Syria: US and Turkey agree to seize, govern Raqqa

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,758
904
126
Here's the BBC timeline for Syria. Might want to get familiar with it before arguing history. 2011 is when the protests start going and the crackdown begins.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
Here's the BBC timeline for Syria. Might want to get familiar with it before arguing history. 2011 is when the protests start going and the crackdown begins.

Most people seem unable to remember that the Syrian Civil War is actually just another theatre of the Arab Spring.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,533
7,588
136
The United States organized and armed one side of a Civil War.
By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime.
On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: “Assad must go.”
That is why in 2012 Clinton sabotaged Kofi Annan's ceasefire arrangement at the UN, because we were already delivering weapons from Libya and declaring regime change in Syria by recognizing "rebels" as the official government. Our hands are red with the blood of Aleppo and everyone else caught between Assad, Russia, and our proxy fighters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnonymouseUser

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,534
48,949
136
The United States organized and armed one side of a Civil War.
By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime.
On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: “Assad must go.”​


Oh good, an op-ed by a guy with no direct knowledge of what went on and no expertise in what he's talking about making accusations without literally any evidence that the US organized the revolt against Assad. Not only is what he writing deeply stupid and utterly irresponsible, this is the sort of nonsense you should avoid being duped by.

That is why in 2012 Clinton sabotaged Kofi Annan's ceasefire arrangement at the UN, because we were already delivering weapons from Libya and declaring regime change in Syria by recognizing "rebels" as the official government. Our hands are red with the blood of Aleppo and everyone else caught between Assad, Russia, and our proxy fighters.

Of course we recognized the rebels as the official government, we're trying (smartly) to oust Assad as he's proven incapable of running his country anymore. It is frankly baffling to me that you have been so thoroughly duped by Russian and Syrian propaganda that you're trying to put responsibility for Russian war crimes on the US.

Russia and Syria are responsible for their war crimes and no one else. Russia is responsible for their extreme aggression and no one else. You should join me in condemning these rogue states. Will you?
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
I think what concerns me the most... the American people have NO anti-war voice this November.
Both major parties are in huge bipartisan agreement to escalate and start a greater war in Syria.

There's substantial pressure from the military industry and all its beneficiaries to keep the US hawkish. It's the only way many of these flyover states make end meet.

Exactly... The Middle east has been a power keg literally since history began. There is no fixing it, it is a bag of cats and the only thing we should be doing is staying out of it. If there were some solution, I would say go for it, but you cant fix it. There is nothing the US or the west can do to fix o r even help. All we do is get involved, piss people off and then become a target of hatred ourselves as if it's our fault, thus a negative gain. We need to GTFO now.

The middle east is the way it is right in large part due to western imperial intervention. Just look at the last decade or so with the iraq war and now this.


Oh good, an op-ed by a guy with no direct knowledge of what went on and no expertise in what he's talking about making accusations without literally any evidence that the US organized the revolt against Assad. Not only is what he writing deeply stupid and utterly irresponsible, this is the sort of nonsense you should avoid being duped by.


Of course we recognized the rebels as the official government, we're trying (smartly) to oust Assad as he's proven incapable of running his country anymore. It is frankly baffling to me that you have been so thoroughly duped by Russian and Syrian propaganda that you're trying to put responsibility for Russian war crimes on the US.

Russia and Syria are responsible for their war crimes and no one else. Russia is responsible for their extreme aggression and no one else. You should join me in condemning these rogue states. Will you?

Sure, maybe iraq v2 would go better for us, and them.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,262
2,081
126
The Obama administration has been a failure in Syria and we should probably leave.
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
The Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department have been an abysmal failure in Syria. We should have "won" by now. At this point we should probably just leave well enough alone.

The republicans blocked him from doing anything a couple years ago. Remember?
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I think what concerns me the most... the American people have NO anti-war voice this November.
Both major parties are in huge bipartisan agreement to escalate and start a greater war in Syria.

