nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The difference between Aleppo and Mosul?

Del.Monte

Please, can anybody explain the difference between what the Russians and their allies are doing in Aleppo and what the Iraqis and their allies are doing in Mosul?

Apart that is from both being futile exercises in trying to dislodge heavily armed enemy forces that have been dug in for months in urban surroundings. Why are the media running with the Mosul nonsense today as if it was the liberation of Europe in 1944?

The stench of hypocrisy from both Russia and America is overwhelming. This is not some stupid computer game and lots of real people are being killed and they don't re-spawn. :mad:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

johnp001

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Some day the media is going to have to own up to the falsification they put out there and retract what they have reported to be the case which had no trace of truth in them.

Given that the "war of aggression" waged on Iraq based on falsified WMD evidence has led to no consequences for the ultimate war criminals responsible or the media that led the unquestioning cheerleading I am not holding my breath waiting for this to happen...

International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg wrote:

To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

I would love to believe that the day when the truth prevails is imminent but every recent action where governments seek to control the public discourse on these issues by banning "propaganda" or "fake news" pushes us further towards the dystopian future described in Orwell's 1984.

George Orwell wrote:

Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.

Jimmy Garlic

Any word on the seven year old girl that Tweets in perfect English and whose first follower on Twitter was an Al Jazeera ''journalist''?

Gatling

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Any word on the seven year old girl that Tweets in perfect English and whose first follower on Twitter was an Al Jazeera ''journalist''?

Is there a reason a 7 year old girl in Syria who's mother is an English teacher couldn't possibly communicate in English.

But to answer the first part she met with president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey the other day

A Primal Nut

Christians in Aleppo celebrating Christmas for the first time in years....presumably they didn't feel safe doing so when being ruled by the "moderate" rebels.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN14E0HN?il=0

Hande hoche!

Interesting tweet from a coalition commander in Iraq as regards the popular mobilization units. Could be that they are getting ready to allow these units , together with the Pershmerga, to encroach on Mosul itself. Would make sense given the hard fought progress thus far.

https://twitter.com/Hayder_alKhoei/status/813523437373288448

johnp001

Kurt Nimmo/Newsbud wrote:

On this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we counter the establishment’s narrative on the conflict in Syria and the flashpoint of Daraa, a town near the Syria-Jordan border where the CIA, working with the Muslim Brotherhood, attacked police and set the stage for a conflict that has so far claimed the lives of more than 400,000 Syrians. The proxy war is designed to take down a secular government and replace it with a Salafist principality controlled by the Brotherhood, a longtime CIA and British intelligence asset.

Very interesting short video just published today describing how the Syrian insurrection started.

donaghs

Gatling wrote: »

Massacreing your own population will ruin any chance of Knight hood or other awards

Gatling, it seems like your hatred of Assad is the only thing that defines your contributions, trumping anything that ISIS or Syrian Al Queda do.

Its distorting your overall view. Its nonsense to say someone would be denied a knighthood if they had been responsible for massacres. Ceausecu got a knighthood when he was seen as an emerging critic of the Soviets, within the eastern bloc. It was only taken away after the fall of the Berlin Wall and when he was removed from power - i.e. when it became "politically incorrect".

Other notables the British knighted included Benito Mussolini (removed 1940, gassing the Ethiopians in 1936 was not a problem), Robert Mugabe, Chiang Kai-shek, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Leopold II of Belgium, the last Shah of Iran, etc.

The point being that post the 1990 Gulf War, "the West" (i.e. the US and major NATO countries) did a deal with Assad's father. They were happy enough with his son taking over, keeping order post 9/11. Happy enough to trumpet his minor reforms as the beginning of a new brighter era in Syria. Just have a read of Vogue's puff piece of Assad's wife.
But post Iraq War 2003, the "Arab Spring" etc, an opportunity was seen to remove a regime who was never going to be their guy. e.g. FDR's comment on Nicaragua's dictator in the 1930s/40s: "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."

Gatling

donaghs wrote: »

Gatling, it seems like your hatred of Assad is the only thing that defines your contributions, trumping anything that ISIS or Syrian Al Queda do.

Ive Absolutely no idea what your talking about seriously

Wheeliebin30

After all those deaths and destruction things are still the same.

What a waste. The "rebels" should be real proud of their achievements.

realitykeeper

The difference between Aleppo and Mosul is that Aleppo is free thanks to Russia and Mosul is under attack by terrorists who are supported by the west.

johnp001

Nicholas J S Davies writing on Consortium News today

Consortium News wrote:

The ‘Post-Truth’ Mainstream Media

...
The corporate media’s selective crocodile tears over the plight of civilians in East Aleppo stand in sharp contrast to their diametrically-opposed framing of the similar plight of an estimated 1.5 million civilians in Mosul, under siege and daily bombardment by the U.S. and its allies. While the plight of civilians in East Aleppo was blamed entirely on the attacking forces and not on their Al Qaeda-linked captors, the crisis facing civilians in Mosul is blamed entirely on ISIS, while the forces gradually destroying the city with artillery and air strikes are presented as the people’s liberators.

In reality, U.S. air strikes have killed thousands of people in and around Mosul, destroyed all the bridges over the Tigris, and struck at least two hospitals, the university, food warehouses, dairies, flour mills, factories, banks, apartment buildings, private homes, telephone exchanges and water and electricity plants.

After months of escalating siege, artillery bombardment and air strikes, much of the population has lost access to food, water, medicine, electricity and other necessities of life, but still have no means of escape from the twin dangers of American bombs and Iraqi government death squads on one side and ISIS’s murderous rule on the other.

Can we hope that U.S. corporate media will now pay more attention to the plight of civilians in Mosul, or even acknowledge our country’s leading role in the destruction and misery that is engulfing them?
More...

ilkhanid

KingBrian2 wrote: »

As for Gadhafi and Milosevic the left never condoned any of the actions of these leaders. Usually it is the right that talks about nuking the middle east and allowing military dictators butcher their people. The Brits don't put nearly enough pressure on Israel to make peace with their Arab neighbours and spend more time starting wars.

As for Miloslevic some sections of the left certainly did. Remember the "Living Marxism" libel case? And Chomsky didn't cover himself in glory on that subject either.

KingBrian2

ilkhanid wrote: »

As for Miloslevic some sections of the left certainly did. Remember the "Living "libel case?

Sorry not old enough to remember Milosevic's time.

ilkhanid

Link here...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/mar/15/pressandpublishing.tvnews

Brian?

realitykeeper wrote: »

The difference between Aleppo and Mosul is that Aleppo is free thanks to Russia and Mosul is under attack by terrorists who are supported by the west.

The Iraqi army are terrorists? The Kurds? Or is the Shia and Sunni militias you're referring to? What about ISIS, are they valiant defended of Mosul or terrorists?

I hate the word "terrorist". It's lost all meaning. Everyone is a poxy terrorist now.

I think it really shows how deplorable ISIS are when the Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, the West and Russia can all agree they have to go.

recedite

Aleppo seems to be very quiet these days, but a humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Mosul.

Trump seems to have forgotten all about his pre-election promises to seek greater co-operation with Russia to destroy Islamic State.

Following Trumps recent air strike against a Syrian/Russian airbase, the Israeli's have now been emboldened to launch a similar strike against pro-Assad forces.

A massive explosion has struck near Damascus International Airport after a suspected Israeli air strike on an arms depot used by Hizbollah

And with Turkey also launching airstrikes against the Kurdish ground troops, IS fighters must be thanking Allah for giving them such a good start to the year. Things are really looking up for them.

And the war now looks set to drag on indefinitely.

Gatling

recedite wrote: »

Aleppo seems to be very quiet these days,

Trump seems to have forgotten all about his pre-election promises to seek greater co-operation with Russia to destroy Islamic State.

Following Trumps recent air strike against a Syrian/Russian airbase, the Israeli's have now been emboldened to launch a similar[ strike

And the war now looks set to drag on indefinitely.

Aleppo is about as quite as anywhere else in Syria currently,
Trump had make sure and I'm sure the civillian population of Syria would agree had to stop Assad using Sarin Gas against them ,their still hitting Isis and Isis infrastructure on a near daily basis without having to bomb heavily populated areas ,
And Israel have been targeting hizbollah , Iranian and Assad regime forces for nearly 5 years now it's pretty old news at this stage,
But yes the war will rage on for a few more years

recedite

Sporadic use of sarin gas is old news in Syria, but the evidence for who deployed it has always been on about the same level as the evidence for WMD's in Iraq, ie not enough to warrant an aggressive attack on a foreign sovereign nation. Otherwise the UN would sanction it.

Anyway, I'm not sure the thousands who have died suffocating underneath bombed out rubble would consider dying of sarin gas poisoning to be any worse a fate.
When did Israel last strike Syria? Perhaps it escaped my notice, but I don't remember it happening in recent years?

Gatling

recedite wrote: »

S
When did Israel last strike Syria? Perhaps it escaped my notice, but I don't remember it happening in recent years?

I can think of at least 6 or 7 airstrikes in the last few years ,
The first major one targeted a chemical weapons lab ,and multiple other strike hitting hizbollah or Assad forces over the last few years ,

recedite

recedite wrote: »

...The possible outcome then is that the "naive" Kurds attack IS in Raqqa, backed by coalition air support. Putin sits back and waits while the two sides grind each other down. Then Turkey moves in, finishes off the Kurds and seizes a "buffer zone" in Northern Syria - the Kurdish part.
Assad, backed by Russian air power, finishes off the IS resistance in the Sunni part, and plants the Syrian flag in Raqqa. US special forces then forced to retreat back across the border to Iraq.
US President then claims "victory" over IS, "major operations completed" in the war, and "peace restored" to Syria (to much relief and applause at home)

And so the final phase begins. The largest land army in the region kicks into gear as Turkey invades Syria.
The question now is how long the US will continue backing and supplying the Kurds, or is this the moment they get hung out to dry?
I think by calling the annexation "Operation Olive Branch" Turkey is signalling to the other powers (and their proxies) that if everybody stays cool and just allows it to happen, there will be less casualties. They'll stop after they have eliminated the Kurdish "threat" and got their 30Km slice of Syria.

