PUTIN goes to WAR against ISIS: Stop dithering and FIGHT

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:20 am

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/for-once-the-world-will-want-to-listen-to-what-vladimir-putin-has-to-say-at-the-un-general-assembly/story-fnh81jut-1227546685620

Putin yesterday revealed an element of his grand plan, announcing the creation of a new coalition to take on Islamic State (ISIS) with Iraq confirming it is to share intelligence of their shared enemy with Russia and Shiite-led Iran and Syria.
The US’s limited response to Russia’s worrisome build-up in Syria suggested the White House already had an indication of his plan.
If the west’s own coalition, including the US, Britain, France, Australia and mainly Sunni Arab nations, agree to link forces with the Russian coalition, it could mean an agreement to leave Bashar al-Assad in place as Syrian leader and shore up his embattled government in Damascus.
The west might not like it but Putin has seized the initiative here and the public response to his suggestions by Obama as well as British Prime Minister David Cameron and France’s Francoise Hollande (who are also to address the Assembly today) will be interesting. The leaders of China and Iran are also to address the Assembly.

http://shoebat.com/2015/09/25/russias-putin-just-sent-fighter-jets-to-iraq-to-destroy-isis-sending-obama-a-message-that-in-the-middle-east-putin-is-boss/

by Original Quill Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:15 am

Well, it's not really Obama. Under the Constitution, Congress has all war making powers. This Republican Congress, committed to opposing President Obama at every stage, has not put forth a strategy to deal with ISIL.

Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, has admitted in an interview with ABC's Martha Radditz this morning that he did not know what to do.

Feeling boxed in by Raddatz's demanding questions, Nunes admitted: "This is what happens when America doesn't really put forward a strategic plan." When pressed by Raddatz, "What is the solution?" he responded, "I don't know what you do now."

Congress should be planning for this situation. Instead, Republicans, who are in control, are so busy bickering with President Obama, while sitting on their hands, that they have no idea what's what.

This is what happens when you leave the patients in charge at the asylum.

by Guest Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:08 am

and there it is

the obamanics and their hero worshipping of their mulism in chief

its quite amazing that just the other day you were boring us all with a long list of obamas accolades, of course that list is only mentioned when you can pretend its all about obama

when it comes to the things he has failed miserably on, especially his pathetic impotence on issues like ISIS, then its congress, nothing to do with the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES its all the fault of congress

award credit and deflect criticism

by SEXY MAMA Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:13 am

Original Quill wrote:Well, it's not really Obama. Under the Constitution, Congress has all war making powers. This Republican Congress, committed to opposing President Obama at every stage, has not put forth a strategy to deal with ISIL.

Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, has admitted in an interview with ABC's Martha Radditz this morning that he did not know what to do.

Feeling boxed in by Raddatz's demanding questions, Nunes admitted: "This is what happens when America doesn't really put forward a strategic plan." When pressed by Raddatz, "What is the solution?" he responded, "I don't know what you do now."

Congress should be planning for this situation. Instead, Republicans, who are in control, are so busy bickering with President Obama, while sitting on their hands, that they have no idea what's what.

This is what happens when you leave the patients in charge at the asylum.

He has the full authority to do something about them. The rest is all BS

by Raggamuffin Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:15 am

Original Quill wrote:Well, it's not really Obama. Under the Constitution, Congress has all war making powers. This Republican Congress, committed to opposing President Obama at every stage, has not put forth a strategy to deal with ISIL.

Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, has admitted in an interview with ABC's Martha Radditz this morning that he did not know what to do.

Feeling boxed in by Raddatz's demanding questions, Nunes admitted: "This is what happens when America doesn't really put forward a strategic plan." When pressed by Raddatz, "What is the solution?" he responded, "I don't know what you do now."

Congress should be planning for this situation. Instead, Republicans, who are in control, are so busy bickering with President Obama, while sitting on their hands, that they have no idea what's what.

This is what happens when you leave the patients in charge at the asylum.

Why do people blame Bush for the Iraq invasion then?

by Tommy Monk Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:02 pm

Good on Russia!

Everyone wants action against ISIS but the proposals put to parliament before, were about helping ISIS under the guise of helping the 'nice' rebels...

And it was based on a lie that assad was using chemical weapons when it was proven to be The same 'nice' rebels who had done it!!!

