|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 04:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Jimmi you do understand that Israel has been grabbing land in Syria and bombing Syria after Assad was deposed, not before, right? Can you tell us more about all the Syrians that you have seen cheering for that event? Well Doodsmack, they have set up a buffer zone that they say is temporary. Time will tell if it is not, but again if you look at a map it is such a tiny amount that even if the Jews are half as bad as you think it will still be near the bottom of their concerns. As for the bombings the very few Syrians I get to talk to have mixed feelings. On one had all the chemical weapons, missiles and planes were used to kill Syrians. They desperately don't want Iran or Hezbollah back so destroying them all makes some sense, but on the other hand they would prefer if their army could get a hold of them so that they could protect themselves from the enemies that surround them. But there is a big asterisk there because like the rest of world they are really unsure if HTS is about what they are currently saying or not. Interestingly enough their opinion on Israel has taken a dramatic turn, not 180 but maybe 45-90 since they are grateful for the weakening of their actual oppressors. How about the Syrians you talk too? Do they hate Israel as much as you? I'm sure some do, but gladly some of that hate is dissipating. This is the most hopeful I've been for the middle east in a long time, even if it is just a glimmer. Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something.
I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran.
Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell.
The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons.
|
On December 13 2024 06:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:26 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:
If I'm entirely honest the reason why I don't believe you is because you've pulled this before, you had those Venezuelans that happened to agree with everything you believe and now you have those Syrians that happen to agree with everything you believe. Kind of sus in my opinion. So go talk to the real deal yourself, it is really easy. If you help people and just listen they will share all sorts of things with you. If I wanted to know about Venezuela I would talk to Venezuelans. Then I go to news sources various facts and even opinion pieces to come to my world view. But it is always changing because as I learn more I adjust my view to my new knowledge. I don't understand those that are so proud of how static their view is, and I can't understand why someone with access to people from the actual area would not go talk to them, would not help them? Just think of all the actual indepth knowledge you could gather to win the internet arguments you love to have! What are some examples of positions that you used to have and you no longer do?
Why would I have this conversation here? And why would I have it with you given how you treat me? You are not looking for understanding, you are looking for ammunition.
|
On December 13 2024 06:37 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:29 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 06:26 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:
If I'm entirely honest the reason why I don't believe you is because you've pulled this before, you had those Venezuelans that happened to agree with everything you believe and now you have those Syrians that happen to agree with everything you believe. Kind of sus in my opinion. So go talk to the real deal yourself, it is really easy. If you help people and just listen they will share all sorts of things with you. If I wanted to know about Venezuela I would talk to Venezuelans. Then I go to news sources various facts and even opinion pieces to come to my world view. But it is always changing because as I learn more I adjust my view to my new knowledge. I don't understand those that are so proud of how static their view is, and I can't understand why someone with access to people from the actual area would not go talk to them, would not help them? Just think of all the actual indepth knowledge you could gather to win the internet arguments you love to have! What are some examples of positions that you used to have and you no longer do? Why would I have this conversation here? And why would I have it with you given how you treat me? You are not looking for understanding, you are looking for ammunition.
"Why would you talk to me" is a question I've asked myself many times over many years, let me know if you find an answer one day. And yes you're right about what I'm doing.
|
On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 04:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Jimmi you do understand that Israel has been grabbing land in Syria and bombing Syria after Assad was deposed, not before, right? Can you tell us more about all the Syrians that you have seen cheering for that event? Well Doodsmack, they have set up a buffer zone that they say is temporary. Time will tell if it is not, but again if you look at a map it is such a tiny amount that even if the Jews are half as bad as you think it will still be near the bottom of their concerns. As for the bombings the very few Syrians I get to talk to have mixed feelings. On one had all the chemical weapons, missiles and planes were used to kill Syrians. They desperately don't want Iran or Hezbollah back so destroying them all makes some sense, but on the other hand they would prefer if their army could get a hold of them so that they could protect themselves from the enemies that surround them. But there is a big asterisk there because like the rest of world they are really unsure if HTS is about what they are currently saying or not. Interestingly enough their opinion on Israel has taken a dramatic turn, not 180 but maybe 45-90 since they are grateful for the weakening of their actual oppressors. How about the Syrians you talk too? Do they hate Israel as much as you? I'm sure some do, but gladly some of that hate is dissipating. This is the most hopeful I've been for the middle east in a long time, even if it is just a glimmer. Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons.
Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on.
On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically.
They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless.
I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however.
Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone.
Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits.
Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it.
|
On December 13 2024 03:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 01:19 hitthat wrote:On December 13 2024 00:18 Billyboy wrote:
Iran Last time gained ground: 1971, from Britain. Territorial dispute: 3 occupied shithole islands since 1971, claimed also by United Arab Emirates. Other iranian claims: null all i know. Last claim to Bahrain: ceaded. Calling them expantionist is one thing that is unfair. Huh? Just because they *lost* their was against Iraq doesn't mean they didn't try. Also, their proxies are intent on expanding their influence, not their territory.
Yeah, they did try by being invaded BY the Iraq.
|
On December 13 2024 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:
If I'm entirely honest the reason why I don't believe you is because you've pulled this before, you had those Venezuelans that happened to agree with everything you believe and now you have those Syrians that happen to agree with everything you believe. Kind of sus in my opinion.
Isn't the whole point of this situation the fact that a few very distinct factions both exist within Syria? If they are all inhabitants of Syria and considered Syrian, and they are at war with each other, you can both be right. There are Syrians who are stoked for Israel to have weakened Hezbollah. There are also Syrians who want Israel to be wiped out. You can both be accurately conveying the feelings of Syrians and still be describing 2 wildly different perspectives because you're describing 2 different groups of Syrians.
|
On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 04:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Jimmi you do understand that Israel has been grabbing land in Syria and bombing Syria after Assad was deposed, not before, right? Can you tell us more about all the Syrians that you have seen cheering for that event? Well Doodsmack, they have set up a buffer zone that they say is temporary. Time will tell if it is not, but again if you look at a map it is such a tiny amount that even if the Jews are half as bad as you think it will still be near the bottom of their concerns. As for the bombings the very few Syrians I get to talk to have mixed feelings. On one had all the chemical weapons, missiles and planes were used to kill Syrians. They desperately don't want Iran or Hezbollah back so destroying them all makes some sense, but on the other hand they would prefer if their army could get a hold of them so that they could protect themselves from the enemies that surround them. But there is a big asterisk there because like the rest of world they are really unsure if HTS is about what they are currently saying or not. Interestingly enough their opinion on Israel has taken a dramatic turn, not 180 but maybe 45-90 since they are grateful for the weakening of their actual oppressors. How about the Syrians you talk too? Do they hate Israel as much as you? I'm sure some do, but gladly some of that hate is dissipating. This is the most hopeful I've been for the middle east in a long time, even if it is just a glimmer. Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it.
You could argue the full removal of "big stick" from the equation may finally give Syria a chance to converge on an actual agreed upon government. But I still don't think so. The groups are too different. They have irreconcilable differences. Much like other parts of the Middle East, the borders defining Syria do not define the people who live there.
Edit: If you look at maps of the Ottoman empire over time, you can see how they tried their best to have all the factions naturally separate and have their own unique areas. Even within regions of the Ottoman empire, some sub-regions were wildly different from each other.
Small aside: One interesting component of why the Middle East is a huge mess for more than the usual "IMPERIALISM!!!!!11111111" is how regions that are livable can be very spread apart. You can have groups of people who appear to live near each other but in reality their cultures evolved totally separately and they are unable to share a common government. There are many such examples of this happening all over the middle east. Especially with some of the smaller countries we don't ever really think about. Groups that spend time together naturally form cohesion. Groups that did not spend time together develop very separately and with different ideologies. The geography of the middle east has led to an enormous number of incompatible ideologies.
|
On December 13 2024 06:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:37 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:29 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 06:26 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:
If I'm entirely honest the reason why I don't believe you is because you've pulled this before, you had those Venezuelans that happened to agree with everything you believe and now you have those Syrians that happen to agree with everything you believe. Kind of sus in my opinion. So go talk to the real deal yourself, it is really easy. If you help people and just listen they will share all sorts of things with you. If I wanted to know about Venezuela I would talk to Venezuelans. Then I go to news sources various facts and even opinion pieces to come to my world view. But it is always changing because as I learn more I adjust my view to my new knowledge. I don't understand those that are so proud of how static their view is, and I can't understand why someone with access to people from the actual area would not go talk to them, would not help them? Just think of all the actual indepth knowledge you could gather to win the internet arguments you love to have! What are some examples of positions that you used to have and you no longer do? Why would I have this conversation here? And why would I have it with you given how you treat me? You are not looking for understanding, you are looking for ammunition. "Why would you talk to me" is a question I've asked myself many times over many years, let me know if you find an answer one day. And yes you're right about what I'm doing.
