On September 18 2014 05:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:43 xDaunt wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WASHINGTON -- At a recent closed-door congressional briefing on the administration's new strategy to combat the Islamic State, a top CIA official left little doubt among those in the room about the agency's attitude toward the project.
The official's muted approach to the briefing dovetails with what senior intelligence community officials tell The Huffington Post is deep behind-the-scenes skepticism, ranging from ambivalence to outright opposition, from within the CIA to the administration's proposal to task the Department of Defense with arming the so-called moderate Syrian rebels.
The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency.
One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.
The biggest red flag over Obama's strategy is that no one in the know seems to like it. DoD doesn't like it. Intelligence doesn't like it. It begs the question: who actually created it?
Who created it? The same DoD and intelligence guys who are now opposing it. But as we're well aware, Obama's strategy is not new.
The strategy has existed for the past 3 years. Obama's basically parroting it again but with the addition of ISIS in the strategy, but he's ignoring the changes in the civil war that have happened since 2011.
Well the origins of the Syrian civil war were essentially protests and what was basically an attempted military coup by the defected generals who formed the FSA.
At that early point, there weren't really Islamic terrorist factions involved in the civil war, who by contrast, now dominate the civil war. The irony is that the only distinguishable "moderate", non-Islamic force in the war today is the Syrian Arab Army. The article, among many many others, even states that we can't even tell who's "moderate" anymore among the insurgents.
Right, I get the part that there's nothing new here and that this is basically what people were proposing 3 years ago. However, there's are reasons why those same people no longer agree that it is the right strategy and now oppose it. So my question is why is Obama regurgitating something that no one believes will work, and who advised Obama that said regurgitation is a good idea?
No idea. But whoever did, didn't think it through IMO, the Syrian situation is a lot more complex than the one in Iraq. There really is no "good guy" as far as US interests go. We don't support the Syrian government like we support the Iraqi government, and the forces at play are a whole diverse ecosystem of warring organizations, rather than the Iraqi military + allied Kurdish/Arab militias vs. ISIS + allied pragmatic Sunnis we see in Iraq.
I could be entirely wrong, but at this point, I think, and this is entirely speculative, the best way to bring stability and an end to the conflict in Syria is to support the regime of Assad, but then again, we'd never back a government we're not friendly with and, even objectively speaking, Assad certainly isn't a good guy in the conflict.
On September 18 2014 05:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:43 xDaunt wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WASHINGTON -- At a recent closed-door congressional briefing on the administration's new strategy to combat the Islamic State, a top CIA official left little doubt among those in the room about the agency's attitude toward the project.
The official's muted approach to the briefing dovetails with what senior intelligence community officials tell The Huffington Post is deep behind-the-scenes skepticism, ranging from ambivalence to outright opposition, from within the CIA to the administration's proposal to task the Department of Defense with arming the so-called moderate Syrian rebels.
The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency.
One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.
The biggest red flag over Obama's strategy is that no one in the know seems to like it. DoD doesn't like it. Intelligence doesn't like it. It begs the question: who actually created it?
Who created it? The same DoD and intelligence guys who are now opposing it. But as we're well aware, Obama's strategy is not new.
The strategy has existed for the past 3 years. Obama's basically parroting it again but with the addition of ISIS in the strategy, but he's ignoring the changes in the civil war that have happened since 2011.
Well the origins of the Syrian civil war were essentially protests and what was basically an attempted military coup by the defected generals who formed the FSA.
At that early point, there weren't really Islamic terrorist factions involved in the civil war, who by contrast, now dominate the civil war. The irony is that the only distinguishable "moderate", non-Islamic force in the war today is the Syrian Arab Army. The article, among many many others, even states that we can't even tell who's "moderate" anymore among the insurgents.
Right, I get the part that there's nothing new here and that this is basically what people were proposing 3 years ago. However, there's are reasons why those same people no longer agree that it is the right strategy and now oppose it. So my question is why is Obama regurgitating something that no one believes will work, and who advised Obama that said regurgitation is a good idea?
No idea. But whoever did, didn't think it through IMO, the Syrian situation is a lot more complex than the one in Iraq. There really is no "good guy" as far as US interests go. We don't support the Syrian government like we support the Iraqi government, and the forces at play are a whole diverse ecosystem of warring organizations, rather than the Iraqi military + allied Kurdish/Arab militias vs. ISIS + allied pragmatic Sunnis we see in Iraq.
