ORLY? US-Trained Syrian Rebels were Joining ISIS with weapons supplied by Washington - Putin

[Amish Rake Fighter]

[Heretic]

Why can't we?

CSIS is monitoring CDC.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Canada should just pull out. They're not even accomplishing anything anyway, other than killing civilians and being killed by the Kurds they're trying to help.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/up-to-27-iraqi-civilians-may-have-been-killed-in-canadian-airstrike-pentagon-document-reveals-1.3213917

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canadian-killed-by-kurdish-friendly-fire-in-iraq/

[taxi]

A few things...

1) Yes, the US funded small amounts of rebels and some of those rebels defected to ISIS. However, the US has also been bombing the crap out of ISIS and was bombing the crap out of the groups that evolved into ISIS for the last 15 years or so. So to say that the US created ISIS is a bit of a stretch.

2) ISIS arose out of Syria not Iraq. The Arab spring failed in Syria, as Assad unlike other leaders, refused to step down in the face of civil war. A power vacuum arose, and ISIS took control of large parts of Syria and spread into Iraq. So although the invasion of Iraq was not well thought out, it didn't cause ISIS.

3) Canada's role has been extremely limited. It consists entirely of giving air support to Kurdish troops in the North, which has been quite successful. That being said, we've only made 3 airstrikes in Syria and about 100 in Iraq.

4) Even if the US wanted to they could not involve themselves heavily on the ground as Russia is doing. Syria is a Russian ally. Russia vetoed all major military involvement. The limited airstrikes in Syria by the US and its allies have gone on with Russian approval.

5) Russia is there in support of its ally Assad. Assad's regime has killed far more people than ISIS, and they are not the good guys here. A "coordinated framework" here would just mean a brutal crack down of the surrounding population. This is a war that claimed the lives of about 200,000 people before ISIS entered the picture.

[TOMapleLaughs]

A few things...

1) Yes, the US funded small amounts of rebels and some of those rebels defected to ISIS. However, the US has also been bombing the crap out of ISIS and was bombing the crap out of the groups that evolved into ISIS for the last 15 years or so. So to say that the US created ISIS is a bit of a stretch.

2) ISIS arose out of Syria not Iraq. The Arab spring failed in Syria, as Assad unlike other leaders, refused to step down in the face of civil war. A power vacuum arose, and ISIS took control of large parts of Syria and spread into Iraq. So although the invasion of Iraq was not well thought out, it didn't cause ISIS.

3) Canada's role has been extremely limited. It consists entirely of giving air support to Kurdish troops in the North, which has been quite successful. That being said, we've only made 3 airstrikes in Syria and about 100 in Iraq.

4) Even if the US wanted to they could not involve themselves heavily on the ground as Russia is doing. Syria is a Russian ally. Russia vetoed all major military involvement. The limited airstrikes in Syria by the US and its allies have gone on with Russian approval.

5) Russia is there in support of its ally Assad. Assad's regime has killed far more people than ISIS, and they are not the good guys here. A "coordinated framework" here would just mean a brutal crack down of the surrounding population. This is a war that claimed the lives of about 200,000 people before ISIS entered the picture.

It's interesting that dropping bombs on ISIS is still viewed as a solution when dropping bombs on people there for 15 years led to the evolution of ISIS.

[taxi]

It's interesting that dropping bombs on ISIS is still viewed as a solution when dropping bombs on people there for 15 years led to the evolution of ISIS.

The option is to get involved militarily or do nothing.

Also, ISIS arose out of the Saudis spreading Wahhabism across the region for the last 80 years. You would have eventually ended up with a group like ISIS regardless of who dropped bombs on who. Many of the fighters in ISIS come from Western nations, where the only bomb they'd ever seen was in their Call of Duty games.

