Thread: US voices concern over Russia military buildup in Syria

Lets face it- they're just whinging because it makes the US look bad in comparison.

Originally Posted by wasabi

The Russians under the rulership of Putin did a great job in Chechnya, they learnt in that war the only way to win against Muslim savages was to be more cruel than the enemy.
Unlike the West who's soldiers have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
Go Putin go.

I kind of liked how they dealt with pirates too.

"Why do youl lie to me.....this is not a fishing boat."

The group is the biggest threat to humanity that the world has faced in the 21st century

An alliance of Western leaders, Muslim nations and Vladimir Putin is the only way to defeat Isis - Comment - Voices - The Independent

The writer of this piece is correct, the US mouthing off about Putin is abject stupidity, they must get rid of their cold war mentality and join together to fight IS.

The muslim nations which until now have done very little must also be forced into taking part and must realise that IS is not Islam but a sick, twisted, perverted version which sees mainstream Islam as enemies and will if not stopped not just infiltrate but invade them as well.

Given that they are such big supporters of Syria, how many refugees is Putin taking again?

Originally Posted by sabang

Lets face it- they're just whinging because it makes the US look bad in comparison.

In retrospect, don't think it would take much for the U.S. to come across appearing as the bad guy - as that's what they do well.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Given that they are such big supporters of Syria, how many refugees is Putin taking again?

It would seem they dont want to go to Russia : Russia Unaffected by Syrian Refugees Because of 'Safety Cushion'

And the USA who you feel you must defend regardless:

Late last week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged the "terrible humanitarian tragedy that's unfolding in the Middle East," but deliberately stopped short of indicating any possible change in resettlement policy. "I’m not aware of any impending policy change as it relates to immigrants from that region of the world entering the United States," he said.

Obama weighs options on Syrian refugee crisis

^ damn lib'ruls.

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Given that they are such big supporters of Syria, how many refugees is Putin taking again?

It would seem they dont want to go to Russia : Russia Unaffected by Syrian Refugees Because of 'Safety Cushion'

I suppose when you've spent years being treated like shit by one dictator, it kinda puts you off wanting to go somewhere else for the same thing.

Did the Russians start the problems in the ME.?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Given that they are such big supporters of Syria, how many refugees is Putin taking again?

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Did the Russians start the problems in the ME.?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Given that they are such big supporters of Syria, how many refugees is Putin taking again?

No but they propped up the dictator in Syria when overthrowing him might have prevented this mess.

IS were not active in Syria at the start of their uprising. It was simply a Sunni majority rebellion.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

they propped up the dictator in Syria when overthrowing him might have prevented this mess.

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

they propped up the dictator in Syria when overthrowing him might have prevented this mess.

Just like overthrowing the dictator in Libya prevented.... Oh hang on.

He is a comedian isnt he.

Meanwhile :

Greece confirms US asked to close airspace to Syria-bound Russian aid flights

https://www.rt.com/news/314616-greec...rspace-russia/

Thats right the US is attempting to prevent aid reaching the Syrian people.

Greece refused and then it became a "Demand" on Greece. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...-flights-syria



But Bulgaria has now come in and complied (wonder what they were threatened with)
Bulgaria barring Syria-bound flights irks Russia

Bulgaria has denied it has anything to do with the US, Yea right...........

And then we have the US arming the Syrian rebels to try to overthrow their Govt (where have we seen this before with disastrous results)

CIA begins weapons delivery to Syrian rebel


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...1/9fcf2ed8-1b0

Originally Posted by birding

The group is the biggest threat to humanity that the world has faced in the 21st century

An alliance of Western leaders, Muslim nations and Vladimir Putin is the only way to defeat Isis - Comment - Voices - The Independent

The writer of this piece is correct, the US mouthing off about Putin is abject stupidity, they must get rid of their cold war mentality and join together to fight IS.

The muslim nations which until now have done very little must also be forced into taking part and must realise that IS is not Islam but a sick, twisted, perverted version which sees mainstream Islam as enemies and will if not stopped not just infiltrate but invade them as well.

