Syria

[RandomGuy]

Hehe, I notice that a lot - for Americans, everything that doesn't fit within their comfortable worldview must necessarily be someone else's propaganda. It's sad but I don't really care. I say things how I see them - time will tell if I was right or wrong, so, let's just wait and see.

 

@RandomGuy - if for once you stop the patriotic America v Russkies fervour and try to look at things how they are, you will understand a great deal more about the world we live in (you may not like what you see though).

Unlike you, I've actually studied this conflict and compared multiple sources for it. What you're saying is propaganda. It's almost word for word what you would find in RT. Your posts are filled with errors (I'll be nice and assume you aren't outright lying), such as the claim that ISIS is the entirety of the opposition and the claim that Qatar is pro-ISIS, and your response to these errors being pointed out is to use ad hominem. Accusing me of "patriotic fervour" doesn't change that (Russia doesn't deserve any of my fervor anyway- it's a fading power with a demographic crisis and an economy on par with California's).

 

It's rather ironic that you'd accuse me of such while parroting RT yourself. I notice that you're not saying "oh, that was a mistake, sorry" or "actually, ALL the rebels are ISIS/subservient to ISIS, and here's proof" either. It's a great strategy to ignore facts and instead just launch personal attacks.

 

And yes, Russian planes alone (nor American ones, for that matter) won't be enough to turn the war. But Russian planes covering Iranian troops on the ground seem to be working much better.

The problem is that, unless Iran wants to just outright occupy the country, the main forces are still Syrians. Arab militaries, especially the Syrians (and Saudis), are uniformly inept, especially at offensive operations. Hezbollah is the exception since they're a small force of Iranian proxies, and as Lebanese don't suffer from the cultural issues of Arab militaries as much. The regime's recent offensive was a farce that resulted in them taking a small amount of mostly empty ground at the cost of dozens of tanks and armored vehicles. I'm not expecting much better results any time soon.

[Jeb_CC]

Alright alright alright. Stop. This is turning out just like the other thread now. Shhhhh...

If you can't handle someone's point of view, then ignore the thread. You can't say someone's point of view is wrong, it doesn't work that way. I'm seeing rarely any facts, and just a lot of; "This is this." and "This is that." So don't say; "It's a great strategy to ignore facts" when I see absolutely no facts in the first place to take account for. Where's your resources? Your online articles? And even then, a lot of it could be made up. Which is why at the end of the day, it's all based on personal view and opinion. Facts don't work here. XP Sorry. So please, don't say a post is filled with errors. You can share your point of view, but don't diss other's.

And Vappy. X3 Watch your tongue too. No snapping at the Americans please. XD

 

Thank you.

[Vapymid]

Ah, sorry, my bad, Jeb. I often find Americans irresistibly tempting for snapping at... *licks lips* I'll stop now!

 

And RandomGuy, I agree with you again - about general incompetence of military there. That's true. And that it's too early to see if any tactical successes would translate into anything more. It's fine. Where I disagree with you is the motivations of the players involved and the nature of those players. It's a dirty gangster war where the thugs fighting are egged on and directed by outside interests and the guy who will win will be the most ruthless one and who has the bigger stick.

 

Oh, thank you for enlightenment about RT. I haven't seen it in years. I mostly use BBC for news

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

I mostly use BBC for news

There's your problem right there...

[RandomGuy]

If you can't handle someone's point of view, then ignore the thread. You can't say someone's point of view is wrong, it doesn't work that way.

Someone's "point of view" doesn't override reality.

 

I'm seeing rarely any facts, and just a lot of; "This is this." and "This is that." So don't say; "It's a great strategy to ignore facts" when I see absolutely no facts in the first place to take account for. Where's your resources? Your online articles?

Very first post. It lists Qatar and Saudi Arabia as part of the anti-Daesh coalition which launched those air strikes and funneled those weapons, listed Daesh's civilian death toll compared to the Syrian government's, and draws distinctions between Daesh and other rebel groups. Vap, on the other hand, has failed to provide any evidence for his insane theories that all rebels are ISIS, any rebel group winning would mean more deaths than Assad winning, and ISIS is being supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

 

And even then, a lot of it could be made up.

He's free to bring up evidence if he thinks that the Department of Defense, for example, are making this all up.

