Support NeoGAF

[Golden_Pigeon]

In his first interview after winning the presidency, Donald Trump hinted that he will shift policy in the Syria conflict from one of support for the moderate opposition to collaboration with the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. “Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS,” Trump said. As for the rebels that the U.S. has backed fitfully for the past three years, he said: “We have no idea who these people are.” But the president-elect appears to be ill-informed about Assad’s key role in the rise of the so-called Islamic State. This three-part series documents the Syrian dictator's sinister contributions to this tale of terrorism and horror. First, he tried to ingratiate himself with Western leaders by portraying the national uprising against him as a terrorist-led revolt. When that failed, he released jailed Islamic extremists who’d fought against U.S. troops in Iraq, then staged phony attacks on government facilities, which he blamed on terrorists. Far from fighting ISIS, Assad looked the other way when it set up a state-within-a-state with its capital in Raqqa, and left it to the U.S. and others to counter the Islamic extremists.

Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.

 

[RoninChaos]

No, Killary created Isis. That's what Trump said!

In all seriousness, thanks for the link.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

No, Killary created Isis. That's what Trump said!

In all seriousness, thanks for the link.

Haha ! You're welcome.

It's a magistral demonstration of political cynicism. The same regime who sent thousands of Al Qaida operatives into Iraq to kill US troops is now acclaimed by a President who present himself as the Vets defender.

 

[Kolx]

he released jailed Islamic extremists who’d fought against U.S. troops in Iraq, then staged phony attacks on government facilities, which he blamed on terrorists. Far from fighting ISIS, Assad looked the other way when it set up a state-within-a-state with its capital in Raqqa, and left it to the U.S. and others to counter the Islamic extremists.

People need to read this. People like him have no problem with unleashing another ISIS in the future if it helps him stay as president.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Its amazing how so many people dont understand what Assad did, hopefully this starts the education.

 

[Totakeke]

Lovely, and we just gave people like Assad a gullible president-elect.

 

[ZiZ]

I wouldn't say he created it, but he definitely was one of the major contributors to its rise.

 

[RustyNails]

This is like, everyone in the middle-east believes in. Now there's some solid reporting to back it up.

 

[Frustrated_me]

Assad created ISIS? Kinda stretching.

Did Assad harbour terrorists in Syria and allow them to freely enter and exit Iraq during the insurgency days? 100%.

 

[Fularu]

This Pulitzer winner seems to be confusing Jabbat Al'Nusra and ISIS.

ISIS was born on the ashes on the american invasion of Irak.

Jabbat Al'Nusra was born within the syrian "rebels" after Assad and rebels emptied prisons where many common thieves then joined the "rebels".

ISIS is mainly fueled by foreign fighters and militants, Jabbat was mainly fueled by syrians themselves.

But it's always interesting to see someone else take the blame for the US meddling and incompetence in dealing with their creations.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

This Pulitzer winner seems to be confusing Jabbat Al'Nusra and ISIS.

ISIS was born on the ashes on the american invasion of Irak.

Jabbat Al'Nusra was born within the syrian "rebels" after Assad and rebels emptied prisons where many common thieves then joined the "rebels".

ISIS is mainly fueled by foreign fighters and militants, Jabbat was mainly fueled by syrians themselves.

But it's always interesting to see someone else take the blame for the US meddling and
incompetence in dealing with their creations.

lol.

Isis is the direct outcome of Al Qaida in Iraq who was fueled by Assad during the 2003 US-occupation of Iraq. There is no ISIS without Al Qaida in Iraq. It's the same group, even Abu Musab al Zarqawi had friction with the AQ leadership. The Al Nusra/ISIS split is just the continuation of this.

Roy Gutman is speaking about both group in his piece, but mainly about AQ in Irak since it's the foundational cell of ISIS.

BUT you have documented link between ISIS and Syrian secret services, and the Syrian army definitely let ISIS entering in Syria without a fight.

US invasion of Irak have of course a big share of responsibility in AQ development in the region, but it's an indirect outcome, it was not made by design, unlike Assad strategy.

 

[Fularu]

BUT you have documented link between ISIS and Syrian secret services, and the Syrian army definitely let ISIS entering in Syria without a fight.

US invasion of Irak have of course a big share of responsibility in AQ development in the region, but it's an indirect outcome, it was not made by design, unlike Assad strategy.

