Why did Assad fall so easily?

[Northwest]

This question has been on my mind ever since the “opposition” took over largely bloodlessly. I have often wondered whether some sort of “deal” was made. As far back as 2013 Russia and/or Iran supposedly pushed Syria to relinquish its WMD. After 2015 Russia also largely avoided confronting the U.S./NATO and/or Israel over Syria, instead letting Israel strike Syrian targets, making a deal with Turkey over Idlib, and allowing the West-backed SDF to control the eastern oilfields. Now there are reports that Turkey persuaded Russia and/or Iran not to oppose the takeover of Syria by the “opposition”. In return, Assad privately agreed to step down, knowing that Russia and/or Iran was in no position to help, or would not. The Turkish Foreign Minister even claimed that Assad had only feigned opposition to Israel and was never on the “Resistance”’s side!

Turkey’s claim about Assad’s relation to Israel is confusing. On the one hand Israel seemed to dislike Assad. During the Syrian “civil war” Israeli officials (i.e., Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman) openly stated that they would not support Assad staying on. He was simply too closely linked to Iran and/or Hezbollah—or so these Israelis claimed. The IDF also provided support to various anti-Assad “rebels”, including FSA factions that may have harboured al-Qaida (Jabhat al-Nusra, now HTS). If I recall correctly, ISIS/Daesh claimants also operated next to the Golan Heights for a time. On the other hand, Israel and Assad mostly avoided direct confrontation, the latter refusing to answer Israeli airstrikes. Israel only really made an effort to destroy Syria’s military after Assad fled Damascus (or stepped down?). So what is the truth here?

Did Assad fall so easily because he was something other than he appeared to be, or was there a secret deal? Or are both true? Is there a third option?

[Diaz]

Maybe there was a secret deal made by Arab leaders, they told him they will pay so that he can leave for good. Iran tried their best to warn him, they told him about turkey and ISIS yet he didn’t respond. 

[Haji 2003]

I think the Syrian situation is too early to call. The current position looks as if promises have been made about a regime that will allow a modus vivendi amongst different communities. To that extent it will continue on the same path as Assad.

Where it will differ is likely not allowing through passage for Hizbollah assets and to that extent it will be working to appease the Israelis - and this is likely why the Israelis called time on the Assad government and got their proxies in the GCC to do what was needed.

Assad was never in any position to take on the Israelis militarily but he was more than likely facilitating aid to Hizbollah and given how hard a time they gave the Israelis, no doubt the latter are taking no chances.

It may be that the Iranians and Hizbollah were in no position to challenge this - but have possibly drawn the line at the destabilisation of Iraq. If the Syrians allow this, then I think all bets are off.

While the GCC must be feeling quite pleased with themselves having now deposed Gaddafi, Morsi, Assad and calling the shots in Sudan, it's likely that Iran will be raising the prospect that any attempts to go after Iraq will meet with serious repercussions.

Obviously, none of this could have happened had it not been for Erdogan's power play and how hard he drives his interests will also have a wider impact on regional stability.

[313_Waiter]

NATO was trying to pull Russia / Iran into a war and they didn’t take the bait.

[Abu Nur]

Sanctions and I don't remember the other main reason. This is why the new leadership want to get support from US, to remove the sanctions.

[Diaz]

19 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

Sanctions

I don’t think that’s the reason, assad didn’t get any harm from the sanctions, he is still a billionaire and the only country he will lives in other than Syria is Russia. So the sanctions on him is irrelevant.

[Abu Nur]

1 hour ago, Diaz said:

I don’t think that’s the reason, assad didn’t get any harm from the sanctions, he is still a billionaire and the only country he will lives in other than Syria is Russia. So the sanctions on him is irrelevant.

Brother, not Assad, the whole country and it's people were Sanctioned by US. This has always been the tactics to topple governments. This is why they sanctioned Iran, Russia etc

[Meedy]

Perhaps there was no unity in the army or    part of the army became influenced by Turk etc on false hope of freedom 

or part of the army of infiltrated by outsider hence they worked on causing division in the army which eventually led to it collapse?

Syria collapsed much quicker then Afghanistan.

[Diaz]

10 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Brother, not Assad, the whole country and its people were Sanctioned by US. This has always been the tactics to topple governments. This is why they sanctioned Iran, Russia etc

Yeah but just because Syria was sanctioned, doesn’t mean his regime will fall that quickly. He either got tons of money to leave for good (I’m sure that’s the reason) or he no longer wants to be a politician. 

[Abu Hadi]

It is hard to know 100% at this point but certain facts are emerging. 

First, how it occurred was very strange. I think most of the relevant facts regarding this are not available to the general public at this time. They might be in the future. There is alot of speculation that it wasn't a traditional 'coup' but it was a backroom deal made between Assad, the US, and Russia. Assad agreed to leave Syria with his large bag of cash and live as a free man in Moscow in exchange for allowing ISIS to takeover the country. Also, Russia agreed to let Zionists destroy their military bases in Syria and lose Syria as a strategic ally in exchange for getting terroritory in Ukraine, which they will annex after Trump comes into office, Zelinsky will be 'kicked to the curb' and there will be some sort of a peace agreement and an end to the war in Ukraine. Putin thinks of it as a chess game where he gives up his rook in order to capture his opponents knight. It seems like a good move to him. 

There is some evidence for this but I don't know how true it is. We'll have to wait and see. It logically makes sense that this is what happened but just because it's logical doesn't mean it's true, again well have to see. As Professor Mirandi and others have said, Assad was always the weakest link in the axis of Resistance and the alliance between him and the axis was a strategic alliance and not an actual one since noone really trusted him or thought he was a 'good guy' and I never did and I have been posting about this for 2 years now. It wouldn't surprise me if he sold out his country to the Zionists for a few bucks and a villa in Moscow but again I am not saying this is true at this point, we don't have enough evidence yet. We will have to wait and see. 

Edited January 1 by Abu Hadi

[realizm]

Very good analysis and inputs. Activate subtitles in settings. 

 

[Ibn Tayyar]

Because he is a corrupt dictator who isn't liked by his people. His Army behaved like a corrupt gang, overly relying on foreign sources of assistance while incompetence and bribery spread through the ranks.

Unlike his own forces, the Turkish-backed militants were highly motivated and were actually preparing for battle.

Assad's own allies such as Iran and Russia were said to have told him many times to pay attention to his own domestic situation, but he ignored these requests because he is simply an Arab kleptocrat.

I think everyone was surprised that he fell so quick, but after the fact it can be claimed at the same time that some may have seen the writing on the wall, and that the day will come when his rule will end.

Edited January 2 by Ibn Tayyar

[Diaz]

2 hours ago, realizm said:

Very good analysis and inputs. Activate subtitles in settings. 

