ISIL War in Iraq and Syria II

[Vanoi]

So what prevents the US to finish off that tiny ass pocket in Deir ez-Zor? Why isn't it active in the ISIS pocket beside of the Israeli border?

I actually answered this already. The Kurds pulled away their forces from Euphrates Valley to defend against Turkey in Afrin. Can't take Euphrates Valley if there isn't any troops to occupy it.

Don't see how the US can go after the Golan IS enclave without troops on the ground to support.

[Tureuki]

Yeah I can read a map

https://syria.liveuamap.com/tr

Siege of Raqqa has ended half a year ago, what have done since? Raced SAA to Deir ez Zor so you could grab the oil for Kurds. And that worthless piece of land at east stays same for months since you accomplished that. Northern border of that land is like a 1 hour ride from Hasakah. Yet YPG seems to be unbothered by it.

Yeah YPG was fighting ISIS full force, but it all slowed down because of Turkey. Was Turkey not threatening Manbij while they were so eagerly capturing those oil fields? Wasnt really slowed down for it yeah?

So you solely went into Syria to defeat ISIS? I mean are we gonna erase the memory of you arming anti-government rebels way before you started bombing ISIS? Just face it man, you were soo eagely trying to carve out a foothold in Syria. Reason could be anything. But ISIS was perfect. I mean you would surely have less international support if you intervened to save the poor rebels from humanitarian crisis created by Assad.


You just cant grasp from the other side of the ocean WHY PKK is a bigger concern for us. Because all those groups, all those events are just stories for you which a varying degree of importance depending on what your media services. ISIS has no base of manpower in Turkey, no local support. It has no change of taking 1 meter of Turkish land. PKK on the other hand has infested Turkey for 4 decades, thousands are killed including civilians. Is it so hard to do some empathy?

[Love Mountain]

This is less about fairly worthless land in Syria and more about striking a blow towards Kurdish militias. Whether or not Northern Syrian Kurds deserve such antagonism is a different discussion, but it's obvious that Turkish actions are not simply about land.

[PointOfViewGun]

So, the most reliable and formidable force in Syria requires its entire presence in south eastern Syria to end the latest ISIL pockets?

[Yayattasa]

Kurdistan will happen, notwithstanding Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. History has proven a people's determination is enough to guarantee that in the long term, and Kurds do not lack determination.

[The Gurkhan]

His responsibility is to murder huge numbers of his people? You are in denial. Assad is a mass murderer and the one largely responsible for the violence in Syria. He waged war against protesters in his country, he has a long history of human rights abuses jailing journalists, students, and dissidents. He didn't do this to protect the stability of his government or to maintain integrity of his state. Assad's goals were to maintain his regime and enrich himself. Stop deluding yourself. By the way, America had nothing to do with Assad being a power-hungry authoritarian who abused his position of power.

You have no leg to stand on. You repeatedly refuse to admit Assad's crimes while focusing on the United States.

You are provided with evidence directly contradicting your emotive laden summaries of what you think the facts on the ground are. Since everything needs repeating with you, I state again hundreds of thousands are returning to their homes after the government (you seem to think is run by fantasy orcs) has taken back territory from insurgent groups you and your government support. There are mass exoduses away from territory controlled by your thugs to government held areas.

My argument isn't that the Syrian state doesn't pursue it's goal by avoiding ruthlessness grounded in realism. Often leading to inevitable and unavoidable loss of civilian life. Quite the opposite. They do so because they judge the sacrifices necessary for their end goal. Namely the defeat of a foreign backed collection of insurgents who pose an existential threat to the territorial integrity of the country as well as entire ethno-religious groups residing therein.

Just as you an American fully support the backing of a dictator in Bahrain because a legitimately chosen government over there would most likely oppose your people's regional ambition. Ergo your puppet gunning down protesters is an absolute necessary sacrifice. Maintaining Saudi regional supremacy is a necessary sacrifice. Flooding Syria with weapons and supporting insurgents wreak as much havoc as humanly possible is a necessary sacrifice.

