|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On November 16 2015 18:18 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 17:54 Rebs wrote:
Theres a difference between a rando website that peddles agenda's and non profit research projects run by academics with genuine credentials. So when you say "sites like these" you seem to be thinking this is the result of some kind of "Terrorism in the Quran" type google search, that will lead you to hate group conservative websites. I understand what you are trying to say, my point is that its not making stuff up, just skewering or ommiting some the facts to fit an agenda. On the surface the Institute for the Study of War is a non-profit organization, but it is supported by grants and contributions from large defense contractors, including Raytheon, General Dynamics, DynCorp and others. Take this article for instance: Show nested quote +For Kim Kagan, spending so many months away from research and advocacy work in Washington could have annoyed many donors to the Institute for the Study of War. But her major backers appear to have been pleased that she cultivated such close ties with Petraeus, who went from Kabul to head the CIA before resigning this fall over his affair with Broadwell.
At the August 2011 dinner honoring Petraeus, Kagan thanked executives from two defense contractors who sit on her institute’s corporate council, DynCorp International and CACI International. The event was sponsored by General Dynamics. All three firms have business interests in the Afghan war. washingtonpostMy point is if there is an offensive in south Allepo by Syrian forces, this source will cover it and you will get the general outcome. But at the same time this source has corporate backers with a business interests in a military intervention in Syria. Its not a 'pants on head retarded' source like the 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights', which is basically one guy without a highschool diploma let alone a journalism degree inventing sources in his flat above a chip shop in Coventry. How someone that has never meet their sources, and hasn't been to Syria in 15 years can observe something is beyond me, but the point is read a few more sources and a conclusion to what happened should be more clear.
Well there is no such thing as non partisan information like anywhere, but really for a quick paper its fine.I agree that most of the stuff is not acceptable at face value. Its super neo conservative. I disagree with most things they say which is why I dont read them. But in terms of research value the people involved are all well credited and respected regardless of their agenda. I mean its run by warhawks but its important to read the stuff more than perhaps I do because educating yourself on bullshit opinions is still valuable.
Its not like he wants to suddenly learn about the complex issues and the timeline involved. You kinda need to have followed the events and have a general interest on issues outside of having to do it for a paper to actually do that. And even then he might just agree what the articles are peddling there.
|
|
|
On November 16 2015 15:55 Emnjay808 wrote:
Oh wow glad I found this thread.
Im supposed to do a paper and presentation on the Syrian Refugee crisis in 2 days. And as of right now, I know little to nothing about the situation. I suspect I will spend a good majority of my time reading the stuff on OP (assuming the stuffs been updated). But if not, is there a place where I can find the TLDR of the situation on Syria civil war to get me up to speed.
Just do not blindly believe anything you read here. Almost everybody occupied with the topic for some time has his own opinion or even agenda. It is often extrermely biased, questionable sources are used to confirm preconceived notions etc.
If you are completely new to the issue I would say your best bet for somewhat unbiased info is wikipedia. You can go from there if you need sources for your paper.
|
how many civilians killed?
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/middleeast/us-strikes-syria-oil.html?action=click&contentCollection=Science&module=MostPopularFB&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article
U.S. Warplanes Strike ISIS Oil Trucks in Syria (finally, after almost 6 fucking years; time in which they were allowed to get rich)
ISTANBUL — Intensifying pressure on the Islamic State, United States warplanes for the first time attacked hundreds of trucks on Monday that the extremist group has been using to smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria, American officials said.
According to an initial assessment, 116 trucks were destroyed in the attack, which took place near Deir al-Zour, an area in eastern Syria that is controlled by the Islamic State.
The airstrikes were carried out by four A-10 attack planes and two AC-130 gunships based in Turkey. To disrupt that source of revenue, American officials said last week that the United States had sharply stepped up its airstrikes against infrastructure that allows ISIS to pump oil in Syria.
Until Monday, the United States had refrained from striking the fleet used to transport oil, believed to include more than 1,000 tanker trucks, because of concerns about causing civilian casualties. As a result, the Islamic State’s distribution system for exporting oil had remained largely intact.
