Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Brother_Spirit

Were we wrong about Assad?

29 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Brother_Spirit
Quote

The pundits were wrong about Assad and the Islamic State. As usual, they're not willing to admit it

[...]

The notion that Assad “won’t fight” Islamic State was always wrong. The notion that “defeating Islamic State also requires defeating Bashar Assad” was, likewise, always wrong. By now it should be obvious that the Syrian Arab Army has played a role in degrading Islamic State in Syria — not alone, of course, but with Russian and Iranian partners, not to mention the impressive U.S.-led coalition. In marked contrast to pundit expectations, the group’s demise was inversely related to Assad’s power. Islamic State’s fortunes decreased as his influence in the country increased.

Equally contrary to analyst predictions, the group imploded right after external support for the “moderate” rebels dried up. The weakening of the rebels was a major setback for Islamic State because Assad could finally focus his firepower on the group. Fewer weapon shipments into the theater, moreover, meant fewer arms fell into the hands of Salafi jihadists.

How strange, then, that we haven’t heard many pundits acknowledge their mistakes; they’re not itching to atone for having almost forced another regime-change mission based on discredited analysis.

Source

 

 

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
31 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

they’re not itching to atone for having almost forced another regime-change mission based on discredited analysis.

It should be accepted that any and probably all analysis dealing in major macro issues, start with a end point in mind, no matter how vague. The purpose of the 'published' analysis is seldom to present an unbiased interpretation of a given situation, rather it is to further a course of action, or ideology at least loosely in line with the sponsors of the analysis. 

It should come as no surprise therefore when on occasions outcomes predicted on such analysis and reality don't merge.

Note to Self: Always know the sponsors, their ultimate goals and underlying beliefs, when gauging the value and 'independence' of published analysis.

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
58 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Equally contrary to analyst predictions, the group imploded right after external support for the “moderate” rebels dried up. The weakening of the rebels was a major setback for Islamic State because Assad could finally focus his firepower on the group. Fewer weapon shipments into the theater, moreover, meant fewer arms fell into the hands of Salafi jihadists.

 

yes with Globalist backed Obama gone and Clinton denied the top job --
things took a turn for the worst for the Islamic State and Al Qaeda affiliated groups - 

but first and foremost the Russians working with the Syrian Army  prevented a decent into Islamist chaos like in Libya -
the Islamic State could have swept through the whole country if '''things''' had been different -

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
34 minutes ago, bee said:

but first and foremost the Russians working with the Syrian Army  prevented a decent into Islamist chaos like in Libya -
the Islamic State could have swept through the whole country if '''things''' had been different -

Yes and isn't it great that they've replaced a murderous dictatorial regime like Assad  Islamic State with a fair and democratically elected Islamic  Assad regime.  Now people can stop dying openly and return to being killed behind closed doors for political reasons.

Edited by I'mConvinced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
2 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Equally contrary to analyst predictions, the group imploded right after external support for the “moderate” rebels dried up.

Biased analyst predictions if i may add :)

There were many who knew what's behind aggression against Syria, from day one. Maybe even by studying Geography only, one would be able to predict many of events which happened under the so called '' Arab Spring '' which has became '' Arab nuclear winter ''.

As Assad predicted back in 2012 ( and situation is in line with many of his predictions ) he said that isis is as strong as the international support they get. Without it they can't sustain.

When 'western darling' Saddam Husein invaded Iran, he was given billions ( mainly from Saudi and Gulf countries ). Not long after, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, what happened was the now infamous speech about Iraqi army taking babies out from incubators...

[edit] to add : story was debunked long ago as seen in this video :

So, the same tactics were used for quite long time... White helmet terrorists academy award was icing on the cake.

Now, the time has come for all of that to stop. Profits ain't more worthy than human life and that is what American 'deep state' has to learn. 

 

Edited by Sir Smoke aLot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

Assad only survived cause the makers of ISIS realised that they had more to fear from their outta control golem than Assad. 