 

Which is why at the end of the day, it's all based on personal view and opinion.

It's really not.

 

And RandomGuy, I agree with you again - about general incompetence of military there. That's true. And that it's too early to see if any tactical successes would translate into anything more. It's fine. Where I disagree with you is the motivations of the players involved and the nature of those players. It's a dirty gangster war where the thugs fighting are egged on and directed by outside interests and the guy who will win will be the most ruthless one and who has the bigger stick.

And? What does this have to do with your assertion that all rebel groups are ISIS? Or that ISIS is being backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia? Or that the non-ISIS rebel groups winning would be worse than Assad winning? Or the current order somehow being embarrassing for the United States when all their enemies (Syrian government, Al-Nusra, Hezbollah, Daesh, Iran) are beating the crap out of each other at enormous cost, while the guys they're actually backing in full (Rojava, Peshmerga, Iraq) are doing fine?

 

Speaking of which, the Syrian government's new offensive is another farce, with many tanks and other vehicles being knocked out by TOW missiles. Some examples from the village of Atbeen; note that Atbeen was taken by the government, then reportedly retaken by the rebels.

rZE8mlHxGHA

we6NRDPfHjA

7iwQrPCRJc8

COGk98IFqIo

[Homs, BMP being destroyed by TOW]

1cJhvtaMET8

What's remarkable here is that a group of rebels took down half a dozen armored vehicles, plus some others, in complete confidence and then retook the village. Even with Russian air support, the morale and offensive effectiveness of Assad's forces are crap. According to the many, many clips that show them repeatedly having their tanks picked off by rebels in barely concealed positions, they don't have any situational awareness either; the rebs are just as bad, presumably, but what they're doing doesn't require as much skill and doesn't look as bad when they screw it up. Maybe that other offensive with thousands of Iranian "advisors" will do better, because clearly Hezbollah "advisors" and Russian air support are not cutting it.

 

A handy little picture for faction relationships; not 100% accurate, but close enough:

[Vapymid]

I mostly use BBC for news

There's your problem right there...

 

Well, some would say that - on the left side of the Pond, of course! It's OK though. It's easy to see when they are lying by a little cross-referencing. They mostly don't, just misinterpret things sometimes...

 

Someone's "point of view" doesn't override reality.

 

Exactly! Nor does a bunch of statistics.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/author/patrick-cockburn

 

He is a respected journalist, hardly pro-Putin, who knows what he is talking about not from a kid sitting in Washington DC counting shells dispatched to Ms Fairy Godmother, Moderate Rebels Street, Syria, but from traveling the whole area extensively and for years.

 

OK. He is not as categorical as I am in saying that all rebels in the end are controlled by ISIS - he is saying they "cooperate" when they don't fight... It's alright. To me it means the same...

 

I'm pleased though that Mr Cockburn is of the same opinion as I am on a lot of other matters, like Russian involvement etc.

 

Regards

[RandomGuy]

I mostly use BBC for news

There's your problem right there...

 

Well, some would say that - on the left side of the Pond, of course! It's OK though. It's easy to see when they are lying by a little cross-referencing. They mostly don't, just misinterpret things sometimes...

 

Someone's "point of view" doesn't override reality.

 

Exactly! Nor does a bunch of statistics.

Statistics are reality, and they override vague supposition and anecdotes.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/author/patrick-cockburn

 

He is a respected journalist, hardly pro-Putin, who knows what he is talking about not from a kid sitting in Washington DC counting shells dispatched to Ms Fairy Godmother, Moderate Rebels Street, Syria, but from traveling the whole area extensively and for years.

 

OK. He is not as categorical as I am in saying that all rebels in the end are controlled by ISIS - he is saying they "cooperate" when they don't fight... It's alright. To me it means the same...

This is pure nonsense.

 

A. Every single source, even Russian ones (I would like to officially apologize to the writers of Russian propaganda, for comparing their work to your vapid dreck), makes a distinction between, at the very least, Daesh, Al-Nusra, and the FSA. Because they're, you know, killing each other.

B. There are several documented cases of all the above groups fighting each other, with them actually fighting each other more than Assad fights Daesh.

