• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Syria - One big joke

TheRealnz

Critical Thinker
T
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
346
A few days ago there was post of Israelis shooting down an Syrian bomber that was only .5miles s in its airspace and conducting a mission to bomb syrian rebel factions close to the israeli border. US and Israel knew this, yet israel shot down the bomber.

Today we learn that the US is now ordering a no-fly zone from assad's forces in their own country.
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/09/26/p...ssad-in-syria/

Pentagon: US Considers ‘No-Fly’ Zone Against Assad in Syria

Posted By Jason Ditz On September 26, 2014 @ 8:09 pm In News | 4 Comments
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey say that the US is still considering the possibility of establishing a “no-fly zone” over northeastern Syria to deny the Syrian military the ability to launch airstrikes against the rebels therein.
The idea is particularly puzzling in the northeast, since the US and its allies have been bombing ISIS targets in the exact same region. Since the US air war began, the Assad military has shifted its focus to the northwest, where other rebel factions are, allowing the US to do its dirty work for them.

Gen. Dempsey also said that they are considering the Turkish proposal for a “buffer zone” carved out of northern Syria to house refugees. Turkey has sought the zone as a way to get rid of the 1.3 million refugees they’ve been saddled with, while waiting for some regime change to happen in Syria.
That such schemes are even under consideration suggests that the Obama Administration haven’t given up on the idea of expanding their new ISIS war to include Syria’s government as well, even though they’re fighting ISIS as well.
Click to expand...

Looks like the US pivot from ISIS to Assad was quicker and with no pretenses involved at all, quicker than I expected.

We also find out that the US has made up this Khoreasan talk on the ground.
Reporters on the ground says Syrians know of no such organization at all, what the US actually bombed was AQS or Al-Nusra Front
Khorasan: Syrian Factions Never Heard of It

Posted By Jason Ditz On September 26, 2014 @ 6:12 pm In News | 6 Comments

Since the US began its airstrikes against Syria, the name Khorasan has been on everyone’s lips since, along with ISIS, they’ve become a top target.

It’s puzzling for people in Syria, especially those affiliated with the rebellion, because none of them have ever heard of any such faction. Indeed, the evidence is increasingly that the US made it up.

“The name is clearly US-originated,” noted analyst Pieter van Ostaeyen, who says that the name had never been mentioned by any jihadist movements until the US started talking them up.
Rather, what is being referred to by the administration as Khorasan is simply al-Qaeda. When the US attacks “Khorasan” they’re really attacking Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s Syria group, and don’t want to admit it because the “moderate” rebels are all closely allied with al-Qaeda. But they aren’t allied with Khorasan because there is no such thing.
The name is also a political convenience, so that when the TSA says the “Khorasan” is a threat to US flights, what they’re really saying is that al-Qaeda is a threat to US flights, hardly news, but a damning admission that 13 years of focusing on al-Qaeda in a global war hasn’t amounted to a hill of beans, and the threat is still there.
They don’t want to admit that, so instead they invented the fiction of Khorasan to cover up the truth.
Click to expand...

So think about this. The US government and the West say they are going to Syria and back to Iraq to destroy ISIS.
To that end they bomb Al-Nusra or AQS a group that previously was at war against ISIS (Syria: al-Nusra Front declares war on ISIS - http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/18785) and at the best cause simply has agreed to not attack them first, instead of actual ISIS strong holds.

Also what has been the local response to the US lead bombing?
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/09/26/u...syrias-aleppo/

US Strikes Boost ISIS Recruitment in Syria’s Aleppo
Posted By Jason Ditz On September 26, 2014 @ 6:39 pm In News | No Comments
Syrian rebels say that the US airstrikes on ISIS inside Syria haven’t helped them. If you’re wondering who is benefiting, the answer could well be ISIS.
Since President Obama announced his intention to strike Syria on September 10, ISIS has gained more than 200 new fighters in Aleppo Province alone. That’s likely a drop in the bucket compared to what it did for recruitment in provinces where they have a larger presence.

