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

[Electro Rock]

Direct open U.S. support to ISIS and other puppet organizations like the Maidanist would of course be minimal, that's where deniable 3d parties and "cut outs" come in.

[TOMapleLaughs]

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

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.

It's actually the first paragraph. But Putin expanded on it further during his UN address today:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vladimir-putin-un-speech-syria-ukraine-obama/

The Russian president also mocked Western ideals and how they were applied to the Arab Spring, singling out Libya as an example of how things can go wrong. Instead of the promise of democratic reform, "we got violence, poverty and social disaster," Putin said.

Putin said the "export of revolutions" continue to fail. He slammed unnamed countries' "policies of self-conceit and a belief in exceptionality that has never been abandoned."

"We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face," Putin said. "We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces and (Kurdish) militia are truly fighting (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and other terrorist organizations in Syria."

Those sentiments echo the argument Putin made on "60 Minutes," but in the earlier interview he also conceded that "there is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism, but, at the same time, urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational opposition and conduct reform."

At his U.N. speech, Putin also urged the creation of a broad anti-terror coalition, similar to the "anti-Hitler" coalition that formed during World War II.

NATO was also specifically called out by Putin as having sown disorder in the world.

"NATO continues expanding," he said, adding that it offers "poor former Soviet countries a false choice, either be with the West or the East."

He blamed that expansionism and false choice on the chaos in Ukraine, where Putin said the the "discontent of the population was manipulated" and ended in "a military coup orchestrated from outside."

While Putin didn't name America directly in his speech, he appeared to accuse recent presidential administrations in Washington of trying to force their will on others, and implied only the U.N. stands in the way of the U.S.' global domination.

"After the end of the Cold War, the single center of domination has emerged in the world," Putin said. "Those who have found themselves on top of that pyramid were tempted to think that since they are so strong and singular, they know what to do better than others and it's unnecessary to pay any attention to the U.N."

Well it certainly rings of truth.

Both sides are doing the talk. Obama condemned Assad, but is willing to work with Russia and Iran on Syria. Looks like there will be a coalition to wipe Isis out. As for Assad? Who knows.

What I laugh at is that Putin says that western policy isn't working, but Russia is western policy.

[taxi]

It's actually the first paragraph. But Putin expanded on it further during his UN address today:

It doesn't say that. It say that US trained militants were trying to join ISIS. That's present tense. It doesn't say anything about the US funding ISIS in its inception. Also, as I previously stated the US's plan to fund 5000+ militants a year never actually happened, and according to Al Jezeera, the US actually only ever trained 60:

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

I also don't see how Russia's plans for a "broad coalition" are any different from the "coalition of the willing" that GWB put together. I don't see how one can be characterized as "diplomacy" and the other an imperialist invasion.

[TOMapleLaughs]

It doesn't say that. It say that US trained militants were trying to join ISIS. That's present tense. It doesn't say anything about the US funding ISIS in its inception. Also, as I previously stated the US's plan to fund 5000+ militants a year never actually happened, and according to Al Jezeera, the US actually only ever trained 60:

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

I also don't see how Russia's plans for a "broad coalition" are any different from the "coalition of the willing" that GWB put together. I don't see how one can be characterized as "diplomacy" and the other an imperialist invasion.

'Were' is past tense.

Again, all we can do is hope that stability is eventually achieved. That would be for the best. If the US is willing to work with them now, yay.

[Salmonberries]

[Salmonberries]

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.

You do know that the 'rebels' and ISIL are the same people right?

[taxi]

'Were' is past tense.

Again, all we can do is hope that stability is eventually achieved. That would be for the best. If the US is willing to work with them now, yay.

It was actually used in the context of the "past imperfect" tense, which means it's something that was happening in the past, but may or may not be continuing to the present. The article was implying it was continuing to the present.

Also, that's been the best case scenario for a while. Once again, getting rid of ISIS is not going to be an easy task. If Russia arms the Syrians or flat out helps in their attacks, expect a period where things will get much worse before they get better. Also, the Russian backed attacks are likely to focus not just on ISIS but other rebels. It'll be interesting/tragic to see what happens when Assad gets through ISIS and tries to take back territory under Kurdish control.

[taxi]

You do know that the 'rebels' and ISIL are the same people right?

No.

The rebels is a term used to describe various groups. ISIL is one of those groups. The rebels range from moderates who actually want a full blown democracy to Kurdish nationalists, to hardcore islamists.