From my point of view "Putin is getting worried and his pants are becoming wet".
Pretty soon ISIS will be knocking on Russias door. Let's not forget that 14% of the russian population are muslims. The Caucasus is a great landscape for ISIS to fight with the russians being reminded of what happened in Afghanistan. The trauma is there.
On the other side he still has the Ukraine to worry about. Can Putin manage to fight on two fronts (Ukraine & Caucasus) ? I say NO ! He better make friends with the west quickly, before he looses land quicker then he has gained.

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

they propped up the dictator in Syria when overthrowing him might have prevented this mess.

Just like overthrowing the dictator in Libya prevented.... Oh hang on.

Well done; in your smugness, you've accidentally nailed it. It's *exactly* the same as Syria. They should have taken out Gaddafi at the start. Instead they took too long, dismantled the whole governmental infrastructure and the shitstorm that's left is a direct result.

Now if you look at Tunisia, where they got shot of the unpopular leader in quick time, they've already settled down and had their first elections.

The rest either crushed their rebellions or bought their people off.

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

they propped up the dictator in Syria when overthrowing him might have prevented this mess.

I assume from this inane response that you're either too thick to understand and/or too thick to answer.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

they propped up the dictator in Syria when overthrowing him might have prevented this mess.

Just like overthrowing the dictator in Libya prevented.... Oh hang on.

Well done; in your smugness, you've accidentally nailed it. It's *exactly* the same as Syria. They should have taken out Gaddafi at the start. Instead they took too long, dismantled the whole governmental infrastructure and the shitstorm that's left is a direct result.

Now if you look at Tunisia, where they got shot of the unpopular leader in quick time, they've already settled down and had their first elections.

The rest either crushed their rebellions or bought their people off.

You are full of BS Harry you know as well as I do that Gaddafi was taken out because he was proposing that oil be paid for in gold and that there were several rebel groups who were then and are still fighting for control of the countries riches.

Your country has made a huge cock up of the world causing millions of deaths from Vietnam to the present day.

The only reason people are fleeing Syria is because of the rebels attacking the Govt and things could never have got to the stage they are now without the backing and arming of those rebels by the US and its so called allies.

And today from the Guardian's Seumas Milne :

Comment: Western bombs won’t defeat Isis. Only a wider peace deal can draw its poison

There is no disaster in the Arab and Muslim world, it seems, for which the west’s answer is not to drop bombs on it. As the refugee crisis in Europe has driven home the horror of Syria’s civil war, that has been exactly the response of the leaders of Britain and France.
David Cameron has long been pressing for a new vote in parliament to authorise a British bombing campaign against Islamic State in Syria.


Now he has been joined by the former archbishop of Canterbury and a gung-ho Murdoch press, while George Osborne has signalled he also wants attacks on the “evil Assad regime” to deal with the refugee exodus “at source”. The French president, François Hollande, has announced he too wants to extend air attacks from Iraq to Syria, using the terrorist threat at home to justify the escalation.
On both sides of the Atlantic, neoconservatives and liberal interventionists are back in full cry with demands for no-fly zones and troops on the ground. The Sun has even badged its coverage “For Aylan” – after the drowned three-year-old whose image dramatised the suffering of Syrian refugees – while demanding an intensification of the war and denouncing Labour’s leadership candidates as “cowards” for refusing to sign up for immediate attacks.


So keen has the British prime minister been to get on with bombing Syria, he revealed British drones had already incinerated two British Isis members in the city of Raqqa last month. Cameron pleaded self-defence on the grounds that one of the jihadis had been plotting to carry out “imminent” terror attacks in Britain. Since the events targeted for these alleged attacks had already taken place by the time the man was killed, the claim was clearly nonsense. But Britain has now followed the US and Israel down the road of lawless extra-judicial killings that has become a hallmark of the 14-year-old “war on terror”.


In the case of the US, it’s a road that has already led to thousands of deaths, including those of many civilians, as dodgy intelligence and “signature strikes” have killed and maimed huge numbers of innocents along with targeted fighters. From Pakistan to Yemen, US drone attacks have been a major recruiter for al-Qaida and the Taliban.

