[Zamuel]

Assad regime has given two million Shia from Iran and Lebanon, citizenship in a further attempt to prevent Sunni refugees from returning.
http://en.etilaf.org/all-news/local-news/assad-grants-citizenship-to-two-million-shiites-to-complete-demographic-change.html

There aren't all that many Iranians in Syria are there? This sounds like he's granting most of Southern Lebanon Syrian citizenship, unasked for … Then what ? He annexes Lebanon ?

Zam

[UD]

There aren't all that many Iranians in Syria are there? This sounds like he's granting most of Southern Lebanon Syrian citizenship, unasked for … Then what ? He annexes Lebanon ?

Zam

It may be Assad trick to bypass Putin demand for Iranian and foreign forces withdraw. He can say they are all Syrians now.

[Zamuel]

It may be Assad trick to bypass Putin demand for Iranian and foreign forces withdraw. He can say they are all Syrians now.

That would make sense for the militias … but 2 million ? There's something more to it.

Zam

[Rich]

Assad regime has given two million Shia from Iran and Lebanon, citizenship in a further attempt to prevent Sunni refugees from returning.

That's fantastic news! Of course no Muslims would be better, but I'll take no Sunnis for now.

[Atlantis]

Assad regime has given two million Shia from Iran and Lebanon, citizenship in a further attempt to prevent Sunni refugees from returning.

That is, according to the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces in Qatar, which funds the terrorists in Syria.

Even if the news were true, I think it would be a smart move. After all, Assad took in 2 million Sunni refugees from the Yankee wars in the region. Just goes to show that these people will bite your hand if you try to feed them.

[skinster]

[Ter]

The Lion of Damascus, the Heralded Asad-al-Bashar, th dynastic ruler of the vibrant but destroyed Syria, only has to kick out the Iranians and Hezbollah to live in peace. Otherwise there will be no peace in Syria, even the Russians agree to that now.

[starman2003]

:lol:

The Lion of Damascus, the Heralded Asad-al-Bashar, th dynastic ruler of the vibrant but destroyed Syria, only has to kick out the Iranians and Hezbollah to live in peace. Otherwise there will be no peace in Syria, even the Russians agree to that now.

Assad still has to crush the remaining rebels, which will take a while. I think Hez would be glad to return to Lebanon once the civil war is wrapped up. As for Iranians, they're probably there to stay.

[Atlantis]

Assad still has to crush the remaining rebels, which will take a while. I think Hez would be glad to return to Lebanon once the civil war is wrapped up. As for Iranians, they're probably there to stay.

And why on Earth should they not? Israel stayed in the Golan Heights. Perhaps they could make a deal: Israel leaves the Golan Heights in exchange for Iran leaving Syria.

[starman2003]

And why on Earth should they not? Israel stayed in the Golan Heights.

Right and the difference is that Iranians have Syria's permission to be on its soil, Israel never did.

Perhaps they could make a deal: Israel leaves the Golan Heights in exchange for Iran leaving Syria.

Sounds reasonable but don't hold your breath waiting for an Israeli withdrawal...

[skinster]

The Lion of Damascus, the Heralded Asad-al-Bashar, th dynastic ruler of the vibrant but destroyed Syria, only has to kick out the Iranians and Hezbollah to live in peace. Otherwise there will be no peace in Syria, even the Russians agree to that now.

What an ignorant world you have to live in to assume that Iranians and Hezbollah in Syria are the cause of the war on Syria.

[Ter]

What an ignorant world you have to live in to assume that Iranians and Hezbollah in Syria are the cause of the war on Syria

It looks as if you have some reading comprehension problems.
Nowhere did I say that the Iranians and Hezbolla terrorists are the cause of the war.
I only said that if they would leave now, there is a good possibility of peace in Syria.
Asad can rebuild his country and continue to leave Israel be, as he has so nicely done since several decades.

