Thread: What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

.. that's easy. Sending them money, guns, cars, and orders... that's what the west has been doing.

^
Operative phrase: Russia claims. And you think everyone else is propgandised. Oh my.

Well apparently Putin is sending 150,000 troops to finish the job.

Here is a photo from the Express by the way


Putin 'to send 150,000 soldiers to Syria to WIPE OUT evil Islamic State' | World | News | Daily Express

Hmmm ISIS. Blonde Hair, blue eyed. They don't even hide their shite lies in the press anymore, what with the vast majority of the public swallowing everything they say.

I doubt it. And the 150,000 troops mentioned in western rags are brand new recruits. Would Putin really risk failure in Syria by sending in new recruits? I doubt it. The story stinks a bit to me, but you never know. We'll have to wait and see.

What it will take is carpet bombing most of the country and eliminating any opposition to Assad.

Carry on Vlad, let's see you try.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

What it will take is carpet bombing most of the country and eliminating any opposition to Assad.

Carry on Vlad, let's see you try.

Which country? I assume you mean the US and UK, as it seems to be the people in those countries that want rid of Assad.....

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

What it will take is carpet bombing most of the country and eliminating any opposition to Assad.

Carry on Vlad, let's see you try.

Which country? I assume you mean the US and UK, as it seems to be the people in those countries that want rid of Assad.....

You can assume what you like, it's different world in your head isn't?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

.. that's easy. Sending them money, guns, cars, and orders... that's what the west has been doing.

With only 2 strikes in ISiS territory how could that be?

Well, did Russia really claim to have ISIS on the ropes? Think about it . . .

Who is the leader of ISIS now?

Originally Posted by hazz

its a simple operation. the Russians will bomb everyone but isis to oblivion, leaving everyone with the choice of isis or putin's preferred leader for Syria, then he will attempt to deal with isis with or without the west.

And that could turn out to be a very lengthy, costly intervention. Not to mention the blow-back from other Muslims who would by then have plenty of reason to be pissed at Russia instead of the US and her Western allies. Russia's battle cry should be "Remember Afghanistan". But they probably won't.

There are now allegations that during an attack on a target within Syria a Russian jet entered Tutkish air space. The Turks and NATO are suggesting that rules of engagment adopted by Turkey et al would allow for the shooting down of any foreign jet.

Turkish defense radar locked on Russian fighter as it bombed Syrian town | McClatchy DC

Turkey says Russian warplane violated its airspace | Reuters

"A Turkish security official said Turkish radar locked onto the Russian aircraft as it was bombing early Friday in al Yamdiyyah, a Syrian village directly on the Turkish border. He said Turkish fighter jets would have attacked had it crossed into Turkish airspace."

Some have suggested the jet did not in fact enter Turkish air space but only an additional 5 mile buffer zone, within Syria, adopted unilaterally - i.e. illegally by Turkey.

"Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly."

What we need here is both sides radar history, a map of the official border, the flight recorders of all involved aircraft and an international investigation into the alleged incident.

Wake me up in a years time when they have come back with a number of possibilities of what might have happened.

Alternatively should the Syrian government summon the crusader coalition Ambassadors in protest against their jets entering Syrian airspace illegally.

But would the exception countries accept it is illegal?

Originally Posted by OhOh

There are now allegations that during an attack on a target within Syria a Russian jet entered Tutkish air space. The Turks and NATO are suggesting that rules of engagment adopted by Turkey et al would allow for the shooting down of any foreign jet.

Turkish defense radar locked on Russian fighter as it bombed Syrian town | McClatchy DC

Turkey says Russian warplane violated its airspace | Reuters

"A Turkish security official said Turkish radar locked onto the Russian aircraft as it was bombing early Friday in al Yamdiyyah, a Syrian village directly on the Turkish border. He said Turkish fighter jets would have attacked had it crossed into Turkish airspace."

Some have suggested the jet did not in fact enter Turkish air space but only an additional 5 mile buffer zone, within Syria, adopted unilaterally - i.e. illegally by Turkey.

"Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly."

What we need here is both sides radar history, a map of the official border, the flight recorders of all involved aircraft and an international investigation into the alleged incident.

Wake me up in a years time when they have come back with a number of possibilities of what might have happened.

Alternatively should the Syrian government summon the crusader coalition Ambassadors in protest against their jets entering Syrian airspace illegally.

But would the exception countries accept it is illegal?

Why would they protest against coalition jets bombing their enemies exactly?