After a dozen years of drone attacks, the Taliban is again rampant in Afghanistan and al-Qaida is thriving in Yemen. Britain’s drone attack also made a mockery of the decision by parliament in August 2013 to oppose military action in Syria – in that case targeted at the Damascus government rather than at the rebels fighting it.


But then, British pilots have also been taking part in US bombing raids on Syria. So evidently the democratic niceties didn’t count for a lot. Nor do the legal ones, since there is no legitimate basis for attacks on Syrian territory without authorisation from Damascus or the (nonexistent) threat of imminent attack.


In any case, the US-led bombing campaign against Isis in Iraq and Syria clearly isn’t working. Thousands of Isis fighters have reportedly been killed, along with hundreds of civilians. But a year after the raids began, the terror group has actually expanded the territory it controls.


Without troops on the ground, air attacks cannot win a war. In the case of Syria, the only forces available are the Syrian army or radical Islamist rebel militias, from the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front to the Gulf regime-backed Islamist Jaish al-Fatah. So which do the western governments have in mind? Their own sponsored rebel groups are entirely marginal.


As we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, the alternative of western troops would lead to a full-scale anti-occupation war. After one disastrous western military intervention in the Arab and Muslim world after another, it’s mind-boggling that demands for yet more bombing keep on coming. You only have to consider the failed-state maelstrom that is post-Nato intervention Libya – the other main transit route for refugees into Europe – to see what it means in practice.


But the problem, hawks insist, is that there wasn’t enough intervention: Nato “walked away” from Libya, and if only the US and its allies had invaded Syria in 2011 or bombed in 2013, the war would have been over by Christmas.


In reality, the death toll in Syria – where defences are much stronger than they were in Iraq – would certainly have been far greater. The same goes for any attempt to enforce no-fly zones or safe havens now. But most bizarre is the insistence that the west hasn’t actually intervened in Syria.


In fact, the US, Britain, France and their regional allies have intervened continuously, funding, training and arming rebel forces – well aware, as recent US leaked intelligence documents underline, that they were dominated by extreme sectarian groups. The result today is de facto partition, with the government in control of less than half the country but the majority of the population, including large numbers of refugees from rebel-held areas.


If Cameron had won the vote in parliament two years ago, the main beneficiary in Syria would very probably have been Isis. Next month, he plans to try again, hoping to trade on revulsion at the terror group’s vicious sectarian violence.


Ministers know British bombing won’t defeat Isis or add anything of significance to the US campaign. Instead it will be an exercise in cynical political posturing, aimed at splitting Labour, and reclaiming the mantle of chief imperial subaltern in the US-led war without end across the Middle East. If MPs do authorise bombing in Syria, they will be voting to intensify the war and the refugee crisis.


The only way to wind down the conflict is through a negotiated settlement involving all the regional powers. Syria has long been a proxy war, pitting the Assad regime’s Russian and Iranian backers against the Gulf dictatorships, Turkey and the western powers that stand behind the myriad rebel groups. Talks between the main players have picked up in recent months, aimed at such a deal.


But the pressure is always to use the battlefield to increase leverage at the negotiating table. Isis thrives on war and sectarian conflict across the region. It will be marginalised and eventually defeated when that conflict is brought to an end.

That will need pressure from the west on its Gulf clients, not a new bombing campaign. It’s true the refugee crisis can be solved only in Syria – but it will be by peacemaking, not more western war.

I hope that the Russians mass up some major arms to fight. What I see is that they are preparing to attack the non-Isis rebel groups.

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

they propped up the dictator in Syria when overthrowing him might have prevented this mess.

Just like overthrowing the dictator in Libya prevented.... Oh hang on.

Well done; in your smugness, you've accidentally nailed it. It's *exactly* the same as Syria. They should have taken out Gaddafi at the start. Instead they took too long, dismantled the whole governmental infrastructure and the shitstorm that's left is a direct result.

Now if you look at Tunisia, where they got shot of the unpopular leader in quick time, they've already settled down and had their first elections.

The rest either crushed their rebellions or bought their people off.