The US couldn’t be following the ISIS map more closely if they planned it, as the group is building itself up into a larger and more influential faction primarily on the credibility it gets from being a top US enemy right now, moreso than the territory it gained in the past year.
The administration’s answer to ISIS growing increasingly influential has been to hype them even further, and present them as a new, global enemy that needs to be wiped out through force of arms. Unsurprisingly, that has made many of the people in the line of fire of America’s newest war stand up and take notice, and is bringing a lot of them to ISIS, where they can resist the incoming US attacks on their homes.
Click to expand...

US presence has aided ISIS.
--

I'm convinced ISIS was nothing but a backdoor into Syria to take out Assad more than ever now.
In Iraq they've found their bombing has been utterly ineffective, in Syria they are bombing ISIS and thinking of more ways to combat Assad than ISIS.
The people on the end ISIS bandwagon have been duped.
ISIS is the new yellow cake.
 
Suppose for a moment that the US was removed from the equation.

What action, if any, would you be advocating to deal with IS?
 
Does this mean the CIA will be sending Sydney Bristow in to short-sheet Assad's bed? I'd vote for the congress critter who proposes that one in public.
 
Assad and Putin...the OP really knows how to pick National Leaders to support.......
 
Spindrift said:
You know there was no yellow cake
Click to expand...

Um... yes there was. Not from Africa, but Saddam had tons of the stuff. And I don't mean that merely as "a lot", I mean literal, actual tons of it. This was all quite well documented.
 
Ziggurat said:
Um... yes there was. Not from Africa, but Saddam had tons of the stuff. And I don't mean that merely as "a lot", I mean literal, actual tons of it. This was all quite well documented.
Click to expand...

Sorry should have been more specific. There was no yellowcake that Saddam was supposedly buying from Niger. It didn't exist, so my point stands.
 
The general plan is to use the rebel Syrian Free Army to fight the ground war vs. ISIL. It is much harder for them to be effective vs. ISIL if they are being bombed by Assad's forces.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not so. I don't know what the hell you meant either. I too would like an explanation.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced ISIS was nothing but a backdoor into Syria to take out Assad more than ever now.
In Iraq they've found their bombing has been utterly ineffective, in Syria they are bombing ISIS and thinking of more ways to combat Assad than ISIS.
The people on the end ISIS bandwagon have been duped.
ISIS is the new yellow cake.

Is that so hard to understand?
 
TheRealnz said:
I'm convinced ISIS was nothing but a backdoor into Syria to take out Assad more than ever now.
In Iraq they've found their bombing has been utterly ineffective, in Syria they are bombing ISIS and thinking of more ways to combat Assad than ISIS.
The people on the end ISIS bandwagon have been duped.
ISIS is the new yellow cake.

Is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

So why wouldn't they just take Assad out, if that's what they wanted? Obama has been prez for several years, he's had plenty of time. He already took out bin Laden.

Or why not just do one of your "false flags". :rolleyes:

They keep trying instead to work through the Syrian opposition, just as they did in Libya, or Bush did in Afghanistan. Why do you think that is, in cases where the country's leader is a dictator?

Or why not just sneak in American troops who have middle eastern backgrounds , and just call them "volunteers". :p
 
TheRealnz said:
I'm convinced ISIS was nothing but a backdoor into Syria to take out Assad more than ever now.
Click to expand...

Stupid conspiracy theory is stupid.

In Iraq they've found their bombing has been utterly ineffective, in Syria they are bombing ISIS and thinking of more ways to combat Assad than ISIS.
Click to expand...

So how is ISIS helping to take out Assad? That makes no sense. We're not attacking Assad, we're not even threatening to take out Assad, the existence of ISIS is not making the task of taking out Assad any easier, but is in fact a major impediment to doing so since we cannot just bomb Assad since ISIS might take over if we do.

Hell, it's not even very important for us to combat Assad. The risk ISIS poses to Iraq is far greater than any benefit that we might see from seeing Assad toppled.

The people on the end ISIS bandwagon have been duped.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you talking about the people who join ISIS being duped? The people who want us to bomb ISIS being duped? Your grammar is... not clear.

ISIS is the new yellow cake.

Is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Your theory is nonsense. I can't for the life of me understand why you subscribe to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom