Syria: US and Turkey agree to seize, govern Raqqa

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,249
48,445
136
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!

Arming will hopefully aid them, as that's the point! Surely you understand that arming the Syrian rebels does not equal creating the Syrian rebels much like arming the USSR in WW2 didn't mean creating the USSR.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
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".



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.

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 don't know that it's fair to blame Hillary for Obama's Syrian adventure. Pretty much every American President since at least Truman has believed that only he is smart enough to bring peace to the Middle East. She bears her share of the blame for actively developing and carrying out that failed strategery, but history implies such would have occurred with any SecState.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Arming will hopefully aid them, as that's the point! Surely you understand that arming the Syrian rebels does not equal creating the Syrian rebels much like arming the USSR in WW2 didn't mean creating the USSR.
Actually arming and training the rebels, and backing them with aid and air strikes, pretty much is the same as creating them. Without America, the rebels are protestors, easily contained by Assad. With our backing, it's a full fledged civil war regardless of whether they had the support to topple Assad. (Which obviously they did not; Mubarak only fell because he had to avoid atrocities to keep us happy. Assad bows to Putin, who enthusiastically help him kill his own people if they get out of line.) Without us, the Syrian people have to stay off the streets a few days. With us, the Syrian people are caught in a hell the likes of which no Iraqi city ever had to experience.

It's one thing to arm people resisting an invader, as were the mujahadeen against the Soviet Union. It's quite another to arm people resisting a dictator. I'm not saying that it's necessarily morally wrong - they might emerge in a democracy, after all - but the latter invariably results in civil war, the bloodiest and most damaging type of war.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
It's one thing to arm people resisting an invader, as were the mujahadeen against the Soviet Union. It's quite another to arm people resisting a dictator. I'm not saying that it's necessarily morally wrong - they might emerge in a democracy, after all - but the latter invariably results in civil war, the bloodiest and most damaging type of war.

Why are you talking about democracy? Democracy in the Middle East is Islamic theocracy. That is what the people want. That is what the people we are giving arms and weapons want. How in the hell is a Muslim theocracy better than a secular autocrat? They are equivalent.

On Tuesday, State Department spokesperson John Kirby expressed concerns that U.S.-backed Syrian opposition factions such as Ahrar al-Sham have been cohabitating with the Nusra Front. However, Washington has doggedlyresisted calls to add the Al Qaeda collaborators to the UN terrorist list - claiming it would damage the ceasefire - which journalist Finian Cunninghamsees as an “unwitting U.S. admission” about who is really leading the Syrian “rebellion.”

Ahrar al-Sham along with Jaysh al-Islam, another Western-sponsored faction, not only have zero inclination to respect the ceasefire, they have aspirations that completely contradict the U.S. stated goal of ushering in a Jeffersonian democracy to replace Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Both organizations, according to University of Ottawa extremism specialistKamran Bokhari, share the common goal of instituting an Islamic state governed by sharia law. Further, Bokhari argues, the real reason the U.S. opposes designating them as terrorists is because they are proxy groups supported by American allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Hence, it has nothing to do with concerns about the ceasefire.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,249
48,445
136
Actually arming and training the rebels, and backing them with aid and air strikes, pretty much is the same as creating them. Without America, the rebels are protestors, easily contained by Assad. With our backing, it's a full fledged civil war regardless of whether they had the support to topple Assad. (Which obviously they did not; Mubarak only fell because he had to avoid atrocities to keep us happy. Assad bows to Putin, who enthusiastically help him kill his own people if they get out of line.) Without us, the Syrian people have to stay off the streets a few days. With us, the Syrian people are caught in a hell the likes of which no Iraqi city ever had to experience.

It's one thing to arm people resisting an invader, as were the mujahadeen against the Soviet Union. It's quite another to arm people resisting a dictator. I'm not saying that it's necessarily morally wrong - they might emerge in a democracy, after all - but the latter invariably results in civil war, the bloodiest and most damaging type of war.

