[Zionist Nationalist]

Assad is a bigger terrorist than al Qaeda

[skinster]

zionists would say that since they're allies of the wahabis/al-qaeda

U.S. and Gulf Allies Supported Islamist Extremists in Syria

At least 40 civilians have been killed in airstrikes conducted by the US-Led Coalition on a community in Syria's Deir ez-Zor on Wednesday

[pikachu]

Latest news: Russia not only maintains its presence in Afrin despite the rumors of withdrawal, it had actually boosted that presence just today. This is a symbolic move which indicates that Russia must not be all that pissed off with YPG at all, and whatever deal it has with YPG is still in effect. Also, it means the Turkish offensive on Afrin is probably not coming any time soon.

It could have many in Raqqa and still have its ass kicked by airstrike and SDF, and it can have relatively few near Tadmur and hold out against the SAA for a long time due to mountains or poor SAA units operating there.

What I'm saying is that if you are ISIS and you find yourself in this situation, then however few troops you have in the desert is still too many and however many you have in Raqqa is still too few, so my point still stands.

Unless, of course, you have different priorities altogether.

Cancel military trade and/or strategic projects, impose sanctions on individuals and/or companies, as could other NATO countries.

And that's for waging war on a terror affiliate with the consent of Syria's internationally-recognized government? It would take some PR gymnastics to even get this far, and this doesn't sound like very far at all. If I were Erdogan, I would find this an entirely acceptable price to pay for crushing YPG. You really think that would scare him shitless, scare him MORE than what Russia could do?

What do you think Russia would do, start a war with Turkey if it took over Manbij or Tall Abyad?

Direct war is unlikely (though not ruled out completely), but a hybrid war/cold war is quite possible, and it could be absolutely ruinous for Turkey. Starting by shipping arms and supplies to YPG (and its Turkish affiliate by extension) in large quantities, apply pressure internationally (such as increase arms race in Cyprus for example), and try to otherwise undermine, financially strangle, and sabotage the Turkish government by any means available - that's something Russia could actually do if it felt like Turkey really crossed a red line.

The combined Kurdish and Shia population of Turkey itself is at least 20%-25% for sure, that's not counting the population loyal to SDF in Syria. Russia and Iran could exploit those already well-developed tensions to give Turkey a taste of an unending nightmare. Of course, Turkey would do its best to return the favor and do the same with the Muslim republics of Russia, but its ability to meaningfully undermine Russia's internal stability on its own is seriously questionable. And this is not just theoretical/armchair talk, this is reality as we have seen with our own eyes. If Turkey was not significantly afraid of a confrontation with Russia, why do you think it bent over backwards to Russia and handed over Aleppo on a silver platter? Surely you don't think that Erdogan, who promised to pray in the Omayyade Mosque of Aleppo, would have handed it over to his enemies and basically conceded the war out of the kindness of his heart, eh? Clearly, the threat that Russia wields must be quite significant indeed.

It has literally invaded the country with rebels that are far more hostile to the government, with the government and Russia's blessing.

It could have also kicked YPG's ass when they connected the cantons and all the way until the Russian intervention in 2015, YPG was already a major force by summer o that year.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, could you kindly rephrase?

[skinster]

[pikachu]

Btw an interesting titbit that caught my attention. Remember how I quoted Lavrov talking about the deconflictation perimeter around al Tanf and saying basically "we have never heard of such a thing and don't know what it is, Americans must have made it up on their own and we don't recognize it".

Well then what's this:





The key is as follows:
Orange: territory controlled by the pro-government forces and Kurdish militias on May 31st
Red: territory gained by the pro-government forces and Kurdish militias in June
White/gray: territory controlled by the militants belonging to illegal armed groups
Blue: operational zones of the international counter-terrorist coalition
Dotted line: de-escalation zones.