 

There is no subtitles brother 

[Northwest]

On 1/1/2025 at 12:49 AM, Haji 2003 said:

Assad was never in any position to take on the Israelis militarily but he was more than likely facilitating aid to Hizbollah

@Haji 2003 How much evidence is there to support this? Assad did rely on the IRGC’s aid to defeat his foes during the “civil war,” but I don’t know very much about his ties to Hezbollah. If I recall correctly, Hezbollah acted in parallel with the Syrian government, but mainly to protect its bases along the border with Lebanon. As I noted before, former head of Turkish intelligence (now Foreign Minister) Hakan Fidan recently claimed that Assad was on Israel’s side all along and that Israel never wanted to depose him—suggesting that some factions in Israel saw the Takfiri Salafi “opposition” as more dangerous than a comparatively secular Assad. If Assad were so close to Hezbollah, then why would Israel tolerate his rule?

On 1/1/2025 at 1:54 AM, Abu Nur said:

Sanctions and I don't remember the other main reason. This is why the new leadership want to get support from US, to remove the sanctions.

@Abu Nur Yet those sanctions have been in place for a decade and a half (since 2011). Assad was able to stay in power all this time, so why would sanctions suddenly become an issue? Was there a “tipping point” or threshold?

7 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Because he is a corrupt dictator who isn't liked by his people.

@Ibn Tayyar I don’t think this is exactly true. During the “civil war” the majority of Syrians appeared to support Assad vs. the “rebels”. If memory does not fail me, opposition-led protests were often smaller than pro-government ones (Western camera-trickery notwithstanding) and were more geographically restricted. Also, if I recall correctly, he had the support of at least some Sunni elites, giving him a bit of leverage vs. the sectarian militants. Many Syrians seemed to back Assad’s pluralistic vision over the Takfiri Salafi one. I think a more plausible explanation is that the government, security, etc. had been infiltrated and/or corrupted by external actors, enabling the rapid collapse of the system, but I don’t know.

7 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

His Army behaved like a corrupt gang, overly relying on foreign sources of assistance while incompetence and bribery spread through the ranks.

Some of this may be related to the fact that Syria’s sources of revenue had dried up, in part due to the U.S.-led blockade of oil exports vis-à-vis the Kurdish separatists (SDF). Assad’s Russian and Iranian backers surely knew that Syria needed its eastern oilfields to survive. So why didn’t they put more pressure on the U.S.-backed Kurds? By not doing so they may have effectively helped to maximise pressure on Assad, perhaps for their own geopolitical reasons (I believe that both Russia and Iran wanted Assad to be more receptive to his domestic critics, albeit for different reasons). After all, he is a secular politician who doesn’t like Islamist governments, so to some extent he is out of touch with part of the Syrian electorate.

[Haji 2003]

21 minutes ago, Northwest said:

How much evidence is there to support this? Assad did rely on the IRGC’s aid to defeat his foes during the “civil war,” but I don’t know very much about his ties to Hezbollah.

 

This is what the leader of Hizbollah said in mid-December:

Quote

 

"Yes, Hezbollah has lost the military supply route through Syria at this stage, but this loss is a detail in the resistance's work," Qassem said in a televised speech on Saturday, without mentioning Assad by name.

"A new regime could come and this route could return to normal, and we could look for other ways," he added.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hezbollah-chief-says-group-lost-its-supply-route-through-syria-2024-12-14/

 

Obviously, where I am coming from, I would be inclined to take this at face value, but you may not choose to do so. Similarly, you may choose to believe the following, but I don't. 

It's my belief that the Turks are hypocrites and duplicitous. Erdogan talks well, but he could end the war tomorrow by stopping shipments of Azerbaijani oil through Turkey. No doubt it suits his government to muddy the waters as his intel chief is doing here.

 

25 minutes ago, Northwest said:

As I noted before, former head of Turkish intelligence (now Foreign Minister) Hakan Fidan recently claimed that Assad was on Israel’s side all along and that Israel never wanted to depose him

 

[Northwest]

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

This is what the leader of Hizbollah said in mid-December:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hezbollah-chief-says-group-lost-its-supply-route-through-syria-2024-12-14/

@Haji 2003 I appreciate this information. But to what extent did the Syrian government knowingly abet Hezbollah’s own arms networks? Maybe Hezbollah operated more or less independently, relying indirectly on Syrian hospitality. Assad’s attitude toward Zionism (whatever it may have been) notwithstanding, he definitely did not favour Hezbollah’s or Iran’s model, being a secularist. For the record, Fidan does not deny that Israel disagreed with Assad’s Iran-friendly approach, but claims that overall Israel relied on him somehow, perhaps to restrain (Sunni?) Islamists. Here are Fidan’s own words on Assad’s supposed rôle vis-à-vis Israel:

Quote

Israel has never wanted Bashar to go. Israel was unhappy with the environment that Bashar gave to the Iranians, but it knew that Bashar was a useful actor for it in general. Israel did not want Bashar to go until the last day, even after the start of the operation, which the Americans told us. —Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan

^ If Israel really wanted to get rid of Assad from the start, why did it wait until his fall to destroy Syria’s military infrastructure, including heavy equipment?

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

It's my belief that the Turks are hypocrites and duplicitous.

Precisely on this basis I remember being distinctly against Russia’s “deescalation” agreements with Turkey in Syria years ago. Assad, like Iran and Hezbollah, was always more forthright about Turkey’s rôle than Russian authorities have been, at least publicly. Russia’s dealings allowed Turkey to rebrand HTS and Co. as “moderates,” build up separate infrastructure in Turkish-controlled “safe zones” (i.e., Idlib), and lay the long-term groundwork for a Turkish takeover of Syria. All the while Turkey used the Kurdish presence as a pretext for intervention, even though a U.S.-backed Kurdish zone indirectly helps Turkey by weakening the central Syrian government, thereby complementing Turkey’s own “sphere of influence” while acting as a bugbear or foil. If those pro-U.S. Kurdish separatists were not there NATO member Turkey would have had a harder time justifying its incursion(s).

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Erdogan talks well, but he could end the war tomorrow by stopping shipments of Azerbaijani oil through Turkey. No doubt it suits his government to muddy the waters as his intel chief is doing here.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov, along with Putin, has conspicuously refrained from blaming Turkey for Assad’s fall, instead hinting that HTS and Co. acted on their own (or at the behest of the U.S. and/or U.K.), even though he has acknowledged that his supposed Turkish “partners” have been arming Ukraine all the while. (To this day Turkey works openly with the U.S. and the EU to buttress Ukraine’s defence industry.) For its part Turkey still claims that it had nothing to do with HTS and Co.’s offensive, as though the landlocked militants were able to finance themselves other than through Turkish checkpoints, under the eyes of Turkish military bases in Idlib. While HTS and Co. likely manufacture their own weapons, I don’t see how they could have gotten foreign (i.e., Anglo-American) support other than through Turkey.

