Assad and ISIS

Post Reply New Topic

An interesting article:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-did- ... ley-2014-8


A big question remains, how ISIS got James Foley while he was initially imprisoned by the regime like many sources say (including his family)? ; these are the old news: http://www.wbur.org/2013/05/03/foley-fa ... ian-prison


More regarding the Assad/ISIS link:
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentarya ... -isis-rise

Interesting you post this today since Steven Sotloff's family is saying that his location was sold to ISIS by so-called moderate rebels.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/09/us/steven ... ?hpt=hp_t2

Vanity Fair seems to think Foley was abducted by rebels, most likely al-Nusra and also later sold to ISIS

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2014 ... g-in-syria

Then it's a case of "Dog meat in stew" - (a Levant proverb meaning that all infighting sides are s**t); they trade between each other.

I think the conspiracy that Assad directly had a hand in creating ISIS is pretty silly, perhaps he took advantage of them but it is wrong to pretend that this Syrian war hasn't been a sectarian one from the very start. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was in American custody for years before taking over the reigns as leader of the Islamic State of Iraq if people want play that game. Sometimes the reality isn't black and white, good vs evil, sometimes there are bad options and even worse options.

^This is why we need to stop trying to change things over there. We just keep making it worse and worse. Supply and support the enemy of my enemy, with no regard for what they represent or are likely to become. We have supplied the region with so many weapons it is not even funny. There is almost no country (other than Iran) in the region that we have not given or sold arms to. Even most of the extremist factions have gotten aid from at at some point, including many of the ISIS fighters that were in Libya who have now deployed in Syria and Iraq. And we still have too many in DC saying we need "boots on the ground," but who exactly are we fighting for and who are we fighting against?

I'm not convinced that it wouldn't have been better if we intervened. If the original rebels won fast, there wouldn't have been so much opportunity for the extremists to strengthen, and also for the conflict to become even more sectarian. A rebel commander once said that they ask for help from America first; if they don't help, then from al-Quaeda. This group wasn't extremist (otherwise they didn't ask America first), but it was in need. We could've helped on the condition that they don't associate with the extremists.

However, in general, particularly by now, it does seem like we either have to accept hundreds of thousands or millions killed and tens of millions deprived of basic rights. Or we'd have to rule the entire region with an iron fist indefinitely, with a lot of cost to us, and with the locals and Western leftists hating us; it's not feasible.

Here is the problem with that:

ISIS was a big player in the conflict from the very beginning. And weapons or aid we would have supplied to the rebels in Syria would have been helping them grow stronger. Look at what happened in Lybia. The rebels won very quickly with aid and weapons. The sectarian violence is so much worse there than it ever was under a strong armed dictator. Not to mention that a lot of those weapons are being used by ISIS militants as we speak.

Here is something to consider:

ISIS has united the Middle East and the world more effectively than any peace talks, economic proposals, task forces, military actions, or protests have ever been able to accomplish. Most of the EU, Canada, US, Australia, and Israel are onboard for stopping them (which is hardly a surprise), but add to that many Mid East countries (most of the Arab League, in fact), including Iran (who have said they will cooperate with the US inefforts to fight them), and Saudi Arabia (where terrorist tolerance is pretty much the norm). Then you have various groups against them like the Kurds, the Sunni tribes in northern Iraq, and both Assad and the majorities of the Syrian rebel factions. Even Al Qaeda is actively working against them.

So there is now cooperation between Christians, Muslims (both Shia and Sunni), and Jews with a healthy dose of humanists thrown into the mix. When is the last time you have seen anything resembling this kind of unity?

It's true, that Lybia fell apart too. AFAIK it's not actually sectarian (everybody is Sunni there) but secular vs. Islamist, and even more than that, territorial groups against each other.


Yes, the ISIS was pretty good at making everyone hate them; you can add Russia to the mix soon. The question is what can we do against them now that is productive?

Do you people have a clue what you're talking about? Can you source anything except American propaganda? Do you know anything about Ba'athism, let alone Assad?

Obvious flamebait is obvious.

That makes sense. al-Nusra is Al Qaeda. Of course they don't give a s**t about keeping American journalists safe. They made the tactical decision to not be seen as extreme so as to more effectively coordinate with the other rebel groups in fighting the Syrian regime. They also don't want to be seen as goading the US into a conflict with them. Al Qaeda wizened up politically since 9/11. That's all. None of the rebel groups in Syria is friendly with the US. ISIS is just much more unhinged, bloodthirsty, and stupid than the others. They've goaded the US while the other Islamists militants in Syria were against doing that.

'Cool may-may', as they say.