Thank you for confirming that your discussions with me are purely bad faith, while obvious to me others did not always agree!
|
On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 04:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Jimmi you do understand that Israel has been grabbing land in Syria and bombing Syria after Assad was deposed, not before, right? Can you tell us more about all the Syrians that you have seen cheering for that event? Well Doodsmack, they have set up a buffer zone that they say is temporary. Time will tell if it is not, but again if you look at a map it is such a tiny amount that even if the Jews are half as bad as you think it will still be near the bottom of their concerns. As for the bombings the very few Syrians I get to talk to have mixed feelings. On one had all the chemical weapons, missiles and planes were used to kill Syrians. They desperately don't want Iran or Hezbollah back so destroying them all makes some sense, but on the other hand they would prefer if their army could get a hold of them so that they could protect themselves from the enemies that surround them. But there is a big asterisk there because like the rest of world they are really unsure if HTS is about what they are currently saying or not. Interestingly enough their opinion on Israel has taken a dramatic turn, not 180 but maybe 45-90 since they are grateful for the weakening of their actual oppressors. How about the Syrians you talk too? Do they hate Israel as much as you? I'm sure some do, but gladly some of that hate is dissipating. This is the most hopeful I've been for the middle east in a long time, even if it is just a glimmer. Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it.
I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air.
|
On December 13 2024 08:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:
If I'm entirely honest the reason why I don't believe you is because you've pulled this before, you had those Venezuelans that happened to agree with everything you believe and now you have those Syrians that happen to agree with everything you believe. Kind of sus in my opinion. Isn't the whole point of this situation the fact that a few very distinct factions both exist within Syria? If they are all inhabitants of Syria and considered Syrian, and they are at war with each other, you can both be right. There are Syrians who are stoked for Israel to have weakened Hezbollah. There are also Syrians who want Israel to be wiped out. You can both be accurately conveying the feelings of Syrians and still be describing 2 wildly different perspectives because you're describing 2 different groups of Syrians.
Exactly true, that being said the perspectives I'm giving are from displaced Syrians, who currently hate Assad/Iran more. I'm not sure what his Venezuelan comment is about or relevant, but if he thinks Maduro is good for Venezuela in 2024 with all the information out there. It tells you far more about how far down the rabbit hole he is than anything I could ever say.
|
On December 13 2024 11:46 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 04:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Jimmi you do understand that Israel has been grabbing land in Syria and bombing Syria after Assad was deposed, not before, right? Can you tell us more about all the Syrians that you have seen cheering for that event? Well Doodsmack, they have set up a buffer zone that they say is temporary. Time will tell if it is not, but again if you look at a map it is such a tiny amount that even if the Jews are half as bad as you think it will still be near the bottom of their concerns. As for the bombings the very few Syrians I get to talk to have mixed feelings. On one had all the chemical weapons, missiles and planes were used to kill Syrians. They desperately don't want Iran or Hezbollah back so destroying them all makes some sense, but on the other hand they would prefer if their army could get a hold of them so that they could protect themselves from the enemies that surround them. But there is a big asterisk there because like the rest of world they are really unsure if HTS is about what they are currently saying or not. Interestingly enough their opinion on Israel has taken a dramatic turn, not 180 but maybe 45-90 since they are grateful for the weakening of their actual oppressors. How about the Syrians you talk too? Do they hate Israel as much as you? I'm sure some do, but gladly some of that hate is dissipating. This is the most hopeful I've been for the middle east in a long time, even if it is just a glimmer. Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air.
Can't search a truck from a mountain and you don't have a better view from a drone either.
Plus you know, if you don't physically search things you have to track stuff from the Iran border to the Lebanese one. So you need the drone either way.
Holding the mountain won't do shit for weapon smuggling that's just Israeli copium. A unified Syrian government who hates Hezb will.
Also in no way does Israel need the additional buffer zone to defend anything. They just wiped out the entire SAA in 48h you honestly think they need the highground.