The new campaign is called Tidal Wave II. It is named after the World War II effort to counter Nazi Germany by striking Romania’s oil industry. Lt. Gen. Sean B. MacFarland, who in September assumed command of the international coalition’s campaign in Iraq and Syria, suggested the name.
To reduce the risk of harming civilians, two F-15 warplanes dropped leaflets about an hour before the attack warning drivers to abandon their vehicles, and strafing runs were conducted to reinforce the message.
after using that bullshit excuse for all this time + Show Spoiler +...because of concerns about causing civilian casualties To reduce the risk of harming civilians, two F-15 warplanes dropped leaflets about an hour before the attack warning drivers to abandon their vehicles
|
On November 16 2015 21:19 ImFromPortugal wrote:how many civilians killed?
Interesting how you ask this, according to activist (which has become a meme term in Syria by now) sources that western media outlets cite there are no civilian casualties. Take @Raqqa_SL for example:
Raqqa is being bombed! Civilians are scared because of the bombing, some of the sites being bombed:
Then we find out its France doing the bombing:
The hospitals and Museums being bombed turn into ISIS training camps and military bases
Of course no civilians were killed
Seeing as how ISIS use their HQ's and bases as prisons for the uncooperative...
|
On November 16 2015 22:37 xM(Z wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/middleeast/us-strikes-syria-oil.html?action=click&contentCollection=Science&module=MostPopularFB&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=articleU.S. Warplanes Strike ISIS Oil Trucks in Syria (finally, after almost 6 fucking years; time in which they were allowed to get rich) Show nested quote +ISTANBUL — Intensifying pressure on the Islamic State, United States warplanes for the first time attacked hundreds of trucks on Monday that the extremist group has been using to smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria, American officials said.
According to an initial assessment, 116 trucks were destroyed in the attack, which took place near Deir al-Zour, an area in eastern Syria that is controlled by the Islamic State.
The airstrikes were carried out by four A-10 attack planes and two AC-130 gunships based in Turkey. Show nested quote +To disrupt that source of revenue, American officials said last week that the United States had sharply stepped up its airstrikes against infrastructure that allows ISIS to pump oil in Syria.
Until Monday, the United States had refrained from striking the fleet used to transport oil, believed to include more than 1,000 tanker trucks, because of concerns about causing civilian casualties. As a result, the Islamic State’s distribution system for exporting oil had remained largely intact.
The new campaign is called Tidal Wave II. It is named after the World War II effort to counter Nazi Germany by striking Romania’s oil industry. Lt. Gen. Sean B. MacFarland, who in September assumed command of the international coalition’s campaign in Iraq and Syria, suggested the name.
To reduce the risk of harming civilians, two F-15 warplanes dropped leaflets about an hour before the attack warning drivers to abandon their vehicles, and strafing runs were conducted to reinforce the message. after using that bullshit excuse for all this time + Show Spoiler +...because of concerns about causing civilian casualties , they started doing what russians are doing + Show Spoiler +To reduce the risk of harming civilians, two F-15 warplanes dropped leaflets about an hour before the attack warning drivers to abandon their vehicles .
"To reduce the risk of harming civilians, two F-15 warplanes dropped leaflets about an hour before the attack warning drivers to abandon their vehicles"
They have done that before
meanwhile in Raqqa (NSFW)
+ Show Spoiler +https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT8kj85UAAAsNNW.jpg
|
Yes i noticed that twitter account, very strange that some news outlets say that 130 were killed... but there were no civilian deaths.
|
Zurich15359 Posts
I always wondered why no one ever bombed the infamous 6km queue of fuel trucks. It seems so obvious. What isn't there anymore that held everyone back from doing that before?
|
Their fuel literally fuels everything around the region. Irrigation, cooking, transportation. Including, get this, the other Syrian militias which the West used to support. Also those "ISIS oil trucks"? They aren't actually controlled by ISIS. They are civilians buying and selling the fuel, bringing fuel to places that need it. Basically, once you bomb ISIS fuel, everybody is fucked in Syria, not just ISIS.
|
So far my research got me as far as knowing that the Civil unrest originated from the Arab Spring. But Im having trouble what the underlying problem was within Syria itself for the protests to escalate to the point of casualties.
|
United States43505 Posts
On November 17 2015 07:15 Emnjay808 wrote:
So far my research got me as far as knowing that the Civil unrest originated from the Arab Spring. But Im having trouble what the underlying problem was within Syria itself for the protests to escalate to the point of casualties.
The normal process is that the Western backed dictator will keep the population pretty repressed in exchange for guns, wealth and trade. Most of the North African dictators were in that model. However Syria was more Russian backed than Western backed and due to a long history of conflict with Israel had a fairly effective military and access to chemical weapons etc.
The Arab Spring happened and a bunch of revolts took place throughout the Arab world. The West felt that their sponsored dictators gunning down civilians with the guns we sold them would be embarrassing so we tried to back the rebels and turn them into the new dictators so we could go back to business as normal. In most of the Arab world this worked to a certain extent. In Syria the dictator had the means to fight the revolts and the independence to not give a fuck. This started the Syrian crisis. To make matters worse the Iraqi resistance, which had a lot of American weapons and tacit government support within Iraq, got involved due to Syrian weakness. We spent a few years propping up the rebels the way we had backed them in other Arab countries but without the same success due to Syrian strength and an unwillingness by the West to use military force on Syria, in part due to the chemical weapon stockpiles potentially aimed at Israel. Shit got worse and worse and we ended up in bed with some awful people due to being against Assad. Shit is now very bad.
|
So basically the Syria dictator, Bashar al-Assad, decided he wasnt having this shit and resorted to killing? Interesting. I think I can start my thesis and analysis now.
|
On November 16 2015 21:19 ImFromPortugal wrote:how many civilians killed?
Do you have a functional definition of civilian versus combatant? Do you really? I don't think there is one beyond the obvious flag on the shoulder.
Seems to me they are all just people. They were near the targets and their lives weren't worth enough to dissuade the strike. I would have authorized the strike just as well. Don't stand near ammo dumps or Jihadi recruitment centers. Good way to die.
|
United States43505 Posts
On November 17 2015 07:29 Emnjay808 wrote:
So basically the Syria dictator, Bashar al-Assad, decided he wasnt having this shit and resorted to killing? Interesting. I think I can start my thesis and analysis now.
Every country will kill people who attempt a civil war. Hell, look up Waco. The difference between Syria and the other Arab nations is that Assad didn't depend on the West to fight his civil war and we didn't intervene against him. The other rulers were too weak to win their civil wars easily and so the West intervened decisively on the other side to try and stop them before they got out of hand. Assad was strong enough to win his so the West intervened indirectly on the other side to try and make sure it got out of hand.
|
On November 17 2015 07:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 07:29 Emnjay808 wrote:
So basically the Syria dictator, Bashar al-Assad, decided he wasnt having this shit and resorted to killing? Interesting. I think I can start my thesis and analysis now. Every country will kill people who attempt a civil war. Hell, look up Waco. The difference between Syria and the other Arab nations is that Assad didn't depend on the West to fight his civil war and we didn't intervene against him. The other rulers were too weak to win their civil wars easily and so the West intervened decisively on the other side to try and stop them before they got out of hand. Assad was strong enough to win his so the West intervened indirectly on the other side to try and make sure it got out of hand.
