Post-ISIS Syria Mess

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sat, 07/01/2017 - 7:26pm

Earlier today a jihadi rebel group in southern Syria accused the Damascus government of a chemical weapons attack.

A Syrian rebel group accused the Syrian army of using chlorine gas against its fighters on Saturday in battles east of Damascus - an accusation the military swiftly denied as a fabrication.
The Failaq al-Rahman group said more than 30 people suffered suffocation as a result of the attack in Ain Tarma in the Eastern Ghouta region, which government forces have been battling to take back from insurgents.

Did it actually happen? Who knows for sure.
The report is only a few hours old, so I haven't seen a response from the White House yet.
Recall what Trump said just last week.

"As we have previously stated, the United States is in Syria to eliminate the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. If, however, Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price."

Washington has been pushing for war with Damascus for months.
Just yesterday, the Pentagon came to an agreement with the Syrian Kurds to use the Tabqa Airbase. Why is that symbolically important? Because it's only a few miles away from where we shot down a Syrian jet two weeks ago.

Depending on the White House response (if any) to the alleged chemical attack, this is not the most alarming development in Syria this week.
For that you have to go further north, near the border of Turkey.

Turkish and Kurdish forces appear headed towards large scale conflict in the Kurdish canton of Afrin in northwest Syria as both sides step up rhetoric amid increased Turkish military movement in the area.
If Turkey attacks Afrin, “Turkey will be plunged into a swamp, politically and militarily – there will be an historical resistance against Turkish occupation in Afrin and Shahba regions,” Mehmud Berxwedan, commander of Kurdish YPG forces in Afrin, told Voice of America’s Kurdish radio service on Friday.

This warning and the sporadic fighting is nothing new, although the large-scale build-up of Turkish forces along the border is new.
What is very unusual is the bold Kurdish response.

While most of the focus on the risk of a war breaking out between the Turkish military and the Kurdish YPG in northern Syria has been on the possibility of Turkey invading the Afrin District, At least one top YPG commander is looking to get the fighting started himself by invading Turkish-held areas along the border.
Commander Sipan Hemo of the YPG insisted it is his intention to “liberate” the entire border area from Jarabulus to Azaz, a region that spans much of the Aleppo Province, and would effectively give the YPG military control over the bulk of the Syrian side of the Turkey border.

Doing this would immediately start a massive land war between Turkey and the Syrian Kurds.
This would put the U.S. in a very delicate situation. Our support of the Syrian Kurds has angered Turkey for years. OTOH, the Kurds have to be fully aware that there are limits to American support.
Nevertheless, a clash between Turkey and the Syrian Kurds seems inevitable, and that puts our troops in harm's way.

Tags:

Syria

ISIS

Turkey

kurds

Chemical weapons

Vote

Comments

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sat, 07/01/2017 - 7:42pm

Framing

stumbling

This is expressed most clearly in the idea that the US is “drawn into” war despite its otherwise unwarlike intentions. “Will US Be Drawn Further Into Syrian Civil War?” asked Fox News (4/7/17). “How America Could Stumble Into War With Iran,” disclosed The Atlantic (2/9/17), “What It Would Take to Pull the US Into a War in Asia,” speculated Quartz (4/29/17). “Trump could easily get us sucked into Afghanistan again,” Slate predicted (5/11/17). The US is “stumbling into a wider war” in Syria, the New York Times editorial board (5/2/15) warned. “A Flexing Contest in Syria May Trap the US in an Endless Conflict,” Vice News (6/19/17) added.
“Sliding,” “stumbling,” ”sucked into,” “dragged into,” ”drawn into”: The US is always reluctantly—and without a plan—falling backward into bombing and occupying. The US didn’t enter the conflict in Syria in September 2014 deliberately; it was forced into it by outside actors. The US didn’t arm and fund anti-Assad rebels for four years to the tune of $1 billion a year as part of a broader strategy for the region; it did so as a result of some unknown geopolitical dark matter.

Syria especially evokes the media’s “reluctantly sucked into war” narrative. Four times in the past month, the Trump administration has attacked pro-regime forces in Syria, and in all four instances they’ve claimed “self-defense.” All four times, media accepted this justification without question (e.g., Reuters, 6/19/17), despite not a single instance of “self-defense” attacks occurring under two-and-a-half years of the Obama administration fighting in Syria. (The one time Obama directly attacked Syrian government forces, the US claimed it was an accident.)

