Just when Assad and the Russians begin to make headway against the jihadists in Syria, guess what? Why, the stupid Brits decide to move in! FFS can it get any more bloody surreal?? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37015915
The SAS have been in Syria for several years. They are working against ISIS. Russia spend most of its time attacking other rebel forces. Nothing stupid about what we are doing.
My post is predicated upon recent events, not past ones. But you can tell me how you know that 'Russia spend most of its time attacking other rebel forces' though, if you like?
I’m not clear what the problem is. British (and American) forces are supporting moderate rebels fighting ISIS. That would only be in conflict with Assad and Russia if they were more interested in fighting the rebels rather than ISIS themselves. I mean, they’re all playing a self-interested long game and should have worked out a formal agreement for a truce so everyone can focus their combined efforts against ISIS but I don’t see the logic in objecting to a specific element that is working in the right direction regardless.
If Assad is'nt toppled than a security zone is needed for the rebels and in theory for the refugees as well, that's the least worst scenario for Europe.
The point is that no westerners can tell the difference between the moderates and the jihadists who've infiltrated. I mean how often have we been given the run-around in the region because they know how to manipulate, confuse, and otherwise fool western powers?
A recent bombing chart displayed on this very forum agrees with this....Russia has primarily bombed rebels forces fighting to overthrow Assad while leaving ISIS practically untouched.
The British secret service has always been in Syria just as it's been in Ukraine... the same as the CIA. Their intent is to get rid of Assad, under a pretense of fighting ISIS the way they have been doing for years. The question seems to be what is Turkey's position? Erdogan is meeting with Putin and is calling him his friend, so is he supporting the terrorists in Syria less than before or isn't he? Here's a few tidbits from the always informative Moon of Alabama: "...The offensive against President Bashar al-Assads troops may have had more foreign help than it appears: activists and rebels say opposition forces were replenished with new weapons, cash and other supplies before and during the fighting..." At the border yesterday we counted tens of trucks bringing in weapons, said one Syrian activist, who crosses between Syria and neighbouring Turkey. Its been happening daily, for weeks  weapons, artillery were not just talking about some bullets or guns. Two other rebels, who, like all those interviewed, asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, described cash and supplies being ferried in for weeks...." Erdogan talks of new relations with Russia but still insist that "Assad must go" at about any price. He also says that al-Qaeda aka Jabhat al Nusra is, in his view, not a terrorist organization because it sometimes fights the Islamic State. That is consistent with U.S. and Israeli support for al-Qaeda in Syria. We can be sure that the CIA is doing much more than just ignoring weapon supplies or looking on. The thousands of tons of weapons reaching al-Qaeda and other insurgents were brought in from Bulgaria on U.S. chartered ships. The MANPADs recently delivered to the Taliban equivalent in Syria, Ahrar al-Sham, certainly passed through U.S. hands. The FT also mentions Kerry's August 1 deadline which we believe marked a U.S. set date for the long planned Aleppo attack and the new siege on the 1.2-1.5 million civilians on the government side of the city. A recent New York Times piece, in which the paper for the first time admits intensive, longtime CIA involvement in Syria, emphasized the central operational role of U.S. activities in the war on Syria: "...For several years, the C.I.A. has joined with the spy services of several Arab nations to arm and train the rebels at bases in Jordan and Qatar, with the Saudis bankrolling much of the operation..."
The security zone for the rebels are the borders of the countries they are entering Syria from. Why should foreigners get land in Syria at the expense of the Syrian people. That would be like establishing new borders within the US for the Mexicans coming in. It's called an invasion in my dictionary, and it's what the Syrian people have been fighting against.
"Moderate forces" means Islamic radicals who shout Islamic slogans while laughing and cutting of children's heads. That's our "moderates" at work. I do not believe we are fighting ISIS and other radical Muslims. I think we are arming them to continue the Syrian civil war.
Granny says, "Dat's right... ... dem SAS can sneak up onna jihadis... ... an' kick `em inna butt a-fore dey know what hit `em."
Washington wants Syria broken up into ethnaic and religious parts that will always have friction with one another, that way they will be more easily controlled...sort of like what they did to Yugoslavia. The Syrian people have lived together for centuries and are very happy with the Assad government... and they made a point of showing it in the elections and the celebrations afterwards. And yet Kerry said that if the war continues the only way that it will stop is by breaking up the countries, so to make sure that happens they keep supplying the thousands that come pouring in through Turkey's borders. The evil in these people and what they are doing to Syria is unbelievable. ..but then again, look at what they did to Iraq and Libya.
