Good news everyone. Trump has made it clear that he is interested in working with Russia, rather than against them in the ongoing Syrian conflict. As well as guaranteeing peace between these two great nuclear powers, it will also likely bring the Syrian civil war much closer to its end. Not only will this benefit the Syrian people themselves, but it will take away a lot of the justification for the continuing migrant crisis currently destroying Europe, meaning that when the invasion inevitably continues anyway, more people will hopefully understand what is actually going on and will hopefully start waking up in greater numbers. The only real losers in this situation are the Syrian opposition forces.
President-elect Donald Trump has reaffirmed his campaign trail position that assisting the Syrian government in fighting Isis should be the US’ main objective in Syria, despite appeals from rebels for continued help in their fight against President Bashar al-Assad.
Oh yes, all those “moderate rebels” who don’t really exist, are pleading with Trump to help them overthrow Assad so they can install a functioning democracy instead… just like the one that was installed in Libya after that horrible, Assad-like dictator Gaddafi was overthrown by rebels with the help of NATO.
I just don’t understand how Trump can look at the great success of Libya, and not want something similar for the Syrian people. He must have a heart of stone… or perhaps he just has a functioning brain and can see what a stupid idea it would be to keep going down this path.
“I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting Isis, and you have to get rid of Isis,” he said in a wide-ranging interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday.
Mr Trump has stated that while he “did not like [Mr Assad] at all”, shoring up his regime is the best way to stem the extremism that has flourished in the chaos of the civil war and threatens the US.
“The enemy of my enemy, is my friend”.
You don’t have to like Assad, but this just seems like basic sanity to me. ISIS needs to be crushed. ISIS are a far greater threat to the world than Assad is. How many terrorist attacks have been orchestrated in the West by Assad compared to those orchestrated by ISIS? In fact, forget actual attacks, how many times has Assad even threatened to use terrorism against the West? I sure can’t think of any, so it makes absolutely no sense to aid ISIS in this conflict.
He has also been emphatic about mending ties with Russia, Syria’s long-standing ally and military backer in the conflict.
“Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria… Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who those people are,” he told the Journal, referring to the hardline Sunni Islamist elements present in rebel ranks. If the US attacks Mr Assad, “We end up fighting Russia,” he added.
Which was of course the main reason why I supported Trump over Hillary. Yeah, there were plenty of other reasons for my support too: his contempt for political correctness, his opposition to free trade agreements like TTIP (which he has already killed off ), his calling out of international finance controlling the world, his opposition to prolonging this Syrian civil war, his stance against illegal immigration, etc., but it was his desire for peace and cooperation with Russia, that was the most important issue to me. I genuinely feared that with the decline in US/Russian relations, that we were on the verge of seeing WW3 break out, and that a Hillary Clinton victory would have all but guaranteed it. I’m so happy to see that things are turning out for the better now.
Mr Trump’s shock victory in the US election this week was welcomed by Moscow and Tehran, as well as Damascus, where aides to Mr Assad were cautiously optimistic in interviews on Thursday. The president is “ready” to cooperate with Mr Trump going forward, they said.
To date the US has tacitly supported rebels in Syria both logistically and financially, along with Turkey and Gulf allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Yep, the US and their allies have been funding the rebel groups. However, it has also come out in Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have actually been funding ISIS itself, and that Hillary Clinton (and therefore presumably the Obama government) was well aware of this. So you have America funding and arming Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are funding and arming ISIS, and America knows this, meaning that America is knowingly funding and arming ISIS through proxies, while at the same time telling the public that they’re only funding and arming these non-existent “moderate rebels” who allegedly have similar goals to ISIS in regards to toppling the Assad government.
The long-standing US position has been that Mr Assad must be removed from power and democratic elections take place to end the complex and multisided conflict, now in its sixth year.
Mr Assad’s military strategy – including air strikes targeting civilian infrastructure, siege tactics and alleged use of chemical weapons – has been responsible for far more civilian deaths since 2011 than rebel groups or Isis militants, analysts and monitors say.
And yet they never seem to provide any evidence to back up these accusations. I wonder, are these analysts and monitors, the same people who also claim that Assad has no mandate to rule despite being democratically elected. Also, how do they explain the idea of the Syrian people choosing to re-elect Assad in a landslide victory in 2014 in fair and transparent elections, after three years of him allegedly committing war crimes against them? Which of these three narratives makes the most sense?
- Assad commits brutal atrocities against his own people, but they choose to re-elect him anyway in legitimate elections because they’re stupid/suicidal.
- The international observers who say the election was legitimate are all liars.
- The international observers are all telling the truth and it’s actually the US who are lying, just like the times they lied in the past about the reasons for their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I know which narrative I believe.
Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton had proposed a no-fly-zone over Syria, a position rebels had been hopeful could stem the aerial attacks that have turned the tide of the war in Mr Assad’s favour since Russia began lending the Syrian government military support in September 2015.
And as I’ve mentioned many times in the past, such a policy could have resulted in America shooting down Russian planes, thus starting a world war between America and Russia.
So with everything we know so far, does it make any sense that we could have potentially seen WW3 because America wanted to protect from Russian planes, non-existent moderate rebels, who are fighting for similar purposes as ISIS against a democratically elected ruler, who was later democratically re-elected by his people, despite apparently horribly oppressing them and committing war crimes against them (with no evidence to support any of this), in elections that were fair and transparent, according to international observers who were present at the time?
Yes, my head hurts trying to comprehend this insanity too.
After Mr Trump’s victory this week, the main Syrian opposition group the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) reached out to his staff asking him to protect civilians.
President Anas Al-Abdah said the SNC had sent Mr Trump its congratulations and was in touch about a “comprehensive new approach” to Syria.
Might I suggest unconditional surrender as the “new approach”?
The US must “establish peace in our region and to find fair and swift solutions for the threat of terrorism… especially the state terrorism practiced by the Syrian regime against the Syrian people,” Riad Hijab, head of the opposition High Negotiations Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday.
Still waiting to see the evidence of this state terrorism. I’m sure Assad is no saint himself, but when you look at the opposition, as well as some of the other regimes in the region that the US is allied with, he sure seems like one in comparison.
Other rebels on the ground were less enthusiastic, predicting more bloodshed no matter what Mr Trump’s policy ultimately ends up being on a war which has killed more than 400,000 people to date and driven half the Syrian population from their homes.
All so needless and pointless too. If only the US hadn’t caused this unjust war for Israel’s benefit, those people wouldn’t have had to lose their lives. Hopefully, when Trump is officially in power, and this war is brought to an end, the architects behind it will be brought to justice for their crimes.
“I guess most Syrians are reacting in a similar way today, trying to hide their disappointment by making [jokes],” said Wissam Zarqa, a rebel media activist in besieged east Aleppo.
“We live in hope… but the only bright side to this is that we will not live on false promises now,” he added, referring to the international community’s inability to stop Russian air strikes on the area’s 250,000 trapped civilians.
“With [US President] Obama, we had enough of his false promises and fake red lines.”
Abu Hamed, head of the military council of rebel group Liwa al-Haq Brigade, was similarly dismissive. “The Americans were never honest with us,” he said, speaking from Hama. “They left us in a quagmire that drowned the Syrians… everyone is trading with our blood and suffering.”
Of course they weren’t honest with you. They never gave a damn about any of you. You were all just tools to be used to their advantage.
This article fills me with a lot of optimism. After a scary year or so that seemed to be getting worse and worse in the past month or so, we’re already seeing some potential good coming from Trump’s victory, and the man isn’t even inaugurated yet. Who knows what more we could see happen in the near future.