Gatling

recedite wrote: »

And so the final phase begins. The largest land army in the region kicks into gear as Turkey invades Syria.
The question now is how long the US will continue backing and supplying the Kurds, or is this the moment they get hung out to dry?
I think by calling the annexation "Operation Olive Branch" Turkey is signalling to the other powers (and their proxies) that if everybody stays cool and just allows it to happen, there will be less casualties. They'll stop after they have eliminated the Kurdish "threat" and got their 30Km slice of Syria.

Turkey annexation wouldn't stop at Kurdish regions only last week Turkey declared Assad a terrorist who will be removed ,
Now Turkey have a large army yes , but can they fight going from what I seen since they went into Syria last year "No" for the most part there was several videos doing the rounds showing a group of six plus Turkish tanks getting picked off by small team of Kurdish fighters one after another ,not a great start for Turkish forces ,
We already know the US are creating and supporting a 30,000+strong Kurdish border defense force ,so I can't see them standing back and letting Turkish forces repeatedly attack Kurds .
But only time will tell

donaghs

interesting how Turkey kept a quiet and porous border with IS in Syria for years, but only throw a hissy fit and attack when the Kurds take over from IS on the border.

recedite

Gatling wrote: »

We already know the US are creating and supporting a 30,000+strong Kurdish border defense force ,so I can't see them standing back and letting Turkish forces repeatedly attack Kurds .
But only time will tell

What's the Nato protocol for when one member is fighting a proxy war against another member?
That's the difficulty now for the USA. They have to decide whether they want Turkey as an ally or the Kurds. If the Kurds lose US backing, they don't stand a chance.

donaghs

Erdogan says he’s willing to continue military action against the Syrian Kurds “until there is no terrorist on our border leading to Iraq".

Clearly he was happier sharing a border with an “Islamic State”.

Gatling

donaghs wrote: »

Erdogan says he’s willing to continue military action against the Syrian Kurds “until there is no terrorist on our border leading to Iraq".

Clearly he was happier sharing a border with an “Islamic State”.

He's a bit of a nutter , he's already stated there going take Manbij by force ,
Manbij just happens to be under Kurdish and American control with something like a thousand US troops and fighting vehicles based there ,
Looks like a direct conflict is looming ,
Expect erdogan to announce he's now in bed with putin and Assad to remove the Kurd problem

VonZan

Gatling wrote: »

He's a bit of a nutter , he's already stated there going take Manbij by force ,
Manbij just happens to be under Kurdish and American control with something like a thousand US troops and fighting vehicles based there ,
Looks like a direct conflict is looming ,
Expect erdogan to announce he's now in bed with putin and Assad to remove the Kurd problem

Possibly but unlikely. Assad has absolutely no support in ‘Kurdish Syria’. He may try and retake the land but he has no control in the region. I suspect Assad is more worried about the Rebels than the Kurds as the rebels are still going to be a major problem for him politically. The US also won’t stand for another escalation in region and are unlikely to remain idle again when the Kurds are attacked. If anything the US have finally realised the value of supporting the Kurds after leaving them for dead in Iraq.

If Assad pushes for the rest of Syria it will be his downfall. Iran would also probably prefer Kurdish control of that region rather than Sunni militias invading again who pine for the Caliphate now they have tasted it. Assad doesn’t have the support to control or govern the north east.

Del.Monte

It's a dangerous mess and one thing for sure you won't see any of the heroes responsible for it getting their heads shot off. Easy to order people to their deaths from thousands of miles away.

recedite

VonZan wrote: »

If Assad pushes for the rest of Syria it will be his downfall.

You'll notice that Assad has not been pushing though. He has declared the presence of US troops and their allies in his country as "illegal" but has carefully avoided any direct confrontation with them.
I think in order of preference he would like the region controlled by...
1. His own national govt.
2. US backed Kurds
3. Turkey
4. Islamic State

So until he has the strength and/or Russian backing to retake the region, he will have to bide his time.
But from Putin's point of view, the current situation is just fine. It's driving a wedge between the two NATO allies. It suits Putin to be on good terms with both Assad and Erdogan, even though these two despise each other.

For the Kurds, its chance to gain some autonomy in a second country, and they will fight hard because it could be many generations before they get another chance. They are a proud and ancient nation with 30 million people. Really they should have their own country at the junction of Syria,Turkey Iraq and Iran.