You are full of BS Harry you know as well as I do that Gaddafi was taken out because he was proposing that oil be paid for in gold and that there were several rebel groups who were then and are still fighting for control of the countries riches.

Your country has made a huge cock up of the world causing millions of deaths from Vietnam to the present day.

Not only have you not read up on the history of the Libya but you think I'm a seppo.

You dumb shit.

Do some reading before you start posting more bollocks. Start here.

https://www.redanalysis.org/2015/04/...ics-civil-war/

Had they removed Gadaffi early on, they could have maintained some semblance of stability and order; there was an inclusive government until the Arab Spring arrived.

Anyway - so this bullshit story was first released in an unsubstantiated report in an israel rag. Picked up by Kerry and the other blood thirsty war mongers in the US, they are continuing to use it as a way to enforce their new war to create chaos.

The US and the Aixs of evil care not one fucking fig about Syria, the Syrian people, and only about their master plan for knocking syria into abject chaos under some in the pocket shlubb living in the US. All this talk of Assad having "no legitimacy", which is the words kerry and the other blood thirsty scum use all the time, is utter bullshit. The only people Assad needs to have legitimacy with is the people of Syria who overwhelmingly support him. The people who have ZERO legitimacy are oboma, kerry, clinton, camermoron, and all the others desperate to cause another war to please their pay masters.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Anyway - so this bullshit story was first released in an unsubstantiated report in an israel rag. Picked up by Kerry and the other blood thirsty war mongers in the US, they are continuing to use it as a way to enforce their new war to create chaos.

The US and the Aixs of evil care not one fucking fig about Syria, the Syrian people, and only about their master plan for knocking syria into abject chaos under some in the pocket shlubb living in the US. All this talk of Assad having "no legitimacy", which is the words kerry and the other blood thirsty scum use all the time, is utter bullshit. The only people Assad needs to have legitimacy with is the people of Syria who overwhelmingly support him. The people who have ZERO legitimacy are oboma, kerry, clinton, camermoron, and all the others desperate to cause another war to please their pay masters.

How much did you drink when you wrote this ?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Do some reading before you start posting more bollocks. Start here.
https://www.redanalysis.org/2015/04/...ics-civil-war/

Let me summ it up: "The camels are on the run ! "

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Do some reading before you start posting more bollocks. Start here.
https://www.redanalysis.org/2015/04/...ics-civil-war/

Let me summ it up: "The camels are on the run ! "

If you had a load of rabid Arab tribesmen trying to shag you, wouldn't you be too?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by Neo

Just like overthrowing the dictator in Libya prevented.... Oh hang on.

Well done; in your smugness, you've accidentally nailed it. It's *exactly* the same as Syria. They should have taken out Gaddafi at the start. Instead they took too long, dismantled the whole governmental infrastructure and the shitstorm that's left is a direct result.

Now if you look at Tunisia, where they got shot of the unpopular leader in quick time, they've already settled down and had their first elections.

The rest either crushed their rebellions or bought their people off.

You are full of BS Harry you know as well as I do that Gaddafi was taken out because he was proposing that oil be paid for in gold and that there were several rebel groups who were then and are still fighting for control of the countries riches.

Your country has made a huge cock up of the world causing millions of deaths from Vietnam to the present day.

Not only have you not read up on the history of the Libya but you think I'm a seppo.

You dumb shit.

Do some reading before you start posting more bollocks. Start here.

https://www.redanalysis.org/2015/04/...ics-civil-war/

Had they removed Gadaffi early on, they could have maintained some semblance of stability and order; there was an inclusive government until the Arab Spring arrived.

A losers response, resort to abuse and bad language.

An opinion piece which bears no resemblance to fact.

It is very commendable that you defend your country, unfortunately that defense tends to bias which means you cant look at things objectively.

The truth is that there was no hoards of Syrians fleeing their country before the rebels, backed by the US started the attempt to take over the countries Govt.

Now that exodus is being made worse by the bombing and the giving of weapons to the rebels.

These actions by the US and their so called allies (lapdogs) are only making it easier for IS, for it is taking the pressure of them, on the one hand by putting effort into more than one area of military action and on the other by hampering Assad in fighting IS, which is the real danger to world security.