To paint them all with one brush makes zero sense, as they are a very diverse set of groups, many of which are in armed conflict with each other. In other words it's possible to support good rebel groups without supporting ISIL.

[Salmonberries]

No.

The rebels is a term used to describe various groups. ISIL is one of those groups. The rebels range from moderates who actually want a full blown democracy to Kurdish nationalists, to hardcore islamists.

To paint them all with one brush makes zero sense, as they are a very diverse set of groups, many of which are in armed conflict with each other. In other words it's possible to support good rebel groups without supporting ISIL.

No, it's a Sunni Islamist insurgency against a secular socialist regime and the US is backing the Sunni insurgents. The goal is the same as it was in Iraq, to remove a non compliant secular Baathist regime and replace it with something weakened, backward and extreme that can be controlled by the neighbors like Saudi, Turkey and the Gulf oil kingdoms.

[TOMapleLaughs]

When the US is anti-jihadist, it's important to know that they're really anti-certain jihadists. It makes the whole Isis thing all the more laughable. We're being played domestically while abroad the reality is that nobody wins.

[Salmonberries]

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.

Good point, ISIL would be defeated by now if that was the goal, instead they're funneled shiny new fleets of Toyota trucks, weapons and fresh recruits from the Caucasus, central Asia and Europe through the border with ally Turkey.

[Salmonberries]

When the US is anti-jihadist, it's important to know that they're really anti-certain jihadists. It makes the whole Isis thing all the more laughable. We're being played domestically while abroad the reality is that nobody wins.

They're more anti-Baathist and anti-Russian interests than anything else. These j\'jihadists' are really just quickly assembled CIA assets that can be deployed to destabilize secular non-aligned nations in the Islamic world.

[taxi]

No, it's a Sunni Islamist insurgency against a secular socialist regime and the US is backing the Sunni insurgents. The goal is the same as it was in Iraq, to remove a non compliant secular Baathist regime and replace it with something weakened, backward and extreme that can be controlled by the neighbors like Saudi, Turkey and the Gulf oil kingdoms.

There's honestly no arguing with you, as your convinced that every insurgent has been bribed by the US. Even though there's no evidence of that. There's actually evidence of little US involvement helping Sunni groups. They've so far been bombing ISIS (the major Sunni group) to prop up the relatively secular Iraqi government and the Kurdish government.

Beyond that you also had the Arab Spring which resulted in many groups of all different varieties rising up against Assad, who then proceeded to carpet bomb his own cities to quell them...

You don't like the US, so you've fabricated some bizarre black and white reality that totally ignores any facts.

[Salmonberries]

It sickens me that the destruction of 2000 year old Syriac Christianity as well as much of the ancient history of Iraq and Syria were part of this cynical calculation.

[Salmonberries]

There's honestly no arguing with you, as your convinced that every insurgent has been bribed by the US. Even though there's no evidence of that. There's actually evidence of little US involvement helping Sunni groups. They've so far been bombing ISIS (the major Sunni group) to prop up the relatively secular Iraqi government and the Kurdish government.

Beyond that you also had the Arab Spring which resulted in many groups of all different varieties rising up against Assad, who then proceeded to carpet bomb his own cities to quell them...

You don't like the US, so you've fabricated some bizarre black and white reality that totally ignores any facts.

First vof all, they're all Sunni groups, the insurgency is purely a Sunni operation.The Arab spring (Christian winter) was also a CIA operation. Funny it took place in the most advanced states with the highest standards of living including national health care plans and free post secondary education. like Syria and Libya and not in, say, medieval Saudi Arabia.

[Salmonberries]

"It'll be interesting/tragic to see what happens when Assad gets through ISIS and tries to take back territory under Kurdish control."

The Kurds have no historical claim to any land in Syria. They slaughtered Christians and stole their land during the nineteenth century through to the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christian genocide of 1915 and simply moved into their homes and villages. But they've always made for useful assets in times of war and are use to sharing the spoils.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

LMAO at Putin pointing the finger. Russia has supplied just as many weapons in the entire region since the 70's if not more. The Russians are hated deeply in the middle east. How about every military pulls out and then we send food, medicine and manpower to help build nations not bomb them into dust.