So, on Russian Defense Ministry's own map dated June 30th, we can clearly see the same exact 50km deconflictation perimeter around al-Tanf which the US DOD referred to when justifying its attacks on advancing Syrian forces. Strange huh? Whichever way you look at it, if Russia doesn't recognize this line, then it shouldn't be on Russia's MOD map. Especially so given that this is a public and heavily political map rather than tactical, we should definitely not be seeing this line then. Since we are seeing it, then of course someone must be lying about having no knowledge and no agreement about this. All signs point to the fact that this line was agreed upon well in advance.

But we also see something else interesting on the same map: Russia's DOD chose to color everything west and south of Euphrates and even a zone around Raqqa as outside of the "blue zone". Most of Deir Ez Zor province is likewise colored outside of the "blue zone". So what does the "blue zone" mean exactly? If Tanf is any indication, then the blue zone is understood to be a zone where Russia, Syria, Iran, their allies, and their air power, is forbidden from entry without explicit permission from the US-led coalition. So, judging by the map, Syria is free to bomb Raqqa city and its immediate surrounding if it wishes to do so, but the overwhelming majority of the SDF-held territory east and north of Eurphates is off-limits to SAR and its allies, unless specifically approved by the US. So basically, an exclusively American zone of influence.

Ok, but what of the territory outside of the "blue zone"? Unfortunately, the map gives little clue on what agreements may or may not exist for regions outside of the blue zone. If this is the only agreement that exists, then the armed forces of SAR should have a free hand to do whatever they want in regions outside of the blue zone, including taking territory and targeting SDF if they feel that it is necessary, but the US DOD seems to be of a different opinion on that. Ultimately, the question is, if the US had carved out in Syria a "blue zone" for itself, does that mean that everything outside of the blue zone it is understood to be a "red zone", i.e., an exclusively Russian zone of influence? Does it mean that the USAF had no right per existing agreements to unilaterally target the Syrian forces near Thawrah without prior consultation and approval by Russia? It would appear that Russia understands the agreement this way, which is why their reaction to Thawrah incident was that "we will target all aircraft flown by the United States and its allies west of the Euphrates". This implies that Russia indeed claims everything outside of the blue zone as its own exclusive zone of influence.

But that presents another funny aspect - the zones agreement partitions the SDF/DFNS-held territory in two - one part in the Russian zone and the other in the American zone. To be fair, the regime territory is also partitioned this way, but to a much lesser extent: only a small piece of SAR-controlled territory is located in the blue zone, around Qamishli and Hasakah. This is not unprecedented - in the 19th and 20th centuries there were great power agreements which have divided foreign nations into "zones of influence" in a similar manner, so why would 21st century be an exception? But that presents a huge mindfuck on how the actual internal factions are going to manage themselves and their relations with one another while keeping those international zones of influence in mind. It looks like Russia is pushing the SDF in Afrin and Manbij area into closer cooperation with SAR, while simultaneously in the blue zone, the US is bringing the SDF closer to the remnants of FSA. Ultimately, that might make internal relations between the SDF east of Euphrates and west of Euphrates rather difficult, especially when Afrin is concerned - because Afrin is geographically isolated from the rest, it is more likely act differently as well. Who knows, maybe one day we will actually see a split in the SDF and underlying YPG between greater Afrin and the rest of the SDF.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Has anyone mentioned this before?

At this point, the adviser said, the president’s national security planners were more than a little rattled: “No one knew the provenance of the photographs. We didn’t know who the children were or how they got hurt. Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint, and all one would have to do is get a paint sample. We knew there was a cloud and we knew it hurt people. But you cannot jump from there to certainty that Assad had hidden sarin from the UN because he wanted to use it in Khan Sheikhoun.” The intelligence made clear that a Syrian Air Force SU-24 fighter bomber had used a conventional weapon to hit its target: There had been no chemical warhead. And yet it was impossible for the experts to persuade the president of this once he had made up his mind. “The president saw the photographs of poisoned little girls and said it was an Assad atrocity,” the senior adviser said. “It’s typical of human nature. You jump to the conclusion you want. Intelligence analysts do not argue with a president. They’re not going to tell the president, ‘if you interpret the data this way, I quit.’”

