Deadly Russian air raid hits market in Syria's Idlib! Kills over 40 civilians, wounds 70.

[Kesang]

replace Russia with USA, sukhoi with drone, Isis with taliban, syria with pak-Afghan border then I wonder what would be reaction of Pakistanis here. I doubt that russian bombs are precise as Hellfire missile or russian jets has endurance as UAVs

 

[Saurabh jindals]

no, your statement was just gibberish/ the english was poor... i didn't understand what you said.

Syria is in crisis because of Assad's brutal policies on protestors and demonstrators during the Arab spring protests which eventually sparked this rebellion as both regular people and units of the army defected/rebelled against Assad's rule.

The regime was obviously not as stable as you thought, given what happened.

First before starting I like to mention I am Totally neutral b/w US and Russia.
I tell you in v short, Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad are no different in any sense then other dictators as they have to be strong, ruthless but same time have to keep there people Happy and content similar to Saudi's rulers. Just the difference was they didn't go to USA or NATO line where as Saudi's toe there line and work according to US wishes. Otherwise in Saudi Arabia there is huge opposition against there rulers within there country but its US which is securing Saudi Royal Family.
You even cant speak a single line again them otherwise you will be jailed for years and 100's of lashes.
So, how can they are less brutal then Assad's ? and why US is so gung ho ?
And we all know what happens after Saddam and Gaddafi . So, why again removing an authorized govt. and put all country into civil wars for decade ? (Millions of refuges and 10's of thousands of deaths)
Actually thing is you watch news channels which are only doing propaganda according to there govt. wishes and change your thinking, you people cant think with clear and open mind because your mind had already coated.

In Syria, US wants gas pipeline from Oman to europe to end Russian Monopoly or blackmail and hurt it economically very hard as it is a very big proportion of revenues for Russia. For this to happens they need Syrian land which assad refused owing to close relations with russia. So he becomes what as you described.
Also if you know ISIS come existence in syria all weaponry and financial support is provided by no other country other then US and Saudi's. (same way like Al Quida against Russia) . Also another Militant Group Al-Nusra Front recently destroyed Russian Heli. using US-Supplied Anti-Tank Missile.
Had US seriously wanted to destroye ISIS they could never roam openly on Completely new Toyota Land cruisers. Have there capital Raqqa and ruling like anyother state. All US did is making and using ISIS as a reason to interfere in sovereign state

 

[General Observer]

Sure, his brutal and horrific regime was functioning all the way up until it didn't and it fractured in rebellion and civil war!

That was no Western plot, that was all Assad. He was responsible for the country, and he brought it to ruin through his brutal policies and inept statesmanship.

You also cannot single out the US for the lengthening of the conflict by supporting a side without blaming Europe, the rest of the Middle-East, Russia, and China for doing the exact same thing in the exact same conflict. For god sakes we weren't even the primary supporters like we are with the SDF who is successfully combatting ISIS.

The US was not the sole or even primary force behind the mess in Syria. Aside from Assad, Iran and the Saudis and Turkey have bigger roles and interests in Assad and the FSA respectively, but the primary blame is with Assad or those who rebelled.



Also stop trying to excuse and divert from the current actions of Russia who is willfully disregarding and perpetuating the civilian bloodshed by bombing markets and bakeries instead of ISIS militants.

You're circumventing - Either you're not reading what I've been responding with because you've got selective hearing, or you're downright incompetent at reading, which I hope you're not by the way.

I'll paraphrase:

It doesn't matter who is involved in what way, now. What matters is how this all started, and how and who should be addressing a resolve. You Yanks invaded Iraq for oil, screwed around with Al-Qaeda, part of the group dissolved into the so called 'ISIS,' your continued support towards your FSA terrorists, of whom some decided to join ISIS, increased support for the organisation. Now, you've got your modern day situation.

In short, you screwed up, you fix it.

Is Russia to blame for some of its actions? Perhaps. I'm not supporting their actions. What's important however, is that true, the US might not be the main force behind Syria, because you greedy bastards created this mess; of course you don't want to become part of the mess you created!

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Oh man. This is getting really nasty. I could farly blame the Russians, this is a real over-reaction.

 

[anon45]

You're circumventing - Either you're not reading what I've been responding with because you've got selective hearing, or you're downright incompetent at reading, which I hope you're not by the way.

I'll paraphrase:

It doesn't matter who is involved in what way, now. What matters is how this all started, and how and who should be addressing a resolve. You Yanks invaded Iraq for oil, screwed around with Al-Qaeda, part of the group dissolved into the so called 'ISIS,' your continued support towards your FSA terrorists, of whom some decided to join ISIS, increased support for the organisation. Now, you've got your modern day situation.