[skinster]

You said there'd be peace in Syria if Hezbollah and Iran leave, which is beyond absurd since neither the country of Iran or the organization that is Hezbollah are making war on Syria. It is the countries that are making war on Syria, that are preventing the peace, including Israel which has repeatedly bombed Syria throughout this war. Good job the Syrians sent some missiles back tho eh, I was waiting for them to get on that, years ago.

[Ter]

You said there'd be peace in Syria if Hezbollah and Iran leave, which is beyond absurd since neither the country of Iran or the organization that is Hezbollah are making war on Syria.

That is correct but now that Asad has almost won the war, the Hezbollah terrorists and the Iranians are no longer needed.
As @starman2003 already said, Hezbollah wil be happy to leave but Iran wants to stay forever to project power beyond its borders, preferably up to the Mediterranean Sea. This will not be allowed, if necessary, a new war will brak out.
In the meantime, Iranian bases will continue to be annihilated by Israel.

Good job the Syrians sent some missiles back tho eh, I was waiting for them to get on that, years ago.

Yes, sure, if that makes you happy, please go on believing that even one of them touched Israeli ground. Those missiles gave Israel the excuse to go all-out destroying Iranian and Syrian assets.

[skinster]

Ter talking like he knows what the hell he's talking about is

Trump moves to protect ISIS, al-Qaeda enclave in Syria
Syria is preparing an offensive to regain control of the southwest of the country near the Daraa and Quneitra regions. The area is occupied by al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups associated with them, and a substantial portion is controlled by ISIS. But the US says it is opposed to the Syrian action because it would violate the de-escalation agreement made between the US, Jordan, and Russia. The administration has warned that it will take “firm and appropriate measures” if the operation is carried out — effectively putting the US squarely on the side of ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Negotiations are now underway to determine the fate of the region, with Israeli media reporting that a possible deal could include a Russian agreement to prevent the involvement of Iran and Hezbollah from any operations in return for the Israeli agreement to refrain from intervening against Syrian government attempts to take area.

However, the US warning makes clear that the administration regards the presence of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and associated forces as preferable to the Syrian state, and that it would like to maintain these in the area to prevent a Syrian advance. This is conducive with the overarching goal of keeping Syria weak and divided, of attempting to punish Russia and its allies for defeating the US-backed opposition by turning the Syrian victory into a liability.

Israeli strategy
Other factors are also at play. Part of the area in question is adjacent to the Golan Heights, which were seized by Israeli aggression in 1967 and have remained under Israeli occupation ever since. This occupation is illegal under international law.

In order to maintain its hold over the Golan and establish a buffer between it and the Syrian government, Israel has been supporting various insurgents along the border. These groups include al-Qaeda, while medical support is given to all opposition fighters. Whether they be al-Qaeda, ISIS, or others, Israeli military spokesmen have explained that they are tended to “irrespective of their identity.”

Giving insight into the frame of mind behind these Israeli decisions, Israel’s former Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon has in the past stated that he would prefer it if Syria were taken over by ISIS, rather than by Iran. If he had to make a choice, he’d “choose ISIS,” he said.

Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Herzi Halevy, said that Israel doesn’t want ISIS defeated in Syria given the current dynamic, seeing the group as non-threatening and a buffer against Iran and Hezbollah: “Israel does not want to see the situation in Syria end with [ISIS] defeated, the superpowers gone from the region, and [Israel] left with a Hezbollah and Iran that have greater capabilities.”

It is not that Israel wants ISIS or other jihadists in the area, but rather that it doesn’t care one way or another. The main concern is preventing Syria and Iran from recapturing the Golan area, and, throughout the war, undermining and attacking the Syrian state along with its allies.

The strategic thinking was explained very bluntly by a team of Israeli academics at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, an Israeli-based think-tank. In a candid report from 2016, the authors state that “The continuing existence of IS [Islamic State] serves a strategic purpose” because it “can be a useful tool in undermining” Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Russia. Therefore, “The destruction of Islamic State is a strategic mistake”, as the report’s title reads.