[taxi]

No, it's a Sunni Islamist insurgency against a secular socialist regime and the US is backing the Sunni insurgents. The goal is the same as it was in Iraq, to remove a non compliant secular Baathist regime and replace it with something weakened, backward and extreme that can be controlled by the neighbors like Saudi, Turkey and the Gulf oil kingdoms.

A secular regime that happens to be Shiite's closely allied to Hezbollah and the Iranian Ayatollah's.

"It'll be interesting/tragic to see what happens when Assad gets through ISIS and tries to take back territory under Kurdish control."

The Kurds have no historical claim to any land in Syria. They slaughtered Christians and stole their land during the nineteenth century through to the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christian genocide of 1915 and simply moved into their homes and villages. But they've always made for useful assets in times of war and are use to sharing the spoils.

That's certainly an interesting way of looking at things. The Kurds have had a very long presence in Northern Syria and Southern Turkey. The Turks were also turning groups against eachother, which they could as they were the land owners. The Kurds certainly fought with the Turks in certain battles. They were also the victims of Turkish genocide themselves. It's all a bit of a moot point. If your goal is to turn the demographic clock back to 1800, you've got a lot of work to do in that region. The millions of Arabs, that came with the Hashemites, might be a better start.

I'd agree that the Kurds are easily used in armed conflict. The reason being they have no sovereignty and borders. A truly independent Kurdish state, which hasn't existed in centuries, would put an end to that.

[Salmonberries]

A secular regime that happens to be Shiite's closely allied to Hezbollah and the Iranian Ayatollah's.

That's certainly an interesting way of looking at things. The Kurds have had a very long presence in Northern Syria and Southern Turkey. The Turks were also turning groups against eachother, which they could as they were the land owners. The Kurds certainly fought with the Turks in certain battles. They were also the victims of Turkish genocide themselves. It's all a bit of a moot point. If your goal is to turn the demographic clock back to 1800, you've got a lot of work to do in that region. The millions of Arabs, that came with the Hashemites, might be a better start.

I'd agree that the Kurds are easily used in armed conflict. The reason being they have no sovereignty and borders. A truly independent Kurdish state, which hasn't existed in centuries, would put an end to that.

"A secular regime that happens to be Shiite's closely allied to Hezbollah and the Iranian Ayatollah's. "

And don't forget Russia and it's naval base at Tartus.

"The Kurds have had a very long presence in Northern Syria"

Oh really? I love to here about what you consider a 'long presence'. Do tell.

The only really thorough study of the Assyrian genocide (Seyfo) is David Gaunt's Massacres, Resistance, Protectors : Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia During World War 1

"This is a pioneering historical investigation of the Assyrian, Chaldean, and Syrian Christian minorities during World War I, who suffered the same fate as the Armenians. Ethnic cleansing and large-scale massacres occurred throughout northern Mesopotamia and parts of Ottoman-occupied Iran. Based on primary sources from official Russian, Turkish, and West European archives, as well as hitherto unused manuscript sources and oral histories published here for the first time, this book attempts to give a full picture of the events of 1915. The book concentrates on the Assyrians of Urmia and Hakkari and on the Syrians of Diyarbekir province, particularly in Tur Abdin"

https://books.google.ca/books?id=4mug9LrpLKcC

http://www.atour.com/history/1900/20140424a.html

Sebastian De Courtois The Last Arameans:

https://books.google.se/books?id=whDcogCNZs4C&pg=PA365&hl=sv&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

"If your goal is to turn the demographic clock back to 1800, you've got a lot of work to do in that region."

Kurds first began settling the region in depopulated Christian areas as Ottoman mercenaries in the aftermath of The Battle of Chaldiran during the Ottoman-Safavid war, having been promised Assyrian Christian land by the Ottomans in return for their service. This was to be a recurring theme through following centuries culminating in the genocide of 1915. Geographical Syria was pretty well Kurd free before the war as far as I can tell.

[Salmonberries]

^^^

That post is quite a disaster, you'll have to excuse the mess. The Gaunt book is a good read if you're interested. The point is, this "demographic shift" you speak of came about as a result of Anglo Saxon involvement in the area beginning with the presence of British and American missionaries and archaeologists in the 1830's with the main event the Christian genocide of WW1. Operation Iraqi Freedom was just the final act which has brought a final end to the ancient pre Islamic populations and really to all ethnic and religious diversity in the lands. If you're arguing strategic benefit, I can accept that. But don't try to attach a humanitarian motive, it's anything but that.