[Haji 2003]

1 hour ago, Northwest said:

For the record, Fidan does not deny that Israel disagreed with Assad’s Iran-friendly approach, but claims that overall Israel relied on him somehow, perhaps to restrain (Sunni?) Islamists.

Can you identify a single incident where Sunni Islamists of the type running around in Syria have ever caused Israel any harm?

[realizm]

18 hours ago, Diaz said:

There is no subtitles brother 

I could do it from here, in the video settings. 

[Northwest]

1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

Can you identify a single incident where Sunni Islamists of the type running around in Syria have ever caused Israel any harm?

@Haji 2003 There is some evidence of (limited?) cooperation between Hamas and ISIS’s Sinai affiliate (but not other ISIS offshoots), hence Israel’s close partnership with Egypt. Israeli support for ISIS, if any, appears in the context of the former’s opposition to Hezbollah and/or Iran, but does not imply that Israel would support ISIS otherwise, given that ISIS has threatened to attack Israel after eliminating the Shias and/or “apostate” (in ISIS’s sense of apostasy) Sunni regimes. Al-Qaida has taken a similar approach. But both ISIS and al-Qaida, not to mention the Salafi milieu in general, certainly appear to have attacked Jews and other targets outside Israel. For instance, the 11 September 2001 attacks claimed up to three hundred Jewish—as well as thousands of other—lives. There have been Salafi-led attacks on synagogues and/or Zionist targets in both Europe and North America, if I recall correctly. (The first World Trade Center attackers were tied to the assassination of Meir Kahane, for example.) So I suspect that Salafi militants do intend to take on Israel and/or the Jews eventually, but see the Shias and/or the Sunni establishment(s) as the most pressing matters as of now.

[Eddie Mecca]

10 hours ago, Northwest said:

So I suspect that Salafi militants do intend to take on Israel and/or the Jews eventually, but see the Shias and/or the Sunni establishment(s) as the most pressing matters as of now.

You're basically describing the bin Laden / al-Zarqawi methodical split...bin Laden and al-Zawahiri wanted to keep al-Qaeda's fight solely on the Americans...keep the ME masses sympathetic and rallied around their cause...it took Zarqawi a full 5 years (1999 - 2004) to pleadge alligance to al-Qaeda and only after much deliberation...even after giving bay'ah to bin Laden he (Zarqawi) worked independently and for his own agenda...when Adam Gadahn saw Zarqawi's savagery in Iraq against the Shi'i masses and the accompanied bombing of holy sanctuaries and shrines...he (Gadahn) suggested to bin Laden that Zarqawi be excommunicated and that he (bin Laden) should publicly distance himself from him (Zarqawi)...but bin Laden decided that semblance of control was more important than maintaining justice and preserving human life...basically after the 9/11 attacks bin Laden and al-Zawahiri were on the run for the rest of their lives...they tried to retain the facade of leadership while remaining underground in Pakistan and Afghanistan...from a distance, they helped organize insurgents here and attempted to instigate upheavals there...but they had to compromise largely to al-Zarqawi's demands...old al-Qaeda was unrecognizable from new al-Qaeda...Zarqawi's philosophy goes something like this...they (i.e. Salafis) can't take on or fight the entire world at once...so they need to strategize accordingly...the more direct threat...the internal threat...the annoying and irritating fifth column...the tougher and more challenging threat is by far the one that the Shi'i crescent-shaped, land bridge poses...once the Shi'a are suppressed then the war against the Israelis and the Americans will be a cakewalk...they'll tear through them (Americans) like paper mache...they must subdue the internal threat first however...this means they must first overpower or annihilate Shi'is, Sufis, Druze, Alawites...other religious and ethic minorities...and even other Salafi jihadists who don’t see eye-to-eye with the dominant group (hence the constant hairspliting and infighting)...when Ahmadinejad was an incoming president...different thinktanks representing divergent strategies approached him with their particular thoughts on how to proceed in Iraq...among the various bodies of experts was one that put forward that the primary duty should be to fight the Salafis to either submission or annihilation...there were other groups suggesting other military approaches and theories...the one that advocated keeping the pressure on America and Israel eventually won the day

Edited January 3 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

10 hours ago, Northwest said:

So I suspect that Salafi militants do intend to take on Israel and/or the Jews eventually,

It's a delaying tactic and a derailing strategy..."after we fight Hezbollah then we'll fight the Zionists"..."after we challenge Iran then we'll repel the American presence from the region"...after we accomplish a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, etc. etc. (i.e. never-ending objectives) then we'll take on NATO...and that day will never come...they'll keep making empty promises and dangling that silver carrot before the donkey (i.e. clueless masses)...they're filibustering and waiting for the clock to run out of time...the sun will exhaust itself and burn out by the time they reach the Americans 

Edited January 3 by Eddie Mecca

[mahmood8726]

11 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Haji 2003 There is some evidence of (limited?) cooperation between Hamas and ISIS’s Sinai affiliate (but not other ISIS offshoots), hence Israel’s close partnership with Egypt. Israeli support for ISIS, if any, appears in the context of the former’s opposition to Hezbollah and/or Iran, but does not imply that Israel would support ISIS otherwise, given that ISIS has threatened to attack Israel after eliminating the Shias and/or “apostate” (in ISIS’s sense of apostasy) Sunni regimes. Al-Qaida has taken a similar approach. But both ISIS and al-Qaida, not to mention the Salafi milieu in general, certainly appear to have attacked Jews and other targets outside Israel. For instance, the 11 September 2001 attacks claimed up to three hundred Jewish—as well as thousands of other—lives. There have been Salafi-led attacks on synagogues and/or Zionist targets in both Europe and North America, if I recall correctly. (The first World Trade Center attackers were tied to the assassination of Meir Kahane, for example.) So I suspect that Salafi militants do intend to take on Israel and/or the Jews eventually, but see the Shias and/or the Sunni establishment(s) as the most pressing matters as of now.

I would hardly take these opinion peices from the Washington institute and WSJ as proof. 

The reality is ISIS openly called hamas heretical and "tyrants" as far back as 2015 in the same statement they claimed to want to liberate jerusalem, but what they say is not necessarly reflective of what they do, hence why ISIS and al quaeda threatening Israel or the West means nothing, when they both do many times their dirty work for plausible deniability.

Al quaeda more specifically even did americas/israels dirty work before Syria, even the event of 9/11, you had a lot of evidence of israeli involvement with helping the hijackers through moving companies that were essentially fronts for the mossad, amongst other evidences. 