This kind of thinking is similar to the ideas expressed by US commentators and former officials, and helps to illuminate the core interests underpinning policymaking decisions.

This is all hardly surprising in light of the actual historical events, yet it might be to those who take seriously the public professions that the US and its allies’ overarching concern is to impose “a lasting defeat against ISIS.”

Our Extremists
The war in Syria began as a result of the efforts of the US to organize an armed insurrection against the government under cover of the 2011 protest movement. The US took advantage of Syria’s violent crackdowns and used them as moral justification for what it was doing.

Throughout the conflict, the US blocked a political settlement by demanding an unacceptable precondition while threatening to continue the violence and bloodshed if the Syrian authorities did not capitulate. This was called the “Assad must go” policy.

Very early on, US intelligence was warning that the armed insurgency the US and its allies were supporting was being “driven” mainly by Islamists, Salafists, and al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, said that “the jihadists, … were in control of the opposition.” An all-source intelligence appraisal from the DIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued in 2013 reportedly confirmed that the programme to support rebels had been co-opted by Turkey to groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

US allies directly supported the extremist elements while the US supported the groups deemed most palatable for a Western audience.

However, there was no definite separation that divided the two. The US-supported factions were often entrenched with the extremists and in general fought alongside them due to the dynamics of the battlefield. US supplied arms were therefore quickly appropriated by al-Qaeda and the other jihadists. Al-Qaeda allowed the CIA-supported groups to appear as though they were independent in order to maintain the flow of CIA arms, while the US also encouraged this perception to distance itself from al-Qaeda.

Years before ISIS established itself in Syria, it was known to US intelligence that a caliphate of some sort would arise as a result of the continued influx of support to the armed opposition. The US maintained the arms flow because of the strategic advantage such a development provided: the rise of ISIS was seen as an opportunity to exert pressure on Assad.

After ISIS was established it therefore received direct support from the US’ allies, and indirect support from the US, since the arms and fighters provided to the CIA-supported groups were funneled in various ways into the hands of ISIS.

In keeping, the US-led anti-ISIS air campaign was aimed less at defeating ISIS, than at making it appear as though the US was taking action while at the same time allowing ISIS to thrive and fight the US’ enemies. As such, ISIS expanded and grew during this period.

After Russia intervened and threatened to destroy ISIS, the US quickly allied with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) militias and used ISIS’ presence in the north of the country — a result of US policy — as a pretext to justify the occupation of northeast Syria. Liberating territory from ISIS provided the necessary legitimacy.

After establishing its control over northeast Syria, the US began protecting one of the last remaining ISIS pockets in the area. The reason for doing so was articulated by a fighter who is backed by the United States. He explained to the Financial Times that he thought the US “could be allowing small Isis pockets to survive so they can attack and weaken the regime and its main backer in the region, Iran.” For its part, the US announced that “it will not carry out strikes against the militants’ [ISIS’] last remaining fighters as they move into areas held by the Assad regime in western Syria.”

This all fits in well with the intentions outlined in the Trump administration’s recently released National Defense Strategy.

The document explained that the main concern of US planners, “the central challenge to US prosperity and security”, will be that of great power rivalry, of “the re-emergence of long-term, strategic competition” against the “revisionist powers” — meaning mainly Russia and China.

Recently, the US began an operation against ISIS in the area, but the efforts have been half-hearted and no real progress has been made — again, not surprising given the dynamic outlined above.

Orders From the Occupier
In keeping with these consistent objectives, it seems that Israel and the US would prefer to maintain the status quo in southwest Syria. This position is justified on the grounds that a Syrian operation would violate the de-escalation agreement that the US “remains committed to maintaining.”

Since the exact delineation of that agreement has not been published, there is no way to know if this is true, but regardless, the question is moot.

The US has illegally invaded Syria and is actively occupying its lands. This is illegal both under domestic and international law. It follows then that the US is in no position to dictate terms, aside from those of its withdrawal.

