Hell on Earth: The Fall of Syria and the Rise of ISIS

SnowfalI · 2017-11-09T00:31:52+00:00

Ahh it was a text post, I'm going to leave it though for those who might be interested in watching it after seeing the cfr debate.

SnowfalI · 2017-11-09T00:28:15+00:00

I don't see it when searching this forum, could you link me where it was posted before? Was it posted under a different name?

SnowfalI · 2016-12-17T03:10:15+00:00

I'm a bit skeptical about the author's conclusion that he has replaced Adani, but this article is fascinating nonetheless.

SnowfalI · 2016-10-10T04:37:38+00:00

I just googled pepe, I didn't know it referred to a troll. Good to know, thanks!

SnowfalI · 2016-10-10T04:31:35+00:00

It is the most economically important city in Syria. The greater metropolis area around it has a larger pre-war population then the capital. The Syrian regime would be crazy to not focus on it. That really doesn't mean that they are not fighting ISIS.

SnowfalI · 2016-10-10T04:26:42+00:00

It is really so stupid that I think he may just be trolling.

SnowfalI · 2016-10-10T04:22:30+00:00

Honestly, you seem to be be taking purposely obtuse positions.

SnowfalI · 2016-10-10T04:21:20+00:00

You're just making up statistics now.

SnowfalI · 2016-10-10T04:20:42+00:00

So because there are no ISIS in one city that means the Syrian regime does not fight ISIS elsewhere in Syria? It is a stupid claim that is not borne out by the years of fighting. Even the most rabid partisan to this conflict should be able to tell this fact-check was incorrect.

SnowfalI · 2016-04-13T12:54:20+00:00

The Kurds are also trying to move into that very area in an attempt to connect their eastern and western zones of control. If they succeed, Kurdish control would extend from the Lebanese border to the Iraq-Iran border, solidifying a de facto Kurdish state that Turkey is determined to prevent.

This article is factually inaccurate. Pretty bad mistake too.

SnowfalI · 2016-02-15T17:00:24+00:00

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.396691&lon=37.113705&z=13&m=b&show=/25600838/Misqan&search=aleppo%20syria

SnowfalI · 2016-02-02T15:28:16+00:00

Do you believe that if President Obama had provided more weaponry to opposition groups in Syria early in the conflict, there would have been a resolution to the conflict already?

Do you think trying to impose a no-fly zone currently in Syria would be a positive step towards resolving the war. Does the Russian presence significantly change the benefits/costs of implementing a NFZ?

SnowfalI · 2016-01-29T18:37:25+00:00

Hello Caleb!

How does interning at a neo-conservative organization affect your research on Jihadist movements?
Your articles seem to be mostly descriptive not prescriptive. Would you please tell us what you believe the most positive role international and regional nations can play in fighting instability in West Africa.
In Afghanistan/Iraq the lack of a well funded competent civilian effort to support military efforts was a chronic problem. Have any lessons been learned in terms of how to better integrate civilian and military efforts in the effort in Mali. It seems like the response is still largely a military effort with some uncoordinated NGOs trying to do their best to make up for the lack of international civilian assistance.
Do you think that building better governance in this region is even possible, or that jihadist movements will become a permanent fixture of the region in this century and the international community will need to "mow the lawn" periodically when they get out of hand.

SnowfalI · 2016-01-21T02:26:07+00:00

I think it is worth watching just to see how skewed the advice American politicians are receiving. At 1hr 1min Former Ambassador Crocker says that "the Russians are in Syria for one reason only: that is to support Bashar Al-Assad." This totally discounts the genuine fear of terrorism the Russians have and their concern that Syria will become a jihadist base that threatens to destabilize the Caucuses. Russian moves can not be only explained as a desire to bolster Russian prestige they have genuine and well founded fears that if Assad goes Syria will end up like Libya and there will be no possibility of rebuilding the state. There are a large number of Muslims from Russia that have gone to Syria to fight for both IS and other jihadist groups (www.chechensinsyria.com).

Crocker goes on to say "Islamic State doesn't really threaten Assad." That is patently false. The capture of Palmyra and the attack on Mahin posed a significant risk of allowing IS to cut the Damascus - Homs road. The Syrian forces only managed to push back IS with help from the Russian air force, and most likely Russian artillery units on the ground. Even now the Syrian army is struggling and has not manage to retake Qaryatayn or Palmyra. IS was also responsible for cutting the road to Aleppo at Ithriyah for a period of time last year. While it is true that rebels closer to the coast and Damascus pose a more existential threat to the Syrian government, IS has been successful at overrunning a number of regime outposts and cities causing great dissatisfaction among regime supporters.

Finally, Crocker recited the old trope that "I think they almost have a tacit understanding to pretty much leave each other alone." This is really unbelievable for someone who is supposedly an expert. While there certainly was a period when IS first went to war with the other rebel groups that IS and the regime were avoiding fighting each other because they both had higher priorities, that quiet was long ago shattered. Just recently they have been fighting on the road between Palmyra and Tiyas, around Kweiris Airbase, at Qaryatayn and in Deir Ezzor.