 

The reality is ISIS or Al quaeda will never really try and take down the west or Israel, they might do some terrorist attacks there and then in a Western country to tarnish the image of Muslims, but they serve their purpose, they're here to be used by the west and Israel for operations that require them to have plausible deniability. Its the same thing HTS is doing, they're using plausible deniability by blaming all the sectarian violence on "isolated incidents". 

Edited January 3 by mahmood8726

[mahmood8726]

59 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

It's a delaying tactic or a derailing strategy..."after we fight Hezbollah then we'll fight the Zionists"..."after we challenge Iran then we'll repel the American presence from the region"...after we accomplish a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, etc. etc. (i.e. never-ending objectives) then we'll take on NATO...and that day will never come...they'll keep making empty promises and dangling that silver carrot before the donkey (i.e. clueless masses)...they're filibustering and waiting for the clock to run out of time...the sun will exhaust itself and burn out by the time they reach the Americans 

They will never attempt to reach Americans in the first place, as we speak 2025, Al quaeda/Al nusra/isis/HTS is essentially an extention of America and is in bed with american intelligence, most of the things they do, such as the terrorist attack that happened in Iran last year that claimed the lives of dozens or the one that happened in Russia last march, or even some of the ones that happen in the west, you can rest assured it's most probably being indirectly led by america. Their leadership is full of filthy mercs.

Edited January 3 by mahmood8726

[Abu Hadi]

13 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Haji 2003 There is some evidence of (limited?) cooperation between Hamas and ISIS’s Sinai affiliate (but not other ISIS offshoots), hence Israel’s close partnership with Egypt. Israeli support for ISIS, if any, appears in the context of the former’s opposition to Hezbollah and/or Iran, but does not imply that Israel would support ISIS otherwise, given that ISIS has threatened to attack Israel after eliminating the Shias and/or “apostate” (in ISIS’s sense of apostasy) Sunni regimes. Al-Qaida has taken a similar approach. But both ISIS and al-Qaida, not to mention the Salafi milieu in general, certainly appear to have attacked Jews and other targets outside Israel. For instance, the 11 September 2001 attacks claimed up to three hundred Jewish—as well as thousands of other—lives. There have been Salafi-led attacks on synagogues and/or Zionist targets in both Europe and North America, if I recall correctly. (The first World Trade Center attackers were tied to the assassination of Meir Kahane, for example.) So I suspect that Salafi militants do intend to take on Israel and/or the Jews eventually, but see the Shias and/or the Sunni establishment(s) as the most pressing matters as of now.

What we should all understand is that Zionism and Zionism and Judaism and Jews are two separate things. Most Zionists (in terms of numbers) are not Jews, they are Christian Evangelicals AND there is a large population of Jews who are not Zionists. 

At the same time, this is exactly what the Western Media want us to do, conflate Judaism and Zionism so that anyone who criticizes Zionism can be labeled as 'Anti-Sematic'. This is a trick the Zionists use to destroy their enemies. 

Israel is a Zionist State, not a Jewish State, in reality. The most important allies of Israel, such as Trump and Biden and leaders of the Evangelical Church in the US, are not Jewish. They get far more financial support from them than they do from all Jews combined. Zionism is a secular political philosophy while Judaism is a religion and Jews are the followers of Judaism. 

Israel being a Zionist state, they don't actually care about Jewish people, they only pretend to care. That is why when Jewish people are attacked by ISIS and other Takfiri groups, they only make token gestures, but when the State of Israel is attacked, they go all out in terms of violence, as they are doing now in Gaza. The Zionist state uses Jews as their foot soldiers and weaponizes them against their enemies. Many prominent Jews in the US such as Chomsky and Finkelstein have been speaking out about this for decades. Also, the documentary 'Israelism' which is now available on youtube goes into detail about the exact recruiting process the Zionists use. 

As others have already said, ISIS and it's variant (HTS, Qaeda, etc) will not attack Israel because they are on the Zionist payroll. They will attack Jews because they are not on the Jewish payroll. That simple. They are a mercenary militia that uses religion when it's convenient for them. They will attack whoever is not paying them. 

Edited January 3 by Abu Hadi

[Haji 2003]

18 hours ago, Northwest said:

There is some evidence of (limited?) cooperation between Hamas and ISIS’s Sinai affiliate

 

I would add that the evidence is mixed, the article below refers to ISIS calling Hamas apostates.

Quote

The video exposed new levels of enmity between Hamas and the Sinai branch of the Islamic State, injecting another layer of instability into an already volatile region. And it has roiled Gaza, prompting two families whose sons are shown in the video to disown them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/world/middleeast/isis-hamas-sinai.html#

 

18 hours ago, Northwest said:

For instance, the 11 September 2001 attacks claimed up to three hundred Jewish—as well as thousands of other—lives.

I am sure that there were Pacific Islanders in the twin towers, but no one would claim that the attack was aimed at them. I think the safest claim here is that it was a high profile attack that killed people indiscriminately. It's a side topic for this thread, but I don't think the identities and motives of the perps have been fully established.

 

18 hours ago, Northwest said:

given that ISIS has threatened to attack Israel after eliminating the Shias and/or “apostate” (in ISIS’s sense of apostasy) Sunni regimes.

this is super-convenient, isn't it? Here is a Wiki list of ISIS attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_the_Islamic_State

My reading is that while those on Iraq and other Shia targets have been consistent and large, those on other targets have been ad hoc and in various instances undertaken by individuals often acting alone. 

When you consider the potential pool of recruits and how large this must be amongst impoverished and disaffected people in Sunni countries the number of attacks there is vanishingly small.

My personal opinion is that ISIS is likely funded by those very countries.

And to cap it all off here is the former director of Mossad explaining why Israel treated wounded Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda proxy) fighters.

 

[Northwest]

21 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

I would hardly take these opinion pieces from the Washington institute and WSJ as proof.

@mahmood8726 ISIS’s Sinai affiliate formed around 2013–14, during and after the anti-Morsi/-Muslim Brotherhood coup. For at least four or five years ISIS Sinai refrained from making any statement for or against Hamas. Only in 2018 it supposedly declared “war” on Hamas, but interestingly Hamas did not respond, at least publicly. All the while the anti-Sisi insurgency was ongoing in Sinai, while both Hamas and ISIS Sinai proclaimed their opposition to Sisi. In the meantime ISIS Sinai claimed that Israel was directly attacking its positions, in coordination with the Egyptian authorities under Sisi. (I might also add that Assad himself claimed Hamas collaborated with ISIS’s strategic and ideological ally al-Qaida [Jabhat al-Nusra/HTS] in Syria, hence Syria’s ejection of Hamas representatives from Damascus.)

21 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

The reality is ISIS openly called Hamas heretical and "tyrants" as far back as 2015

Do you have a source for this? I’ve tried to (re)locate information about Hamas–ISIS conflicts (especially in Gaza) but have not been successful. So far ISIS, at least as a whole, does not appear to have officially declared war on the organisation Hamas. Neither, to my knowledge, did its organic predecessor al-Qaida. A few videos of uncertain provenance fail to convince me one way or another.