In short, you screwed up, you fix it.

Is Russia to blame for some of its actions? Perhaps. I'm not supporting their actions. What's important however, is that true, the US might not be the main force behind Syria, because you greedy bastards created this mess; of course you don't want to become part of the mess you created!

I am not circumventing, you are just refusing to acknowledge that Assad is the culprit for the Syrian civil war...

Well at least you've stopped blaming us for the Syrian War even if you refuse to hold Assad responsible , so i'll simply say we are clearly fighting ISIS, and have been for at least a year. I'm not certain what you'd like us to do? boots on the ground? Destroy strategic alliances?

can you think of any country, ANY COUNTRY at all, that would willingly do what you want the US to do?

As for your claims that we created this through our invasion of Iraq, you have provided no logical connection between the US invasion of Iraq and the start of the civil war in Syria, and you cannot provide one as the genesis of the Syrian civil war was in the Arab Spring. The genesis of it was not ISIS in Iraq, it was Assad and the FSA.

You would have to provide a logical connection between the Arab Spring and the US occupation of Iraq.

Leaving the Iraqi military half-formed with American equipment was a screwup (though they were the ones who asked us to leave), but we couldn't have predicted that they would be so unwilling to defend their country, and that is far from complicit support of ISIS.

 

[anon45]

First before starting I like to mention I am Totally neutral b/w US and Russia.
I tell you in v short, Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad are no different in any sense then other dictators as they have to be strong, ruthless but same time have to keep there people Happy and content similar to Saudi's rulers. Just the difference was they didn't go to USA or NATO line where as Saudi's toe there line and work according to US wishes. Otherwise in Saudi Arabia there is huge opposition against there rulers within there country but its US which is securing Saudi Royal Family.
You even cant speak a single line again them otherwise you will be jailed for years and 100's of lashes.
So, how can they are less brutal then Assad's ? and why US is so gung ho ?
And we all know what happens after Saddam and Gaddafi . So, why again removing an authorized govt. and put all country into civil wars for decade ? (Millions of refuges and 10's of thousands of deaths)
Actually thing is you watch news channels which are only doing propaganda according to there govt. wishes and change your thinking, you people cant think with clear and open mind because your mind had already coated.

In Syria, US wants gas pipeline from Oman to europe to end Russian Monopoly or blackmail and hurt it economically very hard as it is a very big proportion of revenues for Russia. For this to happens they need Syrian land which assad refused owing to close relations with russia. So he becomes what as you described.
Also if you know ISIS come existence in syria all weaponry and financial support is provided by no other country other then US and Saudi's. (same way like Al Quida against Russia) . Also another Militant Group Al-Nusra Front recently destroyed Russian Heli. using US-Supplied Anti-Tank Missile.
Had US seriously wanted to destroye ISIS they could never roam openly on Completely new Toyota Land cruisers. Have there capital Raqqa and ruling like anyother state. All US did is making and using ISIS as a reason to interfere in sovereign state

Sorry man, I don't know what it is about your posts, but it is a real pain to sift through them. It seems more like stream of consciousness than clearly articulated.

I think you are asking why the US supports Saudi Arabia, and that is due to both holdovers over cold war politics leading to mutual interests today, and logistics.

Saudi Arabia and the US had mutual interest in containing communism during the cold war,

and after that the US had an interest in maintaining influence in the Middle-East, which the Saudi's saw as to their benefit. Given that they are a major Islamic state, that is beneficial to us politically and financially at times.

We also have continually brought up human rights concerns, but given that they are our allym and a more forceful approach would likely accomplish little while alienating them, a softer touch is required.

Overflying Saudi Arabia vs going around them is also great benefit logistically. Oil is less and less of an issue, except possibly relating to global markets. The US doesn't really directly rely on Saudi oil anymore, there are other options.

Are you also speculating about a pipeline going through Syria as a motivator for US involvement and a reason the US created the civil war? Well ignoring that the US didn't create it, Why not just build the pipeline underwater through the mediterranean? It would be done quicker and cheaper than making Syria a warzone.

You are also factually wrong on where ISIS gets its arms, it got them from Syria and Iraq and there has been talk of continual supplies from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, none of which implicates the US.

As for ISIS, I'm not sure what you expect us to do. We need intel to coordinate our bombings.