I could be entirely wrong, but at this point, I think, and this is entirely speculative, the best way to bring stability and an end to the conflict in Syria is to support the regime of Assad, but then again, we'd never back a government we're not friendly with and, even objectively speaking, Assad certainly isn't a good guy in the conflict.
What do you think it's the best solution for all of this mess?
See, as much as I like the idea of bombing ISIS, I get the sense that Obama's doing this for all of the wrong reasons without any real end game in mind. In particular, it looks suspiciously like his entire ISIS strategy is just a political ploy to look like he's "doing something."
On September 18 2014 06:05 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 18 2014 06:02 xDaunt wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:43 xDaunt wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WASHINGTON -- At a recent closed-door congressional briefing on the administration's new strategy to combat the Islamic State, a top CIA official left little doubt among those in the room about the agency's attitude toward the project.
The official's muted approach to the briefing dovetails with what senior intelligence community officials tell The Huffington Post is deep behind-the-scenes skepticism, ranging from ambivalence to outright opposition, from within the CIA to the administration's proposal to task the Department of Defense with arming the so-called moderate Syrian rebels.
The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency.
One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.
The biggest red flag over Obama's strategy is that no one in the know seems to like it. DoD doesn't like it. Intelligence doesn't like it. It begs the question: who actually created it?
Who created it? The same DoD and intelligence guys who are now opposing it. But as we're well aware, Obama's strategy is not new.
The strategy has existed for the past 3 years. Obama's basically parroting it again but with the addition of ISIS in the strategy, but he's ignoring the changes in the civil war that have happened since 2011.
Well the origins of the Syrian civil war were essentially protests and what was basically an attempted military coup by the defected generals who formed the FSA.
At that early point, there weren't really Islamic terrorist factions involved in the civil war, who by contrast, now dominate the civil war. The irony is that the only distinguishable "moderate", non-Islamic force in the war today is the Syrian Arab Army. The article, among many many others, even states that we can't even tell who's "moderate" anymore among the insurgents.
Right, I get the part that there's nothing new here and that this is basically what people were proposing 3 years ago. However, there's are reasons why those same people no longer agree that it is the right strategy and now oppose it. So my question is why is Obama regurgitating something that no one believes will work, and who advised Obama that said regurgitation is a good idea?
No idea. But whoever did, didn't think it through IMO, the Syrian situation is a lot more complex than the one in Iraq. There really is no "good guy" as far as US interests go. We don't support the Syrian government like we support the Iraqi government, and the forces at play are a whole diverse ecosystem of warring organizations, rather than the Iraqi military + allied Kurdish/Arab militias vs. ISIS + allied pragmatic Sunnis we see in Iraq.
I could be entirely wrong, but at this point, I think, and this is entirely speculative, the best way to bring stability and an end to the conflict in Syria is to support the regime of Assad, but then again, we'd never back a government we're not friendly with and, even objectively speaking, Assad certainly isn't a good guy in the conflict.
What do you think it's the best solution for all of this mess?
On September 18 2014 06:05 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 18 2014 06:02 xDaunt wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:43 xDaunt wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WASHINGTON -- At a recent closed-door congressional briefing on the administration's new strategy to combat the Islamic State, a top CIA official left little doubt among those in the room about the agency's attitude toward the project.
The official's muted approach to the briefing dovetails with what senior intelligence community officials tell The Huffington Post is deep behind-the-scenes skepticism, ranging from ambivalence to outright opposition, from within the CIA to the administration's proposal to task the Department of Defense with arming the so-called moderate Syrian rebels.
The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency.
One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.
The biggest red flag over Obama's strategy is that no one in the know seems to like it. DoD doesn't like it. Intelligence doesn't like it. It begs the question: who actually created it?
Who created it? The same DoD and intelligence guys who are now opposing it. But as we're well aware, Obama's strategy is not new.
The strategy has existed for the past 3 years. Obama's basically parroting it again but with the addition of ISIS in the strategy, but he's ignoring the changes in the civil war that have happened since 2011.
Well the origins of the Syrian civil war were essentially protests and what was basically an attempted military coup by the defected generals who formed the FSA.
At that early point, there weren't really Islamic terrorist factions involved in the civil war, who by contrast, now dominate the civil war. The irony is that the only distinguishable "moderate", non-Islamic force in the war today is the Syrian Arab Army. The article, among many many others, even states that we can't even tell who's "moderate" anymore among the insurgents.
Right, I get the part that there's nothing new here and that this is basically what people were proposing 3 years ago. However, there's are reasons why those same people no longer agree that it is the right strategy and now oppose it. So my question is why is Obama regurgitating something that no one believes will work, and who advised Obama that said regurgitation is a good idea?
No idea. But whoever did, didn't think it through IMO, the Syrian situation is a lot more complex than the one in Iraq. There really is no "good guy" as far as US interests go. We don't support the Syrian government like we support the Iraqi government, and the forces at play are a whole diverse ecosystem of warring organizations, rather than the Iraqi military + allied Kurdish/Arab militias vs. ISIS + allied pragmatic Sunnis we see in Iraq.
I could be entirely wrong, but at this point, I think, and this is entirely speculative, the best way to bring stability and an end to the conflict in Syria is to support the regime of Assad, but then again, we'd never back a government we're not friendly with and, even objectively speaking, Assad certainly isn't a good guy in the conflict.
What do you think it's the best solution for all of this mess?
The Arab and other bordering nations around Iraq form a coalition sending ground troops/airstrikes to fight ISIS and support the Iraqi and Kurdish forces.
When isis understands it will be destroyed sooner or later, it will start using citizens as human shield, which i fear most. And if global powers suggest something like holding referendum about public wants to be ruled by ISIS or not... Happy caliphate for us! I dont give a chance to this but they sometimes remind me gazza-hamas relation. Bessar Esad cant have the same borders, and i dont think syrian rebels completely turn their back to ISIS. What you think?
On September 18 2014 06:05 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 18 2014 06:02 xDaunt wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:43 xDaunt wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WASHINGTON -- At a recent closed-door congressional briefing on the administration's new strategy to combat the Islamic State, a top CIA official left little doubt among those in the room about the agency's attitude toward the project.
The official's muted approach to the briefing dovetails with what senior intelligence community officials tell The Huffington Post is deep behind-the-scenes skepticism, ranging from ambivalence to outright opposition, from within the CIA to the administration's proposal to task the Department of Defense with arming the so-called moderate Syrian rebels.
The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency.
One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.
The biggest red flag over Obama's strategy is that no one in the know seems to like it. DoD doesn't like it. Intelligence doesn't like it. It begs the question: who actually created it?
Who created it? The same DoD and intelligence guys who are now opposing it. But as we're well aware, Obama's strategy is not new.
The strategy has existed for the past 3 years. Obama's basically parroting it again but with the addition of ISIS in the strategy, but he's ignoring the changes in the civil war that have happened since 2011.
Well the origins of the Syrian civil war were essentially protests and what was basically an attempted military coup by the defected generals who formed the FSA.
At that early point, there weren't really Islamic terrorist factions involved in the civil war, who by contrast, now dominate the civil war. The irony is that the only distinguishable "moderate", non-Islamic force in the war today is the Syrian Arab Army. The article, among many many others, even states that we can't even tell who's "moderate" anymore among the insurgents.
Right, I get the part that there's nothing new here and that this is basically what people were proposing 3 years ago. However, there's are reasons why those same people no longer agree that it is the right strategy and now oppose it. So my question is why is Obama regurgitating something that no one believes will work, and who advised Obama that said regurgitation is a good idea?
No idea. But whoever did, didn't think it through IMO, the Syrian situation is a lot more complex than the one in Iraq. There really is no "good guy" as far as US interests go. We don't support the Syrian government like we support the Iraqi government, and the forces at play are a whole diverse ecosystem of warring organizations, rather than the Iraqi military + allied Kurdish/Arab militias vs. ISIS + allied pragmatic Sunnis we see in Iraq.
I could be entirely wrong, but at this point, I think, and this is entirely speculative, the best way to bring stability and an end to the conflict in Syria is to support the regime of Assad, but then again, we'd never back a government we're not friendly with and, even objectively speaking, Assad certainly isn't a good guy in the conflict.
What do you think it's the best solution for all of this mess?
There's no apparent solution for the situation in Syria. Negotiations of any kind cannot happen, especially since ISIS does not negotiate and are becoming the premier insurgent group in Syria, if they aren't already. I think the US needs to attack ISIS or lay off completely, and led the Syrian military eventually take care of things. Assad's relations with Iran have alienated him from his traditional Arab allies, so there's little they will do for him. In any case, I think the best outcome is that the insurgents groups are all defeated and order's restored, because the alternative is take-over by Islamic radicals, just like in Libya.
Even the US cannot find "moderates" worth supporting. The fact that the House of Reps has approved of a bill to help the now-invisible moderates, despite the CIA and DoD explaining that these have been absorbed by the radicals, is foolhardy. Those weapons will all end up with the radicals, which is what the US intelligence/military fears.
On September 18 2014 06:05 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 18 2014 06:02 xDaunt wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:43 xDaunt wrote:
On September 18 2014 05:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WASHINGTON -- At a recent closed-door congressional briefing on the administration's new strategy to combat the Islamic State, a top CIA official left little doubt among those in the room about the agency's attitude toward the project.
The official's muted approach to the briefing dovetails with what senior intelligence community officials tell The Huffington Post is deep behind-the-scenes skepticism, ranging from ambivalence to outright opposition, from within the CIA to the administration's proposal to task the Department of Defense with arming the so-called moderate Syrian rebels.
The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency.
One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.
The biggest red flag over Obama's strategy is that no one in the know seems to like it. DoD doesn't like it. Intelligence doesn't like it. It begs the question: who actually created it?
Who created it? The same DoD and intelligence guys who are now opposing it. But as we're well aware, Obama's strategy is not new.
The strategy has existed for the past 3 years. Obama's basically parroting it again but with the addition of ISIS in the strategy, but he's ignoring the changes in the civil war that have happened since 2011.
Well the origins of the Syrian civil war were essentially protests and what was basically an attempted military coup by the defected generals who formed the FSA.
At that early point, there weren't really Islamic terrorist factions involved in the civil war, who by contrast, now dominate the civil war. The irony is that the only distinguishable "moderate", non-Islamic force in the war today is the Syrian Arab Army. The article, among many many others, even states that we can't even tell who's "moderate" anymore among the insurgents.
Right, I get the part that there's nothing new here and that this is basically what people were proposing 3 years ago. However, there's are reasons why those same people no longer agree that it is the right strategy and now oppose it. So my question is why is Obama regurgitating something that no one believes will work, and who advised Obama that said regurgitation is a good idea?
No idea. But whoever did, didn't think it through IMO, the Syrian situation is a lot more complex than the one in Iraq. There really is no "good guy" as far as US interests go. We don't support the Syrian government like we support the Iraqi government, and the forces at play are a whole diverse ecosystem of warring organizations, rather than the Iraqi military + allied Kurdish/Arab militias vs. ISIS + allied pragmatic Sunnis we see in Iraq.
I could be entirely wrong, but at this point, I think, and this is entirely speculative, the best way to bring stability and an end to the conflict in Syria is to support the regime of Assad, but then again, we'd never back a government we're not friendly with and, even objectively speaking, Assad certainly isn't a good guy in the conflict.
What do you think it's the best solution for all of this mess?
The Arab and other bordering nations around Iraq form a coalition sending ground troops/airstrikes to fight ISIS and support the Iraqi and Kurdish forces.
I think he meant in Syria. But as for Iraq, by bordering nations, are you including Iran? Iran would be a bad option to join this coalition because their motives certainly aren't good. The primary thing Iran has achieved in Iraq is backing hardline Shiite radical organizations and promoting sectarianism. I think Iranian influence needs to be removed from Iraq. It's only demeaning Iraqi unity and the recovery process. I stated this in a previous post some time back, but I think at this point in time, the best thing that can happen in Iraq is for US influence to dominate, because nations like Iran just don't mean well at all.
But serious question: who in Iraq likes Iran except the Iranian-backed radicals? As far as I'm aware, Iran is pretty unpopular among Iraqis, even before the Islamic Revolution. Removing these groups would probably be a popular decision, but the Iranian blowback is something to fear.