We didn't fire on protesters in Bahrain. Gross violations of human rights in America are massive controversies that we are still trying to reconcile with with a number of civil suits that had United States pay out money for. You're the one who fails to grasp the point. Countries in Middle East outright ignore human and civil rights. We take great efforts to protect them. There's a difference.

And? I've already said America goes after her geopolitical interests. The difference is, we don't gun down and imprison thousands of our citizens to do so. Muslims think completely differently on the matter.

More repetition is needed. This was not a point about how millions of obtuse Americans are treated or mistreated by their government.

This is about providing material and diplomatic support to a (Muslim as you say) foreign leader as he murders his citizens. Namely because those citizens would pose a threat to US interests were they to obtain power. As such you fully aid and abet gross violations of their human rights. Just as Russia or whichever other state you are angry about aids and abets violations committed by their allies. Capisce?

Oh I did. In fact, that's why I brought up Iran since you conveniently ignored them and their involvement in Syria.

Who have not cooperated with USA and follow their own anti-Kurdish agenda in Syria. Yeah man, what a vassal. Attacking a regional American ally. Nice try. Never recalled the USA Gov. asking Saudi Arabia to spread Wahabism in the Middle East. Also don't recall asking them to become a regional superpower either. In fact, we happen to be firmly opposed to the idea using Saudis as a counterbalance to Iran. Nice try.



I said we didn't invade. Learn the difference. If we invaded the war would be over in 3 months. If you actually cared about stopping the war and stopping the bloodshed, you'd be arguing for a USA invasion. But you're not, I can only assume because you'd rather see Assad spend another 2 years killing hundreds of thousands to stop the war, as opposed to seeing an American regime that'll stop the war in 3 months and with thousands less civilian casualties. This isn't about morality, this is about your anti-American agenda and I'm not falling for it.



If we wanted to invade Syria we wouldn't pussyfoot around it. We'd send in troops and the war would be over. Know why we don't? Domestic politics. That's the only reason. The US public cannot stomach another occupation. You think we're scared of Russia? Please. Russia has zero chance of winning against any committed US effort and we have plenty of legs to stand on for invading. The Assad regime can be declared illegitimate tomorrow if we want to. The issue is lack of political will, not geopolitical capability.

Turkey was vital to US interests in Syria as it maintained the massive border influx of anti-government men and material into Northern Syria. It was openly part of the US axis calling and aiming for the toppling of the Syrian government. There was always a danger that the longer Russian and Syrian resilience to the US interventionist project lasted, the greater the chance inherent fractures in your cabal would start to show. Hopefully they'll be more egg faced moments for you chaps further down the line

Aside from delusional chest thumping about the reality of US involvement in Syria and the nature of the Saudi relationship you are either laughably insane or perhaps a visitor from some parallel universe where the 2003 Iraq War never happened.

Should I start spamming the thread with every time American soldiers stood trial instead?

How about this. Start a thread spamming every time a non-Western military held trials for their soldiers and their war crimes. Hopefully they happened in this decade. I'll wait. Go on.

This is idiotic. The literal handful of instances ( e.g. Mahmudiyah) US personnel were put on trail and actually convicted of anything particularly in Iraq is miniscule and marked by the much smaller body counts than ones where nobody was convicted. It's not because there weren't many other crimes if that's really what you would be absurdly suggesting. Mukaradeeb, Haditha and the others being taken through deliberately convoluted obscurantist investigations which all but the most brain dead US boomer or militarist would clearly see as appalling massacres. As well as mass leaks such as the 2010 War Logs showing consistent lying, attempts at cover up and general under reported killing and other controversies. This is just relevant to Iraq and doesn't include the current hotspots for clandestine US war criminality. Murdering Somali villagers, incinerating Yemeni famers etc.