I wouldn't be that dramatic, but I'd say 2011 was a surge in western presence in Syria in attempt to oust Assad. Obama's attempt to overthrow all of these leaders has ended up in pure disaster.
So a week ago according to you the rebels were completely surrounded and couldn't get anything in or out of Aleppo. The war would be over in a week. Now all of a sudden that your attack has failed epicly it's because the CIA was sneaking all kinds of stuff to the rebels, that you had just claimed were totally surrounded. So my question is, if this is true, just how pathetic and incompetent are the Russian and Assad forces?
But that would be regime change, and I thought that sort of stuff was frowned upon these days? I mean, supposing some world power inveigled itself into America in an attempt to install it's own choice of leader and subvert the CIA? Actually I wish it would! Correction - Actually I think it is!!!
No, I strongly disagree with the notion the rebels are all Sauds or Iraqis, 3-4 Million refugees tell me the ppl is certainly not all behind Assad and the fact the rebels can't be eliminated tells me not only are they locals but the uprising is spreading to ppl that didnt want to fight before. Free zone are for Syrian refugees that came from Syria, they simply were targeted by Assad and the Jihadists, If Mexico fell to civil war and had mass scale genocide and refugees - sure , establish a free zone there, makes a whole more sense to me than distributing Mexico pop around the world just as long as no one (*)(*)(*)(*)s with the dictator.....no Im pretty sure the US would have killed anything in uniform rather than taking them all in.
What the Brits are doing in Syria? Without a permission from the government of this country? looks like breach of international law, violation of internationally recognized borders of sovereign nation and so on...
Syria lost those rights when they allowed Isis to rise up and threaten everyone across the planet. I don't give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) if you give us permission or not. It is the duty of all free thinking nations to hunt down and kill those animals wherever they are. And guess where the bulk of them are...
What makes you think Syria has lost any of its rights? This country is a full member of UN, this nation is not an agressor, it doesn't threat to any other nation, so what are you talking about? Anyway, there is nothing surprising. But next time when you try to lecture us about international laws, legitimacy, sovereignty and so on, I'll just politely ask you to shut up your mouth. That will be fair play.
This is just completely untrue, the SOHR, has documented extensively Russian actions in the regions. It's figures give, in its most recent estimate, 2097 casualties for the opposition, and 2436 for IS, meaning that it has inflicted more losses on IS than the opposition. This is likely a low estimate due to a lack of extensive sources in IS held areas. How would this be possible if Russia had left them untouched. Furthermore Russia was instrumental in advances against it in the Palmyra and Tadmur offensive, and similarly in actions in the Damascus region. The idea that Russia isn't hitting them is just a myth. http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=48087
The UK having special forces in Syrian would be like Russia having special forces in Poland or Holland. Syria has been in the Russia sphere of influence for over half a century with the permission of the Syrian government. Unless those UK forces are there with the permission of Syrian they are invaders and fair game for the Syrian military and Russian military known to be fighting with Syria.
I'm only posting because I thought the title of this thread was hilarious: UK special forces on the ground in Syria. That was very funny! I have not had a laugh that hard in quite some time. Here's the real news flash. US CIA and British MI6 have both been on the ground in Syria for quite some time now. That's what we do. First, we make offers in the form of quid pro quo to those in power and for whose behavior we wish to manipulate. If quid pro quo does not work we then engage in special intelligence operations to monkey wrench regimes on the ground. If that fails we then send in special operation kill squads to shape things on the ground and get them to conform to our desires. If that fails, we manufacture go-to-war evidence for the purpose of initiating regime change under the cover of invasion to protect the interest of the "West" or some nonsense in that same vein. Its a process. And, the British/US have been doing this for a very long time in this world. Some things change while other things never do. Just a little bit of history repeating. What's the bigger story here? Zionist Expansion in the Middle East and the use of "Western Alliances" to achieve that goal. Folks, it does not matter who you "elect" to office. The game is still the same and the real players behind the scenes whom you have absolutely no control over through fake elections have not and will not change. There is only one way to deal with this and that is The People of the United States of America and the United Kingdom taking the necessary steps to lay claim to their respective Republics and control over its Government. Failing that solution, you can expect the shadow lords of the world to continue their march to a One World Monopoly where Economic Slavery is a permanent way of life for most on the planet. Object lesson.