Can you tell me the source for your statement that arming them was akin to creating them? Sounds like made up bullshit to me.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136
A group of radical eejits without advanced weaponry is an outspoken gang. With advanced weaponry, they're an insurrectionist faction; terrorists.

Having firepower, and the training to use it effectively, makes a gigantic difference.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
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?​

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.

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.

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?
Surely you at least see there's no good solution in such a situation, which is why it's important to avoid such situations in the first place.

In the even greater scheme, Putin might be an asshole, but pushing him to the edge similarly does no favors for anyone. I mean, surely we've learned enough from just the last decade with syria and iraq that trying to do the same to russia is a terrible idea.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Why are you talking about democracy? Democracy in the Middle East is Islamic theocracy. That is what the people want. That is what the people we are giving arms and weapons want. How in the hell is a Muslim theocracy better than a secular autocrat? They are equivalent.
A secular dictator is better for us, but Muslims too deserve self-determination. The only reason I think it's even arguable is since as you say their will is Islamic theocracy, they are essentially trading serfdom under one authoritarian leader for serfdom under another authoritarian leader. Given the inevitable violence and lasting societal damage of any civil war, there's an argument to be made that not arming the pro-democracy rebels (who are inevitably also the pro-Islamic theocracy rebels) is morally better.

Can you tell me the source for your statement that arming them was akin to creating them? Sounds like made up bullshit to me.
My source was myself; I thought I explained it sufficiently, but perhaps not. If you are unable to find someone to explain it to you, MajinCry summarized it quite succinctly. Just see the post directly below yours. Though I'd disagree that being armed and trained necessarily makes them terrorists - that's a behavioral decision they can embrace or not - the damage done in a civil war is going to make the issue largely moot.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,493
7,547
136

Well played Turkey.

First they play up the failed coup and Russian relations to amp up our desperation to keep them as an Ally. United States clearly believes it must not lose Turkey. Then Turkey enters Syria to show they mean business. Biden visits Turkey and suddenly we're throwing the Kurds under the bus.

United States wants a "safe zone" in Syria. Turkey wants a piece of the pie and to prevent Kurdish influence. The combination of those two ideas is going to be the official US / Turkey invasion, and KEEPING of land in Syria.

Wonder what Assad and Russia have to say about that... they already vowed to attack. Now we're calling their bluff.
 

bshole

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

Well played Turkey.

First they play up the failed coup and Russian relations to amp up our desperation to keep them as an Ally. United States clearly believes it must not lose Turkey. Then Turkey enters Syria to show they mean business. Biden visits Turkey and suddenly we're throwing the Kurds under the bus.

United States wants a "safe zone" in Syria. Turkey wants a piece of the pie and to prevent Kurdish influence. The combination of those two ideas is going to be the official US / Turkey invasion, and KEEPING of land in Syria.

Wonder what Assad and Russia have to say about that... they already vowed to attack. Now we're calling their bluff.

Why in the world would Turkey want that little slice of hell?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,493
7,547
136
Why in the world would Turkey want that little slice of hell?

The United States wants it, to create a "safe zone" for refugees. To counterbalance Assad and Russia.
Turkey wants to be involved to stop the Kurds, and down the line... challenge Assad's government for the rest of Syria.
Easier to take a country when you already own half of it.

Bonus goes to Iraq... pissed off at Turkey invading its territory. They may yet side with Iran and tell the US to GTFO of the region, but that development may take 5-10 years.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
The United States wants it, to create a "safe zone" for refugees. To counterbalance Assad and Russia.
Turkey wants to be involved to stop the Kurds, and down the line... challenge Assad's government for the rest of Syria.
Easier to take a country when you already own half of it.

They WANT Syria?!?! Let them have it. As long as America is not involved, I could give a shit. I do find it VERY odd that America would support a foreign government in attempting to take over parts of a different country.

Regarding safe zones for refugees, isn't that what Europe is for?