As I keep saying the above crimes were not the core point anyway The main contention was general so called collateral damage and massive humanitarian catastrophe caused directly by your country which you and other Americans clearly see as being an unfortunate reality of whatever geopolitical project you are undertaking. Just like the countries you claim superiority over.

Patting yourself on the back for putting one trailer trash and his bro-friends up for rape and murder doesn't mitigate any of that.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/re...bad-as-russias


From Chris Woods, the director of air wars.

"That means the Russians’ death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one,"

West is just as bad as Russia. Please.

"

“The coalition kills too many civilians but it is clear they are trying to limit those deaths, while everything we understand about the way Russia is behaving shows they are deliberately targeting civilians, civilian infrastructure,”"

"Just as bad". "No Morality".

You're delusional if you think USA is "just as bad" or "worse" than every other country. I find it telling you're not disclosing where you're from, ultimately irrelevant as your anti-American bias makes your commentary on the topic pointless. You're talking to me, I'm not even pro-American on many of theses issues and have been critical of American foreign policy many times on this board.

The assertion that your government outright lies about the scale of its so called collateral damage was proven correct based on their massive underselling of the numbers killed.

Even coming from an anti-Syrian/Russian source such as Airwars.

So you can hopefully dispense with the recycled press release style platitudes.


The vacuous Guardian piece is typically disingenuous in true editorialised pro-interventionist fashion.

It dates from 2016 before the culmination of massive 2017 US Coalition increases in airstrikes during campaigns to retake major urban areas. The Russian strikes were noted as early as February 2016 to at times be more intense and frequent often owing to smaller distances involved but also due to very quickly being part of large scale government offences to retake major urban areas. The main example being intense Russian strikes as crucial to aiding the Syrians retake of Aleppo that same year.

Similar destruction was inflicted once your country started partaking in offensives against large urban areas under insurgent control. Less of the American Exceptionalism please.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A US strike in a rural area of Raqqa in Syria killed up to 30 civilians who had taken shelter in a school last week, according to reports. The previous week, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed that 42 people, most of whom were civilians, were killed by a US bombing in the town of Al Jinah, in what it deemed a “massacre.”
Airwars said in a statement: “Almost 1,000 civilian non-combatant deaths have already been alleged from coalition actions across Iraq and Syria in March — a record claim.
“These reported casualty levels are comparable with some of the worst periods of Russian activity in Syria.”

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

“Evidence gathered on the ground in East Mosul points to an alarming pattern of US-led coalition airstrikes which have destroyed whole houses with entire families inside,” said Donatella Rovera, Senior Crisis Response Adviser at Amnesty International.
“The high civilian toll suggests that coalition forces leading the offensive in Mosul have failed to take adequate precautions to prevent civilian deaths, in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7663881.html


I wasn't aware you were so concerned as to my location or that I was being particularly illusive. I'm British (well half English anyway). I'd say you're an American liberal whom ultimately gives insincere piecemeal opposition to the objectively destructive policies of his government.

[Mithridates II the Great]

In the name of God

Syrian Army is finally in full control of the southern sector of the East Ghouta :

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Shortly after evacuating the last group of rebels from the southern districts , The Syrian Army high command announced full control over these years long rebel strongholds .

I reckon East Ghouta was as strategic as Aleppo and its liberation literally ended the war for the opposition . Needless to mention this region kept at least 1/3 of Syrian military busy (especially Republican Guard) for 7 years .

[Vanoi]

Yeah I can read a map

https://syria.liveuamap.com/tr

Siege of Raqqa has ended half a year ago, what have done since? Raced SAA to Deir ez Zor so you could grab the oil for Kurds. And that worthless piece of land at east stays same for months since you accomplished that. Northern border of that land is like a 1 hour ride from Hasakah. Yet YPG seems to be unbothered by it.

Its also just mostly desert and villages while it was thought most IS commanders and leaders fled south towards the Euphrates River Valley. The SAA knew this, the US knew this, and even the Iraqis knew. Leaving swathes of desert territory controlled by the IS alone isn't uncommon. The Syrian Army themselves has a large IS enclave west of Deir Ezzor that they haven't assaulted. Why? Its mostly desert and not strategically important.