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Turkey would have been within its rights to shoot the jets down. ...... BBC

What a hypocrite. But what he's actually implying is that ...

... Syria are within their rights to shoot down US/UK/French/Canadian/Jordanian planes in Syrian airspace. Great. At least we know the USA will just shrug their shoulders and say "Darn. Never mind. Let's have a burger" if one of their planes is shot down over Syrian airspace.

Originally Posted by Neverna

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Turkey would have been within its rights to shoot the jets down. ...... BBC

What a hypocrite. But what he's actually implying is that ...

... Syria are within their rights to shoot down US/UK/French/Canadian/Jordanian planes in Syrian airspace. Great. At least we know the USA will just shrug their shoulders and say "Darn. Never mind. Let's have a burger" if one of their planes is shot down over Syrian airspace.

Can you really not tell the difference between a Russian jet in Turkish airspace and a NATO/Arab jet over Syrian airspace?

Again: The NATO/Arab coalition are fighting Assad's enemies. Shooting them down would be counter-productive, no?

Now if Russia shoots down a NATO/Arab jet or vice versa..... That would be interesting.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by hazz

its a simple operation. the Russians will bomb everyone but isis to oblivion, leaving everyone with the choice of isis or putin's preferred leader for Syria, then he will attempt to deal with isis with or without the west.

And that could turn out to be a very lengthy, costly intervention. Not to mention the blow-back from other Muslims who would by then have plenty of reason to be pissed at Russia instead of the US and her Western allies. Russia's battle cry should be "Remember Afghanistan". But they probably won't.

Russian problems in Afghanistan were caused by the USA, and who ended getting the blowback from that debacle?

Russia wants the war to end, the US has no reason to help end it, the longer it drags on the better for them.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Can you really not tell the difference between a Russian jet in Turkish airspace and a NATO/Arab jet over Syrian airspace?

Both military jets that should not be in certain airspace without permission. But at least the Russian jets were their briefly and did not bomb anywhere in Turkey. The US/axis jets do not have permission to fly over Syria nor drop bombs over Syria.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Again: The NATO/Arab coalition are fighting Assad's enemies. Shooting them down would be counter-productive, no?

Yes, for sure. But it still doesn't take away from Kerry's/US hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Now if Russia shoots down a NATO/Arab jet or vice versa..... That would be interesting.

Very, but I doubt it will happen. But watch this space. One never knows.

Originally Posted by longway

Russian problems in Afghanistan were caused by the USA

The Russian problems in Afghanistan were caused by the US equipped Mujahadeen, who kicked Russia's ass there for about 10 years. The point is that it was an indigenous force that did it, not the US, and ISIS could well give them a run for their money.

Originally Posted by longway

Russia wants the war to end, the US has no reason to help end it, the longer it drags on the better for them.

Which war? Apparantly ISIS can wait while Russia protects it's gas-man in Syria, so who is draging what out.

^ Without US help the Mujahadeen would have been nothing more than an irritant.

Syria being in a mess keeps US (and Israeli) enemies very occupied, they have no incentive to sort it out, but its Russia's self interest to at least stabilise some of the region. The idea that the fighting would cease without Assad in the picture is a fantasy. Though of course easing him out in certain conditions wont do any harm either.

Originally Posted by longway

^ Without US help the Mujahadeen would have been nothing more than an irritant.

Syria being in a mess keeps US (and Israeli) enemies very occupied, they have no incentive to sort it out, but its Russia's self interest to at least stabilise some of the region. The idea that the fighting would cease without Assad in the picture is a fantasy. Though of course easing him out in certain conditions wont do any harm either.

The Russians have not been arming the Talitubbies, but the US have had their arses kicked there for more than a decade and they're about to hand it back to the turbanned terrors.

They are hardy fuckers the Afghanis.

^ The US smashed them, what they lost was the peace, and its no wonder as the Afghanistan invasion was just a curtain raiser/smokescreen for their real target - Iraq; they walked away with consolidating their victory properly.

They had no interest or reason to have a stable Afghanistan and it shows.

Iraq of course was a different story - but thats Douche and Dumbsfeld for you.

Originally Posted by longway

Without US help the Mujahadeen would have been nothing more than an irritant.

Russia's problem that it met armed indigenous resistance. US supplied the arms, the Afghanis did the resisting. Do you think ISIS are worse fighters or are more poorly equipped than the Mujahadeen? Putin, for good reasons or bad, is walking into a quagmire, and walking in alone.

^ putins not fighting iwith isis.