Sirija

[Bane5]

Ono što je Bane pričao o eventualnoj radikalizaciji Sunita kao posledici ruske intervencije već se dešava u dužem periodu nezavisno od intervencije. FSA se polako raspada na jugu Sirije i čitave jedinice pobunjenika prelaze u Al Nusru i ISIS. 

 

nije to nista strashno  na jugu, prisustvo IS-a je tu gde jeste prilicno lokalizovano i za sada ne raste puno.

kao i svuda u siriji i tu, na jugu nusra i IS su u sukobu.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Bane5

[Prospero]

Bilo bi super da ISISovci upadnu preko Golana u Izrael, njihovi Toyotini pikapovi su kao stvoreni za Merkavine vezbe gađanja...

 

via TT

[Gandalf]

Onog trenutka kada je u Siriji počela ozbiljna pobuna ove zemlje je trebalo da počnu da rade zajedno. Ono, Kontakt grupa i taj rad. Ako je jedan deo zainteresovanih igrača odlučio da Asad mora da padne onda je jedini način da od toga nešto bude taj da otpočnu seriju sastanaka sa Rusima i Irancima i probaju da dogovore kako da režim padne a da ovi očuvaju ono najosnovnije od svojih interesa u Siriji.

napisah poduzi carsav i zajebah se. ukratko.

 

u samom pocetku, do jeseni 2011-e, niko nije zeleo promenu rezima i haos u Siriji. svi bitniji igraci u sunitskom kampu (Turska, Katar, Saudi, UAE) su pozivali na reforme, barem kozmeticke. Turci jer nisu zeleli haos i imali su jako dobre odnosa sa sirijskim rezimom i Iranom, Saudi + UAE su vazda alergicni na revolucije, Katar jer bi cak i minimalne reforme pomogle sirijskom MB-u.  

 

Turci i Katar su pokusali da se pregovaraju sa Asadom i Iranom, jer su imali prilicno dobre odnose sa njima (Turci i Katar su do tada optuzivani da su pro-iranski nastrojeni). posebno su Turci imali dobre odnose sa Asadom - trgovina je cvetala, sirijski burzuji su pare trosili u turskim trznim centrima koji su bili u vlasnistvu pro-AKP bizmismena, Sirija je kopneni put ka bliskoistocnom trzistu, Asad je bio saveznik kontra PKK.

 

 

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero012813

 

In August, after Syrian army assaults upon Hama and Latakia in which scores of civilians were killed, Davutoğlu held a six-hour meeting with Asad. At this last high-level meeting between the two countries, the Turkish foreign minister warned the Syrian president that Turkey would cease its attempts to facilitate dialogue if killings of civilians did not stop immediately.

[Gandalf]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/syrian-military-weakness-russian-intervention

 

Russia’s move was prompted in part by Assad’s other main ally, Iran, which plays a powerful though discreet role in Syria but is usually reluctant to commit its own forces. “The Iranians told the Russians bluntly: if you don’t intervene, Bashar al-Assad will fall, and we are not in a position to keep propping him up,” said a Damascus-based diplomat.

...

“Idlib fell very quickly because Syrian soldiers were simply not prepared to fight,” said one Syrian expert. “Ahrar al-Sham [one of the rebel groups] were surprised how quickly the regime defences crumbled.”

 

 

[bradilko]

ima sveta milosevic resenje za siriju

od njega je samo ludji striko bio

[Muwan]

napisah poduzi carsav i zajebah se. ukratko.

 

u samom pocetku, do jeseni 2011-e, niko nije zeleo promenu rezima i haos u Siriji. svi bitniji igraci u sunitskom kampu (Turska, Katar, Saudi, UAE) su pozivali na reforme, barem kozmeticke. Turci jer nisu zeleli haos i imali su jako dobre odnosa sa sirijskim rezimom i Iranom, Saudi + UAE su vazda alergicni na revolucije, Katar jer bi cak i minimalne reforme pomogle sirijskom MB-u.  

 

Turci i Katar su pokusali da se pregovaraju sa Asadom i Iranom, jer su imali prilicno dobre odnose sa njima (Turci i Katar su do tada optuzivani da su pro-iranski nastrojeni). posebno su Turci imali dobre odnose sa Asadom - trgovina je cvetala, sirijski burzuji su pare trosili u turskim trznim centrima koji su bili u vlasnistvu pro-AKP bizmismena, Sirija je kopneni put ka bliskoistocnom trzistu, Asad je bio saveznik kontra PKK.