Only chance for an attack getting through is if Israel wants that.
As for unifying Syria. Negotiations with the SDF seems to be going well and the SNA will do exactly as Turkey says. Smaller rebel councils are joining the HTS. I'm cautiously optimistic that it can be done.
|
On December 13 2024 15:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 11:46 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 04:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Jimmi you do understand that Israel has been grabbing land in Syria and bombing Syria after Assad was deposed, not before, right? Can you tell us more about all the Syrians that you have seen cheering for that event? Well Doodsmack, they have set up a buffer zone that they say is temporary. Time will tell if it is not, but again if you look at a map it is such a tiny amount that even if the Jews are half as bad as you think it will still be near the bottom of their concerns. As for the bombings the very few Syrians I get to talk to have mixed feelings. On one had all the chemical weapons, missiles and planes were used to kill Syrians. They desperately don't want Iran or Hezbollah back so destroying them all makes some sense, but on the other hand they would prefer if their army could get a hold of them so that they could protect themselves from the enemies that surround them. But there is a big asterisk there because like the rest of world they are really unsure if HTS is about what they are currently saying or not. Interestingly enough their opinion on Israel has taken a dramatic turn, not 180 but maybe 45-90 since they are grateful for the weakening of their actual oppressors. How about the Syrians you talk too? Do they hate Israel as much as you? I'm sure some do, but gladly some of that hate is dissipating. This is the most hopeful I've been for the middle east in a long time, even if it is just a glimmer. Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air. Can't search a truck from a mountain and you don't have a better view from a drone either. Plus you know, if you don't physically search things you have to track stuff from the Iran border to the Lebanese one. So you need the drone either way. Holding the mountain won't do shit for weapon smuggling that's just Israeli copium. A unified Syrian government who hates Hezb will. Also in no way does Israel need the additional buffer zone to defend anything. They just wiped out the entire SAA in 48h you honestly think they need the highground. Only chance for an attack getting through is if Israel wants that. As for unifying Syria. Negotiations with the SDF seems to be going well and the SNA will do exactly as Turkey says. Smaller rebel councils are joining the HTS. I'm cautiously optimistic that it can be done.
Everything I'm reading says it matters.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mount-hermon-why-control-syria-highest-peak-matters#:~:text=Mount Hermon, which lies near,for observation across the region.
Analysts have also said that Israeli radar systems had previously a significant blind spot, allowing low-flying drones from Iran to enter undetected.
Were radars placed on Mount Hermon, Israel could now monitor a much broader area.
"The mountains also provide the perfect cover for Israel's special forces and spies, who can now enter Syria more freely, conducting missions under the cover of darkness," wrote former Israeli air force pilot Naftali Hazony on X.
|
Syria is such a clusterfuck of interest, that I am honestly amazed how structured and seemingly ordered the transfer of power from all of assad's goons to the new people is.
I hope they have somewhat secular government in the future. and even if they want to..just strategicly shut up about israel's grab for land.
"Yeah, have the 50km² that have been vacated for 40 years, and to good neighbours!... maybe you can bomb some of the ISIS fuckers over there?"
|
On December 13 2024 11:42 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:40 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 06:37 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:29 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 06:26 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:
If I'm entirely honest the reason why I don't believe you is because you've pulled this before, you had those Venezuelans that happened to agree with everything you believe and now you have those Syrians that happen to agree with everything you believe. Kind of sus in my opinion. So go talk to the real deal yourself, it is really easy. If you help people and just listen they will share all sorts of things with you. If I wanted to know about Venezuela I would talk to Venezuelans. Then I go to news sources various facts and even opinion pieces to come to my world view. But it is always changing because as I learn more I adjust my view to my new knowledge. I don't understand those that are so proud of how static their view is, and I can't understand why someone with access to people from the actual area would not go talk to them, would not help them? Just think of all the actual indepth knowledge you could gather to win the internet arguments you love to have! What are some examples of positions that you used to have and you no longer do? Why would I have this conversation here? And why would I have it with you given how you treat me? You are not looking for understanding, you are looking for ammunition. "Why would you talk to me" is a question I've asked myself many times over many years, let me know if you find an answer one day. And yes you're right about what I'm doing. Thank you for confirming that your discussions with me are purely bad faith, while obvious to me others did not always agree!