Edited by Captain Risky
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

It still baffles - and scares - the hell out of me these sort of ridiculously flawed / inherently illogical 'analysis' are consumed by impressive parts of Western communities without any hesitance. In the Netherlands, we have a saying that states: "a donkey doesnt hit his head against the same stone twice"; which I guess could be equalled with "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". We have been fooled time and time again, fallen for thesame tricks over, and over, and over.. Its like we as a society have become mindless drones without any historical sense, sporting a memory that doesnt stretch further than, say, three years or so.. And even that period is mostly dictated by trivia; which movies premiered, which sports teams 'won', and which 'lost'.

Not only that, we do not even react to any of these blatant attempts at deceit; resulting in the deaths of millions of people over the different instances (from Vietnam to the socalled War on Terror).. we do not call those who facilitated the deception to justice, at all. Not the political players which dictated it, not the media that promoted it, none of the above. Fear and emotion rule the boards, not facts and figures. If this trend / pattern continues, and it is (see the new 'Trump culture' arising in the States), we are heading for an increasingly volatile and destructive future. Nations filled to the brim with emotionally laden sectarian 'us Vs them' groups with a rabid disdain for nuance, facts, and objectivity if and when it does not fit their perceived (heavily conditioned) worldview, if it isnt part of 'their teams vision'. Enter the concept of Western Fanaticism, Western extremists. Because thats exactly what it is, what these groups are; fans. Fans of a certain group and or individual, ideology, nation.. and they will defend their perceived side to the extreme, no matter what. ..Massively massaged to subscribe to the 'Clash of Civilizations' narrative.

The mindnumbing irony in all this, imho, is the fact this trend is more or less the mirror image of the uneducated extremist religious groups the Western population loves to point their combined fingers at in disgust, feigning an ill conceived position of intellectual highground. Pit both of these against eachother, and the possibilities of complete and utter chaos are literally endless. 

Which variant of both groups are most dangerous? The one living peacefully in relative wealth, having access to the information needed to acquire a balanced, nuanced view of any given subject.. (yet still are heavily deceived into greenlighting crime after crime against humanity). Or the one generally living in a warridden, destitute region without any real access to information or education?

Conclusion; one of the greatest threats to our society isnt religion, isnt Islam, not even religious / Islamic extremism. The existential threat to our and even global society; is the increasing state of sheer (emotionally laden) ignorance and apathy of the public at large. The often cited national security, threat to society trump cards are pulled against perceived foreign threats without end (which 'incidentally' result in rather obvious gains for the cardpullers, everytime), while the quintessential (source of the) threat to 'national security' as well as society - The People - is corporatist control over our resp governments, dictating its policy (no matter which administration is in office).. Full stop.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

It was there at the very dawn of the birth of the nation ...
 

Quote

 

~

Cherry Tree Myth · George Washington's Mount Vernon

www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/cherry-tree-myth/

"Father, I Can Not Tell a Lie: I Cut the Tree," engraving by John C. McRae, 1867. The cherry tree myth is the most well-known and longest enduring legend about George Washington. In the original story, when Washington was six years old he received a hatchet as a gift and damaged his father's cherry tree. When his father ...

~

 

~

Perpetuated down and through the ages ...
 

Quote

 

~

George Washington: I cannot tell a lie. Richard Nixon: I cannot tell the ...

George Washington: I cannot tell a lie. Richard Nixon: I cannot tell the truth. Donald J. Trump: I cannot tell the difference.

~

 

~

... now we can add the Trumpotus'

' I lie all the time and that is the truth ... '

~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Assad only survived cause the makers of ISIS realised that they had more to fear from their outta control golem than Assad. 

The reason Assad survived can be summed up rather succinctly with one word: Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
12 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The reason Assad survived can be summed up rather succinctly with one word: Obama.

 

I'd humbly beg to differ. Obama tried and tried, but didnt get the neccesary public support to repeat the 'save the people from their tirant' trick, which ironically - to a significant degree - faciltated the very emergence of groups like ISIS and her precursors to begin with.

