Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Turkey invades Syria: Update- ISIS rebuilds


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It’s not to distract. There are better ways to distract. It’s to please Erdogan or Putin for some reason related to Trump’s personal interests, as opposed to U.S. national interests.

Wait 'till the guy on the left hears about the guy on the right.

I know it's against board policy to say that Trump is a moron or idiot or whatever.  But I honestly don't know how what other conclusion I'm supposed to draw.  Whether it's an innately low IQ (doubtfu

5 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

He announced that Kurdish controlled land in Northern Syria will be coming back under Syrian State control.

Five minutes ago or so.

Ha, that's weird that a news story on the guy just happened to come out about the time I posted.  I was thinking how strange that he just kind of disappeared after his name was in the news daily at one point.  Maybe he thinks things have settled down enough to poke his head out.

Sounds like he's onboard with us controlling the oil fields.  Much better than ISIS, and I guess as long as we control it that means stability.  So basically Trump pulled a bs Antonio Cromartie pull out of Syria.  Saying he pulled out, but it sounds like we are going to control the oil fields for sometime going forward.  Again, better than ISIS, but now the question is who gets the oil.  I suppose it belongs to the Kurds, but if we are there paying to protect it, and it was basically going to ISIS before, we at least need to cover our out of pocket expenses imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Punxsutawney Phil said:

Ha, that's weird that a news story on the guy just happened to come out about the time I posted.  I was thinking how strange that he just kind of disappeared after his name was in the news daily at one point.  Maybe he thinks things have settled down enough to poke his head out.

Sounds like he's onboard with us controlling the oil fields.  Much better than ISIS, and I guess as long as we control it that means stability.  So basically Trump pulled a bs Antonio Cromartie pull out of Syria.  Saying he pulled out, but it sounds like we are going to control the oil fields for sometime going forward.  Again, better than ISIS, but now the question is who gets the oil.  I suppose it belongs to the Kurds, but if we are there paying to protect it, and it was basically going to ISIS before, we at least need to cover our out of pocket expenses imo.

Yep, it’s definitely about the oil.  Trump forgot he’s not supposed to say that part out loud.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A separate deal between Turkey and Russia accelerated Syrian government deployment as joint Russian-Syrian patrols are part of the new border arrangements.

But Russia was critical that Washington will continue to keep troops in Syria.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said “what Washington is doing now, the seizure and control of oil fields in eastern Syria under its armed control, is, quite simply, international state banditry.”

“All hydrocarbon deposits and other minerals located on the territory of Syria do not belong to the IS terrorists, and even less to the ‘American defenders from IS terrorists,’ but exclusively to the Syrian Arab Republic,” he added.

https://apnews.com/099ddacb51184717b562f160c4cf6fc2

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

A separate deal between Turkey and Russia accelerated Syrian government deployment as joint Russian-Syrian patrols are part of the new border arrangements.

But Russia was critical that Washington will continue to keep troops in Syria.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said “what Washington is doing now, the seizure and control of oil fields in eastern Syria under its armed control, is, quite simply, international state banditry.”

“All hydrocarbon deposits and other minerals located on the territory of Syria do not belong to the IS terrorists, and even less to the ‘American defenders from IS terrorists,’ but exclusively to the Syrian Arab Republic,” he added.

https://apnews.com/099ddacb51184717b562f160c4cf6fc2

Who would have predicted that? It’s not like he criticized the previous administrations for not taking the oil during the Iraq war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These topics are always busiest when the propaganda is on full blast.  Not just here, but the whole news cycle.  'Trump has betrayed the Kurds.  Trump gave the house away to Putin and Assad.  All roads lead to Russia.'

When the propaganda narrative is laid bare as a lie- 'protecting the Kurds' actually being about 'protecting the oil', Trump's actions actually being belligerent toward Russia and Syria- the issue has long since disappeared to the backburner. 

I get that it's stupid hard to keep up with this news cycle, but it's annoying that we are commonly left with a distorted version of events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ren hoek said:

These topics are always busiest when the propaganda is on full blast.  Not just here, but the whole news cycle.  'Trump has betrayed the Kurds.  Trump gave the house away to Putin and Assad.  All roads lead to Russia.'

When the propaganda narrative is laid bare as a lie- 'protecting the Kurds' actually being about 'protecting the oil', Trump's actions actually being belligerent toward Russia and Syria- the issue has long since disappeared to the backburner. 

I get that it's stupid hard to keep up with this news cycle, but it's annoying that we are commonly left with a distorted version of events.

US cannot completely surrender the area to Syria and allow Russians to expand their presence in the area. My guess is that Joint Chiefs explained this to POTUS but needed a reason to have him sign off. Saying there are some assets gives us something to protect even if it's just dumb.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 1:00 AM, timschochet said:

It would be interesting to rewrite the history of the Middle East over the last 100 years if there was no oil there. 

It really wouldn't....it would be a desert wasteland where different belief systems were killing each other off....nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

It really wouldn't....it would be a desert wasteland where different belief systems were killing each other off....nothing more.

They might not be killing each other off. The Sunni-Shiite conflict was pretty much dormant for 800 years prior to the 20th century. It was revived by ambitious leaders who were given money and prestige from England and France during and after World War I once the value of oil was finally recognized. Later on the USA got involved, supporting our own guys in the conflict like Ibn Saud and the Shah of Iran. All for the same purpose: to control the oil supply. 

I disagree with @ren hoek about 99% of the time. But he’s right about this general point: there is no decision we make with regard to the Middle East that is not ultimately about oil. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, saintfool said:

Russians tend to have a destabilizing effect. This is problematic in regions that seem to have an affinity for discord. US and its allies are a necessary counterweight.

Couldn't we look at the USA's work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, and conclude it's had a destabilizing effect as well?  It was Russia that protected Damascus from a massive bombing campaign by the west.  I think you would at least agree that bombing other countries tends to destabilize them.  The difference between US and Russian intervention in Syria is that Russia is a welcome, co-operative partner of the Syrian govt, while the US is an illegal occupier.  I don't think we should concern ourselves with Russian influence in the region anymore than we should support Saudi influence in the region (also bad).  

If Russia wants to be the next empire to collapse trying to control the Arab world, let them.  If they want to forge an economic partnership with the Syrian people for energy markets, then good for them.  This oil empire stuff needs to die.  It's bad for the region, bad for peace in the world, and completely unsustainable.  

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

This oil empire stuff needs to die.  It's bad for the region, bad for peace in the world, and completely unsustainable.  

Again I tend to agree with this overall point. But it’s tied very much to our addiction to oil in general. And like a heroin addiction, we can’t let that go cold turkey, we need to wean ourselves off it. We need to develop some methadone. That will take time. And until it happens we can’t allow Russia or anybody else to dominate the Middle East. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Couldn't we look at the USA's work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, and conclude it's had a destabilizing effect as well?  It was Russia that protected Damascus from a massive bombing campaign by the west.  I think you would at least agree that bombing other countries tends to destabilize them.  The difference between US and Russian intervention in Syria is that Russia is a welcome, co-operative partner of the Syrian govt, while the US is an illegal occupier.  I don't think we should concern ourselves with Russian influence in the region anymore than we should support Saudi influence in the region (also bad).  

If Russia wants to be the next empire to collapse trying to control the Arab world, let them.  If they want to forge an economic partnership with the Syrian people for energy markets, then good for them.  This oil empire stuff needs to die.  It's bad for the region, bad for peace in the world, and completely unsustainable.  

You might as well be parroting from RT. I'm not sure what "massive bombing campaign" you're referring to but I'm guessing it's when folks were trying to stop Assad from barrel bombing and gassing more Syrians. Russia blocked that effort and hired themselves out to an overmatched Assad military. Syria has become a client state of Russia rather than a "welcome co-operative partner". As long as the checks clear then Russia has Assad's back. 

You're being obstinate - more than usual really - to ignore the original purpose of US in Syria and that's to defeat IS. Phrases and language like "the US is an illegal occupier" signals to me that your memory is rather convenient when it comes to the topic of Syria.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saintfool said:

You might as well be parroting from RT. I'm not sure what "massive bombing campaign" you're referring to but I'm guessing it's when folks were trying to stop Assad from barrel bombing and gassing more Syrians. Russia blocked that effort and hired themselves out to an overmatched Assad military. Syria has become a client state of Russia rather than a "welcome co-operative partner". As long as the checks clear then Russia has Assad's back. 

You're being obstinate - more than usual really - to ignore the original purpose of US in Syria and that's to defeat IS. Phrases and language like "the US is an illegal occupier" signals to me that your memory is rather convenient when it comes to the topic of Syria.

Ok, well I guess RT was telling the truth then.  It was a big scare.  Some of us were afraid it could trigger a massive conflict.  A US/Brit/French coalition attempted to bomb Damascus, long before there was independent confirmation of a "chemical attack" "against his own people" in Douma.  Their evidence for this attack was social media videos by groups like the White Helmets.  The OPCW, realizing this was not sufficient proof to blame Assad for a chemical weapons attack, made the decision to launch a fact-finding mission.  But the US/FR/UK wanted to bomb Syria before their work was complete, and did.  

About a year or so later there was a leaked OPCW report which undercut the notion that the ballistics for the canisters were consistent with a Syrian airstrike, which was apparently withheld from the official OPCW report.  Recently another OPCW researcher that was tasked with handling samples in Douma has reportedly come forward with "major revelations" that have been suppressed by the organization.  

The US goal in Syria, like its goals in Iraq and Libya, were to topple the regime.  Turkey funneled weapons into Syria and helped anti-Assad forces with sarin production.  The goal on paper was to handle Assad's human rights abuses while also dealing with ISIS, but the CIA provided tons of weaponry to many different warring factions in Syria, and didn't always "know" where they ended up.  Our partners, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, directly funded ISIS, and the Clinton State Dept. knew about it.  

Yes- the notion of chemical attacks in Syria made all the sense in the world for forces that were trying to draw in the West over the 'red line', and zero sense at all as a military strategy for the Syrian regime.  Yes- OPCW officials have come forward to dispute what the official reports say.  Yes- the US has illegally invaded Syria and has no legitimate pretense for occupying their lands. 

Edited by ren hoek
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 9:44 AM, ren hoek said:

Couldn't we look at the USA's work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, and conclude it's had a destabilizing effect as well?  It was Russia that protected Damascus from a massive bombing campaign by the west.  I think you would at least agree that bombing other countries tends to destabilize them.  The difference between US and Russian intervention in Syria is that Russia is a welcome, co-operative partner of the Syrian govt, while the US is an illegal occupier.  I don't think we should concern ourselves with Russian influence in the region anymore than we should support Saudi influence in the region (also bad).  

If Russia wants to be the next empire to collapse trying to control the Arab world, let them.  If they want to forge an economic partnership with the Syrian people for energy markets, then good for them.  This oil empire stuff needs to die.  It's bad for the region, bad for peace in the world, and completely unsustainable.  

This is the best post I've read in some time. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

CNN really burying the lede here:

"Syrian opposition forces who joined the Turkish incursion had not carried out any counterterrorism operations against ISIS since the start of the offensive and were unlikely to do so," the report said, adding that "the DIA said that some of the militias backed by Turkey had previously helped smuggle ISIS fighters across opposition-held territory and probably maintain low-level ties to ISIS because they share a similar, strict interpretation of Sharia law."

Our allies- Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar- have SUPPORTED ISIS in Syria.  ISIS is a problem because western/gulf powers keep SUPPORTING them.  If they'd STOP SUPPORTING THEM- whether by tacit approval, outright support, or by dumping weapons into the Syrian opposition and looking the other way- the problem would STOP.  But CNN can't bring themselves to report the truth- that this is the inevitable aftermath of our endless wars in the middle east. 

None of this is an accident.  They knew this would happen just like it happened in Iraq and Libya, and they're ok with it.  They don't want the wars to end, and they never have.  CNN is actually dumb enough to blame it on a troop drawdown rather than the anticipated results of a multilateral intervention in Syria.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

October 25th was the last working/weekday of Fiscal Calendar October 2019.

I have never heard of a calendar like that. Is that a common federal government thing? Where does October 28-31st get booked then? In November?

ETA: Also do they always divide things into 1/3 of a year periods? 

Edited by parasaurolophus
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I have never heard of a calendar like that. Is that a common federal government thing? Where does October 28-31st get booked then? In November?

ETA: Also do they always divide things into 1/3 of a year periods? 

The fiscal calendar is a common federal government thing, yes, I believe it's also common in other areas, like finance. The 38th -31st did get booked in November this year.

The year is divided into months and quarters. This year Q1 started at the beginning of Fiscal October (which was September 30 this year), Q2 starts at the beginning of fiscal January (Dec 30), Q3 starts at the beginning of fiscal April (March 30), Q4 starts at the beginning of fiscal July (June 29). In this way the calendar is divided up into months that are exactly 28 or 35 days long (4 or 5 weeks), 160 or 200 non-overtime full time work hours.

Edited by Gr00vus
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

The fiscal calendar is a common federal government thing, yes, I believe it's also common in other areas, like finance. The 38th -31st did get booked in November this year.

The year is divided into months and quarters. This year Q1 started at the beginning of Fiscal October (which was September 30 this year), Q2 starts at the beginning of fiscal January (Dec 30), Q3 starts at the beginning of fiscal April (March 30), Q4 starts at the beginning of fiscal July (June 29). In this way the calendar is divided up into months that are exactly 28 or 35 days long (4 or 5 weeks), 160 or 200 non-overtime full time work hours.

My last employer was fiscal year end September 30th which was annoying, but I had never heard of the 4-4-5. Makes sense. I know our CFO hated the partial pay period calculations especially when commissions were involved. 

This report was from July 1st to October 25th though which still doesn't fit anything. That's a third. 

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

My last employer was fiscal year end September 30th which was annoying, but I had never heard of the 4-4-5. Makes sense. I know our CFO hated the partial pay period calculations especially when commissions were involved. 

This report was from July 1st to October 25th though which still doesn't fit anything. That's a third. 

I can't speak to the start date, but the end date makes sense in terms of lining up with a month end. It may be they do reporting on some sort of trimester basis, or maybe the start date was arbitrary or related to current events at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gr00vus said:

I can't speak to the start date, but the end date makes sense in terms of lining up with a month end. It may be they do reporting on some sort of trimester basis, or maybe the start date was arbitrary or related to current events at the time.

A trimester report that ends in October? That seems odd still, but maybe some of the federal guys on here can speak to it better. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

A trimester report that ends in October? That seems odd still, but maybe some of the federal guys on here can speak to it better. 

 

LIke I said, I can't speak to the start date. But more importantly, I don't find the time span chosen very relevant to understanding the implications of the findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Read that Turkey is threatening to remove American access to two Turkish bases over the sanctions imposed by Congress, including the Incirlik where we have some nuclear weapons stored.  I'm sure this is just posturing and won't happen, but damn we need to get any top level strategic tech out of Turkey at this point including those weapons.  Things are just too bad with our relationships with that country to have those types of things stored there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...