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

Originally Posted by tomcat

they probably weren't his own people (in the Middle Eastern sense): they were likely Sunnis who despise Shi'a Alawites (like Assad, his father and his tribe) as heretics...in any event, resistance to the Syrian dictator, no matter which group it is, puts one in the line of fire...Assad jr. is as bloodthirsty as his father was, which isn't saying much in that part of the world where barbarity is an everyday occurrence...

Oh he's beaten his father hands down.

Admittedly with a little help from Vlad.

Originally Posted by jabir

Assad had no reason to use chemical weapons, esp on his own people

And neither did Saddam.

But as has been pointed out to you, the Sunni in Syria are not "his own people", a distinction you omit either to avoid being pulled up on it or because you are as ignorant as Birding.

Which is it?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And neither did Saddam.

But as has been pointed out to you, the Sunni in Syria are not "his own people", a distinction you omit either to avoid being pulled up on it or because you are as ignorant as Birding.

Which is it?

SH had every reason to kill his own people, which includes the Sunnis if that distinction is the crux of your argument, the trump card being he was a tyrant who pwned the country and could do as he pleased to set examples or eliminate threats or satisfy his ego or because his coffee was served lukewarm. Despite all of the above there is much to be said for having a strong man in place, tho liberals and numpties and numpty liberals tend to shriek and melt at such realism which is part of the reason the west is too 'civilised' to survive modern times.

Assad was as secure as he could be under Putin's patronage, and had NO reason to compromise this, whilst liberals with a shred of honesty in their bones could list reasons for America's 'friendly rebels' to use WMD, especially after awesome cockups in Libya, Yemen and Egypt. Many numpties (not you, definitely not you) are incapable of figuring out why a rabid media feasting on Assad's use of chems went ominously quiet when it was shown to be America's 'friends' that used them; never underestimate the influence of Leftism.

But it's a known fact that those who disagree with you must be ignorant, as that's the only logical reason for anyone to oppose your fantasies.

Originally Posted by jabir

when it was shown to be America's 'friends' that used them

Apart from the four year old hearsay evidence - which is more than likely bullshit placed by the Assad regime, who have a multimillion dollar media machine running - where has it been shown that "America's 'friends'" used them?

I refer you back to post #2847.

This "Both sides" bullshit is really rather wearing.

All of my evidence is hearsay, your's is factual and incontestable, therefore you have the bigger dick; congrats.

Originally Posted by jabir

All of my evidence is hearsay, your's is factual and incontestable, therefore you have the bigger dick; congrats.

That's a given and has nothing to do with your posting bollocks, unless you're overcompensating.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Apart from the four year old hearsay evidence - which is more than likely bullshit placed by the Assad regime, who have a multimillion dollar media machine running - where has it been shown that "America's 'friends'" used them?

I refer you back to post #2847.

This "Both sides" bullshit is really rather wearing.

Harry, do you mean the UN who one day issue a report and another day - when a sheriff in town orders - will recall the report again?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Harry, do you mean the UN who one day issue a report and another day - when a sheriff in town orders - will recall the report again?

Shut up Borat.

Senior member, high post count with pathetically low content, a disruptive element that desperately needs to let people know it exists...what was that you said, Stroller?

Russia blames US policy for Valery Asapov's death
Officer's killing by ISIL ascribed to 'two-faced US policy' amid reports of civilian deaths in Russian strikes in Idlib.

A senior Russian official has denounced what he called the "two-faced policy" of the US, saying it was to blame for the death of a Russian general, Valery Asapov, in Syria, according to an RIA news agency report.

The Russian defence ministry has said Asapov was killed in shelling by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group near Deir Az Zor.

"The death of the Russian commander is the price, the bloody price for the two-faced American policy in Syria," Sergei Ryabkov, Russia's deputy foreign minister, said on Monday, according to RIA.

ttp://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/russia-blames-policy-valery-asapov-death-170925140729308.html

General Asapov died because as a Russian officer he led from the front
Unlike Western armies the Russian army still requires senior officers like General Asapov to lead their men into battle

The death of Lieutenant General Valery Asapov and two Russian colonels who were with him in Syria highlights the fundamentally different military command philosophies of the US and Russian militaries.

