• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports.....

MMC

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
It appears we now have a major problem with BO's plans for a coalition, and in giving arms and training to the MB Sunni back Rebels. How do you think this affects what BO and Kerry were stating with regards to Syria? This alliance show Team BO and BO cannot trust who is on the ground in Syria. Which doesn't take into account how they want Assad gone as well. What will others in the newly formed Coalition say now? Will there be commitment? Can this be ignored and with Assad and Russia now knowing this bit of information? What say ye?



According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army. The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups against ISIS. The AFP report cited information from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based group monitoring the Syrian civil war, which said parties to the agreement "promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime." The term Nussayri refers to the Alawite ethnic group that Assad and many of his supporters belong to. AFP said the agreement was signed in a suburb of the Syrian capital, where ISIS has a strong presence.

Charles Lister, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Doha Center, cited a report from the anti-regime Orient Net website to suggest on Twitter that the signatories of the ceasefire include a U.S.-backed coalition called the Syrian Revolutionary Front. According to the U.K.-based outlet Middle East Eye, that same Orient Net report says the ceasefire between groups described in the U.S. as "moderate rebels" and the Islamic State was mediated by the al-Nusra Front, al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. This news suggests that partners will be hard to find. Lister said the pact is a product of failed U.S.-led Western policy in Syria."This underlines serious frustration w. lack of US-backing to [Free Syrian Army] opposition in fight vs Assad," he tweeted. If true, Landis said, the news of a ceasefire proves Washington does not know who it can support or trust within the fractured country.....snip~

ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports
 
That turns a conflict that the White House hopes is three-sided -- with radical Sunnis, moderate Sunnis and Assad all battling each other -- into a sectarian, two-sided war of Sunnis against Assad. Reports already suggest that Syrians who entered the civil war opposing Assad are now turning to ISIS as their best bet for a different kind of government.....snip~

Didn't BO just tell the American people, that ISIL is not Islamic and that they are not an Islamic State? Why are all these Syrians now turning to ISIL as their best bet for a different kind of government?
 
Time to play nice with Assad, maybe we can get him on our side.

Some people are just so adamant to work with dictators even when it is out of necessity.

We did it with Stalin, we can do it with Assad, and Stalin possibly killed more people in Ukraine in hardly a year than the Nazis killed Jews during the entire Holocaust.
 
The biggest lesson not learned from the invasion of Iraq is that the tyrant you know, may be in power because he's the best fit for the population of the area he rules. Under Hussein, Iraq wasn't a particularly nice place to live but as far as we were concerned, controllable. Egypt under Mubarak, same thing. Libya under Kadaffi, likewise. We had a hand in removing all three tyrants and saw each nation devolve into chaos. Now I'm not sure why our government is at odds with Assad. One thing we do know however is that lots of the factions that oppose him are worse than he is. I think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend theory applies here.
 
From Lebanon's Daily Star:

Often at odds on the Syrian battlefields, the FSA, Nusra Front and ISIS have entered a tenuous allegiance of convenience to fight Assad-aligned forces in the badlands surrounding Arsal.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in ... Qalamoun,” said Bassel Idriss, the commander of an FSA-aligned rebel brigade.

Frustration drives Arsal

As I noted in my thoughts regarding the President's recent speech, I believe the U.S. is making a big error in stepping up assistance to Syria's sectarian factions. A better approach would entail ending all assistance to those groups. Otherwise, there will be leakage of weapons to ISIS and the effectiveness of U.S. airstrikes will be limited. Moreover, ISIS will be in a position to gain insight into U.S. tactics and training from rebels who might experience U.S. training.
 
I agree that we should not step up assistance to any of these sectarian factions.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Lebanon's Daily Star:

Often at odds on the Syrian battlefields, the FSA, Nusra Front and ISIS have entered a tenuous allegiance of convenience to fight Assad-aligned forces in the badlands surrounding Arsal.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in ... Qalamoun,” said Bassel Idriss, the commander of an FSA-aligned rebel brigade.