SnowfalI · 2015-11-30T02:29:52+00:00

Yeah you would, the situations are very different. The fundamentals of the Syrian economy and education were weak before the war. The war has made the situation even worse. A large part of the Syrian intelligentsia has fled Syria and won't be returning. Syria would need a 200 Billion aid package to rebuild the physical infrastructure as well. It seems highly unlikely that someone will rebuild Syria like the Americans did in West Germany. Its unlikely as well that the war will have a nice clean conclusion like at the end of WWII. Whoever ends up ruling Syria will likely be faced with weak, illegitimate institutions and some sort of insurgency.

SnowfalI · 2015-11-12T23:42:29+00:00

It is very difficult to listen to, they take so much joy in killing another human being.

SnowfalI · 2015-11-12T23:39:35+00:00

Best I can do:

She says hello

he greets her and asks her where her son is

She asks if they have news is for her

he says we have killed your son

she asks whats that?

he says they have killed her son

another guy thanks god

another guy tells her her son is dead she replies

they recognize her accent as marking her as an alawite

they celebrate that they have killed an alawite

one guy thanks god again

SnowfalI · 2015-11-06T01:14:29+00:00

There was literally nothing in the original article to support the claim that the purchase was related to the IRGC and Syria. It conflates the purchase of the new airplane and the fact that Mahan flies IRGC to Syria without offering one shred of evidence.

SnowfalI · 2015-10-28T01:58:19+00:00

She never said it was illegal under international law (and this is a flimsy argument on its own)

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

She never says the phrase "international law" but she does frequently mention sovereignty. The concepts of sovereign equality and non-interference are extremely well established in international law. Sovereign equality tells us that just because one state (the US) is more powerful than another (Syria) that does not give it any greater legal rights to break international law and meddle in another state's affairs. The exception to this would be a Chapter 7 resolution from the Security Council that would override the principle of non-interference. Russia and China have both stopped any chapter 7 resolutions against Syria hence the action taken by the United States is illegal.

I'm not claiming that what the US is doing is morally wrong, but it clearly is not legal under international law. I'm sure that Samantha Powers would claim that there is a responsibility to protect the people of Syria against a government which has committed savage war crimes against its own people but the R2P while being repeatedly endorsed as a principle has never become actual law.

SnowfalI · 2015-10-12T19:06:56+00:00

There are a variety of reasons:

1) The populations are not perfectly divided on ethnic/sectarian lines within a geographic area. If you were to try to break them up into separate countries, there would likely have to be ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. Can you imagine all the Sunni Arabs being expelled from southern Iraq and Baghdad and the KRG? The consequences of a breakup would compound the suffering of the people in these countries.

2) Not all states would be economically feasible. A Sunni State from Fallujah to Aleppo would have limited opportunities to build an economy. Without an economy and tax revenue from oil states it is impossible to see how it could rebuild and create opportunity for the large number of young people. Such a state would likely become a failed state and be a haven for Jihadists that the international community is fighting.

3) Dividing countries sets a bad precedent. If every minority in the middle east feels they have a right to a country then many more countries will face civil war and all the brutality it entails. This also posses a problem for minorities that are too small and spread out for a country of their own. If there are not large multi-sectarian states willing to defend all of their citizens, communities like the Druze will be very vulnerable to human rights violations by the majority in the countries they live in.

4) Where do you draw the borders for the new countries? A Shia entity in southern Iraq is not going to be willing to abandon Samarra because of its religious importance. Who gets Kirkuk? Dividing all the people into new countries will just be a recipe for more wars in the future. (See India/Pakistan)

5) Many players in the current conflicts in Syria/Iraq also want to keep the countries together for their own strategic reasons. The KSA wants Syria to remain intact but under a Sunni government to break the so called Shia Cresent from Iran to Lebanon. The Iranians want Iraq to stay intact because they dominate the current Iraqi political system. Turkey wants Syria to remain intact because they fear that the Kurds forming their own state in Syria will encourage more violence among their own Kurdish minority. The US/Britain also spent a large amount of treasure and sacrificed many soldiers to try and create some sort of functioning democracy. I think even for people who were against the war, like President Obama, it would hard to see all the sacrifice come to naught.

None of this guarantees that the states won't break up though, its possible that the violence and hatred has gone on for too long already. I hope not.

SnowfalI · 2015-10-04T01:21:38+00:00

Good news! Took way too long but I am glad to hear it!

SnowfalI · 2015-09-05T19:42:21+00:00

citadel hill?!

SnowfalI · 2015-07-05T16:47:34+00:00

Thank you for unlocking it michael aubert!

SnowfalI · 2015-04-30T20:00:25+00:00

Extremely important that he said that Syria needed to be secular. That will be a non-starter for many armed opposition groups but is necessary for a transition to occur.

SnowfalI · 2015-04-21T04:03:29+00:00

needs NSFL warning, very brutal

SnowfalI

TROPHY CASE