Bombing (short of nukes) will not defeat ISIS anymore than it defeated the British or Imperial Japan, and we do not want to put boots on the ground (that is a political reality). If we fought like Russia and just decided to bomb whatever in Raqqa, we would do alot of damage to buildings, but what use would it be? It wouldn't capture Raqqa, it would just be a terror bombing.

So we have to operate with ground forces who can call in precision strikes, namely the SDF (with special forces embedded to call them in).

 

[General Observer]

You're circumventing - Either you're not reading what I've been responding with because you've got selective hearing, or you're downright incompetent at reading, which I hope you're not by the way.

I'll paraphrase:

It doesn't matter who is involved in what way, now. What matters is how this all started, and how and who should be addressing a resolve. You Yanks invaded Iraq for oil, screwed around with Al-Qaeda, part of the group dissolved into the so called 'ISIS,' your continued support towards your FSA terrorists, of whom some decide to join ISIS, increased support for the organisation. Now, you've got your modern day situation.

In short, you screwed up, you fix it.

I am not circumventing, you are just refusing to acknowledge that Assad is the culprit for the Syrian civil war...

Well at least you've stopped blaming us for the Syrian War even if you refuse to hold Assad responsible , so i'll simply say we are clearly fighting ISIS, and have been for at least a year. I'm not certain what you'd like us to do? boots on the ground? Destroy strategic alliances?

can you think of any country, ANY COUNTRY at all, that would willingly do what you want the US to do?

As for your claims that we created this through our invasion of Iraq, you have provided no logical connection between the US invasion of Iraq and the start of the civil war in Syria, and you cannot provide one as the genesis of the Syrian civil war was in the Arab Spring. The genesis of it was not ISIS in Iraq, it was Assad and the FSA.

You would have to provide a logical connection between the Arab Spring and the US occupation of Iraq.

Leaving the Iraqi military half-formed with American equipment was a screwup (though they were the ones who asked us to leave), but we couldn't have predicted that they would be so unwilling to defend their country, and that is far from complicit support of ISIS.

Geez man, you wrote a bunch... I'll try to reply succinctly.

Well, let's start off with some history shall we? The US is known to support proxy factions to do its dirty wills out of national (personal) interest; this was seen in Afghanistan, when US funded the Taliban, tor resist Soviet influence in the region. At some point before 911, then president Bush negotiated with Al-Qaeda/Taliban for a deal; twin towers, for a reason to invade Afghanistan.

For Osama, the destruction in the center of NYC would be devastating blow to the American spirit, and would give his militant group credibility in the world. For the US, it gave the American public the initial motivation to go into the Middle East, and reason for the militant group to understand that the US were victims, not the aggressors in this case.

Following the initial push into the Middle East, Bush used the excuse of 'WMD's' to prolong the war in the Middle East, and to complete his father's duty where he failed; topple Saddam Hussein. After Saddam's regime fell, the oil reserves of the country was in Bush's hands, given that the entire Bush family is well connected in the oil industry, it made the Bush family rich overnight.

Now since the Americans created a power vacuum in Iraq, where the Iraqi Army was poorly trained and greedy, they were no match for rebel fighters who fight for a cause; their will is iron strong. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually went through a rename, and the name ISIS we are all so familiar now was created.

Now, given that Assad is an enemy of the US, the American government/regime saw a golden opportunity to use its friend and foe, to once again carry out its dirty business. "A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq."

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian

However, you underestimated the psychological grip these guys had over the people. Eventually, the little known group took over your Free Syria Army rebels whom you are also supporting, so essentially, your support went directly to ISIS.

So there you have it, you effectively created your friend you can't live without so long Assad is still alive, and your foe whom is becoming a pest to deal with.

America, you're playing with fire here.


Oh, and boots on the ground would be a start. Don't you think it'd be of the slightest decency for you to at least participate in a war which you guys fueled?

 

[beijingwalker]

US government is a habitual liar, forget about Iraqi "nuclear weapons" ?

 

[anon45]

Geez man, you wrote a bunch... I'll try to reply succinctly.

Well, let's start off with some history shall we? The US is known to support proxy factions to do its dirty wills out of national (personal) interest; this was seen in Afghanistan, when US funded the Taliban, tor resist Soviet influence in the region. At some point before 911, then president Bush negotiated with Al-Qaeda/Taliban for a deal; twin towers, for a reason to invade Afghanistan.

For Osama, the destruction in the center of NYC would be devastating blow to the American spirit, and would give his militant group credibility in the world. For the US, it gave the American public the initial motivation to go into the Middle East, and reason for the militant group to understand that the US were victims, not the aggressors in this case.