Frustration drives Arsal

As I noted in my thoughts regarding the President's recent speech, I believe the U.S. is making a big error in stepping up assistance to Syria's sectarian factions. A better approach would entail ending all assistance to those groups. Otherwise, there will be leakage of weapons to ISIS and the effectiveness of U.S. airstrikes will be limited. Moreover, ISIS will be in a position to gain insight into U.S. tactics and training from rebels who might experience U.S. training.
Click to expand...


Heya DS. :2wave: BO and his Team have already sent Hellfire Missiles to Lebanon with Saudi funding. Some light aircraft too. This means Iran will get one and reverse engineer. Plus we know who else gets them.

Naturally Assad and the Russian's have heard.
 
So now you probably have arms and money which has been supplied by the West will now filter over to ISIS. Wonderful. this is just another proof that everytime the West attempts to intervene in regional conflicts its going to come back and bite them in the @$$.

But quite a few posters in this forum will never get it, they will just keep agitating for more and more interventions. Some people never learn. :roll:
 
PoS said:
So now you probably have arms and money which has been supplied by the West will now filter over to ISIS. Wonderful. this is just another proof that everytime the West attempts to intervene in regional conflicts its going to come back and bite them in the @$$.

But quite a few posters in this forum will never get it, they will just keep agitating for more and more interventions. Some people never learn. :roll:
Click to expand...


That's why I have been saying for months these terrorists need to be taken out by everyone else. As then they could not spread and or create any other alliances.
 
nota bene said:
I agree that we should not step up assistance to any of these sectarian factions.
Click to expand...


Heya NB.
hat.gif
Yes, this will put quite a damper on some of BO's four pronged attack. Including assistance and where it will be going.
 
MMC said:
It appears we now have a major problem with BO's plans for a coalition, and in giving arms and training to the MB Sunni back Rebels. How do you think this affects what BO and Kerry were stating with regards to Syria? This alliance show Team BO and BO cannot trust who is on the ground in Syria. Which doesn't take into account how they want Assad gone as well. What will others in the newly formed Coalition say now? Will there be commitment? Can this be ignored and with Assad and Russia now knowing this bit of information? What say ye?



According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army. The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups against ISIS. The AFP report cited information from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based group monitoring the Syrian civil war, which said parties to the agreement "promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime." The term Nussayri refers to the Alawite ethnic group that Assad and many of his supporters belong to. AFP said the agreement was signed in a suburb of the Syrian capital, where ISIS has a strong presence.

Charles Lister, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Doha Center, cited a report from the anti-regime Orient Net website to suggest on Twitter that the signatories of the ceasefire include a U.S.-backed coalition called the Syrian Revolutionary Front. According to the U.K.-based outlet Middle East Eye, that same Orient Net report says the ceasefire between groups described in the U.S. as "moderate rebels" and the Islamic State was mediated by the al-Nusra Front, al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. This news suggests that partners will be hard to find. Lister said the pact is a product of failed U.S.-led Western policy in Syria."This underlines serious frustration w. lack of US-backing to [Free Syrian Army] opposition in fight vs Assad," he tweeted. If true, Landis said, the news of a ceasefire proves Washington does not know who it can support or trust within the fractured country.....snip~

ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports
Click to expand...

Well of course, president Assad has governed far too secular, and allowed both Christians and an amount of Western culture, quarters in Syria. It is INSANE that US policy for at least two decades has been "regime change" in Syria!! Is it just an elephant in the room, why is this so difficult.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Lebanon's Daily Star:

Often at odds on the Syrian battlefields, the FSA, Nusra Front and ISIS have entered a tenuous allegiance of convenience to fight Assad-aligned forces in the badlands surrounding Arsal.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in ... Qalamoun,” said Bassel Idriss, the commander of an FSA-aligned rebel brigade.

