell or send weaponry to, while Russia dealt to just 15 nations that don't receive U.S. arms.

Fifteen countries received weaponry from both the U.S. and Russia, including Brazil, India, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

The country that received the highest dollar amount of U.S. weaponry was the United Arab Emirates, with more than $3.7 billion in arms received over that period. Russia dealt the greatest value of weapons to India, sending more than $13.6 billion.

Overall, the U.S. sent more than $26.9 billion in weaponry to foreign nations, while Russia sent weaponry exceeding $29.7 billion in value around the globe.

This Map Shows The US And Russia's Worldwide Arms-Sales Race - Business Insider