The US attempts to justify its occupation through specific UN Security Council Resolutions which call on all states to help fight to defeat ISIS. However, those resolutions clearly state that this is only to be done “in compliance with international law” and with respect for “the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.” The US presence is not approved by the Syrian authorities and thus violates the UN Charter. It was also specifically designed with the intent of undermining Syria’s sovereignty and independence.

Furthermore, the US and its allies both directly and indirectly supported the Islamic State. This alone invalidates the stated reasons behind the occupation. If it does not, it is tantamount to accepting the inclusion of a loophole within international law whereby great powers are free to support terrorist organizations inside a target country and then use this as an excuse to invade and occupy it, as an arsonist who comes to put out the fire.

US Congress as well has never approved the US involvement inside Syria, making it illegal under US law. The resolutions also call on states to fight ISIS as well as al-Qaeda and its affiliates; to “eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria.”

Throughout much of the time the US was taking territory from ISIS, up until president Trump ended the CIA’s rebel support program, the US indirectly supported al-Qaeda by funneling weapons to the moderates under their command, who then often ended up handing the weapons to al-Qaeda.

The US also openly tried to prevent the Syrian army from eradicating “the safe haven they have established” in places like Aleppo and more recently in East Ghouta, by opposing the Syrian operations to retake these areas. This was not done because of outrage over the indiscriminate bombings and devastation that the Syrian operations wrought, as evidenced by the similar devastation imposed by the US’ own operations, but to deny Syria from controlling substantial territories inside the country and to increase its own strategic advantage.

With these interests being the dominant drivers of policy, it should be no great surprise that the US has, again, intervened in Syria in a way that helps to protect al-Qaeda and ISIS. It is in keeping with a consistent strategy, whereby the groups the US claims to oppose prove useful in accelerating geopolitical goals and thus are either empowered or safeguarded.

Throughout, the goals and tactics have remained consistent. The intentions are to consolidate US hegemony by undermining the Syrian state, prevent it from reclaiming its territories, control its energy resources, keep it embroiled in conflict, and so on. If the presence of extremists helps to further such interests, it follows that this would be exploited in service of these ends.

Indeed, once the true history is properly understood, such things are only to be expected.

[Rich]

The Lion of Damascus, the Heralded Asad-al-Bashar, th dynastic ruler of the vibrant but destroyed Syria, only has to kick out the Iranians and Hezbollah to live in peace.

Oh please Ter, how long would Assad (saviour of Syria's infidels) last with out the Twelvers. The problem is there's just not enough Infidels willing to risk their lives to fight the Muslim terrorists. The Cold War is now seen as a some magnificent victory by the West. It was a victory, but it was anything but magnificent, the fact that we had to rely on allies like the Afghan Mujahedin and the Khmer Rouge to fight the battles of Liberals was very disturbing and since the cold war things have only got worse. Syria's Liberals are no different from anywhere else they don't want fight and who can blame them.

Israel and their American errand runners tried to get Assad to break with Iran before the Arab Spring. They've seen from Gadaffi what happen to leaders who put their trust in the worthless promises of western politicians. Russia's air forces, advisors and mercenaries are useful, but they can't substitute for the forces that Iran's various client militias can provide.

The Lebanese Phalange were a wonderful freedom fighters, but the Liberals did everything they could to destroy them and deliver Lebanon into the hands of Hezbollah thugs. The only alternative now is Sunni Muslim terrorists that are far far worse for the Infidels of the Levant.

[Atlantis]

This is only the peak of the iceberg. History will blame the FUKUS imperialists for half a million death in the Syrian proxy war they have started and funded.

U.S.-LED COALITION ACCUSED OF WAR CRIMES IN SYRIA, MAY HAVE KILLED HUNDREDS OF RAQQA CIVILIANS

BY DAVID BRENNAN ON 6/5/18 AT 4:23 AM

The U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS may have committed war crimes as its airstrikes rained down on civilians trapped by the brutal fighting in the Syrian city of Raqqa last year, a new report claims.

