PUTIN goes to WAR against ISIS: Stop dithering and FIGHT

First topic message reminder :

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/

Original Quill wrote:

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.

Nah. There will be no reasoning with ISIS. Getting rid of Assad will just make it worse because there will be a massive power vacuum just waiting to be filled by ISIS or others.

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

Ahhh...the old WMD argument. I'd forgotten that one. Still works, does it?

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?

No of course not...smells makes shit up as he goes along.

ISIL is the former al-Qaeda of Iraq, and before that they were the Baath Party of Iraq, and they were the ranks generals and executives of the Saddam Hussein regime.

How do you think they got the resources, arms and organization to start the movement? They didn't start from scratch. They were the former Iraq elite guard, out in the field picking up arms we left behind.

My point is that the rebels might be more prepared to talk now that they feel threatened by ISIS.

Raggamuffin wrote: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.

Hmmm...brings to mind another gentleman:

British Prime Minister wrote:My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep. -- Neville Chamberlain

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote: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.

Hmmm...brings to mind another gentleman:

British Prime Minister wrote:My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep. -- Neville Chamberlain

Don't let history influence you too much. Assad is a very different kettle of fish. What is the point of some people siding with him, some siding with the rebels, and some siding with ISIS? That will get no results at all. The best thing to do is side with the people who are the most open to negotiation, and that's not ISIS. I think Assad would be, and I think most of the rebel groups would be too. Of course the rebels could join with ISIS, but they'd be stupid to do that.

come quill I know youre taking the piss.

i mean if i thought for one second that you actually believed what you post it would be different, but i know you dont, i know you post it for my benefit

you do make me smile

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hmmm...brings to mind another gentleman:

Don't let history influence you too much. Assad is a very different kettle of fish. What is the point of some people siding with him, some siding with the rebels, and some siding with ISIS? That will get no results at all. The best thing to do is side with the people who are the most open to negotiation, and that's not ISIS. I think Assad would be, and I think most of the rebel groups would be too. Of course the rebels could join with ISIS, but they'd be stupid to do that.

Why take sides at all?  Don't you get the sense that it's an interesting petri dish for political scientists to observe various cultures growing, and competing for the same environment?

Why not sit back and watch?  Look upon it like a controlled experiment.  The admixture of Russia is a fun addition.  Sit back and watch...imagine what you can learn.

smelly-bandit wrote:come quill I know youre taking the piss.

i mean if i thought for one second that you actually believed what you post it would be different, but i know you dont, i know you post it for my benefit  

you do make me smile

How would it be different?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't let history influence you too much. Assad is a very different kettle of fish. What is the point of some people siding with him, some siding with the rebels, and some siding with ISIS? That will get no results at all. The best thing to do is side with the people who are the most open to negotiation, and that's not ISIS. I think Assad would be, and I think most of the rebel groups would be too. Of course the rebels could join with ISIS, but they'd be stupid to do that.

Why take sides at all?  Don't you get the sense that it's an interesting petri dish for political scientists to observe various cultures growing, and competing for the same environment?

Why not sit back and watch?  Look upon it like a controlled experiment.  The admixture of Russia is a fun addition.  Sit back and watch...imagine what you can learn.

Why take sides? Well because if the situation is not resolved, there will be more and more refugees coming to Europe. That is something that I think will create problems.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:come quill I know youre taking the piss.

i mean if i thought for one second that you actually believed what you post it would be different, but i know you dont, i know you post it for my benefit  

you do make me smile

How would it be different?  

well for starters i would take you seriously.

but i cant believe that YOU believe what you post, it just doesnt feel right.

Original Quill wrote:

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?

No of course not...smells makes shit up as he goes along.  

ISIL is the former al-Qaeda of Iraq, and before that they were the Baath Party of Iraq, and they were the ranks generals and executives of the Saddam Hussein regime.  

How do you think they got the resources, arms and organization to start the movement?  They didn't start from scratch.  They were the former Iraq elite guard, out in the field picking up arms we left behind.

Ok Quill sorry but you are obviously deluded Baath Party had been at war with Al Qaeda for longer than the USA.
Bin laden tried to kill Saddam back when USA were still bin laden friends.

ISIS do seem to be a splinter from Al Qaeda

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Was ISIS active in the area at the time though?

No of course not...smells makes shit up as he goes along.  

ISIL is the former al-Qaeda of Iraq, and before that they were the Baath Party of Iraq, and they were the ranks generals and executives of the Saddam Hussein regime.  

How do you think they got the resources, arms and organization to start the movement?  They didn't start from scratch.  They were the former Iraq elite guard, out in the field picking up arms we left behind.

cant posisbly imagine where ISIS are getting their weapons and resources from

**********************

(IraqiNews.com) On Saturday, MP Majid al-Ghraoui said that, an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment into the hands of the ISIS group militants in southeast of Tikrit, located in Salahuddin province.