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/12/16/pers-d16.html

And even though this was proved... I heard another lying twat on BBC news couple of days ago repeat the lie that assad was responsible two years ago.

by Original Quill Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:16 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Well, it's not really Obama. Under the Constitution, Congress has all war making powers. This Republican Congress, committed to opposing President Obama at every stage, has not put forth a strategy to deal with ISIL.

Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, has admitted in an interview with ABC's Martha Radditz this morning that he did not know what to do.

Feeling boxed in by Raddatz's demanding questions, Nunes admitted: "This is what happens when America doesn't really put forward a strategic plan." When pressed by Raddatz, "What is the solution?" he responded, "I don't know what you do now."

Congress should be planning for this situation. Instead, Republicans, who are in control, are so busy bickering with President Obama, while sitting on their hands, that they have no idea what's what.

This is what happens when you leave the patients in charge at the asylum.

Why do people blame Bush for the Iraq invasion then?

Because Bush had a Republican Congress. When a president has a Congress of the same party, he can exercise power in an hierarchical way. When Congress is of the other party, the relationship is competitive, the exact opposite.

Because Republicans are racist (Southern Strategy), and Obama is black, the tensions are a hundred-fold greater. Why do you think Congress is so squirrely lately? Obama has had a war bill regarding ISIL on the desk of Congress for over a year, and Congress refuses to act. Republicans refuse to follow Obama, yet they can hardly support ISIL. Hence, the lack of a strategic plan, of which Congressman Nunes speaks.

by Guest Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:20 pm

so basically obama is a lame duck

utterly useless

by Original Quill Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:36 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Well, it's not really Obama. Under the Constitution, Congress has all war making powers. This Republican Congress, committed to opposing President Obama at every stage, has not put forth a strategy to deal with ISIL.

Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, has admitted in an interview with ABC's Martha Radditz this morning that he did not know what to do.

Feeling boxed in by Raddatz's demanding questions, Nunes admitted: "This is what happens when America doesn't really put forward a strategic plan." When pressed by Raddatz, "What is the solution?" he responded, "I don't know what you do now."

Congress should be planning for this situation. Instead, Republicans, who are in control, are so busy bickering with President Obama, while sitting on their hands, that they have no idea what's what.

This is what happens when you leave the patients in charge at the asylum.

He has the full authority to do something about them. The rest is all BS

Yes, what to do, what to do? Should we join our new-found friends, Putin and Russia, and back Syrian President and dictator Bashar al-Assad in opposition to ISIL? Or should we support the Shi'ites we instated as the government of Iraq, and join Iran, whom we just finished alleging is planning a nuclear strike on the west? Or should we follow our old practices, like we did in Vietnam, and invent a new CIA-inspired faction...say, in the mold of Ngô Đình Diệm? We could employ the writers from Classic Comics to write the scripts and political platforms.

BTW, whence our vigorous opposition to ISIL? Just because they are the old Baath Party cronies Saddam Hussein, doesn't mean they are bad chaps. Is Diệm still around? Maybe we could get the CIA to hold an Embassy party.

But I digress. Obama has full authority? Where did he get this authority? SM, do you think he could just issue an executive order...EO No. xxxxx, Takeover of Damascus. What...the Constitution? United Nations? Impeachment?? SM said he could do it. What more do you need?

by Original Quill Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:48 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:so basically obama is a lame duck

utterly useless

Why do you think I have been applauding his record so much? Yes, lame duck or dead pigeon...he has a Republican Congress bent on destroying American before it will see Obama succeed as President. What an amazing man...to have accomplished so much under such great opposition. Truly, one of the three greatest presidents ever...next to Lincoln and Jefferson.

You've just seen the last responsible Republican, Speaker John Boehner, resign as Speaker of the House of Representatives because the conservatives again threaten to shut down the government:

Thinkprogress wrote:Conservatives Push Out Boehner Because He Wouldn’t Shut Down The Government

House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican lawmaker from Ohio who has served in Congress for more than 20 years, will resign his seat at the end of October, according to the New York Times.

Boehner’s decision to give up his House seat comes amid a contentious political fight over whether Congress will agree to pass a spending bill that includes a provision to defund Planned Parenthood. According to the New York Times, Boehner has been under “extreme pressure from the right wing of his conference” to defund Planned Parenthood in the current budget negotiations, which is a nonstarter for both Senate Democrats and President Obama. The Speaker, meanwhile, has indicated that he would rather compromise on Planned Parenthood funding to avoid a government shutdown before October 1.