Why the sudden uptick in “self-defense”? Could it be because, as with the bombing of ISIS (and nearby civilians), Trump has given a green light to his generals to adopt an itchy trigger finger? Could it be Trump and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who has a decades-long grudge against Iran, want to blow up Iranian drones and kill Iranian troops? No such questions are entertained, much less interrogated. The US’s entirely defensive posture in Syria is presented as fact and serves as the premise for discussion.

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 11:59am

That's America...

@gjohnsit @gjohnsit @gjohnsit
The eternal victim of (its own self-inflicted) consequences .

EDIT: took out one bolding and 2 parentheses so it made more sense.

EDIT EDIT: (on freaking iPhone) holding/bolding

stumbling This is expressed most clearly in the idea that the US is “drawn into” war despite its otherwise unwarlike intentions. “Will US Be Drawn Further Into Syrian Civil War?” asked Fox News (4/7/17). “How America Could Stumble Into War With Iran,” disclosed The Atlantic (2/9/17), “What It Would Take to Pull the US Into a War in Asia,” speculated Quartz (4/29/17). “Trump could easily get us sucked into Afghanistan again,” Slate predicted (5/11/17). The US is “stumbling into a wider war” in Syria, the New York Times editorial board (5/2/15) warned. “A Flexing Contest in Syria May Trap the US in an Endless Conflict,” Vice News (6/19/17) added. “Sliding,” “stumbling,” ”sucked into,” “dragged into,” ”drawn into”: The US is always reluctantly—and without a plan—falling backward into bombing and occupying. The US didn’t enter the conflict in Syria in September 2014 deliberately; it was forced into it by outside actors. The US didn’t arm and fund anti-Assad rebels for four years to the tune of $1 billion a year as part of a broader strategy for the region; it did so as a result of some unknown geopolitical dark matter. Syria especially evokes the media’s “reluctantly sucked into war” narrative. Four times in the past month, the Trump administration has attacked pro-regime forces in Syria, and in all four instances they’ve claimed “self-defense.” All four times, media accepted this justification without question (e.g., Reuters, 6/19/17), despite not a single instance of “self-defense” attacks occurring under two-and-a-half years of the Obama administration fighting in Syria. (The one time Obama directly attacked Syrian government forces, the US claimed it was an accident.) Why the sudden uptick in “self-defense”? Could it be because, as with the bombing of ISIS (and nearby civilians), Trump has given a green light to his generals to adopt an itchy trigger finger? Could it be Trump and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who has a decades-long grudge against Iran, want to blow up Iranian drones and kill Iranian troops? No such questions are entertained, much less interrogated. The US’s entirely defensive posture in Syria is presented as fact and serves as the premise for discussion.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Steven D on Sat, 07/01/2017 - 8:00pm

Well all the Rapture people must be thrilled

This is playing out just like the wanted, hoped, dreamed. The only question is whether Trump or Putin is the anti-christ?

But seriously, how many false flag attacks are there going to be before our bipartisan warmongers insist on upping the use of force in this war, and risking Armageddon over the Assad regime?

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 12:09am

IIRC, end time prophesy involves war between Israel

@Steven D

and a land "to the north." I had always assumed Turkey was the land referred to, given what Biblical authors knew of the world. However, Russia is also to the North. It's been a while since I checked on the tv end time interpreters. I have no idea what they are saying currently.

Submitted by dervish on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 10:12am

Then we get into the question

@HenryAWallace of who or what is "Israel"?

When they're speaking of the righteous, somehow I doubt that they're talking about Bibi and his plans. He doesn't get a pass just because he wears a kippah.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by edg on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 12:12pm

Syria is north of Israel.

@HenryAWallace

As is Lebanon. End-timers in the U.S. wouldn't mind Armageddon starting in either one.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Tue, 07/04/2017 - 1:28am

Agree, as a matter of current reality.

@edg

As a matter of Biblical interpretation, though, it seems unlikely. Biblical authors referred to both Lebanon and Syria by name many times. IMO, switching from that to a very vague reference to a land to the north is unlikely.

Submitted by edg on Thu, 07/06/2017 - 1:59pm

Italy?

@HenryAWallace

At the time of the new testament, the empire to the north occupying Palestine was the Romans.

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sat, 07/01/2017 - 8:10pm

Stop arming terrorists???

Why would we want that?

One of the few elected Democratic lawmakers with an extensive anti-war record, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), has combined forces with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) to push legislation through both the House and the Senate that would bar federal agencies from using taxpayer-backed funds to provide weapons, training, intelligence, or any other type of support to terrorist cells such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other group that is associated with them in any way. The Stop Arming Terrorists Act is so unique that it’s also the only bill of its kind that would also bar the government from funneling money and weapons through other countries that support (directly or indirectly) terrorists such as Saudi Arabia.
To our surprise — or should we say shame? — only 13 other lawmakers out of hundreds have co-sponsored Gabbard’s House bill. Paul’s Senate version of the bill, on the other hand, has zero cosponsors.

Submitted by native on Sat, 07/01/2017 - 8:53pm

When has the US Congress ever seriously

@gjohnsit
opposed military adventurism? I can't recall it ever having done so. Any excuse will do, it doesn't even have to be very credible.

—

native

Submitted by edg on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 12:14pm

Congress has gotta feed...

@native

...all them defense contractors feeding them bribes, er, campaign contributions, back in the district.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 12:11am

It's a jobs program. Arms are one of the few things we still

@gjohnsit

manufacture in the US.

Submitted by edg on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 12:16pm

Assembled in the U.S. yes ...

@HenryAWallace @HenryAWallace

but almost every electronic component in those arms was made elsewhere.

Submitted by irishking on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 8:36am

Paul’s Senate version of the bill,... has zero cosponsors.

@gjohnsit

Bernie must have missed the memo. I'm sure he will jump right in though. /s

I really would like to hear a defense of Sanders' no-show from anyone.

I am beginning to feel like a lemming here.

Submitted by CB on Sat, 07/01/2017 - 9:13pm

I do. It fucking never happened! Cui bono, cui bono, cui bono

Did it actually happen? Who knows for sure.

Did I mention cui bono? Assad is winning big time against ISIS and the phoney US backed rebels.

Syria: Army Dismisses New Claims on Using Chlorine Against the Terrorists, Terrorists Keep Attacking Civilians, More Palmyrian Antiquities Recovered

General Command of the Syrian Army has issued a statement, saying that claims, made up by certain media outlets, affiliated with terrorist groups, about Syrian Army using chlorine gas during their operations against the terrorists of Al Rahman Brigade in the Damascene district Ein Tarma, are completely false and have no credibility.

The statement assured the Army is not using any types of poisonous gases, while fighting against the terrorists.

Meanwhile, the terrorists keep shelling residential areas.

Earlier on Saturday, a woman was killed and 19 other people were left injured while visiting their friends and relatives, held at the Central Prison of Damascus, after terrorists started to shell the area.

Another injury was reported in the Jaramana district of Damascus.

2 people were killed and 12 others were wounded, after terrorists opened fire at Al Kashef neighbourhood in the southern city of Daraa.

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 07/01/2017 - 9:31pm

Killing people with poison gas

is something worth invading over, yet burning them to death with white phosphorous is just fine? That's a part of the US position that I've never understood, it makes no sense.

Not that Assad has launched this attack, I strongly doubt that he did.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 3:22am

American hypocrisy strikes again

@dervish

Submitted by lotlizard on Sat, 07/01/2017 - 9:52pm

The U.S. and E.U. have allowed Israel to annex a slice of Syria

As an official NATO member and all, Turkey probably figures the time is now ripe for it to do the same.

Who’s going to stop them? Nobody, that’s who. They’ve still got northern Cyprus.

The U.S. and the E.U. deliberately destroyed Libya, with malice aforethought.

The U.S. and the E.U. have allowed Morocco to annex Western Sahara.

The U.S. and the E.U. are backing Saudi Arabia and its war crimes in Yemen.

The U.S. and the E.U. are backing Al-Sisi’s coup and military regime in Egypt.

Use one’s vote to protest U.S. and E.U. foreign policy? In Germany, the only way to do that is to vote for reformed communists or right-wing populists.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 12:39am

That Trump!

@lotlizard

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI]

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpDqMWhkEm8]

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWAFvIT-NHs]

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu72p4p8cGI]

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 07/02/2017 - 12:25pm

@HenryAWallace

@HenryAWallace

And yet there are still people saying that Hillary should have been President and that her bad campaign (generally failing to mention the fact that she and her coterie are obviously pathologically and destructively corrupt even beyond Trump's similarly deadly ~~profiteering~~ 'policies') gave everyone on this dying globe Trump, as though that wasn't a slower-killing evil...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Tue, 07/04/2017 - 3:06am

Guess those people* didn't vote in swing states.

@Ellen North

*One of the benefits of Obama (to date, the most effective POTUS when it comes to moving wealth to the very rich, being out of office) is that people, including him, have been saying "folks" less. But...https://caucus99percent.com/comment/271715#comment-271715