C. But because they sometimes don't fight, that means Daesh controls all rebel groups and all rebels are Daesh.

 

You have provided absolutely no proof for any of your insane assertions. Your link doesn't even lead to an article. By this logic, Assad is a far more valuable ally than any other rebels ever were. He specifically went out of his way to avoid attacking Daesh, so they could become stronger.

[Jeb_CC]

Oi. Tone it down.

I get you're very convinced on your facts and statistics, but calling other people's opinions and point of view idiocy and "vapid dreck" is unacceptable.

[ThePest179]

Oi. Tone it down.

I get you're very convinced on your facts and statistics, but calling other people's opinions and point of view idiocy and "vapid dreck" is unacceptable.

 

He's not doing anything wrong.

[Jeb_CC]

Oi. Tone it down.

I get you're very convinced on your facts and statistics, but calling other people's opinions and point of view idiocy and "vapid dreck" is unacceptable.

 

He's not doing anything wrong.

 

You complain about mod leniency, then tell me to let them off. There's no need for harsh comments towards other users.

And just because you edited your post, doesn't mean you never said it @RandomGuy.

[ThePest179]

He's not doing anything wrong.

 

You complain about mod leniency, then tell me to let them off.

 

Because these forums are way too lenient when it comes to hate speech and incitements to violence. What the user in question is doing doesn't seem to be crossing any thresholds when it comes to insults.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[Jeb_CC]

Because these forums are way too lenient when it comes to hate speech and incitements to violence. What the user in question is doing doesn't seem to be crossing any thresholds when it comes to insults.

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

My apologies, didn't realize at the time that's what you meant. Disregard my previous comment, please.

 

However, he edited his post - he did spit a harsh word or two at Vapymid. And I ain't putting up with that.

[Vapymid]

@Jeb: Don't worry about me, please! You have enough on your plate already. I takes more than a couple of words to upset me...

 

Statistics are reality

This is the saddest thing I've heard in a long time. Or the most naive. Or both.

 

This is what makes your country start and fuel countless wars in places you know nothing about.

 

Because they're, you know, killing each other.

It's the Middle East. The are all killing each other there. It doesn't stop them from killing others together. You just don't understand how it works. The numbers blind you. There is a saying about not seeing the wood for the trees - it applies here.

 

There are local gangs - they get weapons and money from Americans (not any longer, apparently - about time too for the US to stop hallucianting) or from their Middle Eastern sponsors. They sit on their spot and guard their turf. They fight with other gangs from nearby spots. They also trade with them. But when the big guy - ISIS - comes to the neighbourhood - they mostly submit. Pay tax - in weapons or people or both. Sometimes they are strong and instead ISIS bribes them into cooperation. They only fight when there is something in it for them, you see...

 

And none of these gangs of thugs can be even remotely called "moderate". Not a single one. And giving them weapons is so stupid. Invariably, you arm people who then use those weapons to kill your own people.

 

Also, I don't know how you couldn't find any articles under the link I gave you - there are literally a dozen or more of them. Just click on any of the pictures or titles.

 

Regards

[RandomGuy]

Oi. Tone it down.

I get you're very convinced on your facts and statistics, but calling other people's opinions and point of view idiocy and "vapid dreck" is unacceptable.

I have a low opinion of those who make errors and/or lie, and then throw out insults instead of simply admitting they're wrong. It's very bad form, as is continuing to act smug and asking others to find your evidence for you. It's also not an opinion... "Assad effectively starting the war and murdering more civilians than all the other factions combined is alright because it's Syria", would be an opinion. "All Syrian rebel groups are ISIS and funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar" is getting things factually wrong.

 

This is the saddest thing I've heard in a long time. Or the most naive. Or both.

 

This is what makes your country start and fuel countless wars in places you know nothing about.

I can see why facts and figures are so scary and alien to you, if this is the way you think.

 

I know a hell of a lot more about Syria than you, apparently. You lacked even the most basic knowledge about the situation, including who was at war with who. Or maybe you did know, and just tried to lie and assumed no one would correct you. I don't really care which.

