Syria

[aussiefriend]

Horrific. It's a total 100% bloodbath over there. I cannot see a solution apart from the UN stepping in. What type of human being not only beheads someone, but then videos it too? Not only that, even if it was an animal they did that too, it would still be an evil act. I have deliberately stayed quite on this subject due to the fact of how it has headed. Two wrongs don't make a right. Evil is evil, no matter if it is for the 'revolution' or government sanctioned.

Having an oops, whoopsie moment, doesn't cut it. This type of brainwashing, radicalisation, hysteria, martyrism, whatever you want to call it is completely insane, and no negotiation whatsoever should be conducted with those who operate on that level. These are not safe balanced intelligent individuals capable of making informed, sane, rational decisions.

[Cynical Ninja]

Build a huge fucking wall around the middle east and leave them to fight to the death fuck them.

[Duchess]

I'm down with that.

[Cynical Ninja]

Let the different clans of ragheads duke it out who gives a fuck?

Israel just proves the kikes have learned nothing from the holocaust.

Fuck all of them.

[HairOfTheDog]

Peace Talks Scheduled - Geneva, January 2014

Hoping some progress can finally be made towards establishing a cease-fire and a transitional government.

Iran should be happy; they've been pushing (at least publicly) for their ally Mr. Assad to compromise, and they just succeeded in having US sanctions against them partially lifted in exchange for agreeing to some downscaling (with UN inspections/supervision) in their nuclear production and applications; six month agreement signed and long term agreement in progress.

Mr. Netanyahu is, of course, steaming that the US is negotiating with Israel's foes, Syria and Iran. I'm sure his next encounter with Mr. Obama will be a very chilly one.

IMO, more peace and less existing and potential WMDs in the Middle East is a good thing, for however long it lasts.

[username]

I don't blame Netenyahu for having his boxers in a major bunch. I wouldn't want my neighbors who have vowed to wipe my country off the face of the earth to have the opportunity to proceed with nuclear development.

Sniped from the Washington Post (full article below):

Negotiators then haggled over whether the final agreement would recognize Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium. Zarif and his team repeatedly insisted that they needed explicit language about enrichment in the text in order to sell the deal back home. The U.S. rejected any mention of an enrichment “right” and pushed for vague language referring to Iran’s ability to seek peaceful nuclear power in a “mutually defined” way.

“In the end, we were negotiating over a small number of words,” said a U.S. official familiar with the discussions.

I don't know, seems like important words. I hope that we have a rock solid means of monitoring this but I'm doubtful. Nothing is foolproof.

I think Obama has entirely changed (for the time being) our relationship with Israel. I guess it depends on how much you/we value that relationship as to how much we care. Israel is kind of our bitch so I don't see any major fall out from it but I don't think the President and Netenyahu playing golf any time soon. I don't think Israel would move against either Iran or Syria without our support so they're kind of fucked at this point.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...ory_1.html

[HairOfTheDog]

It will be interesting to see where this all goes, user.

I agree with you; Mr. Netanyahu's concerns and those of the sincere Republicans (as opposed to the ones that object to anything the Democrat President does by default, due to party affiliation only) are valid. These new agreements and negotiations need to be monitored closely. The UN is anxious to serve as the hall monitor. Let's give it a try, I say.

Israel shouldn't be dictating US foreign policy in the Middle East. If we can improve some historically sour but potentially mutually-beneficial relationships (prudently and without naivety) with the backing of international coalitions, it might mean pissing off the one only true long-standing existing ally in the region because they aren't open to change and feel like they're losing influence.

But, if our alliance with Israel is based predominantly on maintaining mutual enemies for life, it's gonna crumble eventually anyway. May as well be in the pursuit of greater global cohesion and trust (and, of course, financial gain -rarely a non-factor).

Can't please everyone or every nation. But, hopefully there's some balance that can be had in lessening ME/US tensions and improving our communications with leaders in the entire region, WHILE respecting a historical alliance without being a slave to it.

[HairOfTheDog]

Many things have changed, and many have remained the same, since this thread was started.

-Syria's destroying chemical weapons with the oversight of an international group.

-The US's relationship with Iran is more open than it has been in decades under its new leader, but there are still trust issues and ups and downs.

-Israel continues to view Iran and Syria as a threat and Netanyahu remains disappointed in the US's lack of support (IMO).

-Assad is still in power in Syria.

-The rebels are still fighting for that power and the Al-Qaeda factions amongst them are still fighting for power amongst themselves - as confirmed by independent investigative bodies in the country.

-Russia and China remain allied with Syria against foreign intervention in its civil war.

-Syrian civilians are still dying at the hands of both the loyalist and rebel troops, with millions having fled the country - causing immigration problems for neighboring countries.

So, where does the US stand today?

[HairOfTheDog]

Obama's US Plans for Syria (short-term) Announced



So, Obama has announced the current US plan in regards to Syria. It mentions nothing about a change in leadership there, but focuses on hopes for a diplomatic solution and increased aid to Syrian civilians.

Snip:
Wary of getting trapped in another war in another Muslim country, administration officials and President Barack Obama himself are moving cautiously ahead on a plan to augment and protect humanitarian aid to the millions of “internally displaced” and often starving citizens of Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime.

At one White House meeting recently, the idea of using military resources to assure the flow of humanitarian aid was described as “the least-bad option,” according notes given to an official in a cabinet agency that would be involved in carrying out the proposal.

One option -- quickly dismissed –- called for using American airpower to help secure land routes into Syria. It was deemed too risky and too unpalatable to Pentagon brass.

According to high-ranking administration officials, the plan at this point calls for the U.S. to use land-based military assets in Turkey and Jordan, and perhaps Navy ships in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf, as staging areas to facilitate the flow of food and medicine.

The U.N. Security Council is scheduled on Saturday to vote on a resolution demanding the creation of safe, overland “direct routes” to beleaguered Syrian cities. Jordan, a member of the council, is a sponsor.

The resolution doesn’t mention airspace, but the wording wouldn’t seem to bar the use of aircraft to protect the routes.

With or without the backing of a new resolution, the augmented flow of aid would be distributed in country by a network of humanitarian organizations already on the ground, including various U.N. bodies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and volunteers from the Czech Republic, according to U.S. officials.

The administration clearly is trying to have it both ways: Showing concern by promising some added level of protection for the flow of relief supplies, yet unwilling to risk putting American forces in harm's way.

"The problem is that Syria is a very slippery slope," a former top Obama security aide told The Huffington Post. Russia, Syria’s key ally, is deeply suspicious of the humanitarian aid routes idea and is expected to veto the U.N. resolution. The Kremlin sees the resolution as a first step toward U.S. and European direct military involvement in what has been its key client state in the Middle East.

“Attempts are made, including through U.N. mechanisms, to build up tension around the humanitarian situation in Syria,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov publicly complained last month.

The aim, Lavrov said, is to create a “pretext to push forward the idea of so-called humanitarian corridors, no-fly zones and, eventually humanitarian intervention.”

Pentagon officials share Lavrov’s concerns -– at least about providing air cover for the corridors -– though of course from a completely different perspective.

“As the president has made clear,” Meehan said, “we are constantly looking at what options we can take to resolve the crisis in Syria. We are going to continue to work with all parties concerned to try to move forward on a diplomatic solution.”

Obama declared last week that the U.S. would do whatever it could to help ameliorate the humanitarian crisis in Syria short of “military action per se.” The key words may have been “per se.”

Military resources would be used, but in what the administration would insist was not a military way. Ideally, but perhaps unrealistically, the U.S. would like to move with allies under the auspices of a U.N. Security Council resolution.

The resolution cites cities that would be aided by the “direct routes”: Homs, Aleppo and a cluster of suburban and rural areas near Damascus. It “demands that all parties ... promptly allow rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access for UN humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners, including across conflict lines and across borders ...”

Assuming that Russia vetoes the resolution, the U.S. and its allies will have to decide whether and how to move aid into Syria without U.N. sanction. Besides Jordan and Turkey, another key U.S. ally is France, which has deep colonial and cultural ties to Syria. French President Francois Hollande has been outspoken about the situation in Syria, and may have more room to maneuver in terms of domestic politics than the U.S.’s erstwhile ally in such matters,

Full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21...27166.html

[Maggot]

Why would a country allow another country to come in and feed the enemy?

