On October 23 2016 03:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Well, this is the same Russia that said it wasn't invading Ukraine. Them uniformed soldiers with the patches missing and tracked vehicles with the license plates missing are totally not theirs. Same Russia that hacked into the Democrats party in USA. There probably isn't much more Russia can do to piss off the international community. it's not like outright killing people isn't part of what Russia does nowadays. And the international community has done not that much. Some sanctions, some lowering of Russian living standards. But that doesn't affect the Kremlin.The only powerful countries that don't care which are left, are China, which is happy that Russia is diverting attention from itself, and India who is slowly, but surely, weaning itself off its reliance on Russia military gear.
Its really going to be war then of some sort eh?
What do you think has been going on since Russia entered the Syria arena?
If your talking about something more then the usual proxy war between the West and Russia then no, there isn't going to be a war because neither side is stupid enough to let it come to that. Relations will probably get worse before they get better tho but bad relations doesn't mean that its going to be a war.
Edit: What are you talking about now? Iran restarting its nuclear program? Did you miss the part of the Iran deal that dealt with them restarting? No, its not going to happen because the only outcome is Iran in flames and again, they are not that stupid.
Yeah, although if you wanna stop Russia in Syria or anywhere else where they are active -- that's the attitude I got from Dangermousecatdog at least -- you basically have to commit to going to war with them. Whether the war would actually be executed is another matter, but you have to show that you are willing to do that. Iran doesn't really even matter in this, I was just trying to think of another conflict factor between the east and west in the region related to this topic lol. They matter in the equalization factor against the Saudis maybe, I guess. I don't know where all the smaller countries fall if it is going to come down to that.
We'll see how it all goes down in Syria once ISIL has been driven out of Iraq. Is there much concern about driving the terrorists into Syria? Like, I haven't seen many numbers regarding dead ISIL people. What if they're all just going to gather in Syria, and, like form the "opposition" in Syria's new government or something. There are so many people part of that nightmare down there, there's no way that attitude of theirs doesn't stick around in some form. Like, some of them pose as civilians (at the end of the video) to get out. Most of them I would imagine will flee east.
But at least there's little chance that the displaced civilians of Mosul would flee all the way to Europe, right? (not worried about ISIL people but, you know, more refugees :-/)
On October 23 2016 03:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Well, this is the same Russia that said it wasn't invading Ukraine. Them uniformed soldiers with the patches missing and tracked vehicles with the license plates missing are totally not theirs. Same Russia that hacked into the Democrats party in USA. There probably isn't much more Russia can do to piss off the international community. it's not like outright killing people isn't part of what Russia does nowadays. And the international community has done not that much. Some sanctions, some lowering of Russian living standards. But that doesn't affect the Kremlin.The only powerful countries that don't care which are left, are China, which is happy that Russia is diverting attention from itself, and India who is slowly, but surely, weaning itself off its reliance on Russia military gear.
Its really going to be war then of some sort eh? Take all of that, then add the stand-off in Syria, mix in a little bit of Iran when they start their nuclear program again in, what? 2 years? Good times.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. It can't possibly be missed that there has been a war in Syria for years. Perhaps you are mixing something up from another thread ?
Yeah, not war with Russia, but that's what you have to do if you want to stop them, right? And didn't India buy a whole lot of those S-300s in like 2013? Or has the weening off started more recent than that?
I'm sorry, but why are you advocating that since Russia bombed a designated aid convoys in a middle of a ceasefire, there will be a nuclear war?
-- DIVISIONS IN THE MILITARY-SECURITY SERVICES: Bashar constantly guards against challenges from those with ties inside the military and security services. He is also nervous about any loyalties senior officers (or former senior officers) feel toward disaffected former regime elements like Rif,at Asad and Khaddam. The inner circle focuses continuously on who gets what piece of the corruption action. Some moves by Bashar in narrowing the circle of those who benefit from high-level graft has increased those with ties to the security services who have axes to grind.
-- Possible Action: -- ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING: The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to meet with figures like Khaddam and Rif,at Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards. This again touches on this insular regime,s paranoia and increases the possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction.
Vulnerability:
-- THE KURDS: The most organized and daring political opposition and civil society groups are among the ethnic minority Kurds, concentrated in Syria,s northeast, as well as in communities in Damascus and Aleppo. This group has been willing to protest violently in its home territory when others would dare not. There are few threats that loom larger in Bashar,s mind than unrest with the Kurds. In what is a rare occurrence, our DATT was convoked by Syrian Military Intelligence in May of 2006 to protest what the Syrians believed were US efforts to provide military training and equipment to the Kurds in Syria.