Yeah YPG was fighting ISIS full force, but it all slowed down because of Turkey.

Full force? They didn't send all of their forces to Deir Ezzor.

Was Turkey not threatening Manbij while they were so eagerly capturing those oil fields? Wasnt really slowed down for it yeah?

Yes but the YPG feels pretty safe with Americans soldiers and patrols there. Unlike Afrin, where Americans had no presence and the Turks could actually invade.

So you solely went into Syria to defeat ISIS? I mean are we gonna erase the memory of you arming anti-government rebels way before you started bombing ISIS?

Supporting rebels is not intervention. The Only time the US sent troops and started conducting actual airstrikes and strikes withtin Syria was when the Is become a problem. Before that, it was simply arming and training rebels.

Just face it man, you were soo eagely trying to carve out a foothold in Syria. Reason could be anything. But ISIS was perfect. I mean you would surely have less international support if you intervened to save the poor rebels from humanitarian crisis created by Assad.

Then why wait? The US had the chance in 2013 with the chemical weapons. Its pretty obvious who did it and what better way to intervene than saving a bunch of women and children form the horrible dictator Assad and his sarin gas?

I think you are just mad the US intervened and didn't support Turkish ambitions in Syria and decided to not support Turkey's Islamist/jihadists proxies and instead supported a reliable group of fighters. So you come up with any theory of excuse to paint the US as the bad guy for not doing the Turk's dirty work for them.

Turkey never forgave the US for not intervening in 2013. Really screwed up Turkish ambitions.

You just cant grasp from the other side of the ocean WHY PKK is a bigger concern for us. Because all those groups, all those events are just stories for you which a varying degree of importance depending on what your media services. ISIS has no base of manpower in Turkey, no local support. It has no change of taking 1 meter of Turkish land. PKK on the other hand has infested Turkey for 4 decades, thousands are killed including civilians. Is it so hard to do some empathy?

Thats the point. PKK is only a problem for Turkey. A problem Turkey helped create by breaking off peace negotiations in 2015. That just happens to coincide with the US started to support the YPG. Easy way to justify a war right?

ISIS meanwhile has committed genocide, war, slavery, and of course the many terror attacks targeting multiple countries around the world from France, the US, the Philippines, Iraq, Turkey itself, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Nigeria with the IS-affiliated Boko Haram, and the list goes on.

You tell me. Which group is a bigger threat? Does Turkey feel empathy for any of those countries that have had to deal with ISIS? Probably not. The IS never has and never will be a concern or problem for Turkey.

[Tureuki]

Alright there is a area at the south that is as big as a large sized backyard, and there is that large swath of land deemed "strategically unimportant". If you are reluctant to deal with both of ISIS enclave that directly border your proxies how exactly Turkey "slows down the fight with drawing YPG fighters to north"? You are just admitting you dont give a about those. All you cared was drawing a border between your proxies and Assad and grabbing the oil fields, thats all. ISIS can play at the corner.

Yep they didnt. Because when they started moving towards Deir ez Zor, siege of Raqqa was ongoing. When they have heard Assad was rapidly advancing in the ISIS territory they have decided to help him despite being bogged down in Raqqa, out of courtesy of course :p

Answer to third one is in my first paraghraph.

So what? You saw a better change and you took one more step. If it was Bush instead of Obama, you would probably start from the third step. The fact stands. You were hungry to carve a foothold for yourself in Syria from day one, gotta say Erdo was same though. Hurr durr dorty work says the ones who holds the record for that. You are just strong enough to justify your actions via media and make important people shut their mouths.

