What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

**OhOh** · 05-11-2015, 10:18 AM

Take you time boys read this and try to understand every point, then if you have any opinions on this post please reply.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Amazingly it seems someone in Russia is starting to see some fucking sense.

Originally Posted by MrG

Seems like just a week ago the who reason for Putin's actions in Syria was to keep Assad in power. Now they don't know what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by MrG

It's good to be King. Easier to flip-flop and spin the message. Carry on.

Originally Posted by MrG

So, you mean now that Russia has changed it's mind about cradeling Assad a solution can be found. Beginning to see a pivot here by both the Ruskies and their minion hand puppets.

Hi guys, glad to see that the idiotic consensus of the unread (ICOTU) have one theme to play with.

Some quotes, plus links to the publishers, over time from the Russian government, for your education:

June 5 2012: Russia says Assad could go in Syria settlement

Russia said Tuesday it was prepared to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad leave power in a negotiated solution to 15 months of bloodshed that has claimed more than 13,000 lives.
...
"We have never said or insisted that Assad necessarily had to remain in power at the end of the political process," Gatilov told the ITAR-TASS news agency in Switzerland. "This issue has to be settled by the Syrians themselves."

September 15 2012: Russia says not 'clinging' to Syria's Assad

"We are not clinging to any political figures," Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said in brief comments reaffirming the country's official position. "And anyone who claims otherwise is distorting the picture," Gatilov told the Interfax news agency.
...
"It is only through the political process -- and not through any decision of the UN Security Council -- that the Syrians should determine the future of their state and its make-up," he added.

December 20 2012: Putin Says Russia Not Wedded to Assad, Wants End to Strife

Russia isn’t wedded to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its main goal is to end the civil war in the country, President Vladimir Putin said.
...
“We aren’t concerned about Assad’s fate, we understand that the same family has been in power for 40 years and changes are obviously needed,” Putin said.

September 15 2015: Russia's Vladimir Putin Says Only Syrian People Can Decide The Future Of President Assad

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that only Syrian people are entitled to decide who should govern their country and how. He was reacting to the reference of the U.S. coalition partners who want to see Syrian President Bashar Assad leave his office.

October 30 2015: by Russia's Foreign minister Lavrov in a press conference with U.S. Secretary of State:

Lavrov: As John has said, we have no agreement on the destiny of Assad. Russia believes that it is up to Syrian people to decide within the framework of the political process. It is said in the joint statement that the political process should be done by the Syrian people and belong to the Syrian people, and the Syrian people should decide the future of their country.
...
"Journalist": [...] Russia has said, as you said just a few moments ago, that you do not necessarily believe that Mr. Assad needs to go?
...
Lavrov: I did not say that Assad has to go or that Assad has to stay. I said that Assad’s destiny should be decided by the Syrian people, as well as all other aspects of further development of the Syrian state.

Flipflopping, unattributed, person of position, inconsistent Russia!! Stopped swallowing the MSM propaganda from the unexceptional crusader coalition?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Everyone: "Assad has to go" Putin: "Can I pick his replacement?"

As posted yesterday:

European Union - EEAS (European External Action Service) | Final declaration on the results of the Syria Talks in Vienna as agreed by participants

The "participants" at a "Meeting in Vienna, on October 30, 2015, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States [“the participants”] came together to discuss the grave situation in Syria and how to bring about an end to the violence as soon as possible.

AGREED on 9 items, one of which:

Item 8. This political process will be Syrian led and Syrian owned, and the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria.

Now, you ICOTU members, might say the "participants" are nobodies. The countries who are involved with the war, may wish to disagree with you on their status, in Syria signed a declaration, they all may have been lying, but the fact remains harry your "everyone" is a total load of shitty crap, again.

But hey keep spreading the MSM.

Originally Posted by MrG

Your source is a blog site for opinions of people whose identity is intentionally withheld. Not reputable.

Does that make a difference to the persons opinion?

As posted yesterday, the publisher of the quote is irrelevant when a named source is published. In the instance you are referring to, it was a named American Government spokesperson. As we know when a member of the unexceptional empire speaks knees tremble in fear.

Originally Posted by Dapper

Nah, even Assad knew the game was much bigger than himself.

Exactly, and there are probably many instances of him be quoted, if you can be bothered to look, ICOTU.

**MrG** · 05-11-2015, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

September 15 2012: Russia says not 'clinging' to Syria's Assad"We are not clinging to any political figures," Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said in brief comments reaffirming the country's official position. "And anyone who claims otherwise is distorting the picture," Gatilov told the Interfax news agency.