Conservatives are so bent on their racist agenda that they would rather see America fail, than see Obama succeed.

by Guest Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:10 pm

its not the reps destroying america quill its obama, the reps are the true blue american heroes, holding this lunatic Muslim at bay, without the reps saving america, you would all be dressed in bhurkas sucking dick for scraps on the bread line

i think obama should do the honourable thing and step down, get out the reps way and let them have a whole and functioning government

lets get trump in the white house, some reps in the congress and everywhere else and lets get america back to being great, you guys can make your apologies to the world for what you have allowed obama to do to it and we can get back to business as usual

maybe a couple of regime changes here and there, a nice big war somewhere where there are lots of dark skinned people who speak arabic.

yeah lets get back to the good ole days where the stars and stipes was a symbol of hope to your allies and struck fear into the hearts of your enemies instead visa versa as it is now

by Original Quill Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:23 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:its not the reps destroying america quill its obama, the reps are the true blue american heroes, holding this lunatic Muslim at bay, without the reps saving america, you would all be dressed in bhurkas sucking dick for scraps on the bread line

i think obama should do the honourable thing and step down, get out the reps way and let them have a whole and functioning government

lets get trump in the white house, some reps in the congress and everywhere else and lets get america back to being great, you guys can make your apologies to the world for what you have allowed obama to do to it and we can get back to business as usual

maybe a couple of regime changes here and there, a nice big war somewhere where there are lots of dark skinned people who speak arabic.

yeah lets get back to the good ole days where the stars and stipes was a symbol of hope to your allies and struck fear into the hearts of your enemies instead visa versa as it is now

PUTIN goes to WAR against ISIS: Stop dithering and FIGHT Laughter

Right you are. And we could practice by holding war games on a guano-covered penguin field in the South Atlantic.

PUTIN goes to WAR against ISIS: Stop dithering and FIGHT Steve-Bells-If...-01.03.2-001

PUTIN goes to WAR against ISIS: Stop dithering and FIGHT Steve-Bells-If...-01.03.2-001

by Tommy Monk Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:25 pm

Putin talking sense at the UN...

https://www.rt.com/news/316804-putin-russia-unga-speech/

by Guest Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:30 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Putin talking sense at the UN...

https://www.rt.com/news/316804-putin-russia-unga-speech/

the man always talks sense

he is a great leader

by Raggamuffin Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:39 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Putin talking sense at the UN...

https://www.rt.com/news/316804-putin-russia-unga-speech/

the man always talks sense

he is a great leader

He doesn't muck about, changing his mind every five minutes, that's for sure, and he doesn't care much if people don't like him.

I like that.

by Guest Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:57 pm

yes i agree no messing with him .

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:45 pm

While all we get is lies and spin and leftie waffle...

Saying one thing and doing another... then the next lot get voted in for saying things and then they do the other too!!!

VOTE UKIP!!!

THEY WILL DO WHAT THEY SAY!!!

by Original Quill Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:15 pm

Vicar Of Dibley wrote:yes i agree no messing with him .

I like him too. Though he's a leftie and wants nothing more than to rebuild the old USSR (he is the former head of the KGB), he is decisive about the ISIL folks. He doesn't have to deal with a limp-dick Congress.

Some of the best days for the west were when Russia was preoccupied with fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Maybe we can look forward to more of those days.

by Guest Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:29 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Vicar Of Dibley wrote:yes i agree no messing with him .

I like him too. Though he's a leftie and wants nothing more than to rebuild the old USSR (he is the former head of the KGB), he is decisive about the ISIL folks. He doesn't have to deal with a limp-dick Congress.

Some of the best days for the west were when Russia was preoccupied with fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Maybe we can look forward to more of those days.

you mean he has a back bone

unlike obama who cant even get his own government to do his bidding

by Original Quill Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:05 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I like him too. Though he's a leftie and wants nothing more than to rebuild the old USSR (he is the former head of the KGB), he is decisive about the ISIL folks. He doesn't have to deal with a limp-dick Congress.

Some of the best days for the west were when Russia was preoccupied with fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Maybe we can look forward to more of those days.

you mean he has a back bone

unlike obama who cant even get his own government to do his bidding

You say back-bone; I say chicken soup.