No sane person can look at the United States arming terrorists for regime change in Syria... we started this war... and think we need to militarily oppose Russia. Maybe if we weren't on the side of terrorists... 1: Would not be a war and mass casualty situation in Syria, 2: No refugees, 3: No escalation against Russia.

Who the !@#$ thinks being on the side of terrorists is a good thing?! HELLO, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, September 11th?
Who the !@#$ thinks regime change in Syria is a good thing?! HELLO, Iraq, ISIS, genocide?

Is there not a single person with a brain to lead this country? Maybe a person who knows recent history, learns the mistakes of the past, and dares to do better? Arming terrorists should be opposed. Starting a war in Syria should be opposed. Escalating against Russia should be opposed. As it has acted these past 15 years, the United States should be opposed.

I feel you brother. What is so blindingly obvious to you and me is obscure to most conservatives and liberals. They all seem to want more war, more escalation, more military attacks with absolutely no exit strategy or long term goal. Just mindless killing and disrupting of the middle east. Now that Obama is leaving the dogs of war are going to be released in earnest and only God knows how badly it is going to go wrong. Given how horrifically the Iraq action ended, the sky is the limit. I BLAME FILTHY SAUDI MONEY BUYING AMERICAN POLITICIANS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnonymouseUser

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
It's true the US started it, and it's true that we are feeling the blowback, and will be for a very long time, but Putin keeps doubling down on a losing bet here. He can't win against the West. Not militarily, not economically. We have seen this movie before as a drama with USSR, but under Putin it's a tragi-comedy. He and all his henchmen keep their money and their kids in the West.
His country is an economic basket case, totally drained of top technological talent, and reliant on the West for pretty much everything. His strategy of creating a refugee crisis for Europe in retaliation for sanctions has produced problems for Europe, but not much sanctions relief or a change in Ukraine position. Starting a war with NATO, he'll be crushed as a bug.

LET RUSSIA HAVE SYRIA.

Why did you say that this all Russia? I put the blame far more on America. We opened this pandora's box, not Russia. You appear to be rewriting history to obscure the bloody war-mongering that America has engaged in. We bomb these people from platforms that they have no technology to counter. It is little better than flat out terrorism.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I would LOVE to see a single politician articulate ANY American interest that justifies intervention in Syria. I am certainly unaware of any.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
I would LOVE to see a single politician articulate ANY American interest that justifies intervention in Syria. I am certainly unaware of any.

I love how you pull out the dead civilians card when you talk about America fighting wars, but its perfectly ok for Syria and Russia to slaughter civilians, especially if it fits a narrative that is against America.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
I love how you pull out the dead civilians card when you talk about America fighting wars, but its perfectly ok for Syria and Russia to slaughter civilians, especially if it fits a narrative that is against America.

Just because the cool kids are doing doesn't mean you have to.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I love how you pull out the dead civilians card when you talk about America fighting wars, but its perfectly ok for Syria and Russia to slaughter civilians, especially if it fits a narrative that is against America.

Yea we appear to be morally equivalent to Syria and Russia. I would like us to be better. Would you care to explain what bombing the shit of Assad will accomplish? My best guess would be a conflict with Russia and a possible civil war in Turkey arising from the newly empowered Kurds. The situation is bad now. The situation with Turkey falling into a civil war is worlds worse.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,533
7,588
136
Of course we recognized the rebels as the official government, we're trying (smartly) to oust Assad as he's proven incapable of running his country anymore. It is frankly baffling to me that you have been so thoroughly duped by Russian and Syrian propaganda that you're trying to put responsibility for Russian war crimes on the US.

Russia and Syria are responsible for their war crimes and no one else. Russia is responsible for their extreme aggression and no one else. You should join me in condemning these rogue states. Will you?

Yes, they are the ones dropping bombs.
Now ask why? Why are they fighting a war?

Because we started one by forming a proxy group to fight on our behalf. You say you want regime change, well congratulations Bush.Jr, that means you're causing thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths. That's what happens when you start wars. A few brain cells might have remembered the Iraq war and its lesson.