That's a weird use of the word bad faith, I obviously believe the things I say. For example I genuinely believe that I haven't seen you change your mind on anything in the decade plus that we've interacted, so I did find it funny that you championed fluidity of thought just there.
|
On December 13 2024 08:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 04:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 04:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Jimmi you do understand that Israel has been grabbing land in Syria and bombing Syria after Assad was deposed, not before, right? Can you tell us more about all the Syrians that you have seen cheering for that event? Well Doodsmack, they have set up a buffer zone that they say is temporary. Time will tell if it is not, but again if you look at a map it is such a tiny amount that even if the Jews are half as bad as you think it will still be near the bottom of their concerns. As for the bombings the very few Syrians I get to talk to have mixed feelings. On one had all the chemical weapons, missiles and planes were used to kill Syrians. They desperately don't want Iran or Hezbollah back so destroying them all makes some sense, but on the other hand they would prefer if their army could get a hold of them so that they could protect themselves from the enemies that surround them. But there is a big asterisk there because like the rest of world they are really unsure if HTS is about what they are currently saying or not. Interestingly enough their opinion on Israel has taken a dramatic turn, not 180 but maybe 45-90 since they are grateful for the weakening of their actual oppressors. How about the Syrians you talk too? Do they hate Israel as much as you? I'm sure some do, but gladly some of that hate is dissipating. This is the most hopeful I've been for the middle east in a long time, even if it is just a glimmer. Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. You could argue the full removal of "big stick" from the equation may finally give Syria a chance to converge on an actual agreed upon government. But I still don't think so. The groups are too different. They have irreconcilable differences. Much like other parts of the Middle East, the borders defining Syria do not define the people who live there. Edit: If you look at maps of the Ottoman empire over time, you can see how they tried their best to have all the factions naturally separate and have their own unique areas. Even within regions of the Ottoman empire, some sub-regions were wildly different from each other. Small aside: One interesting component of why the Middle East is a huge mess for more than the usual "IMPERIALISM!!!!!11111111" is how regions that are livable can be very spread apart. You can have groups of people who appear to live near each other but in reality their cultures evolved totally separately and they are unable to share a common government. There are many such examples of this happening all over the middle east. Especially with some of the smaller countries we don't ever really think about. Groups that spend time together naturally form cohesion. Groups that did not spend time together develop very separately and with different ideologies. The geography of the middle east has led to an enormous number of incompatible ideologies.
Middle east is a mosaic of culture and ethnie first and foremost and then different ideologies can be imbricated. it's the different kind of people, culture and practices there are. Lebanon could be separated in two with the southern and northern population being quite different (no matter the religion) politically and even languistically, the country is really small but the accents and prununciation can be very different. And overall, all the people I know from there always makes the distinction between them and the northerners.
That said, while establishing a nation state in these conditions is hard, you are neglecting the influence of the west to a ridiculous extent.
Isis for example has emerged because of the invasion of iraq wanted by people like you because arabs are untermensch who need to be taught democracy though sheer violence. Indeed, like any invasion, and a brutal one like the us one, insurgents happened, civil war because sunni, kurdes and shias as well and the weakened and corrupt central governement couldn't handle it.
Another decisive factor is as you mentionned the borders don't always define the people who live there. But you conveniently not adress who designed those borders.
Have you ever heard about the sykes picot agreement which put the borders of syria and iraq at the euphrates river ? While it's a natural border the sunni population from both side of it are largely similar and pretty differents from the original central power in iraq and syria. Hence isis got really fast a transnational islamic ideology and a large chunk of his elements were against any kind of nationalism including palestinian.
Those bordere were drawn without consultation or knowledge of the local populations, once again, superior power decided for them.
The haschemites regime which is extremely brutal and oppressive and used to torture his opponent, it has the full support of the usa, same for egypt where a western puppet got installed after a bloody coup in 2014. The democratically elected president died in jail in 2017.
Egypt has the controle of the suez canal but the main reason is obviously the fact that democracies could threaten "israel safety".
Even for Iran the calls for democracy smell hypocrisy, in 1953, the cia did a coup and installed the shah as a brutal dictator. Why ? Because the prime minister at the time wanted a better deal regarding the oil extraction.
I could add on in yemen where the us encouraged and armed the saoudis in their war against the houthis and mbs got pretty disappointed as he felt the usa weren't very rewarding during the kashoggi affair. And what a hypocrisy considering what jordan and egypt is doing.