Turkey has made it official that the "peace process" with PKK has ended. But it was obvious way before that it wouldnt work out. AKP has honestly took a courageous step, knowing how it would enrage the Turkish nationalist. Whether they honestly wanted peace or were hoping to win Kurdish votes is another question but I did lived and saw all of things they did. My own cousin was a conscripted soldier in eastern Anatolia back than. He would told me they were sometimes not even allowed to shoot back when they were shoot at. PKK has not only shown no signs of ending the conflict, they also startped massing weapons and explosives. I remember the first large scale clashes and bombings after the process has ended, they have never used this much explosives in any of their bombings.

I tell you which group is a bigger threat, PKK. Because you still cant grasp that fact that ONE'S OWN NATIONAL SECURITY COMES FIRST. Nobody has any love for ISIS, nobody supports it. how the can you honestly think that an organization who massacred some people at deserts of Raqqa can be important enough for us to overlook you creating a country for an organization which has infested my country for four ing decades? They kidnap and kill teachers in their 20s but I should withstand and shake hands with them in Syria because ISIS has attacked some place in France. First you respect our rightful concerns, than may be we will work together againts ISIS.

[LinusLinothorax]

Just today Trump said the US is leaving Syria soon...

Four days later: US military discussing sending more troops to Syria as Trump calls for withdrawal

[Yayattasa]

Four days later: US military discussing sending more troops to Syria as Trump calls for withdrawal

State Department called him on his BS...

[Papay]

Four days later: US military discussing sending more troops to Syria as Trump calls for withdrawal

Trump is correct here. There is no point on trying to make an independent Kurdistan when all nations around Kurds dont want this. But the US has abandoned logic and common sense long ago. They only thing that matters is endless wars

[Admiral Piett]

While I am fully in support of an independent Kurdistan, it will ultimately be up to them to fight for it. Trump is right. The American people and the US Treasury are well beyond fed up with it all. The time for such grandiose vision has been over since 2011. Time to focus on ourselves and let them clean up their own backyards. Without any serious discussion on redrawing national borders, an unstable society of sectarianism will always be exploited by tin-pot dictators in almost every nation there. They'll never go away until the problem of fake states and arbitrary lines is addressed.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Trump is correct here. There is no point on trying to make an independent Kurdistan when all nations around Kurds dont want this. But the US has abandoned logic and common sense long ago. They only thing that matters is endless wars

I mean, this is true of IS aswell, but you don't seem to mind them too much.

And since when is the opinion of others what defines whether or not a people deserve self determination? Why are Kurds less deserving of a nation than any of those surrounding artificially created nations?

[Papay]

I mean, this is true of IS aswell, but you don't seem to mind them too much.

And since when is the opinion of others what defines whether or not a people deserve self determination? Why are Kurds less deserving of a nation than any of those surrounding artificially created nations?

All nations are artificially created. The question is not who deserves independence and who doesnt. Its a matter of principle. If Kurds become independent why not Catalonia? Why not destroy all African countries that are completely artificial and divide lets say Nigeria, Ethiopia, Algeria into ten pieces? Why not give these Californians the right to secede? And who desides where the borders stop? Kurds have taken over Arab lands but i doubt that anyone from those who envision Kurdish independence will ask Arabs what they want

[nhytgbvfeco2]

All nations are artificially created. The question is not who deserves independence and who doesnt. Its a matter of principle. If Kurds become independent why not Catalonia? Why not destroy all African countries that are completely artificial and divide lets say Nigeria, Ethiopia, Algeria into ten pieces? Why not give these Californians the right to secede? And who desides where the borders stop? Kurds have taken over Arab lands but i doubt that anyone from those who envision Kurdish independence will ask Arabs what they want

I'm fine with all of those examples except California, actually.
Why are, for example, Palestinians deserving of a state while the Kurds are not?

[Papay]

I'm fine with all of those examples except California, actually.
Why are, for example, Palestinians deserving of a state while the Kurds are not?