According to an investigation by Amnesty International, American, British and French strikes on the city from June to October 2017 “decimated extended families and neighborhoods” as the coalition embarked on a “war of annihilation.”

Amnesty alleged that the western powers did not do enough to protect civilians during the assault on Raqqa, claiming its investigation provided “prima facie evidence that several coalition attacks that killed and injured civilians violated international humanitarian law.”

The last major city held by ISIS, Raqqa's fall became a powerful symbol of the group’s ongoing collapse. June 6 marks the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the operation to take the city, as Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias advanced under the cover of coalition strikes.

After heavy fighting, surviving ISIS fighters were allowed to leave the city in October 2017. The U.S., British and French militaries claimed they did everything possible to minimize the risk of collateral damage during the operation, but Amnesty says hundreds died and thousands more were injured during the assault.

The U.S. said it fired more than 30,000 artillery rounds during the five-month operation, and American forces were responsible for 90 percent of the airstrikes on the city, Amnesty reported.

The organization interviewed 112 civilian residents of Raqqa and visited the sites of 42 air, artillery and mortar strikes. The report focused on four cases in particular, which Amnesty said amounted to war crimes. The group detailed attacks on the Aswad family, which lost eight family members in a single airstrike; the Badran family, which lost 39 members; the Hashish family, which lost 18 members; and the Fayad family, which lost 16 members.

In all cases “witnesses reported that there were no fighters in the vicinity at the time of the attacks,” Amnesty said. “Such attacks could be either direct attacks on civilians or civilian objects or indiscriminate attacks.”

Amnesty acknowledged that the situation in Raqqa was dire, as ISIS used minefields, booby traps and snipers to stop civilians fleeing the besieged city. Many innocent residents died alongside the militants, used as human shields.

Despite these challenges, Benjamin Walsby, an Amnesty International Middle East Researcher, asked: “If the coalition and their SDF allies were ultimately going to grant ISIS fighters safe passage and impunity, what possible military advantage was there in destroying practically an entire city and killing so many civilians?”

“When so many civilians are killed in attack after attack, something is clearly wrong, and to make this tragedy worse, so many months later the incidents have not been investigated,” said Donatella Rovera, a senior crisis response adviser at Amnesty International. “The victims deserve justice.”

In a statement sent to Newsweek, Britain's Ministry of Defence asserted its forces “do everything we can to minimize the risk to civilian life through our rigorous targeting processes and the professionalism of the [Royal Air Force] crews.” The statement said ISIS tactics and Raqqa's “congested, complex urban environment” meant “the risk of inadvertent civilian casualties is ever present.”

The ministry explained that all reports of civilian deaths “are and will continue to be taken very seriously,” and said all missions “comply fully with international humanitarian law” and are planned “meticulously” to avoid civilian casualties.

[Zamuel]

This is only the peak of the iceberg. History will blame the FUKUS imperialists for half a million death in the Syrian proxy war

Nah … a footnote at best. Assad's removal may get a minor mention. Russia's participation will be the most notable fact inre: Syria. Putin's withdrawal signaling a major change in dynamic.

Zam

[skinster]

US State Department Tells Syria What It Can and Can’t Do on Its Own Soil
Washington is issuing orders to a nation whose leadership never invited America in in the first place.

The US State Department has warned Syria against launching an offensive against terrorist positions in southern Syria. The statement claims that the American military will respond if Syrian forces launch an operation aimed at restoring the legitimate government’s control over the rebel-held areas, including the territory in southwestern Syria between Daraa and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Washington is issuing orders to a nation whose leadership never invited America in in the first place! The very idea that another country would tell the internationally recognized Syrian government that it cannot take steps to establish control over parts of its own national territory is odd and preposterous by any measure.