21 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

in the same statement they claimed to want to liberate jerusalem, but what they say is not necessarly reflective of what they do, hence why ISIS and al quaeda threatening Israel or the West means nothing, when they both do many times their dirty work for plausible deniability.

The Syrian “civil war” began in 2011. Three years later at least 54,000 foreign fighters, mostly Salafi-aligned Islamists, had arrived there, hailing from more than one hundred states, including a statistically significant part of the Muslim population in small European states, e.g., the Scandinavian countries. @Haji 2003 If I recall correctly, few, if any, of these insurgents publicly claimed to have been driven by economic necessity, rather than “religious” conviction about the need to fight “infidels” such as the Shias. Certainly Israel, NATO, and the GCC aided these militants, but the latter (would have) willingly volunteered anyway. On this account I have come to doubt that all these Salafi terrorist incidents in the West, including anti-Jewish ones, are false flags (though I do believe they have been knowingly abetted by state security).

21 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

Al quaeda more specifically even did americas/israels dirty work before Syria, even the event of 9/11, you had a lot of evidence of israeli involvement with helping the hijackers through moving companies that were essentially fronts for the mossad, amongst other evidences.

If Israel were involved in 9/11, why didn’t Iran officially claim so, or provide hints? Moreover, why did no country contest the narrative that al-Qaida was involved?

21 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

The reality is ISIS or Al quaeda will never really try and take down the west or Israel, they might do some terrorist attacks there and then in a Western country to tarnish the image of Muslims, but they serve their purpose, they're here to be used by the west and Israel for operations that require them to have plausible deniability. Its the same thing HTS is doing, they're using plausible deniability by blaming all the sectarian violence on "isolated incidents". 

Regardless, I think these militants do these sectarian attacks out of (pseudo-)religious conviction, however they might be used in the short term by external actors.

[Eddie Mecca]

On 1/3/2025 at 2:50 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

methodical

I meant to say "methodological"

On 1/3/2025 at 2:50 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

bin Laden and al-Zawahiri wanted to keep al-Qaeda's fight solely on the Americans.

1.) America's hit list according to Wesley Clark (i.e. 7 countries in 5 years): a.) Libya b.) Lebanon c.) Iran d.) Syria e.) Somalia f.) Iraq g.) Sudan

2.) Al Qaeda in Iraq (AIQ), ISIS, Al Nusra, HTS hit list (stated policy of al-Zarqawi and every subsequent heir): a.) China b.) Russia c.) Iran d.) Iraq e.) Syria f.) Lebanon g.) Libya h.) Yemen

3.) Al Qaeda (the original franchise headed by bin Laden) enemy hit list: a.) United States of America b.) Israel c.) Soviet Union d.) India e.) United Kingdom f.) East Timor g.) Saudi Arabia 

NOTE: Of course, you may add China, Russia, Yemen, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia (under Evo Morales) and North Korea to America's laundry list of enemies 

Edited January 4 by Eddie Mecca

[Haji 2003]

 

 

2 hours ago, Northwest said:

part of the Muslim population in small European states, e.g., the Scandinavian countries. @Haji 2003 If I recall correctly, few, if any, of these insurgents publicly claimed to have been driven by economic necessity, rather than “religious” conviction about the need to fight “infidels” such as the Shias. Certainly Israel, NATO, and the GCC aided these militants, but the latter (would have) willingly volunteered anyway. On this account I have come to doubt that all these Salafi terrorist incidents in the West, including anti-Jewish ones, are false flags (though I do believe they have been knowingly abetted by state security).

I think that rather proves my point. Terrorists living in the West don't need money, but they do need a cause. For those in poor countries a fistful of dollars will do.

Syria in 2011 was the perfect cause. In my opinion, the movement of terrorists was 100% helped by the anti-Assad media coverage in the West at that point (much the same as we have had now). Hence, the large numbers of volunteers going there.

It was only later that people like Shemima Begum would find out that what they had done was wrong. And indeed, fast forward a few years, and the sort of person whose company she kept is now beatified.

 

[Abu Hadi]

6 hours ago, Northwest said:

@mahmood8726 ISIS’s Sinai affiliate formed around 2013–14, during and after the anti-Morsi/-Muslim Brotherhood coup. For at least four or five years ISIS Sinai refrained from making any statement for or against Hamas. Only in 2018 it supposedly declared “war” on Hamas, but interestingly Hamas did not respond, at least publicly. All the while the anti-Sisi insurgency was ongoing in Sinai, while both Hamas and ISIS Sinai proclaimed their opposition to Sisi. In the meantime ISIS Sinai claimed that Israel was directly attacking its positions, in coordination with the Egyptian authorities under Sisi. (I might also add that Assad himself claimed Hamas collaborated with ISIS’s strategic and ideological ally al-Qaida [Jabhat al-Nusra/HTS] in Syria, hence Syria’s ejection of Hamas representatives from Damascus.)

Do you have a source for this? I’ve tried to (re)locate information about Hamas–ISIS conflicts (especially in Gaza) but have not been successful. So far ISIS, at least as a whole, does not appear to have officially declared war on the organisation Hamas. Neither, to my knowledge, did its organic predecessor al-Qaida. A few videos of uncertain provenance fail to convince me one way or another.

The Syrian “civil war” began in 2011. Three years later at least 54,000 foreign fighters, mostly Salafi-aligned Islamists, had arrived there, hailing from more than one hundred states, including a statistically significant part of the Muslim population in small European states, e.g., the Scandinavian countries. @Haji 2003 If I recall correctly, few, if any, of these insurgents publicly claimed to have been driven by economic necessity, rather than “religious” conviction about the need to fight “infidels” such as the Shias. Certainly Israel, NATO, and the GCC aided these militants, but the latter (would have) willingly volunteered anyway. On this account I have come to doubt that all these Salafi terrorist incidents in the West, including anti-Jewish ones, are false flags (though I do believe they have been knowingly abetted by state security).

If Israel were involved in 9/11, why didn’t Iran officially claim so, or provide hints? Moreover, why did no country contest the narrative that al-Qaida was involved?

Regardless, I think these militants do these sectarian attacks out of (pseudo-)religious conviction, however they might be used in the short term by external actors.

You said you partially agree with my above post. What do you disagree with ? Maybe we can discuss

About the above, specifically those from economically prosperous countries, like the Scandanavian countries, that join Takfiri groups (ISIS, Qaeda, etc). I have alot to say on this but I will be brief here. 

Being a revert to Islam myself (like probably most of these named above were), I can tell you that when you first revert, you are like a baby just out of the womb in terms of knowledge of Islam. The first contact someone makes is critical in determining their future path in the religion. If the first contact someone has, particularly a revert has, is with a Takfiri group, many times they will take on their ideology and believe they are following Islam, because they don't know any different.