No if a single player on the chessboard is to be attributed with the 'failure to topple Assad', it would be Putin imo. That evil Russian supervillain we all love to hate, thwarting the US's Samaritan 'Democracy seeding mission'.. attacking the 'moderate rebels' and helping an evil tirant to remain in place.

In all earnest, and Im quite sure Assad would agree with me; if it werent for Russia, Assad would not be where he is now, and ISIS would not have been routed the way she has.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn

Russia has/is pulling its Troops out of Syria 'Mission Accomplished' Russia keeps a ally in power, ISIS fragmented and on verge of defeat.

Russia achieved in two years what the West couldn't in four, - quite telling. it wasn't long before the West needed another bogey man, step forward 'rocket man' 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
32 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

I'd humbly beg to differ. Obama tried and tried, but didnt get the neccesary public support to repeat the 'save the people from their tirant' trick, which ironically - to a significant degree - faciltated the very emergence of groups like ISIS and her precursors to begin with.

No if a single player on the chessboard is to be attributed with the 'failure to topple Assad', it would be Putin imo. That evil Russian supervillain we all love to hate, thwarting the US's Samaritan 'Democracy seeding mission'.. attacking the 'moderate rebels' and helping an evil tirant to remain in place.

In all earnest, and Im quite sure Assad would agree with me; if it werent for Russia, Assad would not be where he is now, and ISIS would not have been routed the way she has.

Leaders lead. There's nothing Trump has done that Obama could not have done many times over had he led public opinion rather than follow it. The man didn't have what it takes to lead the arm forces of the country, had no concept of military strategy and didn't trust subordinates who did. This thing dragged on for years longer than it should because of his inept bungling, fear of his own military and his weak indecisive hesitancy and vacillation when hard decisions were required. Tens of thousands died because he didn't have the guts and the nerve to pull the trigger. He is the reason the Russians felt free to enter the fray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Leaders lead. There's nothing Trump has done that Obama could not have done many times over had he led public opinion rather than follow it. The man didn't have what it takes to lead the arm forces of the country, had no concept of military strategy and didn't trust subordinates who did. This thing dragged on for years longer than it should because of his inept bungling, fear of his own military and his weak indecisive hesitancy and vacillation when hard decisions were required. Tens of thousands died because he didn't have the guts and the nerve to pull the trigger. He is the reason the Russians felt free to enter the fray.

 

While I am an avid anti Obamist, Trump couldnt tie the man's shoes if his life depended on it, probably quite literally. Trump is a caricature of a human being for pete's sake, let alone a president. Obama, at least, was convincing in his role, however deceptive. Tell me, what did Trump do to 'have what it takes to lead the armed forces, having a concept of military strategy' like you imply here exactly?

This 'thing' dragged on for years longer than it should, and hundreds of thousands died yet again, because the Pentagon's military advisors proposed toppling Assad and supporting the socalled 'moderate rebels' would be beneficiary. Thesame advice would have been given to Trump, Obama has excessively little to do with that. Cant shake the feeling certain people would have blamed the advisors if Trump was involved, but Obama if it went down under his watch. The US should - not - have meddled in another ME head of state toppling at all. Trump would have done thesame, plausibly worse given his inherent volatile, trigger happy, narcissistic, infantile personality.

'Leaders' do not engage in warfare at a whim, sending their nations children to die enmasse on the other side of the world - wasting trillions of taxdollars - unless it is absolutely necessary, when all other options are off the table.

Seems to me more and more people delude themselves into imagining 'a strong leader' (like Bibi, yay!) would be the solution; where trigger happy, warmongering heads of state are desirable somehow. I guess you'd propose Trump making 'great military deals' with House of Saud on the one side while 'destroying ISIS' on the other is another example of such strong leadership. Come now.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Russia has/is pulling its Troops out of Syria 'Mission Accomplished' Russia keeps a ally in power, ISIS fragmented and on verge of defeat.

