Assad’s Forces May Be Aiding New ISIS Surge

a reply to: Britguy

approved by the UN.

a reply to: Britguy

If what you say is true, why didn't the US swoop in with airstrikes when the rebels were asking for it?

The FSA predicated the success of its rebellion on a repetition of the Western air campaign that deposed Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. “When that failed to materialize,” Patrick Cockburn writes in his enlightening The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising, “they had no plan B.”* Without the air support they demanded, the FSA–Islamic Front offensive ground to a stalemate.

It took until the formation of ISIS for it to happen


www.nybooks.com...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: romilo

Are you saying the west should have attacked?

I am saying that west were ready to start assault to kill Assad and rest of the Syrian government and usually when west are doing things they need to have permissions so they were in that way justified but suddenly they backed off.. Wouldnt that suggest that they indeed was not after all that justified? I also want to say that there is number of other ways to go than going on and killing countries, their leaders and ppl, what does it really solve? We actually have allot of material to study how war and such worked to create peace... Its obviously not working but yet ppl fall for the same lies that leads to wars..

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Britguy

approved by the UN.

The UN?
I think they have shown time and again they are probably as corrupt as FIFA when it comes to making decisions.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

The New York Times is reporting some guy's (who happens to be one of the rebels) Twitter account as a credible source? I call BS on this whole story.

From what i gather, only opponents of the Assad regime are claiming that Assad has cooperated with IS. They are not reliable sources simply due to there being a conflict of interest in the story.

While we have reports of Assad turning a blind eye towards IS for some time, i don't see why he would support them when he is also actually in conflict with them elsewhere in the country. IS controls more than half of the state. I don't think Assad would aid them in taking more of his country.

One other thing i think i should point out is that IS do actually have fighter jets...If the reports of jets being used in the conflict are true, who is to say that they aren't ones seized by IS?

Islamic State (Isis) is takings its first steps towards building an air force by training pilots to fly captured fighter planes, according to a group monitoring the conflict in Syria.

Isis is using lots of tanks, armoured personnel carriers, artillery and Jeeps taken from the Syrian and Iraqi armies but this is the first report that it has planes in the air.

Rami Abdulrahman, who runs the British-based group, said Isis has trainers who had gained experience in the Iraqi air force under former president Saddam Hussein.

Abdulrahman cited witnesses who had seen the planes flying low over Aleppo, in rebel-held northern Syria.

www.theguardian.com...

Islamic State (Isis) militants have added Syrian fighter jets to their growing armoury after capturing an airbase where they massacred up to 200 prisoners.

At least three planes were shown in a propaganda video by the extremists following the battle for the al-Tabqa Syrian Air Force base two weeks ago.

www.independent.co.uk...

Other reports suggest that the Assad government destroyed some of the jets IS captured, but they could still have more ready to use in battle scenarios.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

Khaled Khoja, the president of the main Syrian exile opposition group, accused Mr. Assad of deploying his warplanes “as an air force for ISIS.”

“Reports indicate that the regime is making airstrikes in support of #ISIL’s advance on #Aleppo, aiding extremists against Syrian population,” the embassy said in a series of Twitter posts. In another post, it added that government warplanes were “not only avoiding #ISIL lines, but actively seeking to bolster their position.”

Assad’s Forces May Be Aiding New ISIS Surge

Assad showing his true colors and siding with Islamic State.

The big question is, does this now officially make Islamic State a Russian proxy?

They are doing the bidding of Assad by wiping out the rebels that seek to topple him. Assad is aiding Islamic State's troop movements and only hitting their opposition with an air force Islamic State is totally without. From their first appearance in Syria's civil war they were dividing Assad's opposition so that it could never coalesce into one force opposing Assad. This all protects the interests of Russia in the region by keeping their stool pigeon in place in Syria.

Will Assad's airforce get wiped from the sky over this by US air power? Maybe not now but when do nothing Obummer is out of office?

Eh.. no. This is nothing but pure propaganda on the part of the US, its regional allies, and the "Syrian opposition."

Assad has been fighting Islamic militants and foreign fighters since the beginning. It is the WEST and its regional allies who have funding and helping t̶e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ "freedom fighters."

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Conspiracies are only allowed to contain the US as the perpetrator, did you not get the memo?

I doubt Russia is behind ISIS, most likely Assad just thinks he is better off letting his 2 enemies fight and then clean them both up after.

He is not "letting them fight", he is actively supporting one side militarily by using his airforce only against the moderate rebel forces and allowing Islamic state safe passage to form up battle lines under his air cover. These maneuvers do not happen by chance, there has to be coordination.

If Obama would provide air cover for the rebels he claims to be actively supporting, Assad's planes would have to be swept from the sky and they easily could be. His pal Putin who he promised things to (remember the open mic?) after Obama's last reelection wouldn't like that though.

No.

Air cover was used by the West and NATO in Libya to give the rebels the upper hand and knock out the regime. Sorry, air cover is nothing but a code word for regime change here.

Yes, Putin would not like that because unlike you, he is actually aware that the only goal of the West has been regime change and control of the Middle East since the very beginning, NOT human rights and so on.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

what part of doing as much damage as he can do you not understand? Hitler did the same thing at the end of his government. In his views Hitler felt the German people betrayed him and got what was coming to them. Assad thinks the same and has demonstrated that by killing his own civilians.