I can tell you that when I first reverted (I lived in a major metropolitan area in the US) and probably now still, the Takfiri groups are actively 'hunting' for new reverts and they are the most 'out there' in terms of doing dawa. They are looking for young, white women reverts to make them into their 2nd, 3rd, x, wife, and they are looking for newly reverted men (white or otherwise, doesn't matter to them) to make them into their footsoldiers. 

They are doing this in the US, UK, Europe, and all over the world. They are very well funded, that's for sure. Some say from MBS, Gulf States. Some say CIA / Mossad. I'm not exactly sure because I haven't seen their books and bank account, lol, but I can tell you that they are very well funded and supplied. 

There are no mainstream Islamic organizations besides the takfiris that are actively 'hunting' for reverts. The Sunni Organizations are more accommodating and they do some dawa and if they come across a new revert by chance they are more likely to treat them well and help them in their deen at least. I have said this before that that the Shia organizations would get an F- in terms of doing Dawa and welcoming new reverts. It is a miracle from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that there are any Shia reverts, and there are actually very few when compared to those who revert into Takfiri groups and those who revert into Sunni Islam. There are several reasons for this which I have went over in the past, but like I said, trying to make a short post. 

You will probably say 'Well why would the CIA / Mossad fund Takfiri groups?', especially after the recent events in New Orleans and elsewhere ? I can tell you that they see incidents such as New Orleans, Christmas Markets in Germany, attacks in France from a few years ago, as 'collateral damage' and they are not too concerned about it. 

They use the groups for several reasons. First is to be their 'footsoldiers in the ME' against the Shia and Iran. If you look at where the Takfiris attack, it is almost always Shia areas. ISIS taking over Mosul then marching south in Iraq toward Shia areas. MTS taking over Syria in order to stop weapons getting to Hezb / Hamas, Blowing up masjids and attacking Shia areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Attackings Masjids in NE Hijaz, which is a Shia area, etc. 

Second is to give a bad image of Islam to the West to discourage Westerners and especially Western youth from reverting to Islam. They are small in number, because their ideaology makes no sense to someone who is even slightly educated in the religion, but they do violent, shocking attacks, film them, and then they are spread across the world via the Western press. This has the effect of making people who know nothing about Islam to think that this is Islam, because this is what they see in front of them in well produced, easily digestible, 30 second sound bites. This is the main reason why most people in the West equate Islam with terorrism and violence, because they were conditioned by the media via these 30 second clips, to think this way. 

 

Edited January 4 by Abu Hadi

[mahmood8726]

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

@mahmood8726 ISIS’s Sinai affiliate formed around 2013–14, during and after the anti-Morsi/-Muslim Brotherhood coup. For at least four or five years ISIS Sinai refrained from making any statement for or against Hamas. Only in 2018 it supposedly declared “war” on Hamas, but interestingly Hamas did not respond, at least publicly. All the while the anti-Sisi insurgency was ongoing in Sinai, while both Hamas and ISIS Sinai proclaimed their opposition to Sisi. In the meantime ISIS Sinai claimed that Israel was directly attacking its positions, in coordination with the Egyptian authorities under Sisi. (I might also add that Assad himself claimed Hamas collaborated with ISIS’s strategic and ideological ally al-Qaida [Jabhat al-Nusra/HTS] in Syria, hence Syria’s ejection of Hamas representatives from Damascus.)

Hamas supported the opponents of Bashar (not throught fighting though), because they were bribed by gulf state countries. That by no means is proof hamas was allied with isis or was not an ennemy of isis. Especially in the last few years since 2017 when hamas got backstabbed by Saudi Arabia, bahrain and uae and came back to Iran. 

 

As for the sinai group of isis, egypt getting rid of them was a good thing for hamas, hamas had its own problems to deal with rather than attack isis in Sinai, especially when Egypt was taking care of it and I doubt Israel attacked isis in the Sinai.

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

Do you have a source for this? I’ve tried to (re)locate information about Hamas–ISIS conflicts (especially in Gaza) but have not been successful. So far ISIS, at least as a whole, does not appear to have officially declared war on the organisation Hamas. Neither, to my knowledge, did its organic predecessor al-Qaida. A few videos of uncertain provenance fail to convince me one way or another.

This is one example:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.middleeastmonitor.com/20150701-isis-calls-hamas-apostates-pledges-to-fight-them-in-gaza/amp/

I remeber many times where isis declared open enmity to hamas, but I don't have sources for the rest. 

I remeber hamas condemned isis attack on Russia and Iran.

I even remeber isis condemned something hamas did? I forgot exactly what happened there. 

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

The Syrian “civil war” began in 2011. Three years later at least 54,000 foreign fighters, mostly Salafi-aligned Islamists, had arrived there, hailing from more than one hundred states, including a statistically significant part of the Muslim population in small European states, e.g., the Scandinavian countries. @Haji 2003 If I recall correctly, few, if any, of these insurgents publicly claimed to have been driven by economic necessity, rather than “religious” conviction about the need to fight “infidels” such as the Shias. Certainly Israel, NATO, and the GCC aided these militants, but the latter (would have) willingly volunteered anyway. On this account I have come to doubt that all these Salafi terrorist incidents in the West, including anti-Jewish ones, are false flags (though I do believe they have been knowingly abetted by state security).

The majority of these thugs did it for ideological reasons, it's their lesderships who are the mercs. Most of these terrorists are just useful tools, who are groomed to be suicide bombers, killers, etc...

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

If Israel were involved in 9/11, why didn’t Iran officially claim so, or provide hints? Moreover, why did no country contest the narrative that al-Qaida was involved?

Please read carefully what I wrote,I did not deny that al quaeda did attacks. Al quaeda did it with the help of America, Saudi arabia and Israel. The official story is mostly true, al quaeda rammed planes into the 2 world trade centers and made them collapse, with the help of israel, America, Saudi arabia and other intelligence agencies, banks, etc...

 

And because Iran didn't say anything that means Saudi arabia and Israel had nothing to do with it? I personally don't remeber if Iran said anything or not.

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

Regardless, I think these militants do these sectarian attacks out of (pseudo-)religious conviction, however they might be used in the short term by external actors.

They've been used a lot, not just in the short term, don't be fooled by the US saying they stopped funding terrorist organisations and they "learned their lessons". 