This and the other statements were all made by Putin or a spokesman while they were bombing Syrians in order to keep Assad in power. That is their logic behind bombing rebels; To keep Syria from collapsing, and the way to do that is to keep Assad in power. Comprende.

Putin can't exactly say "...as soon as we smite the rebels we're going to hang Assad's ass out to dry in an election." Assad is, as you point out, letting them in the country. Why? Again, because the Russia supports him. So Putin signed the document with the other powers and says he wants elections. He probably wants them just like they have in Russia. I wonder if they will they wait until the millions of Syrian refugees who undoubtedly hate Assad for ruining their lives to return to Syria?

Putin may mean what he says. He clearly means what he actually does. The words you lap up are PR to keep the picture muddy for both military and diplomatic reasons. The US, Britain, China or any other power plays the same duplicitous game. But keep your eye on what they actually do.

**OhOh** · 05-11-2015, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by MrG

This and the other statements were all made by Putin or a spokesman while they were bombing Syrians in order to keep Assad in power.

The Russians, in 2012?

Originally Posted by "MrG"He probably wants them just like they have in Russia.

I wonder if they will they wait until the millions of Syrian refugees who undoubtedly hate Assad for ruining their lives to return to Syria?

Russian elections are fixed, you mean like some other democratic countries?

Undoubtedly some fled from the Syrian Army, equally undoubtedly others fled from the head choppers.

The agreement the participants signed indicate a peace keeping force which didn't appear to be named, Chinese? One would think that if a ceasefire can be agreed, weapons confiscated and neutral enforcers placed locally, there might be a chance.

Subsequently an election is to be held which, in the agreement, includes giving all the displaced people the opportunity to vote. We shall see what the result brings and hope whoever is elected manages to salvage the country from the barbarians and their supporters.

The rest is of course entirely possible, if they mirror the crusader coalitions politicians, but as you say we will only know for sure in time. Lets hope is starts quickly.

**harrybarracuda** · 05-11-2015, 02:17 PM

Note the large gap from 2012, when IS wasn't a threat and Russia were confident that Assad and the Iranians, with Russia military supplies, could quell the rebellion.

Easy things to say when you think it doesn't matter.

Then spin on three years when Assad has lost control of large swathes of territory, and you come in and start helping him try and keep control of what he's got left.

Even then you still bang on about how the "Syrians" should decide who runs the country, safe in the knowledge that Assad runs the election and can give himself 100% of the vote if he wants.

Then spin on to a few weeks actually fighting in situ and realising that you're fucked with Plan A, and your only chance of keeping any Syrian presence is to replace him with someone who *might* be considered acceptable but who is still in your pocket.

None of this is rocket science.

**harrybarracuda** · 05-11-2015, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Russian elections are fixed, you mean like some other democratic countries?

Russian elections are like elections in North Korea or Zimbabwe.

You don't want to be too vociferous in your opposition, just enough to look real, then you'll get paid.

Go to far and you get jailed (or worse).

**Dragonfly** · 05-11-2015, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Note the large gap from 2012, when IS wasn't a threat and Russia were confident that Assad and the Iranians, with Russia military supplies, could quell the rebellion.

Easy things to say when you think it doesn't matter.

Then spin on three years when Assad has lost control of large swathes of territory, and you come in and start helping him try and keep control of what he's got left.

Even then you still bang on about how the "Syrians" should decide who runs the country, safe in the knowledge that Assad runs the election and can give himself 100% of the vote if he wants.

Then spin on to a few weeks actually fighting in situ and realising that you're fucked with Plan A, and your only chance of keeping any Syrian presence is to replace him with someone who *might* be considered acceptable but who is still in your pocket.

None of this is rocket science.

you are extrapollating as usual,

Russia is supporting the existing government so it can have a future,

Assad will be saved, and fuck off with his billions after this episode as being too close to a Gadhaffi exit

he will nominate his replacement with the help of Russia, and the US will have no say in it

**OhOh** · 06-11-2015, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

None of this is rocket science.

But is it BUKka science? But as you say it might happen. Let's just hope they can reach even that decision point.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

in North Korea or Zimbabwe.

Some could lengthen your short list considerably.

**harrybarracuda** · 06-11-2015, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

None of this is rocket science.

But is it BUKka science? But as you say it might happen. Let's just hope they can reach even that decision point.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

in North Korea or Zimbabwe.

Some could lengthen your short list considerably.