No.. Once again, propaganda. Especially the Hitler comparison. Do you work for the State Department?

By the way, one fact that most people don't know is that the oft cited civilian death count is actually half caused by the opposition. This is a fact. This means that the western-supported opposition has caused half of the deaths in this civil war.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

Learn history then come back and engage. Your response to my point demonstrates you are not as up to speed as you think.

I bet I have studied the Syrian situation more than you, and I disagree with you. I studied with UN Security Council officials and went to an event with the UN chemical weapons investigative team. I heard them from 10 feet away speak about the chemical weapons investigation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic Report on the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in the Ghouta Area of Damascus on 21 August 2013 Note by the Secretary-General

UNSC Syria - June 2015 Monthly Forecast

Ongoing issues include how to get agreement to follow up on the violations of resolutions 2139, 2165 and 2191 on the humanitarian situation and 2118 and 2209 on chemical weapons—in particular aerial bombardment and the use of chlorine bombs.

Options

While the Council has many tools at its disposal—such as imposing an arms embargo or targeted sanctions, referring Syria to the ICC and authorising a no-fly zone to deter Syria from using its aerial capacity—P5 divisions have made it impossible for the Council to fulfil its role in maintaining international peace and security in the case of Syria. While some feel that such action might be the leverage the Council requires to shift the parties’ priorities towards a negotiated solution, the Council has a history of not escalating pressure in the midst of other sensitive processes, such as the political consultations de Mistura is facilitating and the ongoing P5+1 negotiations on the Iran nuclear file.

Report reaffirms Syria chemical weapons use

Nope. The UN team did not find confirming evidence that Assad had conducted chemical weapons attacks, sorry. I am the only one on this thread who has probably been remotely close to real contact with said team.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah bro we know they were used but we don't know that it was Assad. #facepalm

maybe next time you should try reading the information.

Please point out what airforce the rebels have.

Is this how you operate.. Refuse to read because the information doesn't support the story your trying to push?

Excuse me. Fail again.

That chemical weapon attack was said even by the West to have been done via artillery, not air attack. The opposition does have artillery....

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I guess you would of heard them talking about thermobaric, cluster and barrel bombs that were used too?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I guess you would of heard them talking about thermobaric, cluster and barrel bombs that were used too?

We know that barrel and cluster bombs have been used. Your point being? The team in question by the way had a mandate to investigate chemical weapons attacks, not the other forms. They also were the only team on the ground within the time necessary to do an accurate chemical weapons investigation due to the nature of the weapons.

Counterpoint:

1) Once again, half of the deaths have been proven to be caused by the opposition. A major propaganda move has been constantly citing the hundreds of thousands of deaths WITHOUT noting that the opposition has caused an equal share of them. This has been proven and cited by many major sources.

2) This is a civil war. I want to know if you supported Israel targeting urban areas in Palestine due to militants hiding there. This was their justification. The Palestinians are doing FAR less damage, killing far less people, and are far less equipped, trained, and funded relative to the Syrian opposition. Yet the West and its allies excuse Israel for bombing/shelling densely packed civilian areas.......

The whole thing sounds like a typical red herring.

Something else is going on.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

Please show me an example of the rebels with air capabilities.

Failure.

Chemical weapons attacks were thought to have been done via artillery, which the opposition has.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Who has a recent picture of mad-dog Assad? - killer dictators love pics to be distributed of themselves dictating.

Where is Assad getting all the money for this ongoing (for a few years now) terror campaign against Syrian women and children.....and men?

Where is he getting the money?

The money - where is it coming from?

Standing-by on pics and $$$$ source.

OMG. Sorry, first of all he is trying to hold together his own country. Yes he is getting help from Syria and Russia. But they are his allies. Of course they are helping him.

And where is the opposition getting their $ from? US, France, Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey. Please tell me why the actual government of Syria (Assad) doesn't get to fight in and fund their own battle for their country but it's okay for the West to do so?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

My point is that Assad is using illegal weapons against his own citizens.

There is no other purpose of the above mentioned weapons other than to maim and mutilate human beings..

Using chemical weapons, in my opinion isn't beyond Assad in my opinion. Don't get me wrong though, I understand that the perpetrator remains ambiguous..at least you acknowledge chemical weapons were used, many here totally dismiss it as a lie..

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

My point is that Assad is using illegal weapons against his own citizens.

There is no other purpose of the above mentioned weapons other than to maim and mutilate human beings..

Using chemical weapons, in my opinion isn't beyond Assad in my opinion. Don't get me wrong though, I understand that the perpetrator remains ambiguous..at least you acknowledge chemical weapons were used, many here totally dismiss it as a lie..

But hold on, even the "using against his own citizens" is a framing of the debate that is arguable. Assad is attacking urban areas because that is where a very well funded, trained, and armed opposition is operating from. That doesn't make it right or wrong. But many would argue he is NOT targeting civilians but the opposition.

Note that the opposition is also fighting in urban areas and has caused a huge amount of civilian deaths.

I agree that it is possible Assad or someone in his military used chemical weapons, just as it is equally plausible the opposition did. But Assad would actually stand to lose by using them.

The West has been looking for an excuse to step up support or even intervene militarily. Assad clearly using chemical weapons would be such an excuse.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

See I disagree that the west was looking for an excuse to intervene, they had that opportunity in 2011 when the rebels wanted air strikes to support their insurgency, like what happened in Libya.