[Northwest]

On 1/4/2025 at 5:29 PM, mahmood8726 said:

Hamas supported the opponents of Bashar (not through fighting though)

@mahmood8726 If I recall correctly, even pro-Iranian sources then claimed that Hamas militarily aided the anti-Assad opposition in Syria, using the expertise it once acquired from Hezbollah and Co. Assad himself mentioned that Hamas had repeatedly backstabbed its Syrian patrons even before 2011. Certain Hamas elements also seem to have aligned themselves with al-Qaida in Syria, if not ISIS. The Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is part, has repeatedly opposed the Syrian Baathists, so arguably Israel and Assad shared an interest in curtailing Hamas, albeit for different reasons. After all, both Hafez and Bashar al-Assad maintained the peace with Israel, and the post-Assad rulers once had contact with the Muslim Brotherhood vis-à-vis Turkey, while also being linked to al-Qaida, has al-Julani was/is.

On 1/4/2025 at 5:29 PM, mahmood8726 said:

because they were bribed by gulf state countries. That by no means is proof hamas was allied with isis or was not an enemy of isis.

At any rate, both the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Syrian opposition (under the aegis of the Free Syrian Army) and al-Qaida effectively combined with ISIS to act as anti-Assad force-multipliers.

On 1/4/2025 at 5:29 PM, mahmood8726 said:

As for the sinai group of isis, egypt getting rid of them was a good thing for hamas, hamas had its own problems to deal with rather than attack isis in Sinai, especially when Egypt was taking care of it and I doubt Israel attacked isis in the Sinai.

In late 2013, as the conflict between the Sisi regime and the pro-Morsi side intensified, Hamas released numerous Salafi militants—a number of whom have apparently been linked, spuriously or not, to ISIS Sinai. As late as 2015 Hamas was denying the presence of ISIS in Gaza altogether, while downplaying the ties between ISIS and local Salafi militants. Certain unnamed groups were blamed for “anti-Hamas” explosions that did little or no damage then. In the same year local police even permitted a march in which ISIS flags were visible.

On 1/4/2025 at 5:29 PM, mahmood8726 said:

This is one example:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.middleeastmonitor.com/20150701-isis-calls-hamas-apostates-pledges-to-fight-them-in-gaza/amp/

I remeber many times where isis declared open enmity to hamas, but I don't have sources for the rest.

Ultimately, I care more about actions than proclamations. Hamas’s actions vis-à-vis ISIS Sinai have been quite ambiguous at best, I think.

On 1/4/2025 at 5:29 PM, mahmood8726 said:

Please read carefully what I wrote,I did not deny that al quaeda did attacks. Al quaeda did it with the help of America, Saudi arabia and Israel. The official story is mostly true, al quaeda rammed planes into the 2 world trade centers and made them collapse, with the help of israel, America, Saudi arabia and other intelligence agencies, banks, etc...

Officially Iran, to my knowledge, has never even blamed Israel or the U.S. government, much less Saudi Arabia, for helping al-Qaida carry out the 9/11 attacks. If 9/11 were an “inside job”—false flag or otherwise—by the U.S. and/or Israel, the latter could have achieved their aims by far less drastic actions. After all, during the Cold War the American Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed Operation NORTHWOODS (1962), which outlined the potential for a fake pro-Castro “terror” campaign that would justify U.S. intervention in Cuba. But even that plan did not envision real casualties, only PSYOPs involving crisis actors (similar to all those school shootings that are alleged to be staged).

In the end, however much I distrust the official 9/11 narrative, I think the evidence, on balance, leans against an “inside job” by the U.S. and/or Israel, instead favouring al-Qaida’s exclusive involvement. @Haji 2003 You may think that the attacks were solely indiscriminate, but in fact the WTC complex could have been regarded as “Zionist,” for the Israel-connected Larry Silverstein obtained the leasehold just before 9/11. So al-Qaida might have viewed the Twin Towers as an Israeli target as well, and in any case, the U.S. is Israel’s primary guarantor.

On 1/4/2025 at 5:29 PM, mahmood8726 said:

They've been used a lot, not just in the short term, don't be fooled by the US saying they stopped funding terrorist organisations and they "learned their lessons". 

I never said the U.S. does not exploit terrorist groups for its own aims. I was strictly talking about its culpability in relation to 9/11.

[Ashvazdanghe]

5 hours ago, Northwest said:

Officially Iran, to my knowledge, has never even blamed Israel or the U.S. government

Hi no country has done it officially because it can't be proven through official means while Iran always has blamed both of zionist Israel & the U.S. government by producing dozens of documentaries & inviting  people even from America to Iran in order to prove it through all evidences although it couldn't be done officially because only the U.S. government has access to documents about it as high confidential documents which maybe will be remained confidential until fall of the U.S. government. 

[Haji 2003]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

In the end, however much I distrust the official 9/11 narrative, I think the evidence, on balance, leans against an “inside job” by the U.S. and/or Israel, instead favouring al-Qaida’s exclusive involvement

Looking at the Wiki entry for al-Qaeda, I am finding it hard to reconcile their claims for who they are with what they do.

We've covered this ground before, but for an organisation whose beef seems to be with the Saudi leadership - al Qaeda do seem to try very hard not to carry out any acts within Saudi itself. Everything is always one step removed.

And when you consider the following, they also seem very shy about doing anything that would harm the interests of those 'secular Muslim regimes' they seem to be so very much against.

Quote

The doctrinal concept of "al-Qaeda" was first coined by the Palestinian Islamist scholar and Jihadist leader Abdullah Azzam in an April 1988 issue of Al-Jihad magazine to describe a religiously committed vanguard of Muslims who wage armed Jihad globally to liberate oppressed Muslims from foreign invaders, establish sharia (Islamic law) across the Islamic World by overthrowing the ruling secular governments; and thus restore the past Islamic prowess. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

 

What they do seem to be very good at is sowing mayhem in poor Muslim countries like Sudan, generating American blowback in Afghanistan, and whenever they are directly involved, it seems to be Shias (Iraq).

Now the latter is an interesting choice of target, because what it does is allow hegemonists and colonialists in Washington and Jerusalem to say that any violence in the Middle East is nothing to do with them, it's all about a 1400 year old rivalry between two Islamic sects - which then provides grounds for further interference. Quite the opposite of al Qaeda's stated objectives.

@NorthwestSo when you refer to 'inside job' by the US/Israel, I would not necessarily go so far as to say that actual branches of government were involved.

However, I would not be surprised if groups of Saudis, Israelis and Americans were involved in some kind of conspiracy - that would yield gains for all of them. This does not preclude the fact that some of the hijackers themselves may have been led to believe that this was an al-Qaeda operation.

I continue to believe that the pilot hijackers were likely ex-Saudi airforce and likely motivated by some (naive) notion of liberating their homeland. The fact that the intended outcome was an invasion of Iraq is likely something they did not realise at all, but the planners most likely did.

I don't believe that you can pilot an aircraft of that size with that level of precision after a few sessions in a simulator.

In sum, I believe that al-Qaeda provides its sponsors with a stream of naive Sunni recruits, a useful proxy with which to attack their real targets and a cover for their own operations.