MP Majid al-Ghraoui, the member of the Security and Defense Committee in the Parliament, said: “The information that has reached us in the security and defense committee indicates that an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the province of Salahuddin.”

He added, “The committee will set a meeting within the next few days to follow up on that incident,” pointing out that, “This incident is continuously happening and has also occurred in some other regions.”

“The U.S. is trying to obtain more benefits and privileges from the government to set military bases in Iraq,” Ghraoui said.

Noteworthy, the security committee in Salahuddin Provincial Council announced today, that unidentified air crafts dropped weapons and gear to the ISIS group elements in southeast of Tikrit.

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/american-aircraft-airdropped-weapons-to-isis-says-mp/

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No of course not...smells makes shit up as he goes along.  

ISIL is the former al-Qaeda of Iraq, and before that they were the Baath Party of Iraq, and they were the ranks generals and executives of the Saddam Hussein regime.  

How do you think they got the resources, arms and organization to start the movement?  They didn't start from scratch.  They were the former Iraq elite guard, out in the field picking up arms we left behind.

cant posisbly imagine where ISIS are getting their weapons and resources from

**********************

(IraqiNews.com) On Saturday, MP Majid al-Ghraoui said that, an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment into the hands of the ISIS group militants in southeast of Tikrit, located in Salahuddin province.

MP Majid al-Ghraoui, the member of the Security and Defense Committee in the Parliament, said: “The information that has reached us in the security and defense committee indicates that an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the province of Salahuddin.”

He added, “The committee will set a meeting within the next few days to follow up on that incident,” pointing out that, “This incident is continuously happening and has also occurred in some other regions.”

“The U.S. is trying to obtain more benefits and privileges from the government to set military bases in Iraq,” Ghraoui said.

Noteworthy, the security committee in Salahuddin Provincial Council announced today, that unidentified air crafts dropped weapons and gear to the ISIS group elements in southeast of Tikrit.

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/american-aircraft-airdropped-weapons-to-isis-says-mp/

And you believed it?

I've got this magic machine that will turn shit into gold. Wanna buy it? I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona. Wanna buy it? I've got the bridge in Brooklyn...

Not to mention a castle in Scotland ...

quill

so far ive been serving in the british marines (the proper ones) since 01, and in that time ive seen and done a lot of things, now of all the the things ive done, specializing in weapon systems of all varities, is the thing i have done the most.

big ones, small ones, one man ones, crew served ones, ones that go bang , ones that go boom, ones that go..........., fast ones, slow ones, ones that make meat, ones that make wet slush and ones that make red mist

yes sir, ive learned em all and shot em all.

so when i see ISIS driving around in american humvees, and ISIS toting american pattern rifles and equipment then i have to conclude that is american equipment that they are using

the one thing you are blissfully ignorant of, is your ignorance of history and chronology, even more so than your weapons and AFV recognition, and that makes me laugh

the thing is the old saddam regime were equippied with soviet pattern rifles,vehicles and equipment.

we all saw the burning T-54/55 and T-72 tanks hulks,dont i wont bore you with that im sure one tanks and gun looks much like another to you, but the point i am making is that the equipment,vehicles and weapons used by isis are inconstent with those used by the Iraqi forces pre invasion

when we put together what we KNOW about the US supporting and SUPPLYING the iraqi army post invasion, and we know that the iraqi army abandoned their positions weapons vehicles and all, in the face of ISIS forces advancing then logically we must conclude that ISIS has since captured and or been supplied with post invasion equipment

AMERICAN equipment supplied by your president - OBAMA

All true, except for the last. You impress yourself with yourself, and you are so impressed that you let that last one slip by.

But for all your experience with ordinance, you know nothing about politics. Your knowledge of history is a bit sloppy as well.

Obama has stood at arms length with everyone in the Middle East. He knows that Bush fooked up. He understands the complete lack of knowledge about the ME that the Bush/Cheney cabal exhibited. He has had one goal: get to December 2011, when the US can pull out.

There is no rhyme or reason for Obama to be feeding anyone in the ME weapons. There is no diplomacy or strategy in the making that warrants it.

If ISIL got US brand weapons, they didn't get them from Obama. Maybe they are knock-offs made in China.

Original Quill wrote:All true, except for the last.  You impress yourself with yourself, and you are so impressed that you let that last one slip by.

But for all your experience with ordinance, you know nothing about politics.  Your knowledge of history is a bit sloppy as well.  

Obama has stood at arms length with everyone in the Middle East.  He knows that Bush fooked up.  He understands the complete lack of knowledge about the ME that the Bush/Cheney cabal exhibited.  He has had one goal: get to December 2011, when the US can pull out.

There is no rhyme or reason for Obama to be feeding anyone in the ME weapons.  There is no diplomacy or strategy in the making that warrants it.  

If ISIL got US brand weapons, they didn't get them from Obama.  Maybe they are knock-offs made in China.

