World powers agree nationwide Syria ceasefire, says John Kerry
10 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35556783[/url]
[quote]World powers meeting on Syria have agreed to seek a nationwide "cessation of hostilities" within a week, US Secretary of State John Kerry has said.
But he said the halt would not apply to the fight with jihadist groups Islamic State (IS) and al-Nusra Front.
He also said the powers had agreed to immediately accelerate and expand the delivery of humanitarian aid.[/quote]
Are the hundreds of different interest groups that are currently fighting part of these world powers and if they are not what if they don't want to?
I think it pretty much halts the airstrikes.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49723282]I think it pretty much halts the airstrikes.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Mr Kerry said the "cessation of hostilities" would not apply to jihadist groups Islamic State or al-Nusra Front.[/QUOTE]
Does this also apply to the FSA?
[QUOTE=OneFourth;49723412][/QUOTE]
Soooo, business as usual?
Assad is still going to claim everyone his side is attacking are part of IS and then goodbye ceasefire.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49723458]Does this also apply to the FSA?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't apply to anyone actually involved in the ground conflict but it is a positive thing in that we now have the cooperation of Russia in the matter. This is great leverage to negotiate a cessation of hostilities between the SAA and mainstream opposition groups. Being optimistic here, but what I'm hoping is that some of these groups will agree to fight IS directly and deliberately in some coordinated fashion if a peace deal is reached.
"fighting is bad, but like just kill the terrorists"
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49723798]"fighting is bad, but like just kill the terrorists"[/QUOTE]
Eliminating IS Group is a crucial step in normalizing the regional situation.
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;49723811]Eliminating IS Group is a crucial step in normalizing the regional situation.[/QUOTE]
So would eliminating the "Moderate" rebel groups. You would then have more people to fight ISIS instead of shoring up defences/attacking other parts of Syria.
[QUOTE=Adamnetwork;49723863]So would eliminating the "Moderate" rebel groups. You would then have more people to fight ISIS instead of shoring up defences/attacking other parts of Syria.[/QUOTE]
Many opposition groups are willing to negotiate conditionally, which, without making any assumptions or statements on that matter, distinguishes them clearly from IS group for the simple fact that they are willing to engage in diplomacy.
I don't support opposition groups (I've supported the SAA's effort for a while now) but these talks are first and foremost about peace, not continuing the conflict. It's simply not necessary to fight someone who is willing to negotiate in peaceful terms. This outcome is ultimately better for the people living in conflict areas and I really don't want any more bombs dropped or blood spilled in this war than necessary. I know sometimes it's hard to see things from a human perspective when it's a lot of geopolitics, but I just don't people to die anymore, dude.
If peace can be made with opposition groups then that is ultimately the best solution. Those who refuse to talk even after we've brought other groups to the table wouldn't have come to the table anyways. This means they must be fought and there's really no choice involved. In that case, I think fighting opposition groups is justified.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.