If Russia wasn't keeping Syria's military alive, the terrorists would have won and killed these same civilians whilst cannibalizing each other.
The Middle East without military rule is anarchy, terrorism, genocide. Assad represents peace and stability so long as YOU aren't trying to kill him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: john3850

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,534
48,949
136
Yes, they are the ones dropping bombs.
Now ask why? Why are they fighting a war?

Because we started one by forming a proxy group to fight on our behalf. You say you want regime change, well congratulations Bush.Jr, that means you're causing thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths. That's what happens when you start wars. A few brain cells might have remembered the Iraq war and its lesson.

If Russia wasn't keeping Syria's military alive, the terrorists would have won and killed these same civilians whilst cannibalizing each other.
The Middle East without military rule is anarchy, terrorism, genocide. Assad represents peace and stability so long as YOU aren't trying to kill him.

You keep saying that the US created this proxy group to oppose him despite no evidence existing that this is true. All you've ever provided to say that is Russian propaganda and editorials claiming it without evidence. Why are you uncritically swallowing propaganda? Haven't you gotten tired of being lied to?

Assad has already proven he does not represent peace and stability considering he was unable to prevent his own country from falling into chaos and instead resorted to shooting his own people. He is an abominable butcher who should be taken to The Hague and put on trial for war crimes against his own citizens. (If all goes well he will be!)

It's funny how quickly you rush to blame the US for all these deaths without evidence while ignoring the reams of evidence that show Russian and Syrian responsibility for huge numbers of deaths.

I've asked you many times but you never answer. Will you join me in denouncing. Yet another case of blatant Russian aggression?
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
You keep saying that the US created this proxy group to oppose him despite no evidence existing that this is true. All you've ever provided to say that is Russian propaganda and editorials claiming it without evidence. Why are you uncritically swallowing propaganda? Haven't you gotten tired of being lied to?

Assad has already proven he does not represent peace and stability considering he was unable to prevent his own country from falling into chaos and instead resorted to shooting his own people. He is an abominable butcher who should be taken to The Hague and put on trial for war crimes against his own citizens. (If all goes well he will be!)

It's funny how quickly you rush to blame the US for all these deaths without evidence while ignoring the reams of evidence that show Russian and Syrian responsibility for huge numbers of deaths.

I've asked you many times but you never answer. Will you join me in denouncing. Yet another case of blatant Russian aggression?

Saddam sometimes killed his own people, too, just as it turned out quite a bit less than without him.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Putin: I can continue to make Bummer and Billary look like fools and potentially collect data on F-22 performance? Absolutely send S-300...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I think what concerns me the most... the American people have NO anti-war voice this November.
Both major parties are in huge bipartisan agreement to escalate and start a greater war in Syria.

No sane person can look at the United States arming terrorists for regime change in Syria... we started this war... and think we need to militarily oppose Russia. Maybe if we weren't on the side of terrorists... 1: Would not be a war and mass casualty situation in Syria, 2: No refugees, 3: No escalation against Russia.

Who the !@#$ thinks being on the side of terrorists is a good thing?! HELLO, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, September 11th?
Who the !@#$ thinks regime change in Syria is a good thing?! HELLO, Iraq, ISIS, genocide?

Is there not a single person with a brain to lead this country? Maybe a person who knows recent history, learns the mistakes of the past, and dares to do better? Arming terrorists should be opposed. Starting a war in Syria should be opposed. Escalating against Russia should be opposed. As it has acted these past 15 years, the United States should be opposed.
Sure we do - Gary Johnson. He not only doesn't want to attack anything in the Middle East, most days he can't even recall their names.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,533
7,588
136
You keep saying that the US created this proxy group to oppose him despite no evidence existing that this is true. All you've ever provided to say that is Russian propaganda and editorials claiming it without evidence. Why are you uncritically swallowing propaganda? Haven't you gotten tired of being lied to?

Haven't you gotten tired of being a Neocon shill?

Huffingtonpost and lrb.co.uk are Russian propaganda now? CNN too? New York Times, Washingtontimes, Nationalreview,
the pieces to this story are plastered all over the internet and they have nothing to do with Russia as your smear campaign tries to deflect. What do you think is possibly in dispute here, that we organized or armed them? That the Syrian "Rebels" are our proxy to cause regime change? These facts and reality have been present and consistent for years. The reason you choose to ignore them is clear.