Quill, didn't realise you were that naive:

Iraq Arrests ISIS Advisors, US And Israelis Held
Agents of both Mossad and CIA contractors are being held on suspicion of aiding ISIS militants.

TEHRAN – Iraqi Special Forces said they have arrested several ISIL’s foreign military advisors, including American, Israeli and Arab nationals in an operation in Mosul in the Northern parts of the country.
The Iraqi forces said they have retrieved four foreign passports, including those that belonged to American and Israeli nationals and one that belonged to the national of a Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) member-state, from ISIL’s military advisors.
The foreign advisors were arrested in a military operation in Tal Abta desert near Mosul city.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/iraq-arrests-isis-advisors-us-and-israelis-held/203250/







The Iraqi popular forces who shot down a US helicopter carrying weapons for the ISIL forces in Al-Baqdadi region released the photos of the shot down chopper through the Internet.
A group of Iraqi popular forces known as Al-Hashad Al-Shabi shot down the US Army helicopter that was carrying weapons for the ISIL in the western parts of Al-Baqdadi region in Al-Anbar province on Thursday.

Last week, Head of the Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli announced that the helicopters of the US-led anti-ISIL coalition were dropping weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL terrorists in the Southern parts of Tikrit.
He underscored that he had documents and photos showing that the US Apache helicopters airdropped foodstuff and weapons for the ISIL.
On Friday the Iraqi security forces regained control of al-Baghdadi district from the ISIL terrorists.
“Iraqi security forces seized control of al-Shohadaa neighborhood and 13 Daesh (ISIL) militants were killed in the clashes,” Lt. Saoud al-Ibeidi said.
Iraqi forces on February 18 managed to end ISIL’s 10-day siege of al-Baghdadi district’s residential area and killed about 150 terrorists, according to police sources.
Last Monday, a senior lawmaker disclosed that Iraq’s army had shot down two British planes as they were carrying weapons for the ISIL terrorists in Al-Anbar province.
“The Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee has access to the photos of both planes that are British and have crashed while they were carrying weapons for the ISIL,” al-Zameli said, according to a Monday report of the Arabic-language information center of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
He said the Iraqi parliament has asked London for explanations in this regard.
The senior Iraqi legislator further unveiled that the government in Baghdad is receiving daily reports from people and security forces in al-Anbar province on numerous flights by the US-led coalition planes that airdrop weapons and supplies for ISIL in terrorist-held areas.
The Iraqi lawmaker further noted the cause of such western aids to the terrorist group, and explained that the US prefers a chaotic situation in Anbar Province which is near the cities of Karbala and Baghdad as it does not want the ISIL crisis to come to an end.
Earlier today, a senior Iraqi provincial official lashed out at the western countries and their regional allies for supporting Takfiri terrorists in Iraq, revealing that US and Israeli-made weapons have been discovered from the areas purged of ISIL terrorists.
“We have discovered weapons made in the US, European countries and Israel from the areas liberated from ISIL’s control in Al-Baqdadi region,” the Al-Ahad news website quoted Head of Al-Anbar Provincial Council Khalaf Tarmouz as saying.
He noted that the weapons made by the European countries and Israel were discovered from the terrorists in the Eastern parts of the city of Ramadi.
Al-Zameli had also disclosed in January that the anti-ISIL coalition’s planes have dropped weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL in Salahuddin, Al-Anbar and Diyala provinces.
Al-Zameli underlined that the coalition is the main cause of ISIL’s survival in Iraq.
“There are proofs and evidence for the US-led coalition’s military aid to ISIL terrorists through air(dropped cargoes),” he told FNA in January.
He noted that the members of his committee have already proved that the US planes have dropped advanced weaponry, including anti-aircraft weapons, for the ISIL, and that it has set up an investigation committee to probe into the matter.
“The US drops weapons for the ISIL on the excuse of not knowing about the whereabouts of the ISIL positions and it is trying to distort the reality with its allegations.
He noted that the committee had collected the data and the evidence provided by eyewitnesses, including Iraqi army officers and the popular forces, and said, “These documents are given to the investigation committee … and the necessary measures will be taken to protect the Iraqi airspace.”
Also in January, another senior Iraqi legislator reiterated that the US-led coalition is the main cause of ISIL’s survival in Iraq.
“The international coalition is only an excuse for protecting the ISIL and helping the terrorist group with equipment and weapons,” Jome Divan, who is member of the al-Sadr bloc in the Iraqi parliament, said.
He said the coalition’s support for the ISIL is now evident to everyone, and continued, “The coalition has not targeted ISIL’s main positions in Iraq.”
In late December, Iraqi Parliamentary Security and Defense Commission MP disclosed that a US plane supplied the ISIL terrorist organization with arms and ammunition in Salahuddin province.
MP Majid al-Gharawi stated that the available information pointed out that US planes are supplying ISIL organization, not only in Salahuddin province, but also other provinces, Iraq TradeLink reported.
He added that the US and the international coalition are “not serious in fighting against the ISIL organization, because they have the technological power to determine the presence of ISIL gunmen and destroy them in one month”.
Gharawi added that “the US is trying to expand the time of the war against the ISIL to get guarantees from the Iraqi government to have its bases in Mosul and Anbar provinces.”
Salahuddin security commission also disclosed that “unknown planes threw arms and ammunition to the ISIL gunmen Southeast of Tikrit city”.
Also in Late December, a senior Iraqi lawmaker raised doubts about the seriousness of the anti-ISIL coalition led by the US, and said that the terrorist group still received aids dropped by unidentified aircraft.
“The international coalition is not serious about air strikes on ISIL terrorists and is even seeking to take out the popular (voluntary) forces from the battlefield against the Takfiris so that the problem with ISIL remains unsolved in the near future,” Nahlah al-Hababi told FNA.
“The ISIL terrorists are still receiving aids from unidentified fighter jets in Iraq and Syria,” she added.
Hababi said that the coalition’s precise airstrikes are launched only in those areas where the Kurdish Pishmarga forces are present, while military strikes in other regions are not so much precise.
In late December, the US-led coalition dropped aids to the Takfiri militants in an area North of Baghdad.
Field sources in Iraq told al-Manar that the international coalition airplanes dropped aids to the terrorist militants in Balad, an area which lies in Salahuddin province North of Baghdad.
In October, a high-ranking Iranian commander also slammed the US for providing aid supplies to ISIL, adding that the US claims that the weapons were mistakenly airdropped to ISIL were untrue.
“The US and the so-called anti-ISIL coalition claim that they have launched a campaign against this terrorist and criminal group – while supplying them with weapons, food and medicine in Jalawla region (a town in Diyala Governorate, Iraq). This explicitly displays the falsity of the coalition’s and the US’ claims,” Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri said.
The US claimed that it had airdropped weapons and medical aid to Kurdish fighters confronting the ISIL in Kobani, near the Turkish border in Northern Syria.
The US Defense Department said that it had airdropped 28 bundles of weapons and supplies, but one of them did not make it into the hands of the Kurdish fighters.
Video footage later showed that some of the weapons that the US airdropped were taken by ISIL militants.
The Iranian commander insisted that the US had the necessary intelligence about ISIL’s deployment in the region and that their claims to have mistakenly airdropped weapons to them are as unlikely as they are untrue.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-helicopter-delivering-weapons-to-the-islamic-state-isis-shot-down-by-iraqi-popular-forces/5434230



