Syrian Air Force does not attack ISIS - Newsnight

Yokel

LE
This Monday's Newsnight had a report from the Middle East, with the interesting comment that the Syrian Air Force "does not usually attack ISIS". Does that not strike you as odd?

Perhaps those who portray Assad as a great ally of the West are mistaken?
 

Yokel

LE
No comments? Assad is playing the West.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
Isn't that because we've threatened to shoot everything down he put's up.
I fail to see how Assad is playing the west it's only last year we were going to bomb him back to teh stone age in support of ISIS.
He's probably laughing his socks off now that they are running rampage througfh Iraq.
He caled the Terrorists and we called them freedom fiighters.
What are they now?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps those who portray Assad as a great ally of the West are mistaken?

The "West" has been busy trying to overthrow the Assad regime for several years now and has, I assume, been covertly supporting the Syrian rebels. Nobody in their right mind would portray Assad as an ally of the "West".
 

Yokel

LE
It was never in support of ISIS it would have been in support of the FSA. ISIS have thrived in the resulting power vacuum - which Assad seems to have allowed to shore up his own power base.

Meanwhile, Sunnis have seen themselves as being left unprotected by the West, so ISIS were given a power based inside both Syria and Iraq.
 

Blogg

LE
Assad runs a murderous self interested regime intent on eliminating all opponents.

IS runs a murderous wannabe Caliphate intent on eliminating all opponents

Take your pick
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
Assad runs a murderous self interested regime intent on eliminating all opponents.

IS runs a murderous wannabe Caliphate intent on eliminating all opponents

Take your pick


At least you know where you stand
Cameron and Obama are lurching from one stance to another without actually doing anything
 

alib

LE
This Monday's Newsnight had a report from the Middle East, with the interesting comment that the Syrian Air Force "does not usually attack ISIS". Does that not strike you as odd?

Perhaps those who portray Assad as a great ally of the West are mistaken?
The rebels float all sorts of baseless conspiracy theories about this. The Turks appear to have backed IS at one point. Assad did prioritize attacking other parts of the rebellion but that's because they often were attacking regime forces or had seized important cities. There have always been clashes with IS and regime forces. IS just had different strategic priorities, being in no hurry to take his head, mainly in seizing territory, often fairly empty territory of little value.

Since June there's been a whole series of massacres in SA bases up Raqqa way as IS consolidates it's hold on that province. Now IS are tearing through rebel forces just North East of Aleppo. That's a bit of real estate Assad can't afford to lose to them. IS has almost doubled in size in the past two months as it incorporates rebel units. With the rebels fragmented politically it's become the only serious threat to the regime.

If IS try to take Aleppo immediately they are going to run headlong into regime forces besieging the last pockets of rebel resistance. It's a matter of time in any case. The IRGC are reported to be reinforcing the Syrian front with forces from Iraq in anticipation. If Aleppo falls to IS that's a bigger tipping point than Mosul.
 

S0I

LE
Assad runs a murderous self interested regime intent on eliminating all opponents.

IS runs a murderous wannabe Caliphate intent on eliminating all opponents

Take your pick


Actually, Assad ran a secular regime that as long as you kept your nose out of politics, provided a safe and fairly urbane life for the average Syrian.

Coalition of the stoopid - Bringing civil war and religious intolerance to the Middle East since 2003

syria2.jpg
 
I've seen numerous videos of the SAF striking IS, many of them in the last week. As for Newsh*te it's run by the BBC so will never get anywhere near the truth.

There are a number of reasons why Assad has not been striking IS as much as other groups. Look at this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png

IS are in the north and away from the main population centres except around Aleppo (Ar Raqqa and Deir ez Zur). The FSA, IF and Al-Nusra are all fighting closer geographically to Damascus and the main population centres. They are the nearest threat so have been bombed first - it's a question of priority and strategy.

Secondly Assad knows full well that the west is very unlikely to support the extremist head choppers (we prefer moderate head choppers), so if he concentrates on reducing the groups the west wants to support he reduces outside aid. It makes strategic sense to remove the more moderate groups. I think the FSA are beginning to wake up to who the greater enemy is.

Thirdly IS fight everyone and the FSA are getting squeezed by IS in the north and SAA/HA/NDF in the south around Aleppo, so much so they've called on the US to bomb IS north of Allepo because they fear IS will over-run them.
 