Im confused at this part, werent they doing protest marches then the government security opened fire on them?
from wiki:
The protests started on 15 March 2011, when protesters marched in the capital of Damascus, demanding democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. The security forces retaliated by opening fire on the protesters
|
United States43505 Posts
On November 17 2015 07:47 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 07:34 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2015 07:29 Emnjay808 wrote:
So basically the Syria dictator, Bashar al-Assad, decided he wasnt having this shit and resorted to killing? Interesting. I think I can start my thesis and analysis now. Every country will kill people who attempt a civil war. Hell, look up Waco. The difference between Syria and the other Arab nations is that Assad didn't depend on the West to fight his civil war and we didn't intervene against him. The other rulers were too weak to win their civil wars easily and so the West intervened decisively on the other side to try and stop them before they got out of hand. Assad was strong enough to win his so the West intervened indirectly on the other side to try and make sure it got out of hand. Im confused at this part, werent they doing protest marches then the government security opened fire on them? from wiki: Show nested quote +The protests started on 15 March 2011, when protesters marched in the capital of Damascus, demanding democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. The security forces retaliated by opening fire on the protesters
Shooting protesters is standard. No different from Tienanmen or Bloody Sunday or Kent State. Everyone does it from time to time.
You have to understand, Assad is running a dictatorship. Protesting and demanding democracy is against the law, it's an attempt to overthrow the government. So they got shot and then civil war broke out. I'm not saying shooting protesters doesn't make him a bad guy, it's just it's also completely legitimate under the rules of his dictatorship, there's no "he started it" argument to make here. They were trying to overthrow his government, he was trying to maintain his government, shit hit the fan.
|
On November 17 2015 08:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 07:47 Emnjay808 wrote:On November 17 2015 07:34 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2015 07:29 Emnjay808 wrote:
So basically the Syria dictator, Bashar al-Assad, decided he wasnt having this shit and resorted to killing? Interesting. I think I can start my thesis and analysis now. Every country will kill people who attempt a civil war. Hell, look up Waco. The difference between Syria and the other Arab nations is that Assad didn't depend on the West to fight his civil war and we didn't intervene against him. The other rulers were too weak to win their civil wars easily and so the West intervened decisively on the other side to try and stop them before they got out of hand. Assad was strong enough to win his so the West intervened indirectly on the other side to try and make sure it got out of hand. Im confused at this part, werent they doing protest marches then the government security opened fire on them? from wiki: The protests started on 15 March 2011, when protesters marched in the capital of Damascus, demanding democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. The security forces retaliated by opening fire on the protesters Shooting protesters is standard. No different from Tienanmen or Bloody Sunday or Kent State. Everyone does it from time to time. You have to understand, Assad is running a dictatorship. Protesting and demanding democracy is against the law, it's an attempt to overthrow the government. So they got shot and then civil war broke out. I'm not saying shooting protesters doesn't make him a bad guy, it's just it's also completely legitimate under the rules of his dictatorship, there's no "he started it" argument to make here. They were trying to overthrow his government, he was trying to maintain his government, shit hit the fan.
From that point of view it makes sense. Thanks for clarification.
|
On November 17 2015 07:47 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 07:34 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2015 07:29 Emnjay808 wrote:
So basically the Syria dictator, Bashar al-Assad, decided he wasnt having this shit and resorted to killing? Interesting. I think I can start my thesis and analysis now. Every country will kill people who attempt a civil war. Hell, look up Waco. The difference between Syria and the other Arab nations is that Assad didn't depend on the West to fight his civil war and we didn't intervene against him. The other rulers were too weak to win their civil wars easily and so the West intervened decisively on the other side to try and stop them before they got out of hand. Assad was strong enough to win his so the West intervened indirectly on the other side to try and make sure it got out of hand. Im confused at this part, werent they doing protest marches then the government security opened fire on them? from wiki: Show nested quote +The protests started on 15 March 2011, when protesters marched in the capital of Damascus, demanding democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. The security forces retaliated by opening fire on the protesters
Start here
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/3qh6bz/the_forgotten_background_117_collected_videos/
also
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/3oijou/interview_with_irgc_general_hamadani_persian/
|
Interesting links, unfortunately I dont have enough time to go over them all.
Currently Im trying to find out the self-interests Russia had when they started to intervene. Which, according to Wiki started after 30 September 2015. Hopefully I can tie their reasons to imperialism cause thats what the underlying purpose of my paper is about.
In the end I hope to make a connection of imperialism to the on-going crisis of the Syrian refugees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