And of course the Pentagon report that let the cat out of the bag http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

Nah...it's Russian propaganda.

The US lost a helo...so what?

Nah Quill, it's really not.  A Pentagon Report Russian propaganda?  Really?

In Plain Sight: Coalition Forces Routinely Air-Drop Military Supplies to ISIS Fighters In Syria
February 18, 2015 By 21wire 39 Comments
21st Century Wire says…

Deconstructing one of the biggest ISIS myths…

A plethora of mythology has been spun in the US media about ISIS “controls large parts of the Middle East”, when in reality they do not. This highly inflatable concept is easy to sell to US audiences who struggle to find Syria on a map. There are areas in Iraq and Syria which are unstable, and smaller areas yet, which are experiencing intense fighting, but ISIS does not control “large areas” of the region.

When you knock down that first domino, then other dominoes fall with it, like the myth of “ISIS maintains a vast network of supply lines in the region.” Again, more myth-making generated by a typically over-exaggerating mainstream media – designed to support the original thesis. There are terrorist units spread out in an array of isolated pockets in Syria and Iraq, so with that being the case, what would be the easiest way to deliver supplies to troops in the field? It turns out that the answer is much simpler than the overblown fish story our media is selling us….


HIDDEN IN PLAIN ‘S.I.T.E.': Pentagon and Israel media arm SITE has been helping to stage-manage the ‘accidental weapons drop’ narrative.

Pay attention. The article below was posted in Oct. 2014 by online Israeli tabloid site,Vocativ, which illustrates how poorly the ISIS camouflage performs in the field; the real story is casually hidden in plain sight. The video at the end of this story shows that ISIS is receiving weapons and supply drops from above. The official line on this story attempts to cloud and obfuscate the obvious. The Pentagon and US media both constantly claim that, somehow, ISIS has “got a hold of American weapons and ammunition that the U.S. military had dropped for Kurdish forces in Syria.” Sure it is.

It’s a subtle and very convenient way to explain away what you are witnessing with your own eyes: that ‘Coalition’ air forces are routinely dropping supplies to ISIS fighters in Syria. It’s becoming a regular occurrence, appearing in the media on multiple occasions reported here, here and here. The mainstream will constantly steer its captive audiences away from the obvious – that one of the reasons that ISIS is so formidable is that they are being steadily supplied with US military-grade war materials.