I'm not promoting military intervention. I'm pretty split on the issue. I don't like seeing Canada being involved in any wars. However, supporting the Kurds seems like a pretty noble cause. To say that since dropping bombs could result in radicalizing people, therefore, we should never get involved militarily seems like pretty flawed logic. That's like saying a coin flop could come up heads, therefore, we should always bet on heads. It may seem shocking but people make their own choices, and there will be radicalization in the middle east regardless of any Western action.

[TOMapleLaughs]

The option is to get involved militarily or do nothing.

Also, ISIS arose out of the Saudis spreading Wahhabism across the region for the last 80 years. You would have eventually ended up with a group like ISIS regardless of who dropped bombs on who. Many of the fighters in ISIS come from Western nations, where the only bomb they'd ever seen was in their Call of Duty games.

I'm not promoting military intervention. I'm pretty split on the issue. I don't like seeing Canada being involved in any wars. However, supporting the Kurds seems like a pretty noble cause. To say that since dropping bombs could result in radicalizing people, therefore, we should never get involved militarily seems like pretty flawed logic. That's like saying a coin flop could come up heads, therefore, we should always bet on heads. It may seem shocking but people make their own choices, and there will be radicalization in the middle east regardless of any Western action.

There's such a thing called diplomacy. Not with ISIS, but with Assad and the Russians, which this is ultimately what it's all about. ISIS is a trumped-up byproduct of US-Syrian-Russian relations. If Syria is to be repaired, then these powers need to cooperate. I think it happens and we see the end of ISIS, the reversal of the migrant crisis, and the rebuilding of Syria. HUGE investment opportunities coming up there imho as soon as the bombs stop falling.

[taxi]

There's such a thing called diplomacy. Not with ISIS, but with Assad and the Russians, which this is ultimately what it's all about. ISIS is a trumped-up byproduct of US-Syrian-Russian relations. If Syria is to be repaired, then these powers need to cooperate. I think it happens and we see the end of ISIS, the reversal of the migrant crisis, and the rebuilding of Syria. HUGE investment opportunities coming up there imho as soon as the bombs stop falling.

They tried diplomacy. They tried motions before the UN. Russia vetoed them and Assad ignored them...the US military involvement in Syria prior to the rise of ISIS was very limited. Yes they trained a few rebels, but it was literally just a few dozen and a few months ago the US was being called out for its inability to train soldiers fast enough:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/admits-programme-trained-60-syrian-rebels-150707191415371.html

You talk about it like the US had some mass invasion planned, while Russia was working behind the scenes furiously to come to a diplomatic solution. The actual story is that Russia is responsible for Assad in the first place. They've been giving Assad billions of dollars in weaponry, which he then turned on his own population to suppress political dissent.

Also...investment opportunities? Yeah, maybe when there's an actual state there. That's a huge case of putting the cart before the horse. If the US stopped its air raids, it would not in any way stop the conflict. Also, Russian diplomatic involvement is not going to stop it either.

[TOMapleLaughs]

They tried diplomacy. They tried motions before the UN. Russia vetoed them and Assad ignored them...the US military involvement in Syria prior to the rise of ISIS was very limited. Yes they trained a few rebels, but it was literally just a few dozen and a few months ago the US was being called out for its inability to train soldiers fast enough:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/admits-programme-trained-60-syrian-rebels-150707191415371.html

You talk about it like the US had some mass invasion planned, while Russia was working behind the scenes furiously to come to a diplomatic solution. The actual story is that Russia is responsible for Assad in the first place. They've been giving Assad billions of dollars in weaponry, which he then turned on his own population to suppress political dissent.

Also...investment opportunities? Yeah, maybe when there's an actual state there. That's a huge case of putting the cart before the horse. If the US stopped its air raids, it would not in any way stop the conflict. Also, Russian diplomatic involvement is not going to stop it either.

Obviously diplomacy has re-opened since. Obama and Putin are going to have a face-to-face fairly quickly here.

It's no secret that the Russians and Syria have had 40yrs of investment relations, including the military. The US might have been banking on them to forget about that during Arab Spring, but they didn't. Arab Spring did see some other countries turn over though, so it's been largely a success for the US.