On September 18 2014 09:17 pls no ty wrote: When isis understands it will be destroyed sooner or later, it will start using citizens as human shield, which i fear most. And if global powers suggest something like holding referendum about public wants to be ruled by ISIS or not... Happy caliphate for us! I dont give a chance to this but they sometimes remind me gazza-hamas relation. Bessar Esad cant have the same borders, and i dont think syrian rebels completely turn their back to ISIS. What you think?
They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be. Also, it's amusing to think how incredibly one-sided that referendum would be in Syria or Iraq. It would stand much more of a chance in Saudi Arabia IMO lol.
Turkey’s contribution to the international coalition aimed at destroying the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) would be more substantial if the group was not holding 49 Turkish hostages, according to Deputy Prime Minister Yalçın Akdoğan.
“The issue of hostages is our main sensitivity and priority. That’s why we are so cautious while making statements. Those who know this and understand well are trying to press us further on whether Turkey can do more on this. This is irresponsibility. Turkey could surely say more than it says and could do much more than it is. But even one of our citizen’s lives is very important to us. That’s why we are moving in a very cool-headed way in this process,” Akdoğan told a group of Ankara newspaper bureau chiefs at a meeting yesterday.
In an interview taped Thursday with the BBC, Kerry said Turkey is “very engaged and … very involved,” and expressed confidence that concerns and questions ultimately will be resolved.
“But I think for the moment, they have a few sensitive issues,” Kerry said. “We respect those sensitive issues, and we’re going to work with them very carefully.”
The US House of Representatives has approved Obama's military strategy, despite skepticism in the House.
The House on Wednesday approved President Obama’s plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels to counter the growing threat of the Islamic State organization, even though lawmakers in both parties remain deeply skeptical about its chances for success.
The vote placed Congress one step closer to authorizing the third significant U.S. military operation in Iraq in the past quarter century, and it put lawmakers on record approving U.S. engagement in the years-long Syrian civil war. It delivered Obama much-needed domestic political support as he seeks an international coalition to combat the growing threat of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East.
But the tally — 273 to 156 — also revealed widespread misgivings in both parties about the plan’s chances of success, even among lawmakers who voted in favor of it.
Obama’s proposal was opposed by more than 40 percent of Democrats, many of whom are concerned that new U.S. military operations in the Middle East could fester for several years with no clear strategy or definition of success.
Turkey’s contribution to the international coalition aimed at destroying the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) would be more substantial if the group was not holding 49 Turkish hostages, according to Deputy Prime Minister Yalçın Akdoğan.
“The issue of hostages is our main sensitivity and priority. That’s why we are so cautious while making statements. Those who know this and understand well are trying to press us further on whether Turkey can do more on this. This is irresponsibility. Turkey could surely say more than it says and could do much more than it is. But even one of our citizen’s lives is very important to us. That’s why we are moving in a very cool-headed way in this process,” Akdoğan told a group of Ankara newspaper bureau chiefs at a meeting yesterday.
In an interview taped Thursday with the BBC, Kerry said Turkey is “very engaged and … very involved,” and expressed confidence that concerns and questions ultimately will be resolved.
“But I think for the moment, they have a few sensitive issues,” Kerry said. “We respect those sensitive issues, and we’re going to work with them very carefully.”
Yep. I was hoping someone would bring this up. It's cowardly collateral by the terrorists.
On September 18 2014 12:21 Nyxisto wrote: about arming and supporting rebels to fight for your political interests:
Based on historic experience I'd say that's probably not going to end very well.
When it's the evil Soviet Union upholding a secular regime and society against Islamic terrorists, supporting Islamic terrorists to fight them seems like a pretty good idea
On September 18 2014 02:47 pls no ty wrote: Islam needs its own revolution, its so sad to hear in every video isis members are telling we are gonna kill your people as you killed ours thing, unfortunately Quran is providing a justice depending on reprisal system, named KISAS http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qisas Please read if you are interested in why they are doing this and where they find the motivation for it.
How they believe this is clearing their killings, i dont know, how would you think that this is justice if you are not insane.
Religions.
Edit: In the beginning of the video i guess i heard some turkish words with a good turkish accent. Any turks can confirm that?