Of course; I'm just using examples that are the most appropriate.

**pseudolus** · 06-11-2015, 01:11 PM

Has ISIS attacked Israel yet?

This is basically a world war. No one is admitting it, and most people have no clue at all about who is bombing who, and who is getting bombed.

**Dragonfly** · 06-11-2015, 01:38 PM

it's definitely a world war,

let's hope they invade Israel, and install a Califa there

**pseudolus** · 06-11-2015, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

it's definitely a world war,

let's hope they invade Israel, and install a Califa there

Well.. they won't. That's the thing. Not that I would want that either. ISIS attacking israel would be like a man hitting himself in the face.

**panama hat** · 06-11-2015, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

it's definitely a world war,

A 'World War'?

You should stick to making simplistic frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Muslim posts

**harrybarracuda** · 06-11-2015, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

it's definitely a world war,

A 'World War'?

You should stick to making simplistic frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Muslim posts

He hates the seppos as well.

**pseudolus** · 06-11-2015, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

it's definitely a world war,

A 'World War'?

You should stick to making simplistic frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Muslim posts

Care to mention a world power who is not currently in a state of war in that region? Just one will do. they may dress it up as "bringing democracy" or some other orwellian garbage, but they are committing acts of war, and as most of the world powers are involved with committing these acts of war, then it can be described as a world at war... or more succinctly, a world war.

**panama hat** · 06-11-2015, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Care to mention a world power who is not currently in a state of war in that region?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Just one will do.

China.

You said 'just one', and there are really only two left, three if you count crumbling Russia.

Of course the flags look intersting, bt what do the citations mean?
Some are there simply on humanitarian missions and you can't count them in your word war scenario.
Others have observer status - hardly part of a world war.

Add to this the fact that the whole tragedy plays in a very, very small and contained area - you have no world war.
You have a tragedy. A tragedy from which few are benefitting and many are suffering.

World War? Nope. Horrendous practice for some? Yes

**Exit Strategy** · 06-11-2015, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Then obama won't come back crying when Russian start bombing their special forces troops on the ground

go Russia, go

You do understand Russians have limited numbers of "special forces" (shows your lack of knowledge failing to name them) - who are very professional and very good indeed - and Putin can't send them all to somewhere where camels have 10 times bigger value than women and go with suicide bombers. Putin understands about Mother Russia and those units will remain there. Russia's power is limited, Russia is ranked as a great power. There are 2 global powers ranked, they are US and UK. It is about actual fighting capacity, and logistics and full-spectrum superiority.

Something some Russia Today posters here fail to see or rather wish not speak about.

**panama hat** · 06-11-2015, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

There are 2 global powers ranked, they are US and UK

**Cujo** · 06-11-2015, 08:54 PM

^ Ditto. The UK? WTF?

**Exit Strategy** · 07-11-2015, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy There are 2 global powers ranked, they are US and UK

Originally Posted by Cujo

Ditto. The UK? WTF?

Britain still second strongest, ‘global power’ in the world, says study

Rule Britannia! Britain still second strongest, 'global power' in the world, says study -

**harrybarracuda** · 07-11-2015, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Originally Posted by panama hat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy There are 2 global powers ranked, they are US and UK

Originally Posted by Cujo

Ditto. The UK? WTF?

Britain still second strongest, ‘global power’ in the world, says study

Rule Britannia! Britain still second strongest, 'global power' in the world, says study -

Not in military terms.

**Exit Strategy** · 07-11-2015, 12:05 PM

Second strongest global power in MILITARY terms.

Haven't you watched Strike Back Harry? 555

**Neo** · 07-11-2015, 06:26 PM

UK forces can certainly win a battle, but don't have the resources to win a war.

I wonder why ET keeps coming back and posting such drivel when he could do himself a favor and easily find that he's talking bollox.

**Neverna** · 07-11-2015, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Neo

I wonder why ET keeps coming back and posting such drivel when he could do himself a favor and easily find that he's talking bollox.

Standard troll/sock operating procedures.

**Pragmatic** · 07-11-2015, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Second strongest global power in MILITARY terms

You're nearly right. This site has the UK as being 5th.

United Kingdom Military Strength

**Exit Strategy** · 07-11-2015, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Second strongest global power in MILITARY terms

You're nearly right. This site has the UK as being 5th.

United Kingdom Military Strength

Well, that is the usual mistake journos take, reading numbers, ignoring training and actual experience at war, that makes a great and life changing - as in kill or die - difference

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

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions