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

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Neo

it kind of detracts from the rest

You mean like it pisses off the jug heads, that is the point.

Not really, it just makes you look like a juvenile with extremely poor social skills.

The perfect prey for conspiracy theorists.

Exactly... just like when you used to say the Crusader Coalition all the time instead of Russia, but you've grown up now... so that's alright

I'm sorry but I gave you a completely logical explanation as to why you should refer to the Russians as the Crusader coalition.

And you're still in denial.

Well if Putin's aim was to achieve next-to-fuck-all then he's certainly done it.

^ Source: Russia Decides It's Time to Declare Victory and Get Out of Syria | Mother Jones

Originally Posted by Neverna

^ Source: Russia Decides It's Time to Declare Victory and Get Out of Syria | Mother Jones

Actually if you're going to be picky the source was ISW.

Link then ...

Originally Posted by Neverna

Link then ...

Syria Project | Institute for the Study of War

Originally Posted by OhOh

Some countries might like a country, like Russia, to assist them as opposed to being bombed back to the stone age which is the preferred crusader coalition solution.

Do you think Russia has been showering the Syrian population with flowers and joy?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by OhOh

Some countries might like a country, like Russia, to assist them as opposed to being bombed back to the stone age which is the preferred crusader coalition solution.

Do you think Russia has been showering the Syrian population with flowers and joy?

no they aren't but they're doing what the western forces couldn't/didn't do for years.

Originally Posted by maaklong

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by OhOh

Some countries might like a country, like Russia, to assist them as opposed to being bombed back to the stone age which is the preferred crusader coalition solution.

Do you think Russia has been showering the Syrian population with flowers and joy?

no they aren't but they're doing what the western forces couldn't/didn't do for years.

That's not true, the West have bombed civilians as well, but usually they apologise for it and forget about it.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Do you think

Thank you for your compliment. I look forward to any other items of my post, you might want to post a comment on.

Here is the map (from the ISW website that Harry gave) showing the whole of Syria. It's also a bit bigger so easier to see and shows designated areas of 'control'.



http://www.understandingwar.org/back...-march-27-2016

8 pretty good reasons why Russia did what it did, "probably".

Eight Reasons Why Russia Is Withdrawing From Syria

A 9th could be that now Russia has decided that Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and the newly converted "rebels" have seen the light, the crusader coalition will also remember the UN resolution that the military efforts were to lead to the political solution and pack their bags as well.

If only.

In an interview given by POTEE to the The Atlantic magazine POTEE "remembers" that the alleged justification for instigating the illegal invasion by bombing Syria was a lie.

"Here is what the article in The Atlantic which is based on Obama's interviews says:

“Obama was also unsettled by a surprise visit early in the week from James Clapper, his director of national intelligence, who interrupted the President’s Daily Brief, the threat report Obama receives each morning from Clapper’s analysts, to make clear that the intelligence on Syria’s use of sarin gas, while robust, was not a “slam dunk.”
He chose the term carefully. Clapper, the chief of an intelligence community traumatized by its failures in the run-up to the Iraq War, was not going to overpromise, in the manner of the onetime CIA director George Tenet, who famously guaranteed George W. Bush a “slam dunk” in Iraq.”

That the US intelligence community was unable to confirm that Assad was definitely responsible for the chemical attack on Ghouta was suspected by some at the time.
The clue was that in order to justify the proposed bombing the Obama administration published what it called a “Government Assessment” which said that it was Assad who was responsible for the attack.

A “Government Assessment” is a relatively new device whereby the administration - ie. Obama and his advisers - give their opinion on an intelligence question. It is to be contrasted by the much more authoritative - and traditional - “Intelligence Assessment”, which is signed off by the US intelligence services themselves, and which sets out their views.

In other words an “Intelligence Assessment” sets out the opinions of the intelligence professionals, whilst a “Government Assessment” is the opinion of the amateurs in the White House.
A discussion of the difference between a “Government Assessment” and an “Intelligence Assessment” can be found here, and in a scathing comment on the whole affair produced by US intelligence veterans, which can be found here."

Maybe now that the P4+1 coalition is gaining more ground from the terrorists some Syrians can return home after 4 years of exile.

Will we see "refugees" in Europe returning to build a new Syria or will they continue to suck at the European tit?



http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941224000293

"TEHRAN (FNA)- Recent victories of the Syrian Army and its allies against the ISIL and other terrorist groups in the Southeastern part of Aleppo province have paved the way for the safe and secure return of civilians to their villages and towns.

Last week, the Syrian army and its allies liberated a total of 13 villages in the Khanasser Plains of Southeast Aleppo after a successful military campaign against the ISIL, that laied the ground for the civilians to return to their homes in the villages of Jubb Al-Ali, Khanaser, Khirbat Al-Qalay’at, Furdaah, Al-Toubah, Hayak Al-Saghirah, Hayak Al-Kabeerah, and Zebed in the Khanasser Plains after leaving this region in late 2012."

Any connection with "camel" land and "black squirty stuff" land?

Allegedly, the "Kurds" or some would say, a faction supported by "somebody exceptional", are making a claim to "Kurdish" controlled lands. This is outside the "peace and reconciliation" talks currently being held in Geneva.

M of A - Syrian Kurds Risk Their Gains With New Federalization Demands

Quite convenient for a group, excluded from the talks, to be able to publicly publish their demands eh? I wonder who determined their exclusion from the "peace and reconciliation" talks, and "assisting" them in their "conquest" of Syria.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Allegedly, the "Kurds" or some would say, a faction supported by "somebody exceptional", are making a claim to "Kurdish" controlled lands. This is outside the "peace and reconciliation" talks currently being held in Geneva.

M of A - Syrian Kurds Risk Their Gains With New Federalization Demands

Quite convenient for a group, excluded from the talks, to be able to publicly publish their demands eh? I wonder who determined their exclusion from the "peace and reconciliation" talks, and "assisting" them in their "conquest" of Syria.

What is unusual about this exactly?

Kurds in various locations have been demanding an independent state since the Ottoman empire disintegrated.

The Kurds won't get an independent state, and they know it. I doubt they'll get a federalised region either. All the main players have rejected the notion. Perhaps it's just a "don't forget us" call by the Kurds.

Once they've got rid of IS they're gonna need a new whipping boy... at least they're not so two faced as to invite the Kurds to the party before stabbing them in the back

I expect not inviting the Kurds to the talks was just to placate the Turks. There's no other reason, really.

Totally, especially after the Kurds helped scupper Erdogans dream of a new Ottoman empire.

Originally Posted by Neverna

I expect not inviting the Kurds to the talks was just to placate the Turks. There's no other reason, really.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Neverna

not inviting the Kurds to the talks was just to placate the Turks

Why try an placate the Turks, for what reason? What are they going to do, dig a few more trenches, metres inside Syria, kill a few more Kurdish martyrs.

They have shown their colours, now they should be ostracised as opposed to being placated, they should be sanctioned for disobeying UNSC resolutions.

Or is their NATO status allowing them the delusions of another "exceptional" empire builder? But if Turkeys role is analysed how many other NATO countries would be sanctioned.

The Syrian Bashar al-Jaafari, Syria's official representative to the UN, answers some questions from the press regarding the withdrawal of some of Russian forces.



"Our friends and allies, the Russians, came to Syria by a joint decision, and the day they will leave, or withdraw, or redeploy their forces, partially or totally, it will be done again, and again, and again, through a joint Syrian-Russian coordinated action."