By increasing the number of so called refugees it is also giving IS an opening to get its people into the host countries by mingling with those being accepted as migrants, leaving the countries who are taking these people open to terrorist action on their own soil.

The US is vilifying Russia for backing the legitimate Govt of Syria and attempting to prevent them getting humanitarian aid to the people while themselves supplying the rebels that are attempting to take over the country, with aid and weapons.

They have also spurned Russia's call for unified action against IS, the cold war mentality is still to the fore.

Here we have a country that goes around preaching democracy, backing and supplying weapons to a group that is attempting to take over the government of a country by force of arms.........Is that democratic ?

Mind you its not the first time is it, and we dont have to look far for more blatant hypocrisy such as the backing of a military coup in Egypt where the military have just sentenced the deposed leader to death in a military court.
Compared with sanctions against a military coup in Thailand where any action against the deposed leader is ongoing in a civilian court with no death sentence possible.

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by birding

Just like overthrowing the dictator in Libya prevented.... Oh hang on.

Well done; in your smugness, you've accidentally nailed it. It's *exactly* the same as Syria. They should have taken out Gaddafi at the start. Instead they took too long, dismantled the whole governmental infrastructure and the shitstorm that's left is a direct result.

Now if you look at Tunisia, where they got shot of the unpopular leader in quick time, they've already settled down and had their first elections.

The rest either crushed their rebellions or bought their people off.

You are full of BS Harry you know as well as I do that Gaddafi was taken out because he was proposing that oil be paid for in gold and that there were several rebel groups who were then and are still fighting for control of the countries riches.

Your country has made a huge cock up of the world causing millions of deaths from Vietnam to the present day.

Not only have you not read up on the history of the Libya but you think I'm a seppo.

You dumb shit.

Do some reading before you start posting more bollocks. Start here.

https://www.redanalysis.org/2015/04/...ics-civil-war/

Had they removed Gadaffi early on, they could have maintained some semblance of stability and order; there was an inclusive government until the Arab Spring arrived.

A losers response, resort to abuse and bad language.

An opinion piece which bears no resemblance to fact.

It is very commendable that you defend your country, unfortunately that defense tends to bias which means you cant look at things objectively.

The truth is that there was no hoards of Syrians fleeing their country before the rebels, backed by the US started the attempt to take over the countries Govt.

Now that exodus is being made worse by the bombing and the giving of weapons to the rebels.

These actions by the US and their so called allies (lapdogs) are only making it easier for IS, for it is taking the pressure of them, on the one hand by putting effort into more than one area of military action and on the other by hampering Assad in fighting IS, which is the real danger to world security.

By increasing the number of so called refugees it is also giving IS an opening to get its people into the host countries by mingling with those being accepted as migrants, leaving the countries who are taking these people open to terrorist action on their own soil.

The US is vilifying Russia for backing the legitimate Govt of Syria and attempting to prevent them getting humanitarian aid to the people while themselves supplying the rebels that are attempting to take over the country, with aid and weapons.

They have also spurned Russia's call for unified action against IS, the cold war mentality is still to the fore.

Here we have a country that goes around preaching democracy, backing and supplying weapons to a group that is attempting to take over the government of a country by force of arms.........Is that democratic ?

Mind you its not the first time is it, and we dont have to look far for more blatant hypocrisy such as the backing of a military coup in Egypt where the military have just sentenced the deposed leader to death in a military court.
Compared with sanctions against a military coup in Thailand where any action against the deposed leader is ongoing in a civilian court with no death sentence possible.

For the second time, I'm not American you idiot.

Post below was getting to the root of the problem. Strangely some people just seem to hate US and love Putin and Russian Peace Weapons and ignore the facts (hi Birdman), and it is all black and white for them. While it is all gray actually.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Had the Russians not propped up Assad, the majority moderate Sunni would have taken over Syria pretty quickly and probably been amenable to fighting IS.
As it is, Putin's actions in propping up his fellow dictator have created the perfect incubator for extremist Sunni radicals.
Of course the expected Putin cock suckers are here kissing his arse as usual, because they don't have a fucking clue.