Isis, not Assad, Russia or the US, is the organization that was created out of thin air, so it's easy to see how they can and will be vapourized. Once that happens hopefully Syria can start rebuilding. It's in the best interests of the EU, who both the US and Russia want to befriend for investment purposes, China is also involved, and we've seen a complete turnaround in UN policy towards Assad. At first they wanted him out, and now it's Isis.

Hopefully diplomacy is reached, otherwise the world will be destabilized further, and that's going to only hurt the global economy and initiatives put forth by world banks.

In any event, these games are well out of the reach of Canada's influence. We're only there so that the Cons can put anti-Isis rhetoric on the backs of business cards.

[taxi]

Obviously diplomacy has re-opened since. Obama and Putin are going to have a face-to-face fairly quickly here.

It's no secret that the Russians and Syria have had 40yrs of investment relations, including the military. The US might have been banking on them to forget about that during Arab Spring, but they didn't. Arab Spring did see some other countries turn over though, so it's been largely a success for the US.

Isis, not Assad, Russia or the US, is the organization that was created out of thin air, so it's easy to see how they can and will be vapourized. Once that happens hopefully Syria can start rebuilding. It's in the best interests of the EU, who both the US and Russia want to befriend for investment purposes, China is also involved, and we've seen a complete turnaround in UN policy towards Assad. At first they wanted him out, and now it's Isis.

Hopefully diplomacy is reached, otherwise the world will be destabilized further, and that's going to only hurt the global economy and initiatives put forth by world banks.

In any event, these games are well out of the reach of Canada's influence. We're only there so that the Cons can put anti-Isis rhetoric on the backs of business cards.

How is diplomacy going to deal with ISIS? Russia is using this as a guise to prop up Assad. Once again, Assad has killed far more people than ISIS has, and expect him to continue doing so.

[TOMapleLaughs]

How is diplomacy going to deal with ISIS? Russia is using this as a guise to prop up Assad. Once again, Assad has killed far more people than ISIS has, and expect him to continue doing so.

Don't worry, Assad was just killing 'terrorists.' These are the same people that we're killing.

Again, once the parties all agree on wiping Isis out, then they will be. That looks to be the case. They might be turned into something else later, but if you think Isis as a legit military threat can exist when the entire collection of world superpowers is going to take action against them, I can only lol.

[Electro Rock]

Is Assad suppressing normal political dissent, or an externally prompted and supported Colored Revolution?

I'm rather inclined to believe its the latter.

[Special Ed]

Yeah because nobody has ever seen a jihadist with an AK47.

[Realtor Rod]

A few things...

1) Yes, the US funded small amounts of rebels and some of those rebels defected to ISIS. However, the US has also been bombing the crap out of ISIS and was bombing the crap out of the groups that evolved into ISIS for the last 15 years or so. So to say that the US created ISIS is a bit of a stretch.

2) ISIS arose out of Syria not Iraq. The Arab spring failed in Syria, as Assad unlike other leaders, refused to step down in the face of civil war. A power vacuum arose, and ISIS took control of large parts of Syria and spread into Iraq. So although the invasion of Iraq was not well thought out, it didn't cause ISIS.

3) Canada's role has been extremely limited. It consists entirely of giving air support to Kurdish troops in the North, which has been quite successful. That being said, we've only made 3 airstrikes in Syria and about 100 in Iraq.

4) Even if the US wanted to they could not involve themselves heavily on the ground as Russia is doing. Syria is a Russian ally. Russia vetoed all major military involvement. The limited airstrikes in Syria by the US and its allies have gone on with Russian approval.

5) Russia is there in support of its ally Assad. Assad's regime has killed far more people than ISIS, and they are not the good guys here. A "coordinated framework" here would just mean a brutal crack down of the surrounding population. This is a war that claimed the lives of about 200,000 people before ISIS entered the picture.