Frustration drives Arsal

As I noted in my thoughts regarding the President's recent speech, I believe the U.S. is making a big error in stepping up assistance to Syria's sectarian factions. A better approach would entail ending all assistance to those groups. Otherwise, there will be leakage of weapons to ISIS and the effectiveness of U.S. airstrikes will be limited. Moreover, ISIS will be in a position to gain insight into U.S. tactics and training from rebels who might experience U.S. training.
Click to expand...

Whether incompetence or deliberate. Us policies in the ME are fanning the flames of extremists, and destabilising the region. Once again, as both Russia and China correctly warned of three years ago.
 
Montecresto said:
Well of course, president Assad has governed far too secular, and allowed both Christians and an amount of Western culture, quarters in Syria. It is INSANE that US policy for at least two decades has been "regime change" in Syria!! Is it just an elephant in the room, why is this so difficult.
Click to expand...

Mornin Monte. :2wave: Well we can see the whole motivation was still to get rid of Assad for the MB backed rebels.....like I said before they are not concerned about all the rufgees or civilian deaths.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Lebanon's Daily Star:

Often at odds on the Syrian battlefields, the FSA, Nusra Front and ISIS have entered a tenuous allegiance of convenience to fight Assad-aligned forces in the badlands surrounding Arsal.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in ... Qalamoun,” said Bassel Idriss, the commander of an FSA-aligned rebel brigade.

Frustration drives Arsal

As I noted in my thoughts regarding the President's recent speech, I believe the U.S. is making a big error in stepping up assistance to Syria's sectarian factions. A better approach would entail ending all assistance to those groups. Otherwise, there will be leakage of weapons to ISIS and the effectiveness of U.S. airstrikes will be limited. Moreover, ISIS will be in a position to gain insight into U.S. tactics and training from rebels who might experience U.S. training.
Click to expand...



I stick with my earlier post: 'What could possibly go wrong?'

Since my father died of Alzheimer's I often pause and wonder, this morning being a big wonder about deja vu and what is really happening in my world and what is an inherited disease, or perhaps a 60's acid flash back.

But we've been here before. Obama sees an urgent need to draw a "Red Line" somewhere, then says this "international community" set the line, but then we find out there was no international community and no Red Line. Which is now more than slightly obvious as this far less humorous disease ISIS has kind of Metastasized.

Now we have a time line instead of a red line and a promise there will be no "boots on the ground" instead of a "teensy attack".

Carlin was right, everything eventually becomes stupid if you wait long enough...

Wait, I maybe said that.
 
Montecresto said:
Well of course, president Assad has governed far too secular, and allowed both Christians and an amount of Western culture, quarters in Syria. It is INSANE that US policy for at least two decades has been "regime change" in Syria!! Is it just an elephant in the room, why is this so difficult.
Click to expand...



Hasn't the US been yelling "regime change" a lot in the last decade or so?

After the fact, now, as Iraq remains "destabilized" ten years later, now we have people asking what too few were asking way back when Dubya was chanting "weapons of mass destruction" while UN inspectors were saying "wait two weeks".

Today we see the recklessness of that the results of the domestically based pull out.

It's not about "regime change" or any kind of change, it 'Newspeak' for showing the voters "I" have balls
 
MMC said:
Mornin Monte. :2wave: Well we can see the whole motivation was still to get rid of Assad for the MB backed rebels.....like I said before they are not concerned about all the rufgees or civilian deaths.
Click to expand...

Morning to you bud. Hey I got it! But why, WHY, are we so ****ing determined to get rid of a guy who was at least somewhat tolerant of other religions, and Syrian people enjoyed a fair amount of Western culture! In favor of these loons. And furthermore, check my record, I have never accepted that any of the opposition fighters in Syria, were ever our friends or moderate. **** John McCain and his ****. We are advancing a policy, along with the Saudis, that is destructive, if no other US action in the Middle East proved it to you yet, THIS MUST!
 
Fearandloathing said:
Hasn't the US been yelling "regime change" a lot in the last decade or so?

After the fact, now, as Iraq remains "destabilized" ten years later, now we have people asking what too few were asking way back when Dubya was chanting "weapons of mass destruction" while UN inspectors were saying "wait two weeks".

Today we see the recklessness of that the results of the domestically based pull out.

It's not about "regime change" or any kind of change, it 'Newspeak' for showing the voters "I" have balls
Click to expand...

I can only tell you that I was in that tiny little ignored crowd (for we were a crowd, small as it was, and we were ignored) listening to Hans Blix, and calling bull**** on Colin Powell's UN address.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I stick with my earlier post: 'What could possibly go wrong?'

Since my father died of Alzheimer's I often pause and wonder, this morning being a big wonder about deja vu and what is really happening in my world and what is an inherited disease, or perhaps a 60's acid flash back.

But we've been here before. Obama sees an urgent need to draw a "Red Line" somewhere, then says this "international community" set the line, but then we find out there was no international community and no Red Line. Which is now more than slightly obvious as this far less humorous disease ISIS has kind of Metastasized.

Now we have a time line instead of a red line and a promise there will be no "boots on the ground" instead of a "teensy attack".

Carlin was right, everything eventually becomes stupid if you wait long enough...

Wait, I maybe said that.
Click to expand...



Mornin F&L. :2wave: Well.....yesterday BO did come out and say the US is at War with IS.....he wanted to be clear since Kerry said we weren't at war. Would you say he is kind of making Kerry look bad?


White House makes it official: US "at war" with IS.....


The White House declared Friday the United States was at war with Islamic State radicals, seeking to rub out another semantic flap over its Syria policy. In a series of television interviews Secretary of State John Kerry had appeared to be reluctant to term the expansion of US operations against IS in Iraq and Syria as "war."

But pressed to clear up doubts about how President Barack Obama sees the conflict, the White House and Pentagon left little doubt. "The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with Al-Qaeda and its Al-Qaeda affiliates all around the globe," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.....snip~

White House makes it official: US "at war" with IS


Yep.....it's Official!
juggler.gif
 
MMC said:
Mornin F&L. :2wave: Well.....yesterday BO did come out and say the US is at War with IS.....he wanted to be clear since Kerry said we weren't at war. Would you say he is kind of making Kerry look bad?


White House makes it official: US "at war" with IS.....


The White House declared Friday the United States was at war with Islamic State radicals, seeking to rub out another semantic flap over its Syria policy. In a series of television interviews Secretary of State John Kerry had appeared to be reluctant to term the expansion of US operations against IS in Iraq and Syria as "war."

But pressed to clear up doubts about how President Barack Obama sees the conflict, the White House and Pentagon left little doubt. "The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with Al-Qaeda and its Al-Qaeda affiliates all around the globe," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.....snip~

White House makes it official: US "at war" with IS


Yep.....it's Official!
juggler.gif
Click to expand...



I think John Kerry makes John Kerry AND Barrack Obama look bad

"We're engaged in a major counterterrorism operation, and it's going to be a long-term counterterrorism operation,"
Click to expand...

WHAT?

"Long term?"

It has become so clear why this walking lamp post never became president; astonishing it remains how he ever got elected to anything in the first place.

"Teeny war" meets "long term" meaning three years....

I don't know what's more frightening, the fact this inner tube is in a high position or the fact this is not Alzheimer's.
 
Montecresto said:
Morning to you bud. Hey I got it! But why, WHY, are we so ****ing determined to get rid of a guy who was at least somewhat tolerant of other religions, and Syrian people enjoyed a fair amount of Western culture! In favor of these loons. And furthermore, check my record, I have never accepted that any of the opposition fighters in Syria, were ever our friends or moderate. **** John McCain and his ****. We are advancing a policy, along with the Saudis, that is destructive, if no other US action in the Middle East proved it to you yet, THIS MUST!
Click to expand...