Following the initial push into the Middle East, Bush used the excuse of 'WMD's' to prolong the war in the Middle East, and to complete his father's duty where he failed; topple Saddam Hussein. After Saddam's regime fell, the oil reserves of the country was in Bush's hands, given that the entire Bush family is well connected in the oil industry, it made the Bush family rich overnight.

Now since the Americans created a power vacuum in Iraq, where the Iraqi Army was poorly trained and greedy, they were no match for rebel fighters who fight for a cause; their will is iron strong. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually went through a rename, and the name ISIS we are all so familiar now was created.

Now, given that Assad is an enemy of the US, the American government/regime saw a golden opportunity to use its friend and foe, to once again carry out its dirty business. "A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq."

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian

However, you underestimated the psychological grip these guys had over the people. Eventually, the little known group took over your Free Syria Army rebels whom you are also supporting, so essentially, your support went directly to ISIS.

So there you have it, you effectively created your friend you can't live without so long Assad is still alive, and your foe whom is becoming a pest to deal with.

America, you're playing with fire here.


Oh, and boots on the ground would be a start. Don't you think it'd be of the slightest decency for you to at least participate in a war which you guys fueled?

The US would have been better served befriending Saddam, if Iraqi oil was our primary goal for whatever reason.

As it is oil exports to the US declined since the invasion.

US companies won no contracts on the first and second round of Iraqi oil contracts, those winners were mostly Turkey and China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html

If the Iraq War is About Oil, then How Much Are We Getting? (as of 2008)

I would also like to see proof that any of Iraq's oil was stolen by the US.

Saying it was for oil is simple and easy to understand, but it simply isn't true.


Hindsight is 20/20 re iraqi troops.

That document doesn't welcome anything, its just an analysis of the situation and possible outcomes. Very prescient yes, but no indicator of a clear plan, and one of many analysis during the time.

Notice it doesn't refer to the US specifically while it does refer to Turkey and Saudi Arabia specifically. Clearly deliberate, why would it refer to Europe and the US together?

Oh, and boots on the ground would be a start. Don't you think it'd be of the slightest decency for you to at least participate in a war which you guys fueled?

What other democratic government would be willing to commit political suicide? You ask the impossible.

You'll have to be satisfied with special forces, no congress is going to approve funds for army troops to Syria without some huge escalation, much less in an election year.

U.S. deploying new force to Iraq to boost fight against Islamic State| Reuters


On an unrelated note I have seen you express discomfort at the implications i have made before regarding your relation to Russia, and reading your posts further I don't think you actually are a troll (there are plenty here), just very opinionated, and I apologize for implying you were something you clearly aren't. Some of PDF seeping in .

Even if your opinions are near polar opposite to my own, I won't hold it against you if you don't hold it against me.

 

[General Observer]

The US would have been better served befriending Saddam, if Iraqi oil was our primary goal for whatever reason.

As it is oil exports to the US declined since the invasion.

US companies won no contracts on the first and second round of Iraqi oil contracts, those winners were mostly Turkey and China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html

If the Iraq War is About Oil, then How Much Are We Getting? (as of 2008)

I would also like to see proof that any of Iraq's oil was stolen by the US.

Saying it was for oil is simple and easy to understand, but it simply isn't true.

Sorry, let's not use 'US.' I have a habitual saying of the 'US' when I mean Bush in particular. But then again, the US was under the presidency of Bush back then, wasn't it? In short, the American public wanted revenge for 911, Bush had his own oil agenda in Iraq. Just as Roosevelt swayed public opinion with the Pearl Harbour excuse, Bush played the public like a violin upon the events of 9/11.

"Because of George W. Bush’s close ties to Texas and connections with the oil industry, the Bush family is often perceived as a bunch of oil tycoons."

The Bushes — A Wall Street Dynasty - Business Insider

The Big 5 in the oil industry made tons. Bush was well connected with the major corporations.

Big oil made over $600 billion during Bush years, but invested bupkis in clean energy, Part 1 | ThinkProgress

Perhaps when I used the term 'stole,' it may have been a bit strong. But, you get the point here.

Hindsight is 20/20 re iraqi troops.

That document doesn't welcome anything, its just an analysis of the situation and possible outcomes. Very prescient yes, but no indicator of a clear plan, and one of many analysis during the time.

Notice it doesn't refer to the US specifically while it does refer to Turkey and Saudi Arabia specifically. Clearly deliberate, why would it refer to Europe and the US together?




What other democratic government would be willing to commit political suicide? You ask the impossible.

You'll have to be satisfied with special forces, no congress is going to approve funds for army troops to Syria without some huge escalation, much less in an election year.

U.S. deploying new force to Iraq to boost fight against Islamic State| Reuters

Given the above, I believe the genesis of ISIS lies in American action in Iraq. At the very onset of the invasion for oil, Americans should have been prepared to invest in long-term security, well past the oil has been dug up; you can't leave a nation and its inhabitants unprotected right after you leave a power vacuum well open, and right after a new administration takes power, you simply can't-That's inconsiderate.

Now, if Bush's actions from the onset of 9/11 through to the end of his presidency have been debunked and made public, THEN America would have committed political suicide. At the same time however, the evidence is stacking up and is quite obvious at this point...

BTW, from your own local media, if true, would look bad for American influence in Syria:

Russia Accuses Turkey's Erdogan of Involvement With ISIS Oil Trade - NBC News

On an unrelated note I have seen you express discomfort at the implications i have made before regarding your relation to Russia, and reading your posts further I don't think you actually are a troll (there are plenty here), just very opinionated, and I apologize for implying you were something you clearly aren't. Some of PDF seeping in .

Even if your opinions are near polar opposite to my own, I won't hold it against you if you don't hold it against me.

No worries, just a good debate. No hard feelings.

 

[Yousafzai_M]

Nice job excusing Russia and Assad hypocrite.

You also clearly did not watch your own video, as it disproves that the US created ISIS. in the first 4 minutes in fact isis was founded to combat the US.



take your conspiracy theories elsewhere, this isn't your thread.

Lets not talk about hypocrisy please.

 

[mike2000 is back]

You're circumventing - Either you're not reading what I've been responding with because you've got selective hearing, or you're downright incompetent at reading, which I hope you're not by the way.

I'll paraphrase:

It doesn't matter who is involved in what way, now. What matters is how this all started, and how and who should be addressing a resolve. You Yanks invaded Iraq for oil, screwed around with Al-Qaeda, part of the group dissolved into the so called 'ISIS,' your continued support towards your FSA terrorists, of whom some decided to join ISIS, increased support for the organisation. Now, you've got your modern day situation.

In short, you screwed up, you fix it.

Is Russia to blame for some of its actions? Perhaps. I'm not supporting their actions. What's important however, is that true, the US might not be the main force behind Syria, because you greedy bastards created this mess; of course you don't want to become part of the mess you created!

LOL Mr so called 'General Observer' how come i don't see you condemning the Assad monarchy/dictatorship for supporting Al Qaeda, and other terrorists groups in Iraq?? I said it several times on here, you do know that Assad regime provided sanctuary,logistics, finance, training and full support to Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups in Iraq prior to the Syrian civil war right? lol

The U.S, U.K, western powers and even Iraq itself warned Assad several times against this invane, he still continue his support and justified it as a legitimate Jihad against infidels invading Muslim holy lands. LOL The very same slogan ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups he supported are now using against his regime.

Syria's Financial Support for Jihad - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Iraq asked Syria's Assad to stop aiding 'jihadists': Former official | Middle East Eye
Al Qaeda 'rat line' from Syria to Iraq turns back against Assad - Washington Times
Slain Syrian official supported al Qaeda in Iraq | The Long War Journal

As i said before, This conflict is far more complex than many people here seem to think. There is no black and white situation here. Everybody is merely fighting for their own interests be it Assad butcher/dictator(fighting to remain in power at all costs), Russia(for its military base and interests in the middle east/Mediterranean), U.S/U.K/France( for their own legitimate Geo political interests in the region), Gulf states(to extent their own religious influence and battle against the shia powerhouse of Iran), Iran(to keep its own influence/control over Syria and further its own religious Shia doctrine against Saudi led Sunni bloc) etc etc.

In short, there is no side that is an angel here. Every country has played a part in this one way or another. I just find it funny that you obviously single out just one side. Shows you have your own reasons for doing so.

 

[General Observer]

LOL Mr so called 'General Observer' how come i don't see you condemning the Assad monarchy/dictatorship for supporting Al Qaeda, and other terrorists groups in Iraq?? I said it several times on here, you do know that Assad regime provided sanctuary,logistics, finance, training and full support to Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups in Iraq prior to the Syrian civil war right? lol

The U.S, U.K, western powers and even Iraq itself warned Assad several times against this invane, he still continue his support and justified it as a legitimate Jihad against infidels invading Muslim holy lands. LOL The very same slogan ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups he supported are now using against his regime.

Syria's Financial Support for Jihad - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Iraq asked Syria's Assad to stop aiding 'jihadists': Former official | Middle East Eye
Al Qaeda 'rat line' from Syria to Iraq turns back against Assad - Washington Times
Slain Syrian official supported al Qaeda in Iraq | The Long War Journal

As i said before, This conflict is far more complex than many people here seem to think. There is no black and white situation here. Everybody is merely fighting for their own interests be it Assad butcher/dictator(fighting to remain in power at all costs), Russia(for its military base and interests in the middle east/Mediterranean), U.S/U.K/France( for their own legitimate Geo political interests in the region), Gulf states(to extent their own religious influence and battle against the shia powerhouse of Iran), Iran(to keep its own influence/control over Syria and further its own religious Shia doctrine against Saudi led Sunni bloc) etc etc.

In short, there is no side that is an angel here. Every country has played a part in this one way or another. I just find it funny that you obviously single out just one side. Shows you have your own reasons for doing so.

Haha, I see I really did poke the stick onto a touchy topic, which got quite a few sensitive users here riled up. I don't see why you're bringing in Assad's support for Al-Qaeda here into the picture. To be honest with you, I didn't do a whole lot of research in it. However, I'd believe it though, since that would give the US a reason to unseat him.

However, at the end of the day, without getting ourselves distracted about all the other who's supporting what right now, and looking at the origins which led up to the current status of ISIS, I've already explained all that I need to explain, I'm not going to re-type all that blob just for you.

I'll state my reasons, but I'm near sure you're just going to continue badging me as a deceitful Pakistani, Rusky, pro-Assad Syrian or Chinese anyhow, let me just say that I'm irritated by the propaganda driven media controlled by the US government. After reading it each day, I can't help but feel sorry for the ignorant fellas who actually believe the hype, the progression of the conflict, and why it's actually being fought in the first place.

By the way, you Brits ain't coming out clean:

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.


The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.


That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.


Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases. Less fortunate was a London cab driver Anis Sardar, who was given a life sentence a fortnight earlier for taking part in 2007 in resistance to the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces. Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention.

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian


You've got to be kidding yourselves, or your government must have the public for fools also, should you all believe you're dropping bombs to stop the spread of ISIS; sooner or later, we're going to see article with a title on the war against Assad, or against the Ruskies because you accidentally dropped one of the things which go boom-boom on a unfortunately Ruskie in uniform who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

No, the evidence is clear. You guys are to continue to run around as America's puppet on very short strings, and do as they order, down to each syllable. Meanwhile, your media will continue to work with the current Democrat controlled propaganda machine and blast out words the public want to hear; that you are all fighting very very hard at taking down ISIS, and the results are starting to go in your favour.

Yup, let us all continue to live behind closed doors and believe what we want to believe; that way, we're all content at the end of the day right? We all get to sleep peacefully at night. Let's keep it that way, and let the few who refuse to believe the hype speak up about what's really going on.

 

[TaiShang]

LOL Mr so called 'General Observer' how come i don't see you condemning the Assad monarchy/dictatorship for supporting Al Qaeda, and other terrorists groups in Iraq?? I said it several times on here, you do know that Assad regime provided sanctuary,logistics, finance, training and full support to Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups in Iraq prior to the Syrian civil war right? lol

No. In fact, Assad and Al Qaeda are less friends than Bush family and Osama.

Syrian government and takfiri terrorism are square enemies. That's the reason the almost ecstatic killing of alawits of Syria by the ISIS and Nusra.

The U.S, U.K, western powers and even Iraq itself warned Assad several times against this invane, he still continue his support and justified it as a legitimate Jihad against infidels invading Muslim holy lands. LOL The very same slogan ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups he supported are now using against his regime.

Al Qaeda received less support from Syrian government than it did from the US/UK regimes. There has always been radical insurgencies inside Syria, the Humms siege in the 80s did not come from nowhere. There has always been Islamic Brotherhood insurgency, as well. But, the secular government is pro-Hizbullah/Fatah/Marxist from its inception, so, it is ideologically impossible that they would fall into the same line with the likes of AQ.

As i said before, This conflict is far more complex than many people here seem to think.

It is more complex than you think; that's at least I am sure about.

 

[war&peace]

It is condemnable act. Whether is Russia, USA or anyone else if they attack civilians, it is horrible, criminal and punishable act. Whoever attacks, Syrians suffer.