Of course the Syrian Secret Service had links with ISIS, as do most of the western intelligence agencies. I'm not sure which point you'Re trying to make here?

ISIS (initially AQIL) was straight up born out of the US dismantling/disbanding Irak's armies. What was first resistance to the US occupation of Irak turned into AQIL when the now "persecuted" Suni minority (making up most of Irak's dismantled army) retaliated against the now "leadding" and "collaborating" Shia community and iranian influence. Turns out in the end AQ tooko the reins and started leading the thing down its dark hole of idiocracy.

Also Syria had been (in 2003-2004) under over 20 years of US sanctions preventing most goods from entering the country so of course they turned a blind eye to "militants" entering Irak through the syrian border.

As for your last point, the SAA didn't have the ressources back in 2013 when ISIS emerged in Syria to fight on that front. In 2013 alone the SAA was fighting on more than 400 fronts/hot spots within Syria.

Lastly, JAN left ISIS because of two main reasons :

1 - ISIS is mostly made up of foreign fighters and iraki nationals, JAN wanted to have a group with a syrian identity, that was paramount to the split with ISIS/ISIL
2 - They don't share the ISIS ideology to the core, they had a lot of friction with them

 

[obin_gam]

People should also listen to The Iraq War episode of The Dollop which ties into Isis.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Lastly, JAN left ISIS because of two main reasons :

1 - ISIS is mostly made up of foreign fighters and iraki nationals, JAN wanted to have a group with a syrian identity, that was paramount to the split with ISIS/ISIL
2 - They don't share the ISIS ideology to the core, they had a lot of friction with them

The fact that you are failing to mention that AQ member in Irak were trained and brainwashed in Syria but religious officials proove that you didn't even read the articles...
Nor you mention the fact that the Syrian army left without a fight. It's not because they were busied elsewhere, it's because they perfectly knew, as everybody, that ISIS will focus mainly to target FSA, which they did and killed the syrian revolution from the inside. They also allowed Bashar to present himself as the champion of antiterrorism for the West.

And JAN didn't left ISIS, ISIS left Al Qaeda.
They don't have a different ideology, just a different way to apply it. AQI was always speaking about establishing a caliphate in Iraq, and they also established a pro-state in Yemen.

 

[Azih]

Us doesn't invade Iraq, there's no ISIS. Point blank.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Us doesn't invade Iraq, there's no ISIS. Point blank.

Ok, and ? I don't think that anybody is debating this.

We could also said that without Iraq invading Kuwait, there is no US invasion neither. We could also go back to Alexander The Great invading Persia.

 

[Stinkles]

Ok, and ?

Caveman doesn't invent wheel, no road rage.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Thank you very much for the links, I will read them when I can.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

Us doesn't invade Iraq, there's no ISIS. Point blank.

Or here me out..... Other factors had a major part in creating it as well......

 

[Azih]

Ok, and ? I don't think that anybody is debating this.

We could also said that without Iraq invading Kuwait, there is no US invasion neither. We could also go back to Alexander The Great invading Persia.

The difference being that Bush Jr's invasion of Iraq was the most senseless of events and should not have happened if there was any semblance of sanity in the US administration of the time.

 

[Stinkles]

The difference being that Bush Jr's invasion of Iraq was the most senseless of events and should not have happened if there was any semblance of sanity in the US administration of the time.

Love to hear what was sensible about Assad bombing and murdering civilians.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Love to hear what was sensible about Assad bombing and murdering civilians.

Or turning a blind eye / directly supporting AQ during the 2000's. They set their neighbor's house on fire to smoke out an intruder there, without thinking about what was going to happen if the fire spread.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

The difference being that Bush Jr's invasion of Iraq was the most senseless of events and should not have happened if there was any semblance of sanity in the US administration of the time.

And Alexander's invasion of Persia was the clever thing to do ?
Anyway that does not change anything about Assad using al Qaeda and ISIS to consolidate his own power. Creating awareness about this could actually avoid what the West is heading toward: allying with Assad in the name of anti-terrorism. So think about what we could change rather than what we can't.

 

[Azih]

Love to hear what was sensible about Assad bombing and murdering civilians.

It's a sensible way of maintaining control by any means necessary, evil, but there's a clear rationale behind the acts and a clear goal. There was nothing rational about the US response to 9/11.

In any case ISIS got its start in the US createf chaos of Iraq and Syria had no real reason to destabilize the country as the new Shia dominated Iraqi government would have been friendly to Assad's regime.

