Ok, is that place seriously called the "T4" Airbase because the transliteration from Arabic is Teefore?
They are losing planes too which is hilarious. This might sound sadistic but it's nice to see someone else caught up in a middle eastern war. We have so many enemies in one place and they are all killing each other...
That's why I'm always a little confused when people say Obama's Syrian policy is a disaster. We have Syria and Iran (two state sponsors of terrorism) plus Hezbollah, plus Russia fighting ISIS and other radical salafist Islamists from all over the middle east funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. They are all fighting in Syria which has almost no oil and is of no huge strategic consequence. I hope they fight forever.
I'm just happy that there aren't 100,000 US troops on the ground in Iraq/Syria right now. Thanks, Obama
Well, people are saying it's a disaster when they see the human suffering. I just don't see any positive solution to it. As you've pointed out in the past, the "moderate rebel" storyline is a total myth. When we've started counting al-Nusra shootoffs as "moderates" it tells you the poisoned choice we've had in this all along.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic but I feel like Trump will talk about how we are doing more in the region while really just continuing our current level of involvement. He's already going to be unpopular. But what do I know
I do know he loves spectacle and hates context, so I'd bet on ground troops and shock-and-awe type tactics, then immediately leaving while Assad kills all remaining dissidents with Putin's blessing
No people are saying its a disaster because o no, Putin is bauce and Iran is expanding its powerz!! There's fucking always human suffering in the middle east. Assad had large scale torture and execution apparatus set up for his political enemies.
Errr, I certainly do not. This war is going to have massive long term ramifications. In terms of sending destitute refugees streaming into other countries in the region (and Europe) it's already been a complete disaster. The Sunni Arab community is certainly not going to forget Russian bombs falling on the heads of kids and hospitals in Aleppo. And I don't know what happens after Trump takes over and we maybe switch sides in the war.
I do think there's a great chance that Trump backs Assad as the legitimate power in Syria. I just don't know how Syrian forces keep the peace without massive foreign troops intervention. I just hope those troops don't come in the way of American soldiers. Surely Trump wouldn't be that stupid.
He does seem inept enough at foreign policy that he might accidentally legitimize the Kurds, which I'd approve of
He loves a strong man, he'll sell the Kurds out to Erdogan in a heart beat. Fuck he might call in strikes on them himself.
It's this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiyas_Military_Airbase Nusra, Ahrar al Sham, etc can easily slip back into the civilian populace in Syria and launch terrorist attacks once they're defeated in conventional warfare.
Right, but when I looked at it on Google Maps the airport was labeled in Arabic script as "Mtar al-Teefore" (can't do Arabic letters on my work computer) which means "Teefore Airport"
We can all agree this situation is horrible and sucks, but this is not our fight, there is no winning path for us here at this point in time. I agree with Obama on essentially trying to stay out of this as much as possible and based on Trump's recent comments, I don't think he'll want to touch it with a 10 ft pole either.
Anybody want to try to explain a scenario that is most advantageous for the US and the people in the area. What is a realistic outcome that would lead to the best chance for peace? I just can't find one but admit I don't know all the players like a lot of you. I also have no clue who the lesser of evils is anymore.
The most advantageous is the regime wins out but there's a prolonged insurgency for many years that keeps Iran and Russia tied up in Syria costing them thousands of lives and billions of dollars. AQ/ISIS turns its eyes away from the west and towards Russia.
Really good preview article about an American-born jihadist that the author suspects has taken over for Adnani. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...-american-leader-in-the-islamic-state/510872/
Saddam Hussein should have been left to run Iraq, says CIA officer who interrogated him By Ishaan Tharoor WorldViews December 16 Both President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump believe the United States never should have invaded Iraq in 2o03 (or, at least, Trump claims he now does). The war in Iraq and its chaotic aftermath in many ways prefigure the present moment in the Middle East; it triggered a sectarian unraveling that now haunts both Iraq and Syria and looms large in the minds of an Obama administration wary of further intervention in the region's conflicts. In a new book coming out this month, John Nixon, a former CIA officer who interrogated Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein after he was captured by coalition forces in December 2003, details his encounter with the toppled despot and the varied discussions that followed. Early on, Hussein warned that the occupation of Iraq wouldn't be as much of a "cakewalk" as Washington's neoconservatives assumed at the time. From an excerptpublished on Time magazine's website: When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: “You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.” When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: “You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.” Nixon now reckons Hussein had a point and that a ruthless strongman like him was necessary to "maintain Iraq's multi-ethnic state" and keep both Sunni extremism and the power of Shiite-led Iran, a Hussein foe, at bay. "Saddam’s leadership style and penchant for brutality were among the many faults of his regime, but he could be ruthlessly decisive when he felt his power base was threatened, and it is far from certain that his regime would have been overthrown by a movement of popular discontent," he wrote. "Likewise, it is improbable that a group like ISIS would have been able to enjoy the kind of success under his repressive regime that they have had under the Shia-led Baghdad government." (ISIS is another name for the Islamic State.) This may all be rather true. Trump himself insists that regime change should no longer be in Washington's interest and has embraced dictatorial leaders such as Egypt's President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi. How Donald Trump subtly praises authoritarian leaders Donald Trump seemed to praise Saddam Hussein at a July 5 rally, but it's not the first time he said nice things about authoritarian leaders. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post) "Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did," wrote Nixon. "He told me once, 'Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!'" Many Arab commentators, though, reject the simplicity of the assumptions here — that if not ruled by tyrants, their nations would automatically turn into breeding grounds for militancy. That's a logic, after all, that serves the autocrats. Moreover, there's a direct connection between the heavy-handed policies of the region's autocrats and the conditions that spawn extremism and deepen sectarian animosities. Pluralistic, multi-ethnic societies have been the norm, not the exception, for centuries.
Don't want to derail the thread but what exactly does this mean? US has used terrorism when it suited its purposes has it not? (CIA actions, military actions against civilians, etc)
Thanks for providing a definition. Still seems a little convenient for US purposes but it is what it is I guess. Not trying to make an anti US point here, just wondering what some of this rhetoric even means when we look at the big picture of how all these countries behave -- to get what they want and further their goals
Respectfully disagree. Doing nothing while those children are being slaughtered is unacceptable. I don't presume to have the right answers because it is obviously a complex situation. However remaining on the sidelines is not the correct option.
good luck with your crusade against a country with a leader who would wipe his ass with the Geneva Convention, boys.
Syrian regime conscripting refugees in Latakia province, not surprising with their manpower shortages. "Announcement: To all hospitals, independent authorities, official centers, divisions, people and offices. As ordered by the governor of Al Lathekia in ##### on 2016/12/18. Inform your workers in the ages between 18 and 50 that came from other provinces to conscrept within 48 hours with the 5th Corps, first "Liwa" (I am not good with military rankings) based in Tala'i' Al Baath camp in southern Raml/Rumal/Ramel (I don't know no accents are on the word). If not conscrepted, if they refuse, they are to be (fired?) except for people who paid military ransom, only sons, and the medically disabled."