Printable View
I posted this back a ways and when I did, I did not think it would be happening this quickly. My thought was that it would take many years before ISIS would lose its stronghold and retreat as they recently have done. Maybe a combination of having their butts kicked and realizing their message could be spread through other means such as terrorist attacks directly on the west. One has to think losing real estate, as they have done, stings a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
...what stings more, I imagine, is the loss of the grandiose notion of empire with its own taxes, torture squads, propaganda, flag and..who knows...maybe even an airline...while its adherents appear to have manipulated the internet semi-effectively, they grossly over-estimated their ability to survive as a "state" against the superpowers and their local minions...I imagine, however, that Assad & Co. have learned little and internalized even less about the roots of the uprising...thus sowing the seeds for the next one...Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
^^ I disagree. It's just one part of the war of attrition on the West. The leaders knew it wouldn't last long and intentionally sacrificed many lives for their cause.
...ftfy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
@2997
Now the planners, funders, feeders, armers, airforce has been correctly identified some are taking steps. But as some here say it is nigh on impossible to destroy an idea. Only through ensuring all are included in society can these violent acts stop.
You're too modest. I'm sure you're knowledgeable in some areas. Maybe you should post on those?Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
Wasting your time, according to our 'experts' the 'idea' of the caliphate is diluted to redundant because it is centuries old.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Barely worth a response when people start bleating to justify cowardice and impotence.
^
Don't let the fuckers get you down.
Never did, won't, never will.
US-led anti-ISIS coalition under-reports civilian deaths - and the media lets them get away with it
Published time: 21 Nov, 2017
The US-led coalition against ISIS has vastly played down the number of civilians that have been killed in Iraq as a result of their own airstrikes. In fact, the war against ISIS may be the 'least transparent war in recent American history.'
The conclusion comes from a report published by the New York Times, reporters Azmat Khan and Anand Gopal spent 18 months investigating coalition bombing in Iraq, traveling to more than 150 sites of airstrikes across the northern part of the country. Their goal was to determine which air force launched which strikes — and whom they killed.
Troubling findings
The US-led coalition has admitted to killing civilians in a tiny minority of airstrikes. According to official figures, one civilian has been killed for every 157 airstrikes. In reality, Khan and Gopal found the actual rate is one civilian died for every five airstrikes. That means the rate of civilian deaths is 31 times higher than the US military has admitted.
Coverage too late
When strikes like this occur, most in the media take US military officials at their word. There is very little inquiry as to the veracity of the claims regarding the numbers of civilians killed, the time and location of strikes and so on. When the media does report on civilian deaths or suggest that numbers may be higher than the US military leads us to believe, it is done in a clinical manner, and there is rarely any investigative follow-up reporting done. When caused by US coalition forces, civilian deaths are generally regarded as inevitable collateral damage.
The opposite appears to be true in the case of civilians deaths caused by either the Syrian or Russian air forces in Syria, for example. Those cases are regarded as reckless, barbaric attacks on civilians, and the more emotion-laden headlines the media can pump out about them, the better.
More exposure?
This new report is a serious feat of investigative journalism. It should shine a much-needed spotlight on the reality of what the US military falsely claims is “one of the most precise air campaigns in military history.”
Unfortunately, few major outlets have followed up on the Times report. It has not been radio silence. There has been some follow-up. Both MSNBC and CBS ran short segments about the report. It was also covered by Vox, Business Insider, Esquire, The Week — and some lesser known websites. Indeed, there has not been a huge amount of coverage.
It is hard to imagine the coverage would have been so contained if Khan and Gopal had been reporting on casualties caused, for example, by the Russian or Syrian militaries.
It is also hard to imagine how this “fact of life” attitude toward civilian deaths in places like Iraq and Syria would stand up if the bombs were hitting American homes and wiping out American families as they slept. How many deaths would be acceptable then?
Of course, the media can’t control how the US-led coalition operates in places like Iraq or Syria, but it is undeniable that the lack of sustained interrogation from journalists makes it a lot easier for the US military and its allies to continue killing civilians, not bothered by any kind of serious public criticism.
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/410512-us-syria-iraq-media/
How very different from ^ the photos of wounded Syrian babies being carried by a first aid workers after a Russian bombing raid on Daesh, and the follow up of propaganda saying that it was chemical warfare. Amazing how when it suits them they can report civilian casualties, resulting from enemy action.
I just wish those NYT reporters had commensurate figures for how many civilians have died when Russians have "killed terrorists".Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
However, there is not even a single fucking mention in their article of Russia, so it shows what their angle is.
The fact is that if they'd even tried doing a story on Russian kills for RT, they'd be guzzling down a nice polonium cuppa before it even got saved on a server.