 

There are local gangs - they get weapons and money from Americans (not any longer, apparently - about time too for the US to stop hallucianting) or from their Middle Eastern sponsors. They sit on their spot and guard their turf. They fight with other gangs from nearby spots. They also trade with them. But when the big guy - ISIS - comes to the neighbourhood - they mostly submit. Pay tax - in weapons or people or both. Sometimes they are strong and instead ISIS bribes them into cooperation. They only fight when there is something in it for them, you see...

 

And none of these gangs of thugs can be even remotely called "moderate". Not a single one. And giving them weapons is so stupid. Invariably, you arm people who then use those weapons to kill your own people.

No they don't. ISIS is hostile with practically every other rebel group in Syria, as well as the government; in fact, they probably have the best relationship with the government, who bought their goods and had an informal agreement not to attack them for a while, and instead focus on their mutual enemies. Your reasoning makes no sense, even after some of the funniest goalpost shifting I've ever seen, and you still refuse to actually give any evidence despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that has been brought against you. I can only conclude that you're one of those types who simply must avoid admitting that you're wrong no matter what the cost (by dragging out a long resolved conversation with unsourced ramblings, xenophobia, and insults), even when all the facts say otherwise.

 

Still waiting for the proof that Daesh controls all the rebels (despite them shooting each other) and that Daesh is funded by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

 

Also, I don't know how you couldn't find any articles under the link I gave you - there are literally a dozen or more of them. Just click on any of the pictures or titles.

Searching through dozens of articles for proof of your arguments isn't my job.

 

Anyway, more Russian airstrikes hit Latakia, reportedly killing 45 people, including 15 civilians according to witnesses on the ground. Also in Latakia, on the same day, shelling killed 3 Russians according to a pro-Syrian government source, as reported by Reuters. The deceased were reported as volunteers fighting alongside the Syrian government, though I haven't seen it specified if they're volunteers or "volunteers". The Russian embassy said it had no knowledge of the casualties, while the defense ministry has not commented. Meanwhile, the Americans launched 146 more airstrikes against ISIS in the past week (Oct. 13-19), while the Canadian prime minister has announced that Canada will withdraw its 6 jets.

 

A summary of the Russian air campaign.Several hundred airstrikes have killed 370 people from Sep. 30 to Oct. 19. The SOHR is basically just a guy in the UK who compiles reports in the field from 200 correspondents; not a great source, but trusted by the BBC and other mainstream publications, and as reliable as we're going to get with the current press situation. The numbers those correspondents give are on the lower end of total casualties too. Anyway, back to the airstrikes. According to the them, 1/3 of the people killed in the Russian airstrikes are civilians, and 1/10 overall are children. The death toll breaks down as follows:

 

Combatants: 243

-ISIS: 52

-FSA/JAN: 191

 

Civilians: 127

-Women: 34

-Children: 36

-Men: 57

[Vapymid]

You are really making me sad, Mr Sad American Ideologue. I've seen types like this. My lecturer in Scientific Communism - a good example. He loved giving statistics about how much sausage USSR produced per capita and how that was more than enough to feed everyone many times over. There was a little problem though - you go to the shops and there is no sausage. No, nada, none.

 

So is with you - "ISIS is better than Assad because of these numbers". Haha, good luck with that!

 

"Searching through dozens of articles for proof of your arguments isn't my job." - neither is trying to make sense of some meaningless numbers - mine, sorry...

 

So, you know Syria better then me? Who am I to argue... But, remind me - how many countries in the Middle East have you been to?

 

"They are fighting each other" - and that is supposed to tell me what? That they are not fighting together with ISIS? - that's nonsense. They have common enemies and they are opportunists as every extremist is. And, I never said that ISIS is idirectly funded by the Americans. You're putting words in my mouth. But Saudis, Qatari etc. - yes, I repeat that. Go prove me wrong.

 

In the end - what you're saying is your ideological party-line - "there are mythical moderate freedom fighters, who, if supported in a duly patriotic way, will prevail and topple the Satan Assad and then win over ISIS in a free and fair democratic elections and everyone will live happily ever after".

 

What I'm saying is - "there are no moderates in Syria, all rebels are aligned with ISIS in one way or another and Assad currently is the only regime that can possible restore some order to the country, stop the bloodshed and provide a base for eventual strangling of ISIS."

 

If Russia can succeed in bringing it about - I'm all for it. That will be better for everybody. I'm not 100% optimistic though.