It's a damn shame Obama was so inexperienced and naive as to think he needed a warmonger to handle foreign policy. He would have done a much better job listening to his anti-war instincts. Hell, for Hillary's favor you are probably ready to throw Obama under the bus in telling us he hasn't done enough. Right? Don't worry, you'll be in good company.

Lindsey Graham: “Breaking Syria apart from Iran could be as important to containing a nuclear Iran”
John McCain: “I believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement”
No, wait... that was them pushing to arm Rebels... Here's part 2 of the Neocon agenda for Syria.

I believe that agenda now has bipartisan support. We just have to go to war with Russia to do it, no big deal right? Once you get Obama out of the way Clinton can officially escalate the war. Arms to Islamic terror organizations and escalating wars are always good for civilians, right? Just look at Iraq, you know those civilians loved dying by the hundreds of thousands. You can't wait to do that to other countries so you can get rid of the "bad man".

Assad has already proven he does not represent peace and stability considering he was unable to prevent his own country from falling into chaos and instead resorted to shooting his own people. He is an abominable butcher who should be taken to The Hague and put on trial for war crimes against his own citizens. (If all goes well he will be!)

George W. Bush, is that you? You know you already killed Saddam, right? And killed hundreds of thousands to do it?
Now you want to do it again, in the name of saving civilian lives, are you retarded?!

It's funny how quickly you rush to blame the US for all these deaths without evidence while ignoring the reams of evidence that show Russian and Syrian responsibility for huge numbers of deaths.

I've asked you many times but you never answer. Will you join me in denouncing. Yet another case of blatant Russian aggression?

Russian aggression? It's United States Neocons moving against regimes in the Middle East. We spawned ISIS and considerable genocide last time we did it. Russia has moved in to STOP Syria from falling to terror and anarchy. They could probably kill half the population and still come out ahead of where YOU want to take it!

Again... we all know they're dropping bombs. They are fighting a war for the very survival of the Syrian government / military.
Why don't you ever stop to ask WHY they're fighting a war? Because it would incriminate Hillary and your newfound, Neocon, world view.

Assad can go, but in an arrangement with Russia. Not through violence and terror. That you are pushing to repeat Iraq is an incredible place for this forum to be. After the decade P&N spent successfully condemning "war crimes" Bush, you are now the greatest supporter in furthering his cause. Your moral compass should not depend on whether it's Bush or Clinton holding office.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,534
48,949
136
Haven't you gotten tired of being a Neocon shill?

Huffingtonpost and lrb.co.uk are Russian propaganda now? CNN too? New York Times, Washingtontimes, Nationalreview,
the pieces to this story are plastered all over the internet and they have nothing to do with Russia as your smear campaign tries to deflect. What do you think is possibly in dispute here, that we organized or armed them? That the Syrian "Rebels" are our proxy to cause regime change? These facts and reality have been present and consistent for years. The reason you choose to ignore them is clear.

It's a damn shame Obama was so inexperienced and naive as to think he needed a warmonger to handle foreign policy. He would have done a much better job listening to his anti-war instincts. Hell, for Hillary's favor you are probably ready to throw Obama under the bus in telling us he hasn't done enough. Right? Don't worry, you'll be in good company.

Lindsey Graham: “Breaking Syria apart from Iran could be as important to containing a nuclear Iran”
John McCain: “I believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement”​

You didn't read your own links yet again. They refer to the US ARMING the rebel factions, which our government has stated publicly we will do. None of those links say we CREATED them, because we didn't. Your continued statements that we did without evidence are simply the regurgitation of Russian propaganda. The facts ARE present and consistent, but the reason you choose to ignore them is less clear, outside of some bizarre affinity for Russia.

Do you acknowledge that your previous statements have no evidence backing them up?[/quote]​
No, wait... that was them pushing to arm Rebels... Here's part 2 of the Neocon agenda for Syria.