Sometimes you have to let the 2 poisonous snakes fight each other without intervening.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Yeah because nobody has ever seen a jihadist with an AK47.

[taxi]

Don't worry, Assad was just killing 'terrorists.' These are the same people that we're killing.

Again, once the parties all agree on wiping Isis out, then they will be. That looks to be the case. They might be turned into something else later, but if you think Isis as a legit military threat can exist when the entire collection of world superpowers is going to take action against them, I can only lol.

A full scale invasion by the large military powers would be a disaster, and there's no guarantee it would bring any sort of stability.

My point is basically that there is no easy way out, and there things aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be. However, holding Russia out as some kind of saint is just straight out wrong.

[TOMapleLaughs]

A full scale invasion by the large military powers would be a disaster, and there's no guarantee it would bring any sort of stability.

My point is basically that there is no easy way out, and there things aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be. However, holding Russia out as some kind of saint is just straight out wrong.

It's only a disaster if you leave it behind without creating a functioning, credible government first. Syria already has one since Assad remains in power, so...

No nothing's black and white. All we know is that what the US has done in the region so far, if the goal was to create stability, hasn't worked at all. But the goal was to create instability in hopes of regime change.

[taxi]

It's only a disaster if you leave it behind without creating a functioning, credible government first. Syria already has one since Assad remains in power, so...

No nothing's black and white. All we know is that what the US has done in the region so far, if the goal was to create stability, hasn't worked at all. But the goal was to create instability in hopes of regime change.

The US's actions have mainly been focused at fortifying the positions of the Iraqi government and the Kurdish government. They've actually been quite successful in stopping the ISIS advance. Both the Kurds and the Iraqi government are in a far more stable position than they were a year ago.

Russia vetoed all military action against Assad. This preventing anyone, including the US, from any kind of military action at the ISIS/Assad fronts.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the US purposely wants to create instability in the region or what they are getting from it. In the beginnings of the conflict the US provided moral support to the rebels followed by very limited military support as things broke down. However, to place the instability in the region at the feet of the US is a little far fetched.

[TOMapleLaughs]

The US's actions have mainly been focused at fortifying the positions of the Iraqi government and the Kurdish government. They've actually been quite successful in stopping the ISIS advance. Both the Kurds and the Iraqi government are in a far more stable position than they were a year ago.

Russia vetoed all military action against Assad. This preventing anyone, including the US, from any kind of military action at the ISIS/Assad fronts.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the US purposely wants to create instability in the region or what they are getting from it. In the beginnings of the conflict the US provided moral support to the rebels followed by very limited military support as things broke down. However, to place the instability in the region at the feet of the US is a little far fetched.

By now Iraq should be a self-sustained, 'democratized' nation. It's not. Looking at Iraq as a 'success' now? ...

As for Syria, it appears that US involvement in the beginnings of the civil war were understated, at least according to the OP.

Anyway, let's just hope this works out for the best. That's all we can do.

Oh, and Canada should get out now. Shouldn't have been in there in the first place.

[taxi]

By now Iraq should be a self-sustained, 'democratized' nation. It's not. Looking at Iraq as a 'success' now? ...

As for Syria, it appears that US involvement in the beginnings of the civil war were understated, at least according to the OP.

Anyway, let's just hope this works out for the best. That's all we can do.

Oh, and Canada should get out now. Shouldn't have been in there in the first place.

Actually the article from the OP doesn't say anything of the sort. It just has an attention grabbing headline:

Putin says Damascus should be included in international efforts to fight (ISIS), a demand the United States rejects, and he criticized U.S. plans to train up to 5,400 Syrian rebels to fight ISIS.

Yes, the US did announce plans to train up to 5,400 rebels a year. However, they didn't actually follow through on those plans, and it looks like Russia is stepping in before the US can do that. The article doesn't mention US involvement at the start of the conflict in any way....funnily enough the source of the article is the Russian Times, which is the state owned media outlet of Russia....clearly the most un-biased of sources.