Putting aside the question of whether or not General Asapov was deliberately targeted, the key point about his death is that he was a high ranking general (commander at the time of his death of Russia’s 5th Red Banner Army) who was killed whilst carrying out personal reconnaissance on the front line in Deir Ezzor in Syria, where he exposed himself to shelling.

Though his death was big news in Russia, it has been received there calmly, with none of the displays of dismay or panic, or the feverish post-mortems, or the angry cries for vengeance, which would assuredly have happened if a US officer of similar rank had been killed in the same way.

Nor is there the slightest sign of General Asapov’s death having caused any change in the battlefield strategy followed by the Russians in Syria.

Thus offensive military operations by the Syrian army as advised and directed by the Russians in the area where General Asapov was killed continue with undiminished vigour, with – as reported by The Duran – Russian engineers just completing a road bridge across the Euphrates to enable the Syrian army to get across.

All this highlights a key point about the Russian army’s system of command: Russian commanders – including the most senior commanders – are expected to lead from the front, making themselves visible to their men, whilst at the same through direct observation gaining a ‘feel’ for the battle.

By contrast US military practice prefers to keep commanders out of harm’s way, expecting them to control the battle from their headquarters in the rear.
---
By contrast when US Major General Harold Greene was killed in Afghanistan in 2014 as a result of an insider attack by an Afghan soldier, it was the first time a US general had been killed in combat for more than forty years. To see what an unusual occurrence that was, consider how the BBC reported General Greene’s death:

Gen Greene is not only the highest ranking US military official to have been killed since the start of the war in Afghanistan, his death also marks the first time in more than 40 years that a general has been killed in combat….

General Asapov died because as a Russian officer he led from the front - RussiaFeed

Originally Posted by Klondyke

General Asapov died because as a Russian officer he led from the front - RussiaFeed

I know very well that the US backed Saddam in his war against Iran and sold him chemical and other weapons. I also know they ended up supplying Iran with missiles (contra Affair).

The dirty fingers of the US and in particular the CIA have been and are still in every conflict in this world since WW2.

However back to ISIS;

It would seem that once again the US is fighting their own weapons for they appear to be the major supplier of ISIS by default.

IS conflict: How is it getting hold of weapons from the West? - BBC News

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...rms-transfers/

Without this ready supply of weapons and the inclusion of the remains of Saddam's army ISIS would not be the threat to the world that it is today.

Had Saddam been left in power in all probability he would have wiped or chased out Zarqawi and his group.

As you would have seen if you had read the link I posted earlier Assad is making peace with the rebels and giving them some autonomy now their weapons supply has been curtailed and making inroads into ISIS which as it gets defeated in Syria and Iraq is taking its terror into the countries that it sees as enemies.

Originally Posted by birding

I know very well that the US backed Saddam in his war against Iran and sold him chemical and other weapons. I also know they ended up supplying Iran with missiles (contra Affair).

The dirty fingers of the US and in particular the CIA have been and are still in every conflict in this world since WW2.

However back to ISIS;

It would seem that once again the US is fighting their own weapons for they appear to be the major supplier of ISIS by default.

IS conflict: How is it getting hold of weapons from the West? - BBC News

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...rms-transfers/

Without this ready supply of weapons and the inclusion of the remains of Saddam's army ISIS would not be the threat to the world that it is today.

Had Saddam been left in power in all probability he would have wiped or chased out Zarqawi and his group.

As you would have seen if you had read the link I posted earlier Assad is making peace with the rebels and giving them some autonomy now their weapons supply has been curtailed and making inroads into ISIS which as it gets defeated in Syria and Iraq is taking its terror into the countries that it sees as enemies.

Are you stupid?