Untill countries like Nigeria or Ethiopia are cut into pieces millions will die so i dont see how this is "ethical"
Comparing Palestinians and Kurds, lets see

1)UN resolution has spoken about independent Palestine long ago but not about independent Kurdistan
2)Without saying that all things are perfect, Kurds have more benefits to be part of Syria,Iraq,Turkey that not being. Being independent sounds cool, at first but then you realize that you dont have corridor to sea. This means you are destined to rely on Turkey, Syria, Iraq no matter what you do or what you want. At least Israel has a passage through the sea and strong support both militarily and financialy from abroad that helps them survive in a hostile environment. Kurds have nothing and on the long run this whole "bring the west to help us destroy Turkey-Iraq-Syria" will become boomerang
3)A Kurd from SE Turkey can go to Ankara or Istanbul or even immigrate to Germany and come back easily. A Palestinian is stuck in Gaza or West Bank and Israel has absolutely nothing to offer him except a second or third class status. Whereas there were Kurds head of state in Syria,Iraq or even Turkey(Turgut Ozal was half Kurd)Israel is ages away from giving a position of power to anyone who is not Jewish. I think in the past there were a couple of non Jewish ministers but only that. The idea of giving, lets say, the position of vice president to an Arab in Israel is absolutely impossible

[LinusLinothorax]

I'm fine with all of those examples except California, actually.

Ethiopia is also a bad example, as its borders were drawn by indigenous undertakings.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Untill countries like Nigeria or Ethiopia are cut into pieces millions will die so i dont see how this is "ethical"
Comparing Palestinians and Kurds, lets see

Because Nigeria's existance has been so peaceful, what with Boko Haram and the Biafara war.

1)UN resolution has spoken about independent Palestine long ago but not about independent Kurdistan
2)Without saying that all things are perfect, Kurds have more benefits to be part of Syria,Iraq,Turkey that not being. Being independent sounds cool, at first but then you realize that you dont have corridor to sea. This means you are destined to rely on Turkey, Syria, Iraq no matter what you do or what you want. At least Israel has a passage through the sea and strong support both militarily and financialy from abroad that helps them survive in a hostile environment. Kurds have nothing and on the long run this whole "bring the west to help us destroy Turkey-Iraq-Syria" will become boomerang
3)A Kurd from SE Turkey can go to Ankara or Istanbul or even immigrate to Germany and come back easily. A Palestinian is stuck in Gaza or West Bank and Israel has absolutely nothing to offer him except a second or third class status. Whereas there were Kurds head of state in Syria,Iraq or even Turkey(Turgut Ozal was half Kurd)Israel is ages away from giving a position of power to anyone who is not Jewish. I think in the past there were a couple of non Jewish ministers but only that. The idea of giving, lets say, the position of vice president to an Arab in Israel is absolutely impossible

1)You're right, an independent Kurdistan's creation was agreed upon before the creation of the UN, in the treaty of Sevres of 1920.
2)I'm sure that while Saddam was gassing the Kurds they were thinking "Sure is good to be part of Iraq!". Probably just as were the Syrian Kurds when in 1962 the government decided to ethnically cleanse them by revoking the citizenship of 120,000 Kurds, or how in 1973 it began resettling Bedouin Arab tribes into the Kurdish majority areas and decided to deport 170,000 Kurds into the desert, while those that stayed behind were no longer allowed to own property or even fix their house. "Good thing we're not free" they must have thought to themselves. The 300,000 Kurds displaced in Turkey were probably happy to have lost their homes when the Turkish government had destroyed more than 3,000 Kurdish villages by the mid 1990's.
3)We're ages away because it already happened I guess. Majalli Wahabi was acting president of Israel for a bit. We also had Arab judges in our supreme court, but I guess that that doesn't count for some reason?

[Sir Pignans]

Why are, for example, Palestinians deserving of a state while the Kurds are not?

Because Israel kicked them out of their land (or they fled, depending on your interpretation of history) and won't let them back in as Israeli citizens. It's apples and oranges. The other countries have Kurds as citizens. Israel would 'never' accept the current number of Palestinians as citizens of Israel. I would wager that at no point in their history would Israel have been willing to do this.