Look the reality is, this is not going to be decided by adjectives. If Putin wants to go into Syria and clear the air, I'm all for it. I'm not a real fan of Asaad, but then I'm not a fan of any of them.

Let the Russians have another Afghanistan. My feeling is, it couldn't happen to a better people.

by Guest Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:29 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

you mean he has a back bone

unlike obama who cant even get his own government to do his bidding

You say back-bone; I say chicken soup.

Look the reality is, this is not going to be decided by adjectives. If Putin wants to go into Syria and clear the air, I'm all for it. I'm not a real fan of Asaad, but then I'm not a fan of any of them.

Let the Russians have another Afghanistan. My feeling is, it couldn't happen to a better people.

i doubt the russians will be that stupid, they had their afghan and watched the west have theirs, besides syrai is not afghan, i know you dont understand that syria is different to europe but its a different situation

syria still has a functioning government that isnt going to immediately take ISIS's place once they have gone, they werent doing it before

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:42 pm

The Russians have been bombing Syria, but it's not very clear who they're targeting.

Russian defence officials say aircraft targeted the Islamic State group, but an unnamed US official told Reuters that so far they did not appear to be targeting IS-held territory.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34399164

by Guest Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:59 pm

they will be targeting areas known to be in ISIS hands, hopefully they will already have russian version of a FOO or FIST teams already on the ground co-ordinating with syrian troops

too bad for the civvies, i dont think russia is going to pussy foot around.

bomb now,vodka later comrades

by Original Quill Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:44 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You say back-bone; I say chicken soup.

Look the reality is, this is not going to be decided by adjectives. If Putin wants to go into Syria and clear the air, I'm all for it. I'm not a real fan of Asaad, but then I'm not a fan of any of them.

Let the Russians have another Afghanistan. My feeling is, it couldn't happen to a better people.

i doubt the russians will be that stupid, they had their afghan and watched the west have theirs, besides syrai is not afghan, i know you dont understand that syria is different to europe but its a different situation

syria still has a functioning government that isnt going to immediately take ISIS's place once they have gone, they werent doing it before

So, what you are saying is that Russia will be just as smart as the US, and stay away. It is a possibility.

Either way, we in the US don't care. They can blow themselves playing with firecrackers, as they did in Afghanistan. Or, they can keep away.

This is truly one to sit out and watch.

I don't really understand why you bring up Europe. There is no civil war in Europe; there are refugees from the strife in Syria emigrating to Europe. I doubt Russia plans to do anything about that. It is of no consequence to them.

by Guest Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

i doubt the russians will be that stupid, they had their afghan and watched the west have theirs, besides syrai is not afghan, i know you dont understand that syria is different to europe but its a different situation

syria still has a functioning government that isnt going to immediately take ISIS's place once they have gone, they werent doing it before

So, what you are saying is that Russia will be just as smart as the US, and stay away. It is a possibility.

Either way, we in the US don't care. They can blow themselves playing with firecrackers, as they did in Afghanistan. Or, they can keep away.

This is truly one to sit out and watch.

I don't really understand why you bring up Europe. There is no civil war in Europe; there are refugees from the strife in Syria emigrating to Europe. I doubt Russia plans to do anything about that. It is of no consequence to them.

thats preciesly the problem silly quilly billy

the states DIDNT stay away did they??

oh no no no, they decided the best thing to do would be to arm train fund and support ISIS.

dont tell me you were in a coma and missed "the best of" obamas syrian faux pas??

i bring up europe because you asked the question isnt syria the same as europe, you really should get your memory checked

by Original Quill Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:59 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So, what you are saying is that Russia will be just as smart as the US, and stay away. It is a possibility.

Either way, we in the US don't care. They can blow themselves playing with firecrackers, as they did in Afghanistan. Or, they can keep away.

This is truly one to sit out and watch.

I don't really understand why you bring up Europe. There is no civil war in Europe; there are refugees from the strife in Syria emigrating to Europe. I doubt Russia plans to do anything about that. It is of no consequence to them.

thats preciesly the problem silly quilly billy

the states DIDNT stay away did they??

oh no no no, they decided the best thing to do would be to arm train fund and support ISIS.

dont tell me you were in a coma and missed "the best of" obamas syrian faux pas??

i bring up europe because you asked the question isnt syria the same as europe, you really should get your memory checked

Unfortunately for your geopolitical ramblings, Obama had nothing to do with ISIL. ISIL is the former al Qaeda in Iraq, and they were the Iraqi resistance group at war with the GWB/Cheney cabal. Nothing to do with Obama.

Under the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, the sole power to declare war lies with Congress. Obama cannot go into Syria because the Republican Congress refuses to sign the war bill, which has been on Congress' desk for a year now. The only war authorization that the Republican Congress has given to anyone is that given to the Bush/Cheney cabal back during the GWB administration. That was the authorization used to justify the Iraq war.

However, in 2008 President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement with the administration of Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, by which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory." What could Obama do but abide by the former president's agreement? We wouldn't want to make Bush out to be a liar, now would we?

The Republican Congress has pursued a policy of not authorizing any hostilities against ISIL. The US hands are tied. Too bad. There are many things Dr. Obama might have done--still could do--but Congress refuses to act. And under the US Constitution, Article I, only Congress has the authority to declare hostilities.

As for Syria being the same as Europe, I never suggested that Syria is even in Europe. In fact, Syria is south of Turkey, between the Mediterranean coast and Iraq. Look it up on Google Maps. I think you have difficulty understanding what people around you are saying. No one has suggested that Syria is Europe or even next to it. You should listen more carefully. And concentrate: less jingles, more thought!

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:13 am

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

thats preciesly the problem silly quilly billy

the states DIDNT stay away did they??

oh no no no, they decided the best thing to do would be to arm train fund and support ISIS.

dont tell me you were in a coma and missed "the best of" obamas syrian faux pas??

i bring up europe because you asked the question isnt syria the same as europe, you really should get your memory checked

Unfortunately for your geopolitical ramblings, Obama had nothing to do with ISIL. ISIL is the former al Qaeda in Iraq, and they were the Iraqi resistance group at war with the GWB/Cheney cabal. Nothing to do with Obama.

Under the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, the sole power to declare war lies with Congress. Obama cannot go into Syria because the Republican Congress refuses to sign the war bill, which has been on Congress' desk for a year now. The only war authorization that the Republican Congress has given to anyone is that given to the Bush/Cheney cabal back during the GWB administration. That was the authorization used to justify the Iraq war.

However, in 2008 President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement with the administration of Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, by which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory." What could Obama do but abide by the former president's agreement? We wouldn't want to make Bush out to be a liar, now would we?

The Republican Congress has pursued a policy of not authorizing any hostilities against ISIL. The US hands are tied. Too bad. There are many things Dr. Obama might have done--still could do--but Congress refuses to act. And under the US Constitution, Article I, only Congress has the authority to declare hostilities.

As for Syria being the same as Europe, I never suggested that Syria is even in Europe. In fact, Syria is south of Turkey, between the Mediterranean coast and Iraq. Look it up on Google Maps. I think you have difficulty understanding what people around you are saying. No one has suggested that Syria is Europe or even next to it. You should listen more carefully. And concentrate: less jingles, more thought!

PUTIN goes to WAR against ISIS: Stop dithering and FIGHT Laughi10

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:33 am

There are reports that the Russians are bombing Syrian rebels rather than ISIS. I expect they'll just say it was an accident or something.

Wouldn't the best thing be for the rebels to stop fighting Assad for the moment and then everyone can concentrate on getting rid of ISIS? Afterwards, there can be negotiations re Assad to clarify what people's gripe with him is.

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:35 am

reports from the BBC and other ultra relibale and honest wetern media outlets i suppose??

the bottom line is that assad needs to be propped up and stablised, before anything useful can happen, becasue as it stands i dont think there is too much difference between ISIS and the syrian rebels

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:44 am

Russia began bombing targets in Syria on Wednesday. Russian President Vladimir Putin has framed his military intervention there as targeting terrorist groups, especially ISIS. And Russia said its strikes today were launched against ISIS.
Don't believe it. The strikes reported this morning aren't happening anywhere near ISIS territory and aren't actually hitting ISIS positions, as a look at the following map from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) should make clear. In fact, Russia is bombing ISIS's enemies in the Syrian opposition — which makes a lot more sense if you understand what Russia is really trying to accomplish.
According to ISW researcher Genevieve Casagrande, a Russian airstrike this morning appears to have hit Talbiseh, a town in the tan rebel-held swatch just north of Homs, in Syria's west. You'll note that this is nowhere near ISIS territory, marked in gray:
PUTIN goes to WAR against ISIS: Stop dithering and FIGHT Russian%20Posture%20in%20Syria%2027%20SEP%202015-01