[HairOfTheDog]

Neither the Assad regime nor the rebels claim that civilians are the "enemy"; not that I've ever seen anyway. They both claim to be fighting for the benefit of Syrian civilians (at least those are their public statements/missions).

Both claim only the other as the enemy and both blame the other for all of the civilian casualties, displacements, starvation, etc...

AFAIK, no one is opposed to more civilian/humanitarian aid, "per se". What Russian and Syrian leaders fear is that opening up clear obstacle-free routes for the delivery of such aid by international teams also creates clear routes for those teams/countries to infiltrate Syria militarily. They don't trust us, at all.

[Maggot]

Who picks what picture is used for world leaders in the news?

[HairOfTheDog]

Who picks what picture is used for world leaders in the news?

I don't know; I guess it depends on the release.

I Google searched and picked that pic because it had three of the vested leaders featured in one image.

The linked story has a video attached.

[HairOfTheDog]

SYRIA BACK AT FOREFRONT OF US FOCUS: SHIFTS IN US / SYRIA LANDSCAPE (IMO)

American Hostage Beheaded by Rebels/Terrorists
It's been a week since the Islamic State (IS) released the message to America and video of American photojournalist James Foley beheaded, after Foley had been held hostage in Syria by IS for over a year and a half. IS claimed that the beheading was in retaliation for American airstrikes against IS in Iraq over the past month.

US Officials Announce Possible Military Action in Syria -- against Rebels/Terrorists
The day after the Foley video was authenticated, the US Secretary of Defense and top military official indicated that IS could not be defeated by striking only at them in Iraq; they left the door open to hitting IS targets in Syria (a move which would reluctantly benefit the Assad regime).
Ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/21/world/...aq-crisis/

Assad and Company Regroup (and Spin?)
Since the release of the Foley video, the Assad regime is attempting to use the obvious brutality of the IS rebel/terrorist group to change perceptions of the Syrian government and Assad himself. Syrian officials have told media that the west should work with them to defeat terrorism in the region. Assad has been accused of working with ISIS in the past to create conflict between the competing rebel/terrorist groups; an accusation he denies.
Ref: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/...index.html

Qatar Negotiates IS Release of American Journalist -- HOSTAGE FREED
Qatar reportedly negotiated with Jabhat Al-Nusrah, another Islamic rebel group operating in Syria, for the release of another kidapped American journalist yesterday. The family of journalist Peter Theo Curtis, reportedly approached the government of Qatar directly for assistance weeks ago.
Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

Qatar and Saudi Arabia have long been rumored to be supporting IS, a claim both countries' leaders deny. US Sec of State Kerry announced today that Qatar "no longer supports" Al-Nusrah.

American Jihadist Killed in Rebel/Terrorist Battle in Syria
And, today, it was reported that one of the 100 estimated American jihadists fighting for the IS rebel/terrorist group in Syria was killed in a weekend battle with rival rebel/terrorist group Nusrah Front.

Douglas McCain was originally from Minnesota and converted to Islam years ago. He was on the terrorist watch list and FBI radar. His family believed he had traveled to Turkey. Video report:

[HairOfTheDog]

"US HAS NO STRATEGY ON SYRIA YET"

Obama's getting hit by all sides for that admission.

Democrat Diane Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made these statements to NBC this weekend:

-"I think I've learned one thing about this president, and that is he's very cautious. Maybe in this instance, too cautious."

-"I do know that the military, I know that the State Department, I know that others have been putting plans together," the senior lawmaker added.

-Feinstein also deviated from Obama's characterization of the Islamic militant group that is laying siege to parts Iraq and Syria as a "JV team," saying "I think it's a major varsity team," and, "I see nothing that compares with its viciousness." "This is really the first group that has the wherewithal in terms of financing, the fighting machine in terms of a structure -- a heavy equipment, heavy explosives, the ability to move quickly,"; "this is a group of people who are extraordinarily dangerous. And they'll kill with abandon."