-- Possible Action: -- HIGHLIGHT KURDISH COMPLAINTS: Highlighting Kurdish complaints in public statements, including publicizing human rights abuses will exacerbate regime,s concerns about the Kurdish population. Focus on economic hardship in Kurdish areas and the SARG,s long-standing refusal to offer citizenship to some 200,000 stateless Kurds. This issue would need to be handled carefully, since giving the wrong kind of prominence to Kurdish issues in Syria could be a liability for our efforts at uniting the opposition, given Syrian (mostly Arab) civil society,s skepticism of Kurdish objectives.
4. (S) CONCLUSION: This analysis leaves out the anti-regime Syrian Islamists because it is difficult to get an accurate picture of the threat within Syria that such groups pose. They are certainly a long-term threat. While it alludes to the vulnerabilities that Syria faces because of its alliance with Iran, it does not elaborate fully on this topic. The bottom line is that Bashar is entering the new year in a stronger position than he has been in several years, but those strengths also carry with them -- or sometimes mask ) vulnerabilities. If we are ready to capitalize, they will offer us opportunities to disrupt his decision-making, keep him off-balance, and make him pay a premium for his mistakes.
in other news: - Iraqis do not want Turkey to take part in the Mosul liberation and while the media portrays turks and iraqis as allies/as being on the same side, they're everything but. so far Turkey is on the fringes of Mosul doing mostly nothing while Obama is trying to mediate a deal between them; meanwhile, US Army staff want to start an operation in Raqqa, roughly at the same time as the one in Mosul or possibly delaying the Mosul one; - NGO groups(80'ish or so) want Russia off UN Human Rights Council; - NATO bullied Spain into backing down from their plans to dock and fuel the russian fleet heading to Syria(the naval group is made up of Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, a nuclear-powered battle cruiser, two anti-submarine warships and four support vessels, likely escorted by submarines, Nato officials said). - UN accused Assad of engineering a(nother) gas attack back in 2015, identifying the helicopters used but not the ones that used them; - NATO builds up its eastern flank (NATO's plan is to set up four battle groups with a total of some 4000 troops from early next year, backed by a 40,000-strong rapid-reaction force, and if need be, follow-on forces.); - UK wants to boost its training of syrian opposition factions; - some days ago russians accused belgians of killing civilians in N-Aleppo in airstrikes; belgians denied it and couple days later some of their institutions were DDOSed/kacked; - Amnesty is asking US/US coalition to come clean about their civilian casualties in the fight against IS, talking about some 300 victims; - arab conspiracy theories go as far(or as close) as saying that there's a plot to kill sunnis in Syria and Iraq with US killing them in Mosul and Russia in Aleppo.
- arab conspiracy theories go as far(or as close) as saying that there's a plot to kill sunnis in Syria and Iraq with US killing them in Mosul and Russia in Aleppo.
I'm missing something. I actually watched the video. The title in no way, shape, or form lines up with the content. Did you watch the video? There's obviously context missing, as I don't even know what the meeting was about. But I'm going to go with Nettles posted another tinfoil hat video until you explain what it's supposed to be showing.
In their view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world's richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar's gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.
Read page 1
The proposed pipeline would have linked Qatar directly to European energy markets via distribution terminals in Turkey which would pocket rich transit fees. The Qatar/Turkey pipeline would have given the Sunni Kingdoms of the Persian Gulf decisive domination of world natural gas markets and strengthen Qatar, America's closest ally in the Arab world. Qatar hosts two massive American military bases and the U.S. Central Command's Mid-East headquarters.
The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.
The Saudi's geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
Assad further enraged the Gulf's Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline" running from Iran's side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran's influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria.
Bashar Assad's family is Alawite, a Muslim sect widely perceived as aligned with the Shia camp. “Bashar Assad was never supposed to be president," says journalist Sy Hersh. “His father brought him back from medical school in London when his elder brother, the heir apparent, was killed in a car crash."
Before the war started, according to Hersh, Assad was moving to liberalize the country—“They had internet and newspapers and ATM machines and Assad wanted to move toward the west. After 9/11, he gave thousands of invaluable files to the CIA on Jihadist radicals, who he considered a mutual enemy."
Assad's regime was deliberately secular and Syria was impressively diverse. The Syrian government and military, for example, were 80 percent Sunni. Assad maintained peace among his diverse peoples by a strong disciplined army loyal to the Assad family, an allegiance secured by a nationally esteemed and highly paid officer corps, a coldly efficient intelligence apparatus and a penchant for brutality which, prior to the war, was rather moderate compared to other Mideast leaders, including our current allies.
... The US recently told Turkey to respect the Iraqi government's wishes regarding its military presence in the country.
"All of Iraq's neighbours need to respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity," said John Kirby, State Department spokesman.
But there was a shift in the US policy regarding the conflict between Iraq and Turkey this week.
Ashton Carter, the US defence secretary, who visited Baghdad on Saturday and Erbil, the Kurdish capital, on Sunday, had suggested before his visit to Iraq that Turkey "should be given a role in the Mosul offensive".
But speaking after a meeting with Carter, Abadi once again swiftly rejected the idea.
"I know that the Turks want to participate ... We tell them 'thank you, this is something the Iraqis will handle and the Iraqis will liberate Mosul'," he said.
Oct 28 Russia on Friday despatched the naval destroyer Smetlivy to Syria to join its battle group there for a few months, Russian government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta reported.
It said the heavily armed ship had left the Crimean port of Sevastopol on Friday to great fanfare.
Ruptly, a video news agency financed by the Russian government, said the ship would first head for the Greek port of Piraeus to take part in an event connected with the Russian-Greek year of culture.
Ruptly said the Smetlivy would depart Piraeus on Nov. 2.
i think Putin prepares for Clinton coming to power.
In their view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world's richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar's gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.
Read page 1
The proposed pipeline would have linked Qatar directly to European energy markets via distribution terminals in Turkey which would pocket rich transit fees. The Qatar/Turkey pipeline would have given the Sunni Kingdoms of the Persian Gulf decisive domination of world natural gas markets and strengthen Qatar, America's closest ally in the Arab world. Qatar hosts two massive American military bases and the U.S. Central Command's Mid-East headquarters.
The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.
The Saudi's geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
Assad further enraged the Gulf's Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline" running from Iran's side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran's influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria.
Bashar Assad's family is Alawite, a Muslim sect widely perceived as aligned with the Shia camp. “Bashar Assad was never supposed to be president," says journalist Sy Hersh. “His father brought him back from medical school in London when his elder brother, the heir apparent, was killed in a car crash."
Before the war started, according to Hersh, Assad was moving to liberalize the country—“They had internet and newspapers and ATM machines and Assad wanted to move toward the west. After 9/11, he gave thousands of invaluable files to the CIA on Jihadist radicals, who he considered a mutual enemy."
Assad's regime was deliberately secular and Syria was impressively diverse. The Syrian government and military, for example, were 80 percent Sunni. Assad maintained peace among his diverse peoples by a strong disciplined army loyal to the Assad family, an allegiance secured by a nationally esteemed and highly paid officer corps, a coldly efficient intelligence apparatus and a penchant for brutality which, prior to the war, was rather moderate compared to other Mideast leaders, including our current allies.
Shit... It all makes so much sense now. NATO/Turkey/Saudi are invading Syria for oil...
In their view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world's richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar's gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.
Read page 1
The proposed pipeline would have linked Qatar directly to European energy markets via distribution terminals in Turkey which would pocket rich transit fees. The Qatar/Turkey pipeline would have given the Sunni Kingdoms of the Persian Gulf decisive domination of world natural gas markets and strengthen Qatar, America's closest ally in the Arab world. Qatar hosts two massive American military bases and the U.S. Central Command's Mid-East headquarters.
The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.
The Saudi's geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
Assad further enraged the Gulf's Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline" running from Iran's side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran's influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria.
Bashar Assad's family is Alawite, a Muslim sect widely perceived as aligned with the Shia camp. “Bashar Assad was never supposed to be president," says journalist Sy Hersh. “His father brought him back from medical school in London when his elder brother, the heir apparent, was killed in a car crash."
Before the war started, according to Hersh, Assad was moving to liberalize the country—“They had internet and newspapers and ATM machines and Assad wanted to move toward the west. After 9/11, he gave thousands of invaluable files to the CIA on Jihadist radicals, who he considered a mutual enemy."
Assad's regime was deliberately secular and Syria was impressively diverse. The Syrian government and military, for example, were 80 percent Sunni. Assad maintained peace among his diverse peoples by a strong disciplined army loyal to the Assad family, an allegiance secured by a nationally esteemed and highly paid officer corps, a coldly efficient intelligence apparatus and a penchant for brutality which, prior to the war, was rather moderate compared to other Mideast leaders, including our current allies.
Shit... It all makes so much sense now. NATO/Turkey/Saudi are invading Syria for oil...