Don't mess with the Vlad!
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2017/12/1074.jpg
No more ‘fighting ISIS?’ US to stay in Syria to prevent ‘win’ for Assad and Iran – report
Published time: 23 Nov, 2017
The US plans to keep its troops in Syria long after the defeat of ISIS – the goal used to justify their illegal presence in the first place – because the Syrian government and its ally Iran would “win” if they were withdrawn, the Washington Post reported.
The Trump administration is “expanding its goals” in Syria to include a “potentially open-ended commitment” to support the Kurd-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing several anonymous US officials. The change comes as the defeat of the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorist group in Syria seems imminent.
Washington has been justifying its deployment of ground troops in Syria, which violates the embattled nation’s sovereignty, by citing the need to fight IS. US Defense Secretary James Mattis last week went so far as to erroneously claim that the US had been given a mandate to be in Syria, stating: “You know, the UN said that … basically we can go after ISIS. And we're there to take them out.”
“An abrupt US withdrawal could complete Assad’s sweep of Syrian territory and help guarantee his political survival – an outcome that would constitute a win for Iran, his close ally. To avoid that outcome, US officials say they plan to maintain a US troop presence in northern Syria… and establish new local governance, apart from the Assad government, in those areas,” the newspaper said.
https://www.rt.com/news/410735-ameri...ps-stay-syria/
Lost in reverie: Mattis claims UN let US intervene in Syria, although it never did
Published time: 14 Nov, 2017
https://www.rt.com/usa/409881-mattis-us-syria-un/
...:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
Novel concept when you wipe out a bunch of civvies with a not very smart bomb, blame the other guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
I'm all for sorting out this chemical warfare issue, however one country is blocking further investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
Guess who, comrades?
Similarly, when one country has been supressing another country, however, one country is blocking further investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Guess who?
However, there is quite a coarse difference in the numbers affected. (and in the judgements either...)
What a load of fucking drivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
Moscow says ISIS has been defeated in Syria
The Russian Defense Ministry declared on Wednesday that Syria has now been liberated completely from ISIS forces. General Valery Gerasimov, chief of Russia's General Staff, made the announcement on December 6, following what Moscow says is the defeat of ISIS in Deir ez-Zor.
“All ISIS armed groups on Syrian territory have been destroyed, and the territory itself has been liberated. An hour ago, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu reported this information to the commander-in-chief, President Vladimir Putin,” Gerasimov said at his annual briefing with foreign military attaches.
Gerasimov claimed that Syrian General Suheil al-Hassan and the 5th Volunteer Assault Corps have defeated ISIS remnants in Deir ez-Zor and liberated settlements in Salihia, El-Khite, El-Katya, and Musalaha, and joined forced with government troops advancing from the south.
Other sources have yet to report that ISIS has been forced out of Syria entirely, claiming that the terrorist organization still controls several regions throughout the country, especially west of the Euphrates and to the south of Deir ez-Zor.
Russia's military intervention in Syria began in the fall of 2015, with the aim of aiding the Assad government against terrorist insurgents.
Throughout the campaign, Russia has repeatedly been accused of attacking so-called “moderate rebels,” in addition to forces from ISIS and Al-Nusra Front.
Moscow has confirmed the combat deaths of 40 Russian soldiers in Syria, though an unknown number of Russian mercenaries have also fought and died in the war.
Russian citizens have also fought for terrorist organizations in Syria. According to Russian defense officials, more than 2,800 Russians have been killed fighting for various terrorist groups.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2017/12/06...eated-in-syria
:rofl: :rofl:Quote:
Russia's military intervention in Syria began in the fall of 2015, with the aim of aiding the Assad government against terrorist insurgents.
:rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:
17th August 2014
John Podasta wrote the following to Hillary Cvnton.
we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24353
You didn't see this on CNN... BBC....
Apparently Saudi and Qatar are our best friends, but they assist our alleged worst enemy?
Or more likely that ISIS is just another in a long line of the Zbigniew Brzezinski tactic? Yes it is. Stop ISIS? That would mean stopping western governments and holding them to account because all ISIS roads lead back to London Paris and Washington.
...maybe not this particular quote, but WaPo and NYT commented years ago on Saudi and Qatari citizens (among many others) aiding ISIS...this is not news (unless the courier has just reached your outpost)...Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
^^Your good buddy Vlad, as of late, is selling arms to the Saudis also. Not sure how that works out with the ISIS support from the Saudis an all.
we should fucking bomb Quatar and Saudi Arabia, better yet, let ISIS fuck up those countries and then nuke the whole fucking thing :)