“The boss knew before the meeting that they didn’t have the intelligence, but that was not the issue,” the adviser said. “The meeting was about, ‘Here’s what I’m going to do,' and then he gets the options.”

https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/art ... -Line.html

[skinster]

I mentioned it in another thread on Syria. Here's an interview on the subject:

Okay, I guess the video has been deleted. If you're interested in trying to find it, it was on The Real News Network where Aaron Mate interviewed Hersh about the lies relating to the sarin gas false flag. The interview took place about a week ago.

The MSM has been ignoring the revelations from Hersh but there are bits reported here and there. Jonathan Cook wrote a bunch about it, including with the reporting of the story and how the MSM has been ignoring it.
Hersh’s New Syria Revelations Buried From View
After Hersh Investigation, Media Connive in Propaganda War on Syria

[pikachu]

While the absence of Pompeo at the April 6 meeting is a little conspicuous, remember that this is what had to say about it in the aftermath:
"The CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies came up with some “hypotheses” about who was responsible for a deadly chemical attack on civilians and, “in relatively short order,” gave Trump “a high-confidence assessment” that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was to blame, Pompeo said.

“We were good and fast,” Pompeo said. But “I can assure you that we were challenged by the president and his team,” he said. “We wanted to make sure that we had it right and there’s not much like when the president looks at you and says, ‘Pompeo, are you sure?”’"

Here he is, in full glory and on video:
[youtube]5YicmchuuYo[/youtube]

It is also the same CIA and the same "intelligence community" that had manufactured, signed off, and eagerly deployed the obvious bullshit called "Russian election hacking", which in turn had made it rather difficult for Trump to act in any different manner on Syria than he did. And I'm supposed to believe based on some anonymous advisor testimony that when it comes to Syria the CIA was suddenly like "wait wait let's not jump to conclusions about this yet"? That wouldn't even make much sense. Generally, CIA and caution are not the two words that I expect to see in the same sentence for as long as I've known them.

But ultimately, I don't know which one of them is a bigger dick and it seems pointless to even care because too little is known about the overall nature of their decision making. It's like trying to understand a brain through looking at a couple of interactions of a small group of neurons.

[GandalfTheGrey]

So basically Trump went to war with Assad based on a "hypothesis"? This is quite incredible - for months we've been spoonfed media bytes from all levels of officials and experts assuring us it was 100% certain that Assad did it. No doubt whatsoever - and if anyone questioned it they were ignorant and/or conspiracy nuts who were apologists for Assad. And now we get from the CIA themselves a "hypothesis" that it was a "high probability"... are you fucking kidding me??

[skinster]

Half a million Syrians return home as Syrian gov’t & allies liberate more areas
According to the UN Refugee Agency, almost half a million Syrians have returned back to their homes this year. This includes an estimated 440,000 internally displaced people and 31 ,000 from neighboring countries. Also according to UNHCR figures, since 2015 more than 260,000 refugees returned back to northern Syria, mainly from neighboring Turkey.

Based on U.N. reports, people are returning to Aleppo, Hama, Homs and Damascus. These are cities that have either always been under Syrian government control, such as Damascus, or others that have recently been liberated, such as Aleppo in December 2016, Hama in April, and Homs in May.

Speaking in a news briefing in Geneva on June 30, UNHCR spokeswoman Andrej Mahecic said, “This is a significant trend and a significant number.”
https://www.liberationnews.org/almost-h ... ore-areas/

[pikachu]

And now we get from the CIA themselves a "hypothesis" that it was a "high probability"

The word "hypothesis" means a "starting point for further investigation", without saying anything of its results. "High probability" (to be precise he said "high confidence") could be anywhere from 80% to 100%, which would under normal circumstances justify action. So I have no idea what revolutionary new knowledge you've managed to squeeze out of that fairly ordinary statement.

The reason I quoted him was the opposite, to confirm that CIA head publicly signed off on the same conclusion that Assad was personally responsible.