 

[Northwest]

10 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Looking at the Wiki entry for al-Qaeda, I am finding it hard to reconcile their claims for who they are with what they do.

We've covered this ground before, but for an organisation whose beef seems to be with the Saudi leadership - al Qaeda do seem to try very hard not to carry out any acts within Saudi itself. Everything is always one step removed.

@Haji 2003 Actually, a number of deadly attacks on the KSA have been linked to al-Qaida, some of which were once attributed—erroneously—to Iran. For example, the 1995 Riyadh attack, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the 2003 Riyadh compound bombings, and the 2004 Khobar attacks have all been linked, at one point or another, to al-Qaida.

10 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

And when you consider the following, they also seem very shy about doing anything that would harm the interests of those 'secular Muslim regimes' they seem to be so very much against.

What about Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria? After all, al-Qaida was involved in the Algerian civil war, and its personnel were linked to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. During the “Arab Spring” al-Qaida established a firm presence among anti-secularist movements and “rebels” in North Africa. Al-Qaida has also attempted to eliminate relatively secular Muslim elites elsewhere, i.e., in Pakistan, among them former President Musharraf.

10 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Now the latter is an interesting choice of target, because what it does is allow hegemonists and colonialists in Washington and Jerusalem to say that any violence in the Middle East is nothing to do with them, it's all about a 1400 year old rivalry between two Islamic sects - which then provides grounds for further interference. Quite the opposite of al Qaeda's stated objectives.

Well, this isn’t exactly disputed on this forum. Sunni persecution of Shias did not begin with the British assets al-Wahhab and ibn Saud. The West certainly contributes, and exploits, but does not create the friction out of thin air.

Re: 9/11: since this thread is about Syria, I don’t want to go too far OT.

[mahmood8726]

On 1/26/2025 at 6:46 PM, Northwest said:

@mahmood8726 If I recall correctly, even pro-Iranian sources then claimed that Hamas militarily aided the anti-Assad opposition in Syria, using the expertise it once acquired from Hezbollah and Co. Assad himself mentioned that Hamas had repeatedly backstabbed its Syrian patrons even before 2011. Certain Hamas elements also seem to have aligned themselves with al-Qaida in Syria, if not ISIS. The Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is part, has repeatedly opposed the Syrian Baathists, so arguably Israel and Assad shared an interest in curtailing Hamas, albeit for different reasons. After all, both Hafez and Bashar al-Assad maintained the peace with Israel, and the post-Assad rulers once had contact with the Muslim Brotherhood vis-à-vis Turkey, while also being linked to al-Qaida, has al-Julani was/is.

Assad mentionned this because the muslim Brotherhood has been in opposition with his government for decades, they opposed hafez al assad who flattened hama to get rid of them because they killed some of his soldiers. 

 

Either way, none of this is proof hamas was allied with isis, even you're not so sure of yourself and you're talking about elements from hamas at best.  

Israel and Syria did not have peace at all, syria was at war with Israel under hafez assad such as the war of 1973 and Syria repeatedly hosted various Palestinian militias(which israel despised) and supplied israels ennemies. Having a common enmity to hamas does not mean Syria will work with israel to curtail hamas, they have far more points of contention than points of intrest. 

 

On 1/26/2025 at 6:46 PM, Northwest said:

At any rate, both the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Syrian opposition (under the aegis of the Free Syrian Army) and al-Qaida effectively combined with ISIS to act as anti-Assad force-multipliers.

Sometimes they did, sometimes they fought eachother. At the end the dominant groups from the "fsa" were al nusra and isis, later HTS. You need to understand that all groups that spawned from the Muslim Brotherhood don't necessarly all share the same intrests either. 

On 1/26/2025 at 6:46 PM, Northwest said:

In late 2013, as the conflict between the Sisi regime and the pro-Morsi side intensified, Hamas released numerous Salafi militants—a number of whom have apparently been linked, spuriously or not, to ISIS Sinai. As late as 2015 Hamas was denying the presence of ISIS in Gaza altogether, while downplaying the ties between ISIS and local Salafi militants. Certain unnamed groups were blamed for “anti-Hamas” explosions that did little or no damage then. In the same year local police even permitted a march in which ISIS flags were visible.

Ultimately, I care more about actions than proclamations. Hamas’s actions vis-à-vis ISIS Sinai have been quite ambiguous at best, I think.

I'm going to be honest with you my friend, but as you stated it yourself, the actions of hamas towards isis Sinai have been ambigious, let alone isis as a whole, especially their branches in Iraq and Syria whom have repeatedly shown they were against "secularist hamas". 

 

If anything, the article you shared yourself to respond to me a month ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/world/middleeast/isis-hamas-sinai.html

Essentially shows that isis Sinai itself did do actions against hamas, even if the war wasn't officially declared and hamas didn't want to bring attention to it, this by no means is them being on good terms, they themselves claim hamas is arresting extreemists from isis. Hamas denying their existence or some police in 2015 not doing anything about some isis march, is in all honesty not good proof that hamas is on good terms with isis or helping them or that isis is not ennemies with hamas.

Don't forget that isis has practically declared war on almost everyone, they even this week declared war on hts and told members of hts to join them.  These guys are an organisation with mercs as their leadership and zealots as their soldiers, they will eventually backstab their sponsors. America and israel have been the ones to mostly use them in recent years, but who knows if in the future they will turn on Israel and america(again). 

 

As for this article of NYT, this is the same nyt that hates hamas and wants to paint them as the spawn of satan. They even tried to sneak this allegation by an Israeli analyst to try and paint hamas as having worked with isis:

 

"Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, said that in the past Hamas had provided the Islamic State’s Sinai branch with training and advanced weapons, and had allowed wounded fighters to come to Gaza for treatment. The recent shift, Mr. Yaari said, was “a typical story of Middle Eastern changing alliances.”"

So nyt has 0 reason to lie about isis becomming an ennemy of hamas

On 1/26/2025 at 6:46 PM, Northwest said:

 

If 9/11 were an “inside job”—false flag or otherwise—by the U.S. and/or Israel, the latter could have achieved their aims by far less drastic actions. After all, during the Cold War the American Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed Operation NORTHWOODS (1962), which outlined the potential for a fake pro-Castro “terror” campaign that would justify U.S. intervention in Cuba. But even that plan did not envision real casualties, only PSYOPs involving crisis actors (similar to all those school shootings that are alleged to be staged).

I don't know about this to be honest, because this goes into hypothetical territory, 9/11's repercussions had far greater consequences than anything seen before, it was a cataclysmic event, it was like a worse version of pearl harbor. People forget how much impact 9/11 has had on the world, it changed the entire middle east, it changed aviation, it changed domestic policy in America. 

Edited January 28 by mahmood8726