PUTIN goes to WAR against ISIS: Stop dithering and FIGHT Russian%20Posture%20in%20Syria%2027%20SEP%202015-01

(Institute for the Study of War)

"Talbiseh is home to Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, hardline Islamist Ahrar al-Sham, and a number of other local rebel groups," Casagrande explains. These organizations are generally hostile to ISIS. "The airstrike," she concludes, "did not hit ISIS militants."
Michael Horowitz, a senior intelligence analyst at the Levantine Group, says that Russia bombed another town near Homs (Zaafarana) and one (Ltamenah) near the city of Hama, north of Homs. Again, as you can see on the map, none of these are near ISIS territory. According to Horowitz, all of the towns are held by non-ISIS groups.
"Russia targeted only groups that are not ISIS and it may have targeted groups backed by the US," Horowitz told BuzzFeed's Borzou Daragahi. "It’s really clear that the airstrikes were not meant to target ISIS."
This shouldn't be surprising. Russia is in Syria to prop up Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, Moscow's ally. The main threat to Assad is not ISIS, which the Syrian leader has often tolerated, but rather Syria's non-ISIS rebels — including al-Qaeda's Syrian franchise as well as more moderate rebel groups. These rebel groups (along with the Kurds in Syria's north) are also ISIS's main enemies in Syria.
"ISIS almost never fought the Assad regime," Glenn Robinson, an associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, told me earlier this month. "They were much more focused on fighting other opposition groups and gaining land their opponents had already acquired."
Assad has taken advantage of this, tacitly tolerating ISIS in northeastern Syria while focusing his military efforts on the rebels. This was part of what appeared to be a deliberate strategy to encourage extremism in order to discourage foreign intervention against him.
Both Assad and Putin win, in other words, if the West is forced to choose between Assad and ISIS in Syria. Which is part of why Russian airstrikes appear to be targeting ISIS's enemies in Syria — under the pretext of targeting ISIS.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423229/russia-bombing-isis-syria

Nope, not the BBC

by SEXY MAMA Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:45 am

'Send in Muslim troops to fight ISIS': Putin's strongman Chechen ally calls on Russian PM to expand operations in Syria to finish off 'these evil spirits'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3255876/Russia-pouring-gasoline-fire-Syria-s-civil-war-says-America-Putin-defies-West-drops-bombs-non-ISIS-forces-fighting-Assad.html#ixzz3nJP629Ud
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:47 am

we need to bomb them sassy, the russian dude says they have WMD's, we must invade and stablise

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:48 am

Well, they'd have to start to fight ISIS SM, instead of just trying to wipe out Assad's enemies, who also don't like ISIS.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:50 am

smelly-bandit wrote:reports from the BBC and other ultra relibale and honest wetern media outlets i suppose??

the bottom line is that assad needs to be propped up and stablised, before anything useful can happen, becasue as it stands i dont think there is too much difference between ISIS and the syrian rebels

I guess so. Laughing

I read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-say-russia-targets-them-rather-than-isis.html

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:52 am

sassy wrote:Well, they'd have to start to fight ISIS SM, instead of just trying to wipe out Assad's enemies, who also don't like ISIS.

Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do? Sort out one problem - ie, ISIS - and then try to sort out the other problems later.

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:56 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:Well, they'd have to start to fight ISIS SM, instead of just trying to wipe out Assad's enemies, who also don't like ISIS.

Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do? Sort out one problem - ie, ISIS - and then try to sort out the other problems later.

not really

the sensible thing is to wipe out the destiablising elements to assads govt first - the rebels. once assads regime has regained control, with the help of russia they can push out and wipe ISIS off the map. If they take out ISIS first then they will still have civil war because the rebels wont sit down and talk it out, the rebels started this shit in the first place

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:00 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do? Sort out one problem - ie, ISIS - and then try to sort out the other problems later.

not really

the sensible thing is to wipe out the destiablising elements to assads govt first - the rebels. once assads regime has regained control, with the help of russia they can push out and wipe ISIS off the map. If they take out ISIS first then they will still have civil war because the rebels wont sit down and talk it out, the rebels started this shit in the first place

I think that the rebels could call a ceasefire of some kind so that others can concentrate on ISIS. Later on, there can be some kind of investigation into what the rebels' actual gripes are. What are they actually fighting against?

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

not really

the sensible thing is to wipe out the destiablising elements to assads govt first - the rebels. once assads regime has regained control, with the help of russia they can push out and wipe ISIS off the map. If they take out ISIS first then they will still have civil war because the rebels wont sit down and talk it out, the rebels started this shit in the first place

I think that the rebels could call a ceasefire of some kind so that others can concentrate on ISIS. Later on, there can be some kind of investigation into what the rebels' actual gripes are. What are they actually fighting against?

assad already tried that a few years ago, he wanted a sit down with the rebels to try and defuse the situation and they refused to engage in peace talks

by SEXY MAMA Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:11 pm

sassy wrote:Well, they'd have to start to fight ISIS SM, instead of just trying to wipe out Assad's enemies, who also don't like ISIS.

Indeed. I cant believe the ISIS are getting away with the crap they are doing daily

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:15 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
sassy wrote:Well, they'd have to start to fight ISIS SM, instead of just trying to wipe out Assad's enemies, who also don't like ISIS.

Indeed. I cant believe the ISIS are getting away with the crap they are doing daily

ALLAHU AKBAR baby!!!!

FYI this shit they are doing daily was happening long before ISIS came along and teh reason they ARE getting waway with it is becasue of denialists like you.

yes mama, the only peopel who can really stop ISIS are other Muslims, but because youre all so dishonest about your religion and the root causes of ISIS means that ISIS gets a free pass to get away with it

by SEXY MAMA Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:24 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
SEXY MAMA wrote:

Indeed. I cant believe the ISIS are getting away with the crap they are doing daily

ALLAHU AKBAR baby!!!!

FYI this shit they are doing daily was happening long before ISIS came along and teh reason they ARE getting waway with it is becasue of denialists like you.

yes mama, the only peopel who can really stop ISIS are other Muslims, but because youre all so dishonest about your religion and the root causes of ISIS means that ISIS gets a free pass to get away with it

PUTIN goes to WAR against ISIS: Stop dithering and FIGHT 1177314732

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:26 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that the rebels could call a ceasefire of some kind so that others can concentrate on ISIS. Later on, there can be some kind of investigation into what the rebels' actual gripes are. What are they actually fighting against?

assad already tried that a few years ago, he wanted a sit down with the rebels to try and defuse the situation and they refused to engage in peace talks

Was ISIS active in the area at the time though?

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

assad already tried that a few years ago, he wanted a sit down with the rebels to try and defuse the situation and they refused to engage in peace talks

Was ISIS active in the area at the time though?

ISIS were the rebels

they since split away from the main rebel group

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:53 pm

Actually Rags, in the beginning the rebels were the young, working and middle class, who didn't like living under a dictarorship and wanted democracy which evolved into The Syrian National Council. As well as about 5 Islamist groups against Assad, there are at least 7 secular groups.

Now it appears Russia has come out of the closet about not just targetting ISIS:

Kremlin says Syria air strikes target list of groups, not just Islamic State

Russian air strikes in Syria are targeting a list of well-known militant organizations, not only Islamic State, the Kremlin said on Thursday, a day after the launch of its aerial campaign opened up a volatile new phase in the conflict.

Moscow had previously framed its campaign as primarily aimed at Islamic State militants, saying it feared Russian and other ex-Soviet citizens who belong to the group would shift their focus to their home countries if they were not stopped in Syria.

But on Thursday, after the United States and rebels on the ground suggested Russian strikes had so far not focused on Islamic State, it said its operation was pitched more broadly.

"These organizations (on the target list) are well-known and the targets are chosen in coordination with the armed forces of Syria," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, when asked if Russia and the West had different views on what constituted a terrorist group.

He said that mechanisms to coordinate the strikes with other countries were working.

Asked whether President Vladimir Putin was satisfied with the way the Russian air campaign was shaping up, Peskov said it was too early to discuss the matter.