Yeah i hear it: "Yat yat yat kalın burda hareket etmeyin"
"Take cover (3x) and stay here dont move. "
I heard several Turkish speaking people from the video footage. Most of them are Kurdish militants recently leave Turkey and Turkish border to join fight against ISIS. There was a graph showing ISIS fighter number for each country, Turkish originated fighers are about 400 afaik and less then some western countries.
Also I wonder the situation of USA land army issue will turn out.
On September 18 2014 17:44 PiPoGevy wrote: @JudicatorHammurabi
I hope if this war ends, they grant autonomy to the Nineveh Plains like they announced before this all started :\
Ah, you mean like this?
On January 21, 2014, the Iraqi government declared that Nineveh Plains would become a new province, which serves as a safe haven for Assyrians.[10]
On July 1, 2014, the Assyrian Democratic Movement called for an Assyrian safe-haven with national collective effort and international protection under the Universal Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2007.
That isn't a bad plan. But too bad all the Christians left the country :/ . What happened to that 1.5 million in 2003? Mostly gone. It's a bit unsettling to think about this kind of ethnic cleansing.
But what I want most of all is that the war ends, Iraq becomes a non-sectarian country again, and the Iranian influence is entirely removed from the country since it's more of a destabilizing force than anything else. That's how you'll restore a stable and prosperous Iraq and create a reliable partner of Western democracies.
Beirut (Alliance News) - The Islamic State militant group has seized 21 villages in northern Syria in the past 24 hours, a pro-opposition monitoring group said Thursday.
The mainly Kurdish villages are located on the eastern and western outskirts of the town of Kobane, close to the border with Turkey, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
Rami Abdel-Rahman, the head of the Observatory, told dpa that Islamic State militants Wednesday launched a major attack in the area, using tanks and artillery.
He said the extremists' advance triggered an exodus of residents who feared that the Sunni extremists would carry out massacres in the area.
On September 18 2014 06:28 xDaunt wrote: See, as much as I like the idea of bombing ISIS, I get the sense that Obama's doing this for all of the wrong reasons without any real end game in mind. In particular, it looks suspiciously like his entire ISIS strategy is just a political ploy to look like he's "doing something."
The ploy is to look like you're doing something without committing massive amounts of resources to the effort. Basically he wins from all angles doing this. Seems like the smartest political decision.
On September 18 2014 06:28 xDaunt wrote: See, as much as I like the idea of bombing ISIS, I get the sense that Obama's doing this for all of the wrong reasons without any real end game in mind. In particular, it looks suspiciously like his entire ISIS strategy is just a political ploy to look like he's "doing something."
The ploy is to look like you're doing something without committing massive amounts of resources to the effort. Basically he wins from all angles doing this. Seems like the smartest political decision.
I concur: Obama seems to be rather averse from considering military action. It also forces more responsiveness from the middle east and mitigate mission creep.
On September 18 2014 06:28 xDaunt wrote: See, as much as I like the idea of bombing ISIS, I get the sense that Obama's doing this for all of the wrong reasons without any real end game in mind. In particular, it looks suspiciously like his entire ISIS strategy is just a political ploy to look like he's "doing something."
The ploy is to look like you're doing something without committing massive amounts of resources to the effort. Basically he wins from all angles doing this. Seems like the smartest political decision.
Sure, it is politically smart in the short term. There's no denying that.
What I'm wondering is whether this is something that will haunt us potentially in the long term. Bombing ISIS is something that I'm all in favor for doing. It is unlikely to cause long term problems, and, frankly, someone needs to start killing ISIS members and leaders. What I'm more concerned about is arming other rebels in Syria. That just seems like an invitation for trouble at this point. I'm also concerned about our end game. What are we committing ourselves to? What are the parameters for success? What are we really expecting to accomplish and at what cost? All of these important strategic considerations have been left wildly open-ended. Historically, this has proven to be a recipe for disaster.
EPT
IMO, the Syrian situation is a lot more complex than the one in Iraq. There really is no "good guy" as far as US interests go. We don't support the Syrian government like we support the Iraqi government, and the forces at play are a whole diverse ecosystem of warring organizations, rather than the Iraqi military + allied Kurdish/Arab militias vs. ISIS + allied pragmatic Sunnis we see in Iraq.![[image loading]](http://engagehistory.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/bin-laden2.jpg)