Who has operational control of the skies over Syria and Iraq now? Answer: the Pentagon-led coalition. In addition, US ally Israel is also flying regular missions over Syria too, and they could also be involved in supplying ISIS fighters too.

Air-dropping supplies to covert paramilitary rebel or fighting groups is nothing new for the US. Whether it’s in Nicaragua (arms, cash, for cocaine), El Salvador (arms for cannabis) and Cambodia/Laos (arms, cash, for heroin), or in Syria (arms, supplies, for captagon?), it’s always been a key component to any US clandestine operation. The practice became famous following the hit film, Air America, which detailed the U.S. Government and CIA covert courier service used to support illegal military operations in areas the U.S. Armed forces could not go into, as was the case with South East Asia due to treaty restraints contained in the 1954 and 1962 Geneva Accords. It seems like Air America is back in business.

Watch the video at the end. See for yourself…

This Army Surplus Camo Might Make ISIS Easier to Hit

Vocativ

ISIS might be the latest victim of America’s need to constantly be on trend. The extremist group seems to have taken old U.S. Army uniforms that were proven to be horrible at disguising American soldiers over two years ago, making its jihadis easy targets in battle. 

In the past month, photos have appeared online of high-ranking ISIS officers wearing fatigues that look exactly like the American uniform design known as UCP.

The dysfunctional UCP Army uniform, which basically looks like an old Windows computer screen capture of a fatigue pattern, was created in 2004 in response to some Army soldiers who literally just wanted to look cooler. The pattern on the uniform is technically more fashionable, depending on your taste, but also gives little to no camouflage protection in combat. The U.S. spent $5 billion on it only to find it was a danger to the soldiers. In 2012, the Army introduced new and improved fatigues, but ISIS might be stuck with the old pattern.
Photos of ISIS commanders potentially wearing the old American uniforms are made more actual by the fact that ISIS posted a video online Tuesday claiming it got a hold of American weapons and ammunition that the U.S. military had dropped for Kurdish forces in Syria. You can watch the ISIS video of the alleged stolen weapons and ammunition here:



http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/02/18/in-plain-sight-coalition-forces-routinely-air-drop-military-supplies-to-isis-fighters-in-syria/

Doesn't make sense America would be shooting itself in the foot this way. True, the US has shot itself in the foot before, but not entirely senselessly.

Have you any insight into why they would do this? I don't want to read a mile-long exegesis. So give it to me in your own short words:
1...

2....

3...

Then I'll go back and look into it, if it flies.

2 will do

1 - proxy warfare

2 - proxy warfare done badly

smelly-bandit wrote:2 will do

1 - proxy warfare

2 - proxy warfare done badly

Proxy for who? What's the plan? C'mon...you can answer the questions: 1, 2, 3, etc.

proxy for who do you think??

the US you simpleton.

for someone who cliams to be highly educated quill,you dont seem to understand the most basic concepts

smelly-bandit wrote:proxy for who do you think??

the US you simpleton.

for someone who cliams to be highly educated quill,you dont seem to understand the most basic concepts

Who would the US be proxying for?  

These guys are smokin' some shit.  The US doesn't care about ISIL, either way.  What's in it for them?

If the U.S. are dropping arms to ISIS, What is their purpose,why are they doing this?

nicko wrote:If the U.S.   are dropping arms to ISIS,  What is their purpose,why are they doing this?

I agree fully. It makes no sense at all.

Like I say...those Iraqis are smokin' some heavy shit.

Keep in mind that whatever comes out of Baghdad these days comes directly from Tehran. One must factor in all the influences.

This was written in 2013.  It always comes back to oil:

'few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within." (When people laughed at Charlotte Church on QT saying that Syria's problems were linked to climate change, she was quite right and they were ignorant)

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

"Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the 'Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict' trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

Exploring different scenarios for this trajectory, the report speculated that the US may concentrate "on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf." Noting that this could actually empower al-Qaeda jihadists, the report concluded that doing so might work in western interests by bogging down jihadi activity with internal sectarian rivalry rather than targeting the US:

"One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations."

The RAND document contextualised this disturbing strategy with surprisingly prescient recognition of the increasing vulnerability of the US's key allies and enemies - Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Syria, Iran - to a range of converging crises: rapidly rising populations, a 'youth bulge', internal economic inequalities, political frustrations, sectarian tensions, and environmentally-linked water shortages, all of which could destabilise these countries from within or exacerbate inter-state conflicts.

The report noted especially that Syria is among several "downstream countries that are becoming increasingly water scarce as their populations grow", increasing a risk of conflict. Thus, although the RAND document fell far short of recognising the prospect of an 'Arab Spring', it illustrates that three years before the 2011 uprisings, US defence officials were alive to the region's growing instabilities, and concerned by the potential consequences for stability of Gulf oil.