There is, however, bi-partisan agreement with the Obama administration that Syria is the most dangerous country on the planet. There is united awareness and concern that Syria is home base for IS, and breeding/training ground for a number of other designated terrorist groups fighting each other under the rebel umbrella and fighting Assad's Syrian military for control of the country. However, what action, if any, should be taken is not agreed-upon.

What's the problem?
-Obama cites lack of intelligence and a desire to address the terrorist threat as part of a united coalition rather than a single country as reasons for not taking action prematurely. He also contends that hasty military action has proven to be counterproductive.
-He and others warn that the US can not simply bomb IS in Syria because there is entwining of IS, philosophically US-backed rebels, and possible civilian populations that would be hit in the process.
-Then there's the sticky problem of empowering US-condemned Assad by weakening the IS terrorist faction of what's labeled the "rebel freedom group"; there is no solid partner with whom the US can collaborate within Syria.

Refs:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/29/politi...-strategy/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/30...42552.html

[HairOfTheDog]

UK, AUSTRALIA AND SAUDI LEADERS RESPOND TO PERCEIVED TERRORIST THREATS TO THE WEST

- PM Cameron has upgraded the UK's terrorist alert level from serious to severe.

-Australian PM Abbott recently declared Australian jihadists in Syria returning home as a major security concern for the country and announced an anti-terrorism offensive.

-And, Saudi King Abdullah is publicly pushing for a NATO response to IS in Syria. He wants Assad out, but is reportedly concerned about the growing IS power. Here's what he had to say at a reception for foreign ambassadors on Friday: "I am certain that after a month they will reach Europe and, after another month, America. These terrorists do not know the name of humanity and you have witnessed them severing heads and giving them to children to walk with in the street."

Refs:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/feature...92689.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amid-isis-vi...eat-to-us/

[HairOfTheDog]

HOW MUCH OF A THREAT DO FOREIGN JIHADISTS RETURNING HOME PRESENT?

That's difficult to measure, but I'm seeing the question addressed from a lot of different angles.

Personally, I don't think that question can be answered by looking at numbers alone, but the numbers are important and interesting.




Tracking foreign jihadists is a challenge.

Snip:
It is impossible to track every single person who might have visited a conflict zone such as Syria or Iraq, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers said, expressing concerns over American, British and Canadian jihadist fighters who potentially can pose a very serious threat to the US.

“I'm very concerned because we don't know every single person who has gone and trained and learned how to fight,” Rogers told Fox News Sunday, urging the White House to aggressively prosecute Americans who had trained overseas.

Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/...n-jihadis/
http://rt.com/usa/184140-us-islamic-fighters-threat/

[Duchess]

"US HAS NO STRATEGY ON SYRIA YET"

Could that be a ploy? In that I mean, it can be a very good thing to be underestimated when the reality is he is getting all his ducks in a row and preparing on onslaught.

[HairOfTheDog]

It could be a ploy.

But, the problem associated with launching an attack on IS in Syria without hitting other unintended targets is a real one.

In Iraq, we've got intelligence on the ground, along with partnerships with the Kurds and the Iraqi Army to help isolate IS targets.

In Syria, our designated terrorist enemy is fighting against our designated governmental enemy. We have no reliable local partners with whom to align effectively.

[HairOfTheDog]

Last month, the Islamic State (IS) terrorists released a video Message to America in retaliation for US intervention in Iraq -- the video depicted the beheading of American Journalist James Foley, captured in Syria in 2012. The video included a threat to do the same to American journalist Steven Sotloff, also captured in Syria in 2013, if the US did not cease airstrikes in Iraq.

The US did not discontinue its airstrikes to assist the Kurds and Iraqi military in fighting off IS in Iraq following the Foley decapitation.

Today, IS released a video of Steven Sotloff being beheaded and threatened to do the same to British aid worker David Haines if western intervention continued.

I think this will put additional pressure on President Obama to announce a strategy for Syria. Obama has not responded to the second message from IS yet; the Sotloff video is reportedly still being authenticated.

(More about the IS videos and tactics is covered in the IRAQ thread, here: http://mockforums.net/showthread.php?tid=10618&page=11 )