Russia achieved in two years what the West couldn't in four, - quite telling. it wasn't long before the West needed another bogey man, step forward 'rocket man' 

 

Iran will be next in line after that, without any doubt. And we will be served thesame tendentious, colored BS (read: propaganda) to rationalize military intervention.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
3 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

While I am an avid anti Obamist, Trump couldnt tie the man's shoes if his life depended on it, probably quite literally. Trump is a caricature of a human being for pete's sake, let alone a president. Obama, at least, was convincing in his role, however deceptive. Tell me, what did Trump do to 'have what it takes to lead the armed forces, having a concept of military strategy' like you imply here exactly?

This 'thing' dragged on for years longer than it should, and hundreds of thousands died yet again, because the Pentagon's military advisors proposed toppling Assad and supporting the socalled 'moderate rebels' would be beneficiary. Thesame advice would have been given to Trump, Obama has excessively little to do with that. Cant shake the feeling certain people would have blamed the advisors if Trump was involved, but Obama if it went down under his watch. The US should - not - have meddled in another ME head of state toppling at all. Trump would have done thesame, plausibly worse given his inherent volatile, trigger happy, narcissistic, infantile personality.

'Leaders' do not engage in warfare at a whim, sending their nations children to die enmasse on the other side of the world - wasting trillions of taxdollars - unless it is absolutely necessary, when all other options are off the table.

Seems to me more and more people delude themselves into imagining 'a strong leader' (like Bibi, yay!) would be the solution; where trigger happy, warmongering heads of state are desirable somehow. I guess you'd propose Trump making 'great military deals' with House of Saud on the one side while 'destroying ISIS' on the other is another example of such strong leadership. Come now.

 

We've already wasted trillions of dollars on an affair that should have been over years ago, should never have occurred because of your incompetent prince of peace's amateur blundering. Interesting how you praise Putin for acting decisively and excuse Obama for not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
27 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

We've already wasted trillions of dollars on an affair that should have been over years ago, should never have occurred because of your incompetent prince of peace's amateur blundering. Interesting how you praise Putin for acting decisively and excuse Obama for not.

 

It should never have occurred because the US should not have invested into another ousting of a ME head of state, right after seeding chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya based on a similar rational mind you. I praise Putin for acting decisively in putting out a fire - reacting to massive efforts at destabilization / Balkanization - in his backyard the US was actively feeding with an abundance of high grade gasoline.

'..Your incompetent prince of peace..'. Damn.. very telling statement, on several levels.

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

It should never have occurred because the US should not have invested into another ousting of a ME head of state, right after seeding chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya based on a similar rational mind you. I praise Putin for acting decisively in putting out a fire in his backyard the US was actively feeding with an abundance of high grade gasoline.

'..Your incompetent prince of peace..'. Damn.. very telling statement, on several levels.

Yes and how blithely you glossed over who was responsible for Libya and Syria and Egypt and Ukraine. Very telling also "on several levels".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

And that would be.. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

And that would be.. ?

Going to play dumb, now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Going to play dumb, now?

 

Lol no I can see who you mean now, responded a bit too soon, I apologize.. that was kinda obvious. :D I was just put off by your attempt to paint me as some sort of Obama supporter, trying to obfuscate his crimes somehow. I would have argued thesame in context of the crimes against the nations you mention, believe me. Trump or Obama, irrelevant.

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Phaeton80 said:

 

Lol no I can see who you mean now, responded a bit too soon, I apologize.. that was kinda obvious. :D I was just put off by your attempt to paint me as some sort of Obama supporter, trying to obfuscate his crimes somehow.
I would have argued thesame in context of the crimes against the nations you mention, believe me.

Sitting on that fence must chafe, a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

Probably considerably less than losing your son or daughter in a war on the other side of the globe that isnt in the interest of Americans what - so - ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nnicolette

Yes

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

This thing dragged on for years longer than it should because of his inept bungling, fear of his own military and his weak indecisive hesitancy and vacillation when hard decisions were required.

I disagree. I think the primary reason it went on for so long is because it was never about defeating ISIS. It was about removing yet another powerful leader in the region. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

Iran will be next in line after that, without any doubt. And we will be served thesame tendentious, colored BS (read: propaganda) to rationalize military intervention.

I don't doubt it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.