 

Regards

[RandomGuy]

You are really making me sad, Mr Sad American Ideologue. I've seen types like this. My lecturer in Scientific Communism - a good example. He loved giving statistics about how much sausage USSR produced per capita and how that was more than enough to feed everyone many times over. There was a little problem though - you go to the shops and there is no sausage. No, nada, none.

That's nice. So you don't have any actual evidence then?

 

Searching through dozens of articles for proof of your arguments isn't my job." - neither is trying to make sense of some meaningless numbers - mine, sorry...

The numbers are informative and easy to understand. It's not my job to teach you how to count.

 

So, you know Syria better then me? Who am I to argue... But, remind me - how many countries in the Middle East have you been to?

Totally irrelevant and blatant attempt to shift the burden of proof. Do you have any actual evidence, Y/N?

 

"They are fighting each other" - and that is supposed to tell me what? That they are not fighting together with ISIS? - that's nonsense. They have common enemies and they are opportunists as every extremist is.

Only in the sense that they are both opposed to the government when they're not fighting each other. You still haven't addressed how this means ISIS controls them when Assad does the exact same thing. Only worse, because he actively targets their enemies while intentionally disregarding them and buying their stuff.

 

And, I never said that ISIS is idirectly funded by the Americans. You're putting words in my mouth. But Saudis, Qatari etc. - yes, I repeat that. Go prove me wrong.

That's again, not my job. You made the claim, you prove it. You were supposed to learn about this fallacy in grade school.

 

In the end - what you're saying is your ideological party-line - "there are mythical moderate freedom fighters, who, if supported in a duly patriotic way, will prevail and topple the Satan Assad and then win over ISIS in a free and fair democratic elections and everyone will live happily ever after".

Except I never said that. But whatever, you're clearly in La La Land at this point. Far be it from me to take you out.

 

What I'm saying is - "there are no moderates in Syria, all rebels are aligned with ISIS in one way or another and Assad currently is the only regime that can possible restore some order to the country, stop the bloodshed and provide a base for eventual strangling of ISIS."

Then you are objectively wrong, like someone who believes that the Earth is flat. The rebels are not aligned with ISIS and Assad is not going to bring stability (on part of him starting this whole mess).

 

But of course everyone in Syria who has issues with the government murdering them by the tens of thousands and torturing 11,000+ civilians to death in the prisons must be ISIS. Even when they fight ISIS while Assad ignores them, this is somehow not proof that they're not ISIS. No, you're right.. Screw the facts; reality has a well known pro-West bias, and simply cannot compare to your genius. Such is the strength of your arguments, that you don't even need any actual evidence to back them up.

[Vapymid]

No I don't have actual evidence for per capita sausage production in the USSR. You are welcome to research that subject, though, and report your findings...

 

But I'd like to warn you - only people who don't understand numbers and statistics say they are easy to understand.

 

reality has a well known pro-West bias

Hehe, no. Reality is busy biting the West in the arse right now, if you didn't notice.

 

The rebels are not aligned with ISIS and Assad is not going to bring stability (on part of him starting this whole mess).

That's your opinion and I disagree with it, as you are free to disagree with mine. And you haven't given any evidence or explanations supporting yours either, by the way. Also you like to twists things a little bit. You say "they are" or "they are not" ISIS. I was saying controlled or affiliated. That's different.

 

On the matter of funding, like a journalist from the Independent, I like to ask the same question:

"Millions of dollars must be arriving in Isis hands from outside Iraq and Syria, and the question must be asked: if it doesn’t come from within Saudi Arabia – or Qatar – who on earth is providing the wherewithal? Iceland? Peru?"

 

But, unlike the journalist - I am happy to answer it definitively to myself.

 

Anyway, Happy Birthday to you!

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

So, the Turks are stepping up their game against the Kurds:

 

http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/ypg-reports-ongoing-attacks-by-the-turkish-military

 

The Syrian government is making another go at Palmyra:

 

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-restarts-palmyra-operations-with-the-help-of-russian-airstrikes/

 

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, backed up with Russian airstrikes and Hezbollah cannon fodder has had one of its most humiliating military disasters to date at Al-Safira.

 

http://web.debka.com/article/24985/Iran%E2%80%99s-elite-Rev-Guards-units-routed-by-ISIS-in-the-Al-Safira-pre-battle-for-Aleppo

[RandomGuy]

You know what? Screw it. I'm not doing this anymore, it's like talking to a brick wall.

 

So, the Turks are stepping up their game against the Kurds:

 

http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/ypg-reports-ongoing-attacks-by-the-turkish-military

 

The Syrian government is making another go at Palmyra:

 

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-restarts-palmyra-operations-with-the-help-of-russian-airstrikes/

 

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, backed up with Russian airstrikes and Hezbollah cannon fodder has had one of its most humiliating military disasters to date at Al-Safira.

 

http://web.debka.com/article/24985/Iran%E2%80%99s-elite-Rev-Guards-units-routed-by-ISIS-in-the-Al-Safira-pre-battle-for-Aleppo

Hezbollah isn't cannon fodder. The SAA is cannon fodder. Hezbollah is, to put it simply, a highly competent light infantry force. They're extremely odd in the Arab world, where every military is inept. I guess that's because Lebanon isn't THAT Arab. That and they're a relatively small group of Iranian proxies. Speaking of which, the IRGC is also fairly formidable; they (+Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies) are one of the two main reasons that Assad's regime hasn't collapsed by now, the other being the $30 billion to $75 billion that the Iranians have basically given Assad. They manage to be extremely useful by embedding themselves as NCOs and commissioned officers to replace their awful, awful Syrian counterparts.

 

I think I said this before, but I'll say it again: so far, Iran has spent (proportionally) more money on Syria since 2011 than the USA and its allies have on Iraq since 2003. This isn't even taking into account how much it must cost to actually deploy those forces. People should really stop paying attention to Russia so much when Iran has far more invested in Syria and far more to lose.

 

Speaking of which, the number of IRGC officers killed in Syria reached about 146 recently, including at least four 1-star generals. More than 30 were killed in October alone, mostly around Aleppo. When considering the losses of 2011 and 2012, as well as any losses which the Iranian state media is not reporting... I think it's safe to say that the actual number is 200 or so. Overall, the IRGC has lost ~600 troops in Syria. 200 Iranians (almost entirely officers), 364+ Afghans from the Fatimiyun Brigade, and 21 Pakistanis from the Zaynabiyun Brigade.

 

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/shiite-combat-casualties-show-the-depth-of-irans-involvement-in-syria

 

On those brigades. They're basically the French Foreign Legion: Iran Edition. They're recruited primarily from Afghan refugees in Iran, many of whom are former fighters with experience in the perpetual civil war. They join the IRGC in exchange for a salary and citizenship. Then they're given training and weapons, and are sent to Syria as part of those brigades, under Iranian officers. Iran occasionally denies that they're members of the IRGC, because their uniforms don't display IRGC insignia. This is despite them being paid by the Iranian military, equipped by the Iranian military, trained by the Iranian military, and led by officers of the Iranian military. They're even given state funerals.

 

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-afghan-shiite-fighters-in-syria

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jun-30/304390-iran-admits-to-400-funerals-for-syria-fighters.ashx

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/world/meast/syria-afghan-fighter/

 

Meanwhile, the USA is deploying an additional 50 special forces operatives to Syria, to "advise and assist" local groups (most likely the Kurds, if the USA's supply priorities are any indication). These aren't actually the first US boots on the ground in Syria, as there was also the raid on Uqayrishah (killed 6 ISIL militants, failed to rescue the 1 hostage, no US casualties), the raid on ISIL commander Abu Sayyaf's home (Sayyaf killed, tons of data captured, unknown number of militants killed, no US casualties), and the small handful of agents overseeing the supply operation. The contribution of these few dozen boots on the ground have been small compared to the impact of the air campaign, which has killed thousands of ISIL militants in Syria alone, but they do still exist.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/31/us-mideast-crisis-syria-iran-idUSKCN0SN2Z620151031

[Vapymid]

Yeah, well, not only ISIS still exist - they are on the offensive and are well on the way of slicing Syria in two.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-takes-control-of-strategically-important-syrian-town-near-homs-a6716741.html

I suppose they are trying to take a leaf out of the German Army's book and repeat Guderian's "Race to the sea" maneuver.

 

Regards