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines


It always, but always, comes back to oil.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:proxy for who do you think??

the US you simpleton.

for someone who cliams to be highly educated quill,you dont seem to understand the most basic concepts

Who would the US be proxying for?  

These guys are smokin' some shit.  The US doesn't care about ISIL, either way.  What's in it for them?

in whose best interest does the US always act??

remember afghanistan??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who would the US be proxying for?  

These guys are smokin' some shit.  The US doesn't care about ISIL, either way.  What's in it for them?

in whose best interest does the US always act??

remember afghanistan??

Traditionally, the US was the principal nation in the Cold War and acted adverse to movements related to or helped by worldwide communism. It began with the Korean War and ended with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact regimes.

Wiki wrote:The Communist Party of the Soviet Union itself lost control and was banned following an abortive coup attempt in August 1991. This in turn led to the formal dissolution of the USSR in December 1991 and the collapse of Communist regimes in other countries such as Mongolia, Cambodia and South Yemen. The United States remained as the world's only superpower.

Iraq was atypical, and brought about by Neo-Cons, who felt the US had a mission to convert the world...and they wouldn't mind a little bit of that oil, tyvm. The Iraq War actually created al Qaeda in Iraq, the mother of ISIS.

Salon wrote:There was no al-Qaida-Iraq connection until the war; our invasion made it so. We have known this for nearly a decade, well before the murderous ISIS even appeared. In a September 2006 New York Times article headlined “Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat,” reporter Mark Mazetti informed readers of a classified National Intelligence Estimate representing the consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ the analysis cited the Iraq War as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology: “The Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,’ said one American intelligence official.”
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/20/neocons_stunning_iraq_revisionism_why_theyre_still_divorced_from_reality_partner/

If al Qaeda in Iraq was created by the Iraq War, and is today the core of ISIS, there is no reason why the western nations would help ISIS. It would be the equivalent of helping worldwide communism during the height of the Cold War.

Afghanistan was the one adventure that was conceivably related to national defense in the wake of 9/11. Afghanistan was harboring the al Qaeda group, and specifically Usama bin Laden. It had training camps for militants, from which they staged terrorist atrocities.

I dont really know what to say quill.

im blown away by how uneducated you are on this issue, you remind me of a film called "goodbye lenin"

I genuinely have no idea of how to have a conversation with a person who appears to have heard of ISIS no more than a couple of months ago.

i certianly have neither the patience nor the inclination to educate you on who ISIS are and how they came about ,you constantly bang on about research, take your own advice.

smelly-bandit wrote:I dont really know what to say quill.

im blown away by how uneducated you are on this issue, you remind me of a film called "goodbye lenin"

I genuinely have no idea of how to have a conversation with a person who appears to have heard of ISIS no more than a couple of months ago.

i certianly have neither the patience nor the inclination to educate you on who ISIS are and how they came about ,you constantly bang on about research, take your own advice.

So you have nothing to say.

I knew I was right. The US doesn't just up and change sides on a whim. What is more, there is no legislative authority to be at war with anybody.

oh quill i have plenty to say on this topic, just not to you

by your own unconscious admission you have very little knowledge of US military interventions or of this topic specifically, as such the conversation is beyond you.

the discussion cannot stop every five minutes to answer your basic questions which to be honest you should know if you want to engage in conversations at this level.

smelly-bandit wrote:

oh quill i have plenty to say on this topic, just not to you

Saying it and doing it are two different things, smells. I think you are out of gas on this one.

smelly-bandit wrote:by your own unconscious admission you have very little knowledge of US military interventions or of this topic specifically, as such the conversation is beyond you.

the discussion cannot stop every five minutes to answer your basic questions which to be honest you should know if you want to engage in conversations at this level.

The discussion is stopped because I ended it...with the truth. The US has no purpose to help ISIL.

if you think the point was that the US was actively helping ISIL then you missed the point ole boy.

i would not credit the US with that much competence quill.

Thanks to Obama’s Poor Choices, ISIS Has Sophisticated Arms, Weapons

The Islamic State continues to wreak havoc in Iraq and Syria. The extremist Islamic group, unmatched in its atrocities, has slaughtered hundreds of innocent Christians, Yazidis, Alawites, Shiites, and their more moderate coreligionists. Now, hundreds of thousands of desperate Middle Easterners are fleeing the region, creating a worldwide refugee crisis and possibly spreading terrorists throughout Europe and beyond.

So where did the Islamic State—or ISIS—get the sophisticated equipment and weaponry to cause all of this death, destruction, and displacement? Sadly, much of it was acquired, free of charge, from the United States—a direct result of the Obama administration’s “JV” foreign policy and its incompetent defense strategy, which showered poorly trained allied forces with weapons, vehicles, and materiel without properly ensuring that these valuable assets remain in friendly hands.

The Telegraph recently reported that U.S. military-trained “Division 30″—a collection of supposedly “moderate” rebels fighting against Bashar Assad’s dictatorship in Syria—turned over their weapons to al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra as soon as they entered the country. Galling, yes, but this hardly would be the worst loss of U.S. equipment to extremists.

In Iraq, when ISIS took Mosul in June 2014, it scored 2,300 Humvees made in America and originally provided to Iraqi security forces. Earlier this spring, its capture of Ramadi came with a lethal bonus: American-made artillery, M1A1 tanks, and various wheeled and tracked vehicles. Exact counts are difficult to obtain.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/02/thanks-to-the-obamas-poor-choices-isis-has-sophisted-arms-weapons/

smelly-bandit wrote:Thanks to Obama’s Poor Choices, ISIS Has Sophisticated Arms, Weapons

The Islamic State continues to wreak havoc in Iraq and Syria. The extremist Islamic group, unmatched in its atrocities, has slaughtered hundreds of innocent Christians, Yazidis, Alawites, Shiites, and their more moderate coreligionists. Now, hundreds of thousands of desperate Middle Easterners are fleeing the region, creating a worldwide refugee crisis and possibly spreading terrorists throughout Europe and beyond.

So what?  That's not our problem.  Europe admittedly has that problem, but there's nothing we can do to help short of sending a few boats over to take some refugees off your hands.  I'm sure that will happen soon.

smelly-bandit wrote:So where did the Islamic State—or ISIS—get the sophisticated equipment and weaponry to cause all of this death, destruction, and displacement? Sadly, much of it was acquired, free of charge, from the United States—a direct result of the Obama administration’s “JV” foreign policy and its incompetent defense strategy, which showered poorly trained allied forces with weapons, vehicles, and materiel without properly ensuring that these valuable assets remain in friendly hands.

The JV policy is to placate a few dumb Iowans, and look busy.  The real Obama policy is to get out of a situation that some idiots, or Republicans, got us into. Picking up after children and Republicans is what occupies 90% of the Democrat's time.

smelly-bandit wrote:The Telegraph recently reported that U.S. military-trained “Division 30″—a collection of supposedly “moderate” rebels fighting against Bashar Assad’s dictatorship in Syria—turned over their weapons to al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra as soon as they entered the country. Galling, yes, but this hardly would be the worst loss of U.S. equipment to extremists.

It was old stuff.  We've got lots of new toys the generals are playing with right now.  Wait'll you see.  

smelly-bandit wrote:In Iraq, when ISIS took Mosul in June 2014, it scored 2,300 Humvees made in America and originally provided to Iraqi security forces. Earlier this spring, its capture of Ramadi came with a lethal bonus: American-made artillery, M1A1 tanks, and various wheeled and tracked vehicles. Exact counts are difficult to obtain.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/02/thanks-to-the-obamas-poor-choices-isis-has-sophisted-arms-weapons/

But they were 2004 model Humvees, and even earlier tanks and PCs.  They didn't even have rear-view backup cameras or the automatic parallel parking feature.  We can't use 'em.  We've gotta get rid of this shit somehow...Iraq seems the best place to dump 'em.

on the defensive quill??

the point we have been arguing is that ISIS would not HAVE the weapons and equipment they currently have if it wasnt for obamas incompetence

you cannot blme this on bush or chayne or trump or the tea party

OBAMA is in charge of america and it was on his watch that this happened,if you are willing to credit him with taking down osama then he has to take the heat over ISIS and their weapons

if youre happy to have your cake and eat it when its smooth sailing then you must be happy to have your cake and eat it when its stormy weather outside

unless of course youre a child

smelly-bandit wrote:on the defensive quill??

the point we have been arguing is that ISIS would not HAVE the weapons and equipment they currently have if it wasnt for obamas incompetence

you cannot blme this on bush or chayne or trump or the tea party

OBAMA is in charge of america and it was on his watch that this happened,if you are willing to credit him with taking down osama then he has to take the heat over ISIS and their weapons

if youre happy to have your cake and eat it when its smooth sailing then you must be happy to have your cake and eat it when its stormy weather outside

unless of course youre a child
 

Names, smells?  Fictional motives?  A bit of avoidance...maybe stir up some prestige for yourself?

The only thing Obama can do in this part of the world is get us out.  He's doing that.  Usuma bin Ladin was a freebee...keep the natives calm.  Show he could do it.  Upstage Bush and Cheney and the Neo Cons.  A little thumb your nose...lord knows he's earned it.

I must say you're in a tizzy these past two nights.  That usually means I got to you...something I said.  I normally don't get personal.  Whatever it is, perhaps you misunderstood.