Assad will NEVER make peace with the rebels.

The lids is permanently off that can of worms.

He should have done it in 2011 instead of torturing kids and murdering the civilians who protested it.

Originally Posted by birding

I know very well that the US backed Saddam in his war against Iran and sold him chemical and other weapons. I also know they ended up supplying Iran with missiles (contra Affair).

The dirty fingers of the US and in particular the CIA have been and are still in every conflict in this world since WW2.

However back to ISIS;

It would seem that once again the US is fighting their own weapons for they appear to be the major supplier of ISIS by default.

IS conflict: How is it getting hold of weapons from the West? - BBC News

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...rms-transfers/

Without this ready supply of weapons and the inclusion of the remains of Saddam's army ISIS would not be the threat to the world that it is today.

Had Saddam been left in power in all probability he would have wiped or chased out Zarqawi and his group.

As you would have seen if you had read the link I posted earlier Assad is making peace with the rebels and giving them some autonomy now their weapons supply has been curtailed and making inroads into ISIS which as it gets defeated in Syria and Iraq is taking its terror into the countries that it sees as enemies.

Lots of uncomfortable truths in there.

Until the "SO CALLED GOOD MUSLIMS" start reporting and getting rid of the BAD ONES, there is NO CHANCE of stopping this CRAP.

^ The good news is, Eli, that Asad and his good Muslim friends are killing the bad ISIS muslims in Syria and the good muslims in Iraq are killing the bad ISIS muslims in Iraq. Not long to go now mate.

Originally Posted by Neverna

^ The good news is, Eli, that Asad and his good Muslim friends are killing the bad ISIS muslims in Syria and the good muslims in Iraq are killing the bad ISIS muslims in Iraq. Not long to go now mate.

Puzzled who is good and who is bad. The "rebels" (supported by outraged "international community") cannot be the bad ones, when they fight Assad's good Muslim friends, can they?

Originally Posted by Eliminator

Until the "SO CALLED GOOD MUSLIMS" start reporting and getting rid of the BAD ONES, there is NO CHANCE of stopping this CRAP.

Nail on head, almost but not quite. Just briefly define a 'good' Muslim, by western standards, then by Islamic standards, and if you note a difference you're already part way to figuring it's not what you think that counts but what those on the other side believe.

Cognitive dissonance is the west's greatest enemy here, since it prevents you from realising how wrong you are in believing you will eventually overcome the 'tiny minority' of 'bad' Muslims that go pop and chop off heads.

Here's a clue, accept it or not, up to you; the other side sees your 'good' Muslims as bad Muslims, apostates and blasphemers, and your 'bad' Muslims as good Muslims.

For one a "rebel" ("resistance fighter"), for the other one "terrorist"...

The "rebels" are actually the majority population of Syria who should have been liberated in 2011.

Assad should have fucked off to Tehran and let them run their own country. The Assad family have tortured and murdered enough.

Instead of which now they want him swinging from a tree.


And I hope they get their wish.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

For one a "rebel" ("resistance fighter"), for the other one "terrorist"...

Precisely, and it's across the board, though most in the west are either ideologically programmed to despise their own culture, too horrified at the implications to acknowledge that their civilisation is not just under attack but has already passed the point of no return, or so ignorant of what's actually going on that for need of personal comfort they threaten all manner of fantasy retaliation 'at some time in the future'.

So go and destroy the Islamic State, first if you think you can, second if you believe your leaders, and third more pointedly if you believe that would more than temporarily defer the conquest of Europe.

Originally Posted by jabir

Senior member, high post count with pathetically low content, a disruptive element that desperately needs to let people know it exists...what was that you said, Stroller?

Oh no, our resident bully boys weren't pleased with that at all, must be some truth in it.

Originally Posted by jabir

if you believe that would more than temporarily defer the conquest of Europe.

My word, you're quite the pessimist aren't you?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

My word, you're quite the pessimist aren't you?

I doubt you could even imagine how wrong you are.