There are others historical and contemporain facts that I could add point on but I guess that's enough or am I still "IMPERIALISM!!!!!11111111" ? Because for now, you sound like a you watched the last ben shapiro video. Well, as a supporter of israel policiies that sound more than plausible.
|
On December 13 2024 16:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 15:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 11:46 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 04:55 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Well Doodsmack, they have set up a buffer zone that they say is temporary. Time will tell if it is not, but again if you look at a map it is such a tiny amount that even if the Jews are half as bad as you think it will still be near the bottom of their concerns.
As for the bombings the very few Syrians I get to talk to have mixed feelings. On one had all the chemical weapons, missiles and planes were used to kill Syrians. They desperately don't want Iran or Hezbollah back so destroying them all makes some sense, but on the other hand they would prefer if their army could get a hold of them so that they could protect themselves from the enemies that surround them. But there is a big asterisk there because like the rest of world they are really unsure if HTS is about what they are currently saying or not. Interestingly enough their opinion on Israel has taken a dramatic turn, not 180 but maybe 45-90 since they are grateful for the weakening of their actual oppressors.
How about the Syrians you talk too? Do they hate Israel as much as you? I'm sure some do, but gladly some of that hate is dissipating. This is the most hopeful I've been for the middle east in a long time, even if it is just a glimmer. Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air. Can't search a truck from a mountain and you don't have a better view from a drone either. Plus you know, if you don't physically search things you have to track stuff from the Iran border to the Lebanese one. So you need the drone either way. Holding the mountain won't do shit for weapon smuggling that's just Israeli copium. A unified Syrian government who hates Hezb will. Also in no way does Israel need the additional buffer zone to defend anything. They just wiped out the entire SAA in 48h you honestly think they need the highground. Only chance for an attack getting through is if Israel wants that. As for unifying Syria. Negotiations with the SDF seems to be going well and the SNA will do exactly as Turkey says. Smaller rebel councils are joining the HTS. I'm cautiously optimistic that it can be done. Everything I'm reading says it matters. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mount-hermon-why-control-syria-highest-peak-matters#:~:text=Mount Hermon, which lies near,for observation across the region. Show nested quote +Analysts have also said that Israeli radar systems had previously a significant blind spot, allowing low-flying drones from Iran to enter undetected.
Were radars placed on Mount Hermon, Israel could now monitor a much broader area.
"The mountains also provide the perfect cover for Israel's special forces and spies, who can now enter Syria more freely, conducting missions under the cover of darkness," wrote former Israeli air force pilot Naftali Hazony on X.
Yes, putting a radar on a mountain is good since the higher up you are the easier you detect low flying objects.
You know what is also high up with a radar? An aircraft. Conveniently the same thing Israel would use to shoot down a Shaheed drone.
Which BTW moves at the speed of a car so it takes hours to go from Iran to Israel over two countries. A pickup truck with an HMG seems to be decent AA against it.
So I don't care what some ex airforce Israeli psyops says to try to justify the landgrab, Israel does not need 3 buffer zones to defend themselves, two are more than enough.
I can buy wanting to be able to take covert offensive actions at will on the territory of other countries. But that's breaking even more international laws so it's not really a justification that gives them any moral highground.
|
On December 13 2024 23:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 16:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 15:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 11:46 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air. Can't search a truck from a mountain and you don't have a better view from a drone either. Plus you know, if you don't physically search things you have to track stuff from the Iran border to the Lebanese one. So you need the drone either way. Holding the mountain won't do shit for weapon smuggling that's just Israeli copium. A unified Syrian government who hates Hezb will. Also in no way does Israel need the additional buffer zone to defend anything. They just wiped out the entire SAA in 48h you honestly think they need the highground. Only chance for an attack getting through is if Israel wants that. As for unifying Syria. Negotiations with the SDF seems to be going well and the SNA will do exactly as Turkey says. Smaller rebel councils are joining the HTS. I'm cautiously optimistic that it can be done. Everything I'm reading says it matters. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mount-hermon-why-control-syria-highest-peak-matters#:~:text=Mount Hermon, which lies near,for observation across the region. Analysts have also said that Israeli radar systems had previously a significant blind spot, allowing low-flying drones from Iran to enter undetected.