 

... i onda su digli ruke već u septembru, zgroženi Asadovom brutalnošću. Kažem ja, prave pesničke dušice i romantični idealisti. Najveće svetske sile su u Bosni tri godine trpele onolike frustracije i neuspele planove, i progutale onolika zlodela dok najzad nisu stvorile uslove za Dayton, a ovi digli ruke posle uvodnih 6 meseci i okrenuli se pokeru. MB politika u svom najboljem izdanju.

[iDemo]

Bilo bi super da ISISovci upadnu preko Golana u Izrael, njihovi Toyotini pikapovi su kao stvoreni za Merkavine vezbe gađanja...

 

via TT

Pa ne bi valjda opet "brat na brata",ne??

[Gandalf]

Najveće svetske sile su u Bosni tri godine trpele onolike frustracije i neuspele planove, i progutale onolika zlodela dok najzad nisu stvorile uslove za Dayton...

 

U.S. Looks Away as Iran Arms Bosnia

 

Edited October 2, 2015 by Gandalf

[Marcus Wulffings]

Bilo bi super da ISISovci upadnu preko Golana u Izrael, njihovi Toyotini pikapovi su kao stvoreni za Merkavine vezbe gađanja...

 

via TT

 

 

misliš na ovu budževinu:

 

[iDemo]

S kojim bi ja uzivanjem prvo star'o sve one sto ih snabdevaju dzebanom -  odma' posto bi regulisao™ one sto trguju ili barterishu sa njima - naftu i ostalo...

[iDemo]

satr'o

[Lord Protector]

planovi za pregovore

 

 

US Seeks to Cut Europeans Out of Syria Peace Talks

Officials: Kerry Wants to Keep Meeting to Those 'Directly Involved'

by Jason Ditz, October 01, 2015

 

With the UN General Assembly setting up a growing call for international negotiations on ending the Syrian Civil War, the Obama Administration is taking a risky position, reportedly trying to keep all Western European nations from taking part in the negotiations.

The international nature of the talks had most assuming that the P5+1 would be formally involved, as they were with the Iran nuclear negotiations, but while the US is okay with Russia being at the talks, they want to cut out the other four, meaning China and all three EU members would be sidelined.

The US is envisioning a five nation effort, led by them, and including Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The assumption from this is likely that Turkey and Saudi Arabia will back the US position, giving them a 3-2 majority at the negotiating table.

Russia is likely to make a lot of diplomatic points with their position, which urges the inclusion of all P5+1 members, as well as several other Middle Eastern states, including Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.

US officials are defending there position as believing that the talks will be easier if they restrict it to those “directly involved” in Syria, but this must inevitably raise the question of whether the US is really “involved” in any way that France, for instance, is not.

The real risk of including France, Germany, and Britain is the appeal to reasonableness they are liable to bring to the table, as the US can count on the Saudis and Turkish government to both unconditionally spurn any unity deal that keeps Assad in power in any form, while the European nations are more likely to push for some sort of compromise deal that starts a transition.

Edited October 2, 2015 by slow

[Marcus Wulffings]

hoće da razvodne rusku inicijativu

 

planovi za pregovore

[Marcus Wulffings]

 

 

Marines Guarding Russian Air Force at Syrian Airbase

A battalion of Russian marines are providing security for the Russian Air Force deployed on the Hmaimim Airbase in Syria.

A group of Russian marines are guarding the Hmaimim Airbase in Syria where the Russian Air Force is temporarily deployed, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Gen.-Maj. Igor Konashenkov said Thursday.

“A battalion tactical group of marines is involved in securing and defending the base,” Konashenkov said.

He said that the Russian Air Force is completely supplied with materials from the Russian Federation.

[Lord Protector]

 

War Party Hates Putin – Loves al-Qaeda

Posted By Justin Raimondo On October 1, 2015

As Russian fighter jets target al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, the Western media is up in arms – and in denial. They deny the Russians are taking on ISIS – and they are indignant that Putin is targeting al-Qaeda, which is almost never referred to by its actual name, but is instead described as “al-Nusra,” or the more inclusive “Army of Conquest,” which are alternate names for the heirs of Osama bin Laden.

And there are no ideological lines being drawn in this information war: both the left and the right – e.g. the left-liberal Vox and the Fox News network – are utilizing a map put out by the neoconservative “Institute for the Study of War” to “prove” that Putin isn’t really attacking ISIS – he’s actually only concerned with destroying the “non-ISIS” rebels and propping up the faltering regime of Bashar al-Assad.