I'm not defending Assad on his murderous acts but he's not the driving force behind ISIS. The Gulf sheiks with an anti Iran vendetta funding them are far more responsible.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

It's a sensible way of maintaining control by any means necessary, evil, but there's a clear rationale behind the acts and a clear goal. There was nothing rational about the US response to 9/11.

What about securing US interests in the region ? Seems to be a clear rational and goal to me.

Saddam Hussein was openly hostile to gulf allies and was bombing Israel.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

These (great) articles, beyond showing how much of a monster Assad is, also shows how incredibly incompetent the US intelligence community was, like holy shit:

Remarkably, several high-level former Syrian security officials who spoke on the record with this reporter said that U.S. intelligence agencies never debriefed them. The ex-officials viewed this as a major lapse, not only because they were privy to, and complicit in, the inner workings of Assad’s role in organizing a terrorist insurgency against U.S. forces in Iraq, but also because they were well-placed to advise on the establishment of a new state security apparatus should Assad’s police state collapse or be overthrown.

The Obama administration apparently wasn’t interested. A former top U.S. diplomat said the CIA had little interest in Syrian defectors and debriefed them only if the diplomat insisted.

The CIA declined to comment but did not dispute the validity of the question. “I looked into this, and there is nothing we can add,” a spokeswoman said.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

What about securing US interests in the region ? Seems to be a clear rational and goal to me.

Securing them from what, exactly? How? And at what price?

I don't know a lot about ISIS or Syria, and this question about US/Iraq does seem to be off-topic really. But I still don't understand why Iraq was invaded in 2003.

Except hubris and blind dogma. That's all I can pin that idea down to. The fact is it was catastrophically ruinous and has led to so much death and destruction. If you're going to look at things that didn't have to happen the way they did, were preventable with enough political will / willingness to listen, and which crucially occurred within the bounds of our own house rather than someone else's ... Look no further. Is thirteen years of direct consequences the point at which responsibility is absolved, and people should stop bringing it up? Ask Germany.

One continues to pay. If one won't acknowledge it, one pays double.

It continues to go largely unacknowledged (actions, not words), and the cost keeps going up.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Hey Assad. Castro is feeling lonely, why don't you go join him on the other side?

 

[yanipheonu]

Maybe if the Bush administration didn't fuck up Iraq so badly...

Though ISIS really is the combination of bad people from all over the world doing awful things.

 

[gutter_trash]

this is Saudi propaganda trying to shift blame towards Assad,

Assad didnt remove Saddam Hussein and create a vaccuuume

 

[Deleted member 80556]

this is Saudi propaganda trying to shift blame towards Assad,

Assad didnt remove Saddam Hussein and create a vaccuuume

He sure helped fill it to serve his interests though.

I'm sure a Pulitzer winner reporter is being payed by Saudi Arabia as well. /s

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Here comes the Assad defense force.

 

[nynt9]

It's interesting how the backlash against Bush has made discussing any possibility of the US not having caused every single bad thing in the middle east quite difficult. Even without the US, there are and have always been actors in the middle east who have had malicious interests.

 

[Frozenprince]

Assad did help create this though like I don't get how people could not see his culpability in creating and extremist force in his own nation by funneling his people eastward after his bombings on Aleppo and Damascus. There's a reason Deir Ez-Zor and Al Raqqa fell so quickly.

It's interesting how the backlash against Bush has made discussing any possibility of the US not having caused every single bad thing in the middle east quite difficult. Even without the US, there are and have always been actors in the middle east who have had malicious interests.

Russia is the primary culprit for the strengthening and rise of ISIS really. If not for their need for a port of call in the Med and having military bases in Syria, a coalition goes in to strike down Assad and ISIS years ago.

 

[Azih]

Here comes the Assad defense force.

I have no interest in defending Assad. I also have no interest in ignoring those far more directly responsible like the Gulf Sheiks who actually fund these bastards.

 

[kruis]

It seems everybody has been responsible for ISIS according to the sources you prefer. Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, Turkey, Assad, Israel, US, the whole of the western world, Russia ...

 

[DasPenguin]

It's interesting how the backlash against Bush has made discussing any possibility of the US not having caused every single bad thing in the middle east quite difficult. Even without the US, there are and have always been actors in the middle east who have had malicious interests.

True, but Bush and his group of merry men made it a lot easier for those other actors.