Were radars placed on Mount Hermon, Israel could now monitor a much broader area.
"The mountains also provide the perfect cover for Israel's special forces and spies, who can now enter Syria more freely, conducting missions under the cover of darkness," wrote former Israeli air force pilot Naftali Hazony on X.
Yes, putting a radar on a mountain is good since the higher up you are the easier you detect low flying objects. You know what is also high up with a radar? An aircraft. Conveniently the same thing Israel would use to shoot down a Shaheed drone. Which BTW moves at the speed of a car so it takes hours to go from Iran to Israel over two countries. A pickup truck with an HMG seems to be decent AA against it. So I don't care what some ex airforce Israeli psyops says to try to justify the landgrab, Israel does not need 3 buffer zones to defend themselves, two are more than enough. I can buy wanting to be able to take covert offensive actions at will on the territory of other countries. But that's breaking even more international laws so it's not really a justification that gives them any moral highground.
The weird thing is while the article is explaining why mount hermon is a strategic place, it never endorses israel's position by stating they need it.
The israeli defenders are always so contradictories : on hand israel is destroying all the "major" weapons of syria within 48 hours while having bombing the country without repercussion since the last 10 years and on another they state they need a new buffer zone to their previous buffer zone because of their safety.
Billyboy is very curious, the sources he's using are great, un rapport, middleasteye but then he twist them, for example, they're rather picturing israel as a extremely agressive neighbour.
That said, contrary to what a previous poster thought, I am pretty sure he is not jimmyc, that guy was just about ragebait.
|
On December 13 2024 23:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 16:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 15:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 11:46 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air. Can't search a truck from a mountain and you don't have a better view from a drone either. Plus you know, if you don't physically search things you have to track stuff from the Iran border to the Lebanese one. So you need the drone either way. Holding the mountain won't do shit for weapon smuggling that's just Israeli copium. A unified Syrian government who hates Hezb will. Also in no way does Israel need the additional buffer zone to defend anything. They just wiped out the entire SAA in 48h you honestly think they need the highground. Only chance for an attack getting through is if Israel wants that. As for unifying Syria. Negotiations with the SDF seems to be going well and the SNA will do exactly as Turkey says. Smaller rebel councils are joining the HTS. I'm cautiously optimistic that it can be done. Everything I'm reading says it matters. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mount-hermon-why-control-syria-highest-peak-matters#:~:text=Mount Hermon, which lies near,for observation across the region. Analysts have also said that Israeli radar systems had previously a significant blind spot, allowing low-flying drones from Iran to enter undetected.
Were radars placed on Mount Hermon, Israel could now monitor a much broader area.
"The mountains also provide the perfect cover for Israel's special forces and spies, who can now enter Syria more freely, conducting missions under the cover of darkness," wrote former Israeli air force pilot Naftali Hazony on X.
Yes, putting a radar on a mountain is good since the higher up you are the easier you detect low flying objects. You know what is also high up with a radar? An aircraft. Conveniently the same thing Israel would use to shoot down a Shaheed drone. Which BTW moves at the speed of a car so it takes hours to go from Iran to Israel over two countries. A pickup truck with an HMG seems to be decent AA against it. So I don't care what some ex airforce Israeli psyops says to try to justify the landgrab, Israel does not need 3 buffer zones to defend themselves, two are more than enough. I can buy wanting to be able to take covert offensive actions at will on the territory of other countries. But that's breaking even more international laws so it's not really a justification that gives them any moral highground.
Presumably since it's actually Israel now (according to Israel) it'll need its own buffer zone...
|
On December 14 2024 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 23:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 16:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 15:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 11:46 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air. Can't search a truck from a mountain and you don't have a better view from a drone either. Plus you know, if you don't physically search things you have to track stuff from the Iran border to the Lebanese one. So you need the drone either way. Holding the mountain won't do shit for weapon smuggling that's just Israeli copium. A unified Syrian government who hates Hezb will. Also in no way does Israel need the additional buffer zone to defend anything. They just wiped out the entire SAA in 48h you honestly think they need the highground. Only chance for an attack getting through is if Israel wants that. As for unifying Syria. Negotiations with the SDF seems to be going well and the SNA will do exactly as Turkey says. Smaller rebel councils are joining the HTS. I'm cautiously optimistic that it can be done. Everything I'm reading says it matters. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mount-hermon-why-control-syria-highest-peak-matters#:~:text=Mount Hermon, which lies near,for observation across the region. Analysts have also said that Israeli radar systems had previously a significant blind spot, allowing low-flying drones from Iran to enter undetected.