Invading is pretty much spot on. The rest not so much I'd say. Instead of NATO you should probably just say the US. They have been the driving force behind pretty much every NATO action. Other than that, there are not really any NATO nations besides the UK and France that have shown any interest in anything that goes beyond their borders. Oil most likely takes a secondary role for the other nations involved: The Saudis are probably the most worried about oil/gas and the money involved in supplying Europe, but they are also very much in it for regional hegemony. I can only assume that Turkey could not care less about who supplies Europe with fossil fuels. They have political stakes in becoming the dominant power in the region, maybe some territorial interest in Syrian lands, and of course making sure that Kurds become as irrelevant as possible.
Whatever the reasons, you can be pretty sure that humanitarian ideas are at best an excuse for every nation involved in Syria.
Now that Trump is president, I'm hopeful he works with the Syrian Government and stop supporting these foreign rebel groups. Stability can return to Syria
Assad falls - Iran at some point falls and never gets nuclear weapons because we've bombed them back quite a few years. Israel is left as the only nuclear power in the region. Qatar Turkey pipeline is built. Benefiting the west and undercutting Russian oil interests and Iran. Putin is pissed. Mass migration continues War profiteering and contracts as the region is divvied up amongst the great powers.
The possible Trump way
Assad stays Relations with Russia improve greatly as Trump will be outmaneuvered by him but still, the tensions will cease Mass migration probably slows - ceases and hopefully stability returns to the region so people can go home. USA turns more isolationist leaving the oil from Iraq to Algeria for other foreign powers like China. Qatar-Turkey pipeline no longer built, but Iran pipeline is built instead Iran at some point gets nuclear weapons.. oh shit fuck
Yeah, lets fight alongside those Afghan, Pakistan and Iranian militia and stable the country under someone who came to power because daddy said so that they had to change the constitution to allow him to be "elected" (the constitution says the president should at least be 40 but when he came to power he was 30 so it was changed to allow him to rule) and if a school boy writes something about the president on a wall he get tortured by intelligence agency by pulling their nails off.
Chill out, I was trying to see what paths the different avenues would take. Iran getting a nuke seemed like a pretty large issue. Same with utterly destroying our economic interests in the region or "our" plans for the last X years. Even if they're not the publics plans, we technically own them now. I was testing to see if there was any merit to weigh the pros and cons of it.
It goes against decades of US foreign policy plans so it's not like I was promoting one over the other or thinking it was a good idea. I was asking for input, not trying to slant the conversation.
Washington: US President Barack Obama has ordered the Pentagon to find and kill the leaders of a jihadist group in Syria that the administration had largely ignored until now and that has been at the vanguard of the fight against the Syrian government, US officials said.
The decision to deploy more drones and intelligence assets against the militant group Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra or the Nusra Front, reflects Mr Obama's concern that it is turning parts of Syria into a new base of operations for al-Qaeda on Europe's southern doorstep, the officials said.
That shift is likely to accelerate once President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Mr Trump has said he will be even more aggressive in going after militants than Mr Obama, a stance that could lead to the expansion of the campaign against the group, possibly in direct cooperation with Moscow. Jabhat Fatah al-Sham says it has broken with al-Qaeda, an assertion discounted by US officials.
...
"The president doesn't want this group to be what inherits the country if Assad ever does fall," a senior US official said. "This cannot be the viable Syrian opposition. It's al-Qaeda."
US intelligence officials say they aren't sure what Mr Trump's approach to US-backed rebel units will be once he gets briefed on the extent of the covert CIA program. Trump has voiced strong scepticism about arming Syrian rebels in the past, suggesting that US intelligence agencies don't have enough knowledge about rebel intentions to pick reliable allies.
That's just Obama trying to take credit for Trump working with the Russians to actually take out the Jihadi groups rather than funneling them towards the SAA. If Hillary were elected it would have went ignored.
The president doesn't want this group to be what inherits the country if Assad ever does fall," a senior US official said. "This cannot be the viable Syrian opposition. It's al-Qaeda.
Can we get a definition of "viable Syrian opposition"?
On November 11 2016 17:08 SK.Testie wrote: Chill out, I was trying to see what paths the different avenues would take. Iran getting a nuke seemed like a pretty large issue. Same with utterly destroying our economic interests in the region or "our" plans for the last X years. Even if they're not the publics plans, we technically own them now. I was testing to see if there was any merit to weigh the pros and cons of it.
It goes against decades of US foreign policy plans so it's not like I was promoting one over the other or thinking it was a good idea. I was asking for input, not trying to slant the conversation.
I was just being sarcastic on what the above post said. Not your post.
EPT![[image loading]](https://assets.rbl.ms/6476493/980x.jpg)