Or maybe misunderstanding is all you can do.  You seem to be a bundle of urges, with no particular issue.  You certainly have lost your way here.  Have you tried pilates?

youre projecting again quill, and avoiding the issue.

everytime obamas faults and flaws are identified, you seem to accuse other people of being in a "tizzy", from my perspective, the only person who is in a tizzy is yourself since you are unable to apportion any kind of negativity to obama who you seem to idolise

from my perspective quill youre as brainwashed and unthinkingly loyal to your messiah obama as any Muslim fanatic is to their beleoved muhhamad

but zealotry and fanaticism aside, obama is of course to blame, the evidence against him is overwhelming.

ISIS have the kinds of weapons they do because OBAMA withdrew prematurely, and allowed an inexpereinced poorly trained and poorly equipped and poorly supported iraqi army to fend for themselves against ISIS, who rolled them over and robbed thier kit, and in doing so became the superior force.

he is doing exactly the same in afghanistan, the taliban are pushing the afghan army out and taking their kit.

its all down to obamas piss poor foreign policy

but hey at least obama doesnt miss a single round of gold does he, i imagine his hanidcap must be off the charts by now.

smelly-bandit wrote:youre projecting again quill, and avoiding the issue.

everytime obamas faults and flaws are identified, you seem to accuse other people of being in a "tizzy", from my perspective, the only person who is in a tizzy is yourself since you are unable to apportion any kind of negativity to obama who you seem to idolise

from my perspective quill youre as brainwashed and unthinkingly loyal to your messiah obama as any Muslim fanatic is to their beleoved muhhamad

but zealotry and fanaticism aside, obama is of course to blame, the evidence against him is overwhelming.

ISIS have the kinds of weapons they do because OBAMA withdrew prematurely, and allowed an inexpereinced poorly trained and poorly equipped  and poorly supported iraqi army to fend for themselves against ISIS, who rolled them over and robbed thier kit, and in doing so became the superior force.

he is doing exactly the same in afghanistan, the taliban are pushing the afghan army out and taking their kit.

its all down to obamas piss poor foreign policy

but hey at least obama doesnt miss a single round of gold does he, i imagine his hanidcap must be off the charts by now.

But smells, I don't care about your perspective.  

Now, if you'll excuse me...I got to go play a round of gold.  

down to sticking on typos are you??

guess that must mean im the one in a tizzy

smelly-bandit wrote:down to sticking on typos are you??

guess that must mean im the one in a tizzy

I apologize if that came off as a low blow.  It's just that it was so apropos...

The reason why you have typos is because it is usually cocktail at this time of your day, innit?  Believe me, I know who I'm talking to.  It shows.  

Isn't Obama having a go at the Russians for attacking the rebels that he armed?

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:down to sticking on typos are you??

guess that must mean im the one in a tizzy

I apologize if that came off as a low blow.  It's just that it was so apropos...

The reason why you have typos is because it is usually cocktail at this time of your day, innit?  Believe me, I know who I'm talking to.  It shows.  

Hardly a low blow quill

More like a desperate lunge

Never mind I understand talking about Obama's flaws is a painful subject for you

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I apologize if that came off as a low blow.  It's just that it was so apropos...

The reason why you have typos is because it is usually cocktail at this time of your day, innit?  Believe me, I know who I'm talking to.  It shows.  

Hardly a low blow quill

I'm pleased you took it in the spirit that I intended.

Raggamuffin wrote:Isn't Obama having a go at the Russians for attacking the rebels that he armed?

The rebels??

You mean Isis don't you?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Isn't Obama having a go at the Russians for attacking the rebels that he armed?

The rebels??

You mean Isis don't you?

Dr. Obama is pursuing a strict policy of non-involvement.  Well, how can he do otherwise, as the Republican Party--the majority in Congress--is so paralyzed as they come apart that they can do nothing else.  (See: Republican Party Over?, in "Politics-US and Canada').  

But, as I have mentioned several times, we have no business mucking about in Syria anyway.  The only reason why we fly over them and bomb is to protect our residual 'teaching' forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.  That is the only authority that Congress has given, so it's not Obama's program in the first place.

The row with the Russians is incidental.  Some of their cruise missiles might interfere with our F-18s; hell, if they got near an F-18, a simple sidewinder or hellfire missile would take 'em out, no sweat...so, no problem.  Also, four of the cruise missiles have malfunctioned--it's Russian, what can I say--and gone down in Iran.  But no one has heard a peep out of Iran.  So I guess they're cool with it.

I think the US is using Russia as a proxy in the conflict.  Wait and watch...they'll clean up the streets after the parade.

Think you'll find the report claiming 4 missiles malfunctioned is lacking any credibility...

Tommy Monk wrote:Think you'll find the report claiming 4 missiles malfunctioned is lacking any credibility...

"Lacking credibility" is a legal term meaning, the proof has not yet been authorized by the court.  So I gather you are saying the evidence is there, it just needs to be received into evidence pending verification.  Then it will be given credibility.

OK, I'll wait. It's not an issue of controversy, anyway. The Iranians are the only ones with standing to complain...and they have not given out a peep.