Actually, Assad ran a secular regime that as long as you kept your nose out of politics, provided a safe and fairly urbane life for the average Syrian.

Coalition of the stoopid - Bringing civil war and religious intolerance to the Middle East since 2003

syria2.jpg
Sad but true. Our inherent sense of fair play doesn't really work with nasty people. We can win wars but then promptly lose the peace, if we ever actually establish that after the endex phase.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria were stable in their own little way, ruled over by nasty people who kept a savage form of law and order which for them worked, but certainly didn't tick any of our equality boxes!
 

alib

LE
The "West" has been busy trying to overthrow the Assad regime for several years now and has, I assume, been covertly supporting the Syrian rebels. Nobody in their right mind would portray Assad as an ally of the "West".
It's an open secret Assad was close to breaking with Qom and making a formal peace agreement with Israel at the connivance of Foggy Bottom until the Arab Spring came along. Looking at what happened to Qaddafi he was lucky that hadn't come off.

Then our allies with mutually conflicting political agendas flooded the Syrian rising with every beard they could bus in, including in Turkey's case material support to IS. The Sunni revolt was never coherent and always heavily Islamist but this effectively destroyed it. Allies are often hard to distinguish from enemies in these things.

And before we start claiming any moral high ground. We in effect turned coat on the Shia Baghdad we spent trillions of tax dollars and not a little blood creating in supporting what in effect is a war of attrition against Syria's minorities with a backyard in Iraq. And then we blame the current mess in and beyond al Anbar on Iraqi politicians playing sectarian games.
 

alib

LE
It was never in support of ISIS it would have been in support of the FSA. ISIS have thrived in the resulting power vacuum - which Assad seems to have allowed to shore up his own power base.

Meanwhile, Sunnis have seen themselves as being left unprotected by the West, so ISIS were given a power based inside both Syria and Iraq.
Frankly this is bunk, IS's power base is al Anbar. The Syrian rebellion lacks any coherent political strategy or goals beyond taking Assad's head and it's that that created an anarchic zone of sectarian warfare that IS could use as rear basing and expand its territorial goals.

The rebels widely stated military strategy is victory via sectarian attrition, which they've done a lot of with our support, 65K Syrian Army killed, mostly Alawites and lots of civilians. IS is not the only group involved to make genocidal noises which up until recently we have turned a deaf ear to.

Our allies have actively supported Brothers, Salafists and outright Takfiri including the the local AQ affiliates. We have stood by as they did thus and pursued their own conflicting strategic goals. We even continued this foolishness while al Anbar was sliding out of control a year ago. We basically looked the other way as young Brits joined the early Jihad, so did the French. The Saudis seem to caught a grip of themselves this Spring and backed off in fear of blowback, the Turks only just have.

Parts of the FSA have turned out to be of much the same mind as the folks our regional chums favored just with neater beards. Were they've been effective its often been fighting alongside Takfiri. Some "moderate" units have been incorporated into fast growing IS recently. One took over Arsal inside Lebanon earlier this month, retreating a few days later with dozen of Leb military hostages.
 

S0I

LE
IS's power base is a lot of seriously fecked off staff officers from Sadaams former regime that are getting their own back.

Remind me again who gave a huge standing army and all the Iraqi civil service their P45's without redundancy and cancelled all the retirees pensions?
 
It was never in support of ISIS it would have been in support of the FSA. ISIS have thrived in the resulting power vacuum - which Assad seems to have allowed to shore up his own power base.

Meanwhile, Sunnis have seen themselves as being left unprotected by the West, so ISIS were given a power based inside both Syria and Iraq.

Frankly the West hasn't clue what side anybody in the Middle East is on. Not least because your Arab will swap sides ten times a day as it suits him.
 

alib

LE
Frankly the West hasn't clue what side anybody in the Middle East is on. Not least because your Arab will swap sides ten times a day as it suits him.
Barry has also shown some agility in swapping sides of late, not with much success I'd add.
 
Barry has also shown some agility in swapping sides of late, not with much success I'd add.

Barry is utterly clueless when it comes to anything. He can't even sell free healthcare let alone manage a foreign policy
 
Top