[Igor Antunov]

Youtube has shut down a number of pro-Russian, pro-syrian army channels covering the syrian war.

SANA among them.

[pikachu]

The still-recent bombshell announcement that Hekmatyar reconciled with the Afghan government drove me to read more about the fall of Kabul in 1992, curious about the exact sequence of events which resulted in the disintegration of once multi-ethnic Afghan Army. It's always fascinating to read about what happens in the final moments of the downfall of a regime, especially when a diverse bunch of militias is seeking to overthrow it. In Afghanistan, both the army and the cabinet had ultimately disintegrated by defecting to various mujahideen warlords, mostly based on ethnic affiliation. Since the Najibullah regime was de-facto a two-party government with Parcham at the top, the majority of the army defected either to either Massoud or Dostum, however both of the major "force ministries" were in the hands of the Klaqis, considered to be hardliners at the time, and the units directly affiliated to them are said to have gone over to Hekmatyar at the first opportunity, together with their weapons. Here's my version of the map of Kabul after the entry of the warlords. It's basically the same as Wiki's map, but with the overlaid key making it simpler to understand a complex situation:



What a complete clusterfuck it was, truly a piece of modern art in geopolitics. Russia allied with Saudi Arabia, Iran ended up allying with Pakistan - crazy shit altogether. Then after about half of Kabul was wiped out in fighting and shelling, the Taliban came along and gradually swept them all under the rug, with Pakistan's brotherly assistance.

How does that relate to Syria? Well, imagine the same exact thing but in Damascus instead of Kabul. I really don't know what the map of Damascus would look like if partitioned among Syria's competing rebel militias, but I imagine it would look something similar to that. Except that for every 1 mujahideen group in Afghanistan, there are 10 groups in Syria. Some familiar names like Jaish al Islam, Failaq al Rahman, Tahrir al Sham, Ahrar al Sham, Dawlah al Islamiyah (ISIL), Jaysh al Ababil, Ajnad al Sham, Liwa Shuhada al Islam, hundreds of smaller factions, and inevitably some new factions led by former regime generals and Alawites, would partition the capital among themselves. Who would win? Without a concerted foreign intervention, probably the most radical one would triumph eventually, in our case - ISIL. If ISIL is somehow taken out of the picture by foreign intervention - then the next most radical group after it - HTS. However, for any alternative history fans, I am interested in hearing ideas of what a divided Damascus could look like.

[skinster]

[Zionist Nationalist]

lol I knew what it is before even clicking

skinster obsession is unhealthy

[skinster]

It seems to bother you that Israel aids terrorist orgs in Syria, and ISIS too. More information about that here.

Apologies but the news is the news. I am merely the messenger. Don't shoot me. The truth remains the truth even if I don't tell it.

[Igor Antunov]

A major SAA offensive is less than 50km from deir zor. It's about to get real.

[Zionist Nationalist]

It seems to bother you that Israel aids terrorist orgs in Syria, and ISIS too. More information about that here.

Apologies but the news is the news. I am merely the messenger. Don't shoot me. The truth remains the truth even if I don't tell it.

I have no problems with aiding al qaeda or ISIS

but their main sponsors are gulf sheikhs

Israel is just trying to make sure that Iran and Hezbollah wont get to the golan heights border

[skinster]

That's a weird way of saying zionists are aligned with wahabis, but I suppose I commend your honesty re: admitting your support terrorists. Birds of a feather and all that...

The Golan Heights is occupied territory, belonging to Syria.

Syria's two powerful rebel groups clash in Idlib
Fighting between Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Qaida-linked Hayat Tahrir al Sham is the first serious act of violence since both sides reached a truce in February.

[Zionist Nationalist]

The Golan Heights is occupied territory, belonging to Syria.

no its not

you can say all day that it belongs to Syria but the facts on the ground are that its not

and it will never belong to them again

if there ever was a chance for peace between Israel and Syria now after the civil war this chance will be gone

also you dont seem to care about the Turkish occupation of northern cyprus and the settlements that they build there