State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert said Washington would respond with “firm and appropriate measures.” But does the US have any legal grounds for responding with any measures at all? What is it actually doing in Syria? And wait a minute … President Trump recently solemnly promised to leave! Indeed, there is no justification for the US military presence, especially after the Islamic State ceased to be a factor influencing the events there, once that force had been reduced to insignificance. It would have been totally routed a long time ago if America had not intervened, allowing the remnants of the militant group to survive. Wasn’t it President Trump who said many times that the only justification for the US presence in Syria was the need to fight the Islamic State and nobody else? Wasn’t it he who happily declared the final victory over the terrorist group? That mission has been accomplished and yet… the US is still there, issuing warnings and instructions that others must comply with or else.

The statement calls on Moscow to use its influence with the Syrian government to prevent the liberation of the captured areas in accordance with last year’s de-escalation agreement between Russia, the US, and Jordan. Moscow has also called on Washington not to destabilize Syria with missile and air strikes and to do something about the humanitarian catastrophe in southwestern Syria, but is anyone listening? Last month, Russian President Putin said in a statement that any cooperation with the US in Syria had been suspended after the April attacks, which the Russian government viewed as an act of aggression against a sovereign state. It was not Moscow who started the whole thing, rendering all previous arrangements null and void. Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 18 that Washington was ready for an armed clash with Russia in Syria. This statement did not go unnoticed in Moscow.

Although it is a guarantor of the de-escalation zone in southwest Syria, what has the US done to prevent the rebels from attacking Syrian forces and staging all kinds of provocations?

What about the 12,000-strong Southern Front that has amassed in southern Syria preparing for an assault on Syrian forces? Is that not a violation of the agreement in regard to the de-escalation zone? They plan to capture Daraa and turn it into the capital of a would-be quasi-state supported by the US and Israel. A false-flag chemical attack cannot be ruled out. The militants have some experience staging such provocations. The logistics for this force involve crossing the Jordanian-Syrian border under the guise of providing humanitarian assistance. Has any de-escalation agreement given a green light to such activities?

The situation could have been discussed during the recent Astana meeting, but the US was conspicuously absent while encouraging military preparations in the province of Deir ez-Zor.

The US warning coincides with the news that the US is going to recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli territory. And any “foreign” presence there — such as Iranian, for instance — would be viewed as a threat to Israel’s sovereignty, and of course America would be ready to help its old friend and ally. The Heights are Syrian land. They were captured during the 1967 war and illegally annexed by Israel in 1981. That move has not been recognized internationally but the US is ready to defy the rest of the world. It’s not the first time. The embassy in Israel was moved to Jerusalem, the Iran deal was unilaterally torn up — the list of examples illustrating US scorn for international opinion can go on.

Despite its stated intentions to leave, the US warning shows that it will stay in Syria for a long time and its future plans have little to do with the Islamic State. The goal is the partition of Syria, with large swaths of its territory remaining under America’s control, including the Daraa province. The US absence at the Astana meeting confirmed its plan to stymie the ongoing Russia-led peace efforts in favor of seeing Syria divided and using other venues for peace talks in order to diminish Russia’s influence, isolate the Assad government, and squeeze Iran out. Step by step, America’s uninvited intervention in Syria is exacerbating the situation, increasing the risk of a wider conflict. If this plan to create a quasi-state in southern Syria goes through, this will be the beginning of the reshaping of the Middle East in accordance with Washington’s vision for the world at its best.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-tells-syria/242963/

[Zamuel]

https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-tells-syria/242963/
What about the 12,000-strong Southern Front that has amassed in southern Syria preparing for an assault on Syrian forces?

You mean the "Victorious Syrian Army" that has swept Syria free of terrorist invaders and returned Assad to his beloved people ? Those "Syrain/Iranian/Russian" forces ? I guess you can't believe EVERYTHING Assad's government tells you.

The deal remains the same as it's always been, Assad has to go. Expect America to continue it's guarantee of protection to Rebel forces … Expect those rebel forces to continue to grow in strength and influence … Expect Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians to whine like hell about it. Meanwhile Israel sharpens it's claws and pressures those "Syrian forces" with the possibility of a two front war.

It doesn't look good for Assad … You may now continue your ineffective whining.

Zam