Russia's air strikes represent its biggest Middle East intervention in decades, adding a complex new dimension to Syria's four-year civil war as Putin moves forcefully to stake out influence in the highly unstable region.

On Thursday, several Russian newspapers close to the Kremlin emphasized Putin's comments about how Moscow did not intend to "plunge head first" into the Syrian conflict and how Russia's intervention was legal because it was taking place at the request of President Bashar al-Assad.

Religious leaders, including Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, and Talgat Tadzhuddin, the chief Mufti of Russia, were also quoted as offering their support for the air strikes, along with Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of Russia's southern, mainly Muslim republic of Chechnya.

Vsevolod Chaplin, a senior Orthodox cleric, was quoted by the Interfax news agency, as saying that the fight against terrorism was "a holy battle".

A rare note of scepticism came from the Moskovskiy Komsomolets newspaper, however, which recalled the difficulties the Soviet Union faced after going into Afghanistan in 1979 and the risk of a backlash from Islamist militants inside Russia.

"Danger number one is the possibility of an 'asymmetrical reply" from ISIS (Islamic State) in the form of large-scale terrorist attacks on our territory," wrote Mikhail Rostovsky, a commentator for the newspaper.

Russian public opinion appears divided on the subject.

A Sept. 28 poll by the Levada Center pollster showed that 69 percent of Russians either firmly or probably opposed deploying troops to Syria. But 67 percent said they backed Russian "political and diplomatic support" for Assad.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-idUSKCN0RV41O20151001?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Basically he is just propping up Assad, who is also a war criminal and has just as much, or more, of the blood of the people of Syria on his hands.

by nicko Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:01 pm

Is Putin targeting the Kurds as well as IS?

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:05 pm

I think that propping up Assad is not such a bad thing at the moment. The problems with him can be sorted later - hopefully not via violence or pointless fighting.

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:13 pm

That's only the first part of what happened sassy and you know it

by Guest Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:16 pm

nicko wrote:Is Putin targeting the Kurds as well as IS?

I would be surprised

They aren't a threat to Assad and they are fighting Isis

by Original Quill Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:03 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Unfortunately for your geopolitical ramblings, Obama had nothing to do with ISIL. ISIL is the former al Qaeda in Iraq, and they were the Iraqi resistance group at war with the GWB/Cheney cabal. Nothing to do with Obama.

Under the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, the sole power to declare war lies with Congress. Obama cannot go into Syria because the Republican Congress refuses to sign the war bill, which has been on Congress' desk for a year now. The only war authorization that the Republican Congress has given to anyone is that given to the Bush/Cheney cabal back during the GWB administration. That was the authorization used to justify the Iraq war.

However, in 2008 President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement with the administration of Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, by which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory." What could Obama do but abide by the former president's agreement? We wouldn't want to make Bush out to be a liar, now would we?

The Republican Congress has pursued a policy of not authorizing any hostilities against ISIL. The US hands are tied. Too bad. There are many things Dr. Obama might have done--still could do--but Congress refuses to act. And under the US Constitution, Article I, only Congress has the authority to declare hostilities.

As for Syria being the same as Europe, I never suggested that Syria is even in Europe. In fact, Syria is south of Turkey, between the Mediterranean coast and Iraq. Look it up on Google Maps. I think you have difficulty understanding what people around you are saying. No one has suggested that Syria is Europe or even next to it. You should listen more carefully. And concentrate: less jingles, more thought!

HOW EMBARRASSING for you. A photograph of Republicans, over 40-years old?? Where is Obama?

Conservatives have lost sight of the plot: first you uncover facts, then you draft your theory. I told you to lose the "jingles", smells. Symbolic photographs and groundless adjectives are examples of jingles. The king ordered the waves to stop, and nothing happened. Know why? He didn't account for the facts.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:There are reports that the Russians are bombing Syrian rebels rather than ISIS. I expect they'll just say it was an accident or something.

Wouldn't the best thing be for the rebels to stop fighting Assad for the moment and then everyone can concentrate on getting rid of ISIS? Afterwards, there can be negotiations re Assad to clarify what people's gripe with him is.

Alternatively, they could stop fighting ISIS for the moment and then everyone can concentrate on getting rid of Assad. Afterwards, there can be negotiations re ISIS to clarify what people's gripe with them is.

by Sponsored content