I believe that agenda now has bipartisan support. We just have to go to war with Russia to do it, no big deal right? Once you get Obama out of the way Clinton can officially escalate the war. Arms to Islamic terror organizations and escalating wars are always good for civilians, right? Just look at Iraq, you know those civilians loved dying by the hundreds of thousands. You can't wait to do that to other countries so you can get rid of the "bad man".

More Russian propaganda. I'm not saying we should go to war with Russia, we should just give the groups Russia is currently committing war crimes against the means by which to defend themselves. It's a good middle ground between a military confrontation with Russia and doing nothing.

George W. Bush, is that you? You know you already killed Saddam, right? And killed hundreds of thousands to do it?
Now you want to do it again, in the name of saving civilian lives, are you retarded?!

Russian aggression? It's United States Neocons moving against regimes in the Middle East. We spawned ISIS and considerable genocide last time we did it. Russia has moved in to STOP Syria from falling to terror and anarchy. They could probably kill half the population and still come out ahead of where YOU want to take it!

Again... we all know they're dropping bombs. They are fighting a war for the very survival of the Syrian government / military.
Why don't you ever stop to ask WHY they're fighting a war? Because it would incriminate Hillary and your newfound, Neocon, world view.

We know why they are fighting a war, they are allied with Assad's regime and want to preserve their puppet in the region. Isn't that obvious? The idea that Russia is intervening to stop Syria from 'falling to terror' is again regurgitation of Russian propaganda. You seriously need to stop reading/watching RT. It's the modern day Pravda.

Assad can go, but in an arrangement with Russia. Not through violence and terror. That you are pushing to repeat Iraq is an incredible place for this forum to be. After the decade P&N spent successfully condemning "war crimes" Bush, you are now the greatest supporter in furthering his cause. Your moral compass should not depend on whether it's Bush or Clinton holding office.

I want to make sure that you understand that Russia is currently committing war crimes on a large scale in Syria, do you acknowledge this? My moral compass is always exactly the same, and I believe that we should not prop up murderous regimes intent on the slaughter of the people they are entrusted to protect. Assad's actions caused his country to devolve into anarchy and it's important that we prevent anyone as twisted and incompetent as he is from returning to power. He's lost the consent of his people, it's over. Russia will probably end up being part of the agreement to get him to leave, but it is likely we will have to bloody their nose first. Yet again I have to ask, do you condemn Russian aggression?[/quote]
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126

I want to make sure that you understand that Russia is currently committing war crimes on a large scale in Syria, do you acknowledge this? My moral compass is always exactly the same, and I believe that we should not prop up murderous regimes intent on the slaughter of the people they are entrusted to protect. Assad's actions caused his country to devolve into anarchy and it's important that we prevent anyone as twisted and incompetent as he is from returning to power. He's lost the consent of his people, it's over. Russia will probably end up being part of the agreement to get him to leave, but it is likely we will have to bloody their nose first. Yet again I have to ask, do you condemn Russian aggression?
[/QUOTE]

Always eager to see American kids getting killed over affairs that have nothing to do with America's national interests I see. I wish they would force people like you to visit the VA centers and visit the tens of thousands of horrifically maimed vets from the Iraq war. New flash, you won't be bloodying anybody's nose, somebody else will. You are asking 18-19 yr old kids to die and get maimed over something that has absolute fuck-all to do with America's national interests. I hope those kids tell the American government to stick it up their ass when it tries to deploy them to that hell hole.

If we go there, it will blow up and it will be worse for our intervention. You can take that to the bank and cash it.​
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
You didn't read your own links yet again. They refer to the US ARMING the rebel factions, which our government has stated publicly we will do. None of those links say we CREATED them, because we didn't. Your continued statements that we did without evidence are simply the regurgitation of Russian propaganda. The facts ARE present and consistent, but the reason you choose to ignore them is less clear, outside of some bizarre affinity for Russia.​

lmao, yeah what's a little bit of arming going to do? Next thing you know, people will say the Lend-Lease deal was responsible for Russian victories in WW2! Utterly absurd!