Were radars placed on Mount Hermon, Israel could now monitor a much broader area.
"The mountains also provide the perfect cover for Israel's special forces and spies, who can now enter Syria more freely, conducting missions under the cover of darkness," wrote former Israeli air force pilot Naftali Hazony on X.
Yes, putting a radar on a mountain is good since the higher up you are the easier you detect low flying objects. You know what is also high up with a radar? An aircraft. Conveniently the same thing Israel would use to shoot down a Shaheed drone. Which BTW moves at the speed of a car so it takes hours to go from Iran to Israel over two countries. A pickup truck with an HMG seems to be decent AA against it. So I don't care what some ex airforce Israeli psyops says to try to justify the landgrab, Israel does not need 3 buffer zones to defend themselves, two are more than enough. I can buy wanting to be able to take covert offensive actions at will on the territory of other countries. But that's breaking even more international laws so it's not really a justification that gives them any moral highground. Presumably since it's actually Israel now (according to Israel) it'll need its own buffer zone... https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1866248329186738341
It already had it's own bufferzone. But now there's troops in that bufferzone so they need a bufferzone. It's bufferzones all the way down.
|
On December 14 2024 00:51 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 23:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 16:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 15:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 11:46 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air. Can't search a truck from a mountain and you don't have a better view from a drone either. Plus you know, if you don't physically search things you have to track stuff from the Iran border to the Lebanese one. So you need the drone either way. Holding the mountain won't do shit for weapon smuggling that's just Israeli copium. A unified Syrian government who hates Hezb will. Also in no way does Israel need the additional buffer zone to defend anything. They just wiped out the entire SAA in 48h you honestly think they need the highground. Only chance for an attack getting through is if Israel wants that. As for unifying Syria. Negotiations with the SDF seems to be going well and the SNA will do exactly as Turkey says. Smaller rebel councils are joining the HTS. I'm cautiously optimistic that it can be done. Everything I'm reading says it matters. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mount-hermon-why-control-syria-highest-peak-matters#:~:text=Mount Hermon, which lies near,for observation across the region. Analysts have also said that Israeli radar systems had previously a significant blind spot, allowing low-flying drones from Iran to enter undetected.
Were radars placed on Mount Hermon, Israel could now monitor a much broader area.
"The mountains also provide the perfect cover for Israel's special forces and spies, who can now enter Syria more freely, conducting missions under the cover of darkness," wrote former Israeli air force pilot Naftali Hazony on X.
Yes, putting a radar on a mountain is good since the higher up you are the easier you detect low flying objects. You know what is also high up with a radar? An aircraft. Conveniently the same thing Israel would use to shoot down a Shaheed drone. Which BTW moves at the speed of a car so it takes hours to go from Iran to Israel over two countries. A pickup truck with an HMG seems to be decent AA against it. So I don't care what some ex airforce Israeli psyops says to try to justify the landgrab, Israel does not need 3 buffer zones to defend themselves, two are more than enough. I can buy wanting to be able to take covert offensive actions at will on the territory of other countries. But that's breaking even more international laws so it's not really a justification that gives them any moral highground. The weird thing is while the article is explaining why mount hermon is a strategic place, it never endorses israel's position by stating they need it. The israeli defenders are always so contradictories : on hand israel is destroying all the "major" weapons of syria within 48 hours while having bombing the country without repercussion since the last 10 years and on another they state they need a new buffer zone to their previous buffer zone because of their safety. Billyboy is very curious, the sources he's using are great, un rapport, middleasteye but then he twist them, for example, they're rather picturing israel as a extremely agressive neighbour. That said, contrary to what a previous poster thought, I am pretty sure he is not jimmyc, that guy was just about ragebait.
The article is informative. It gives no position on the matter. Using that to support an argument is not weird.
There's also no contradiction. There's a power vacuum that will probably be filled by Jihadist rebels that have already attacked the UN buffer zone on multiple occasions. The destruction of strategic weapons from the collapsed Syrian state does not mean that potential enemies can not do significant damage. Underestimating an opponent like that is what led to 7/10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