The premise behind this kind of propaganda is that there really is some difference between ISIS and the multitude of Islamist groups proliferating like wasps in the region: and that, furthermore, al-Qaeda is “relatively” moderate when compared to the Islamic State. Yes, incredibly, the US and British media are pushing the line that the al-Qaeda fighters in Syria, known as al-Nusra, are really the Good Guys.

Didn’t you know that we have always been at war with Eastasia?

There is much whining, this [Thursday] morning, that a supposedly US-“vetted” group known as Tajammu al-Aaza has felt Putin’s wrath – but when we get down into the weeds, we discover that this outfit is fighting alongside al-Qaeda:

“Jamil al-Saleh, a defected Syrian army officer who is now the leader of the rebel group Tajammu al-Aaza, told AlSouria.net that the Russian airstrikes targeted his group’s base in al-Lataminah, a town in the western Syrian governorate of Hama. That area represents one of the farthest southern points of the rebel advance from the north and is therefore a crucial front line in the war. An alliance of Syrian rebel factions, including both the al Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front and groups considered by Washington to be more moderate, successfully drove Assad regime forces out of the northern governorate of Idlib and are now pushing south into Hama.”

By the way, according to the Pentagon’s own testimony before a congressional committee, only sixty “vetted” fighters were sent into Syria to take on both Assad and ISIS. And while they denied, at first, that their pet “moderates” betrayed Washington and  handed over most of their weapons and other equipment to al-Qaeda in return for “safe passage,” the Pentagon later admitted it. Furthermore, we were told that these were the only “vetted” fighters actually in the field, but now we are confronted with “Tajammu al-Aaza,” which – it’s being reported – is deploying US-supplied missile guidance systems against Syrian government forces.

So a handful of “vetted” fighters suddenly turns into an entire armed force – one which, you’ll note, has effectively merged with al-Qaeda.

The lies are coming at us so fast and thick in the first 24 hours of the Russian strikes that we face a veritable blizzard of obfuscation. They range from the egregious – alleged photos of “civilian casualties” that turn out to be fake – to the more subtle: a supposed Free Syrian Army commander is reported killed by a Russian air strike, and yet it appears that very same commander was kidnapped by ISIS last year. We are told that the town of Rastan, the site of Russian strikes, isn’t under the control of ISIS – except it was when ISIS was executing gay men there.

The Russians make no bones about their support of Assad: in his speech to the United Nations, Putin stated his position clearly: “We think it’s a big mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities and government forces who valiantly fight terrorists on the ground.” On the other hand, the objectives of the Western alliance in Syria aren’t so clear: on the one hand, Washington claims to be directing the main blow against ISIS, but its claims of success have been greatly exaggerated. Yet we have spent many millions arming and training “vetted” rebels who have been defecting to ISIS and al-Qaeda in droves.

It’s almost as if we’re keeping ISIS around so as to put pressure on Assad to get out of Dodge. As Putin put it in his UN speech:

“… t is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade.

“It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you’ll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them.

“I’d like to tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it’s a big question: who’s playing who here? The recent incident where the most ‘moderate’ opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that.”

The reality is that there are no “moderates” in Syria, and certainly not among the rebel Islamist groups: they’re all jihadists who want to impose Sharia law, drive out Christians, Alawites, and other minority groups, and set up an Islamic dictatorship. These are our noble “allies” – the very same people who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and against whom our perpetual “war on terrorism” was launched.

Except now the face of the enemy has changed: he is no longer an Islamist fighter but a Russian soldier. Osama bin Laden is dead, but Vladimir Putin is very much alive, and a War Party in search of a new foreign threat has found it in the Russian leader. Which is why we see all the usual warmongers marching around the Twitterverse chanting “Hands off al-Qaeda!”

The reason for this sudden devotion to the cause of “peace” is that the War Party is much more interested in unseating Assad than they are in defeating ISIS and its allies – who are being “flirted with,” as Putin put it, by the West, and subsidized by the Saudis and the Gulf states.

The Russians are upsetting this little applecart – and the regime-changers in Washington, and their media camarilla, are livid. And yet the average American looks at this and thinks: why should we fight the jihadists in Syria if Putin is willing to take on the job? This is precisely the question asked by none other than Donald Trump, the leading Republican presidential aspirant – and a good explanation for why he’s miles ahead of everyone else in the polls.

The cloud of propaganda hovering over events in Syria gets thicker by the minute, but it’s possible to see the reality of what’s occurring if we remember one thing: our former enemies – al-Qaeda and its imitators – are now Washington’s allies. However, we have to ask, as Putin did at the UN: “Who’s playing who here?”

Edited October 2, 2015 by slow