I'll tell you why.....its about giving the Sunni another country to govern. It falls back to the same idea these terrorists have. Except with the Sunni and the Saud its about a United States of Islam.....just like Gadhafi's idea on a United States of Africa. Note once he started getting the backing how the West turned on him. Naturally that was a major threat to the Saud and Sunni's Grand Plan.....and could not be allowed into the scheme of things. It would be the so called Moderates new life with their version of Democracy.

Assad is the thorn that sticks into that Sunni Arab and the Saud's Side. Can't gain control of the Region without removing him and taking what Oil he has left.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I think John Kerry makes John Kerry AND Barrack Obama look bad



WHAT?

"Long term?"

It has become so clear why this walking lamp post never became president; astonishing it remains how he ever got elected to anything in the first place.

"Teeny war" meets "long term" meaning three years....

I don't know what's more frightening, the fact this inner tube is in a high position or the fact this is not Alzheimer's.
Click to expand...



My thought is.....here you go on TV and talk about this and now say it is war. But now the main Alliance they had in Syria which we were arming. Just made a pact with the Enemy we are after.

Hows that for a way to start off this war?
 
MMC said:
My thought is.....here you go on TV and talk about this and now say it is war. But now the main Alliance they had in Syria which we were arming. Just made a pact with the Enemy we are after.

Hows that for a way to start off this war?
Click to expand...



It would seem that Obama is unraveling.

Seriously, Kerry has tripped him up so many times before, his well executed PR gambit was clearly written on a napkin. It vaporizes before it starts...

This is not a good "start" no...
 
Fearandloathing said:
It would seem that Obama is unraveling.

Seriously, Kerry has tripped him up so many times before, his well executed PR gambit was clearly written on a napkin. It vaporizes before it starts...

This is not a good "start" no...
Click to expand...



Well Biden was the one that said we chase them to the Gates of Hell.....then we give Lebanon Hellfire Missiles and I am wondering what "hell" Joe was looking at, and or was that a clue?
thinking.gif
 
MMC said:
Well.....yesterday BO did come out and say the US is at War with IS.....he wanted to be clear since Kerry said we weren't at war. Would you say he is kind of making Kerry look bad?
Click to expand...

I don't think the President is trying to make his Secretary of State look bad. Instead, I believe the issue is a far bigger one and illustrates the lack of serious thinking that was given to the planning. Hence, there is no consistent message, a broad alliance was assumed before efforts were made to put it into place (minimalist contributions were attained afterward but no roles clearly defined and NATO member Turkey has refused to help out despite its being a beneficiary of the NATO alliance and generous humanitarian assistance to deal with war refugees), FSA and other sectarian groups were viewed as a solution when, in fact, they are a big part of the problem, and states with large shared interests in defeating ISIS who could be helpful in this particular case (Russia and Iran) were largely or wholly excluded, etc. Aside from a reasonable end goal and some building blocks i.e., aid to the Kurdish forces, Iraqi forces, counterterrorism, and air strikes, what was laid out as a plan hasn't really been vetted meaningfully. Barring changes, that lack of vetting probably increases the probability of a muddled outcome in which ISIS will be dented but far from destroyed in the near-term and perhaps through the rest of the President's term.
 
sawdust said:
The biggest lesson not learned from the invasion of Iraq is that the tyrant you know, may be in power because he's the best fit for the population of the area he rules. Under Hussein, Iraq wasn't a particularly nice place to live but as far as we were concerned, controllable. Egypt under Mubarak, same thing. Libya under Kadaffi, likewise. We had a hand in removing all three tyrants and saw each nation devolve into chaos. Now I'm not sure why our government is at odds with Assad. One thing we do know however is that lots of the factions that oppose him are worse than he is. I think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend theory applies here.
Click to expand...

... its a "lesson' that should have been "known" before we ever went into Iraq. I ALWAYS believed the invasion of Iraq was one of the biggest bonehead moves of American history (not just the decision to go, but the plan of occupation, which there apparently was none... and the exit strategy, which was also lacking).... I am now thinking it is one of the biggest bonehead moves of world history.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom