Now into Syria too...

[jimnyc]

Hopefully the beginning of the end for ISIS, but I don't think the rest of the world will see it that way. I think we need more than an advisory role, as do some other leading countries, IMO.

-----

U.S. to deploy special forces to Syria in advisory role

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is expected to announce on Friday a decision to deploy a small number of special operations forces in an advisory role to Syria, U.S. administration and congressional sources said.

One source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the number of special operations forces to be deployed was "tiny" but did not give a number.

The sources said the move reflected a wider strategy of strengthening moderate rebels in Syria even as Washington intensifies its efforts to find a diplomatic solution to end to the four-and-a-half year Syrian civil war.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-deploy-special-forces-syria-advisory-role-sources-142157547.html#

[Christie Brinkley]

One year on from the strongest air force in the world supposedly going to war with a ragtag terrorist group in one of the most exposed and open environments on the earth and ISIS are still as strong as ever. That in itself is absolute proof that the United States does currently not want to destroy ISIS.

[revelarts]

How about asking our NATO and M.E. allies like Turkey and "good friends" the Saudis to stop the ISIS supply lines?
no U.S. troops necessary.
We've already given and/or sold them BILLIONS in arms, planes and training.

If we actually want to stop ISIS that is.

ISIS supply lines FYI

...ISIS’ supply lines run precisely where Syrian and Iraqi air power cannot go. To the north and into NATO-member Turkey, and to the southwest into US allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Beyond these borders exists a logistical network that spans a region including both Eastern Europe and North Africa.Terrorists and weapons left over from NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011 were promptly sent to Turkey and then onto Syria – coordinated by US State Department officials and intelligence agencies in Benghazi – a terrorist hotbed for decades.The London Telegraph would report in their 2013 article, “CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html),” that:[CNN] said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.
Weapons have also come from Eastern Europe, with the New York Times reporting in 2013 in their article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?_r=0),” that:From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.
And while Western media sources continuously refer to ISIS and other factions operating under the banner of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or “moderates,” it is clear that if billions of dollars in weapons were truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS would be dominating the battlefield.Recent revelations have revealed (http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/25/washington-confesses-to-backing-questionable-actors-in-syria/) that as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.Just How Extensive Are ISIS’ Supply Lines? While many across the West play willfully ignorant as to where ISIS truly gets their supplies from in order to maintain its impressive fighting capacity, some journalists have traveled to the region and have video taped and reported on the endless convoys of trucks supplying the terrorist army.Were these trucks traveling to and from factories in seized ISIS territory deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory? No. They were traveling from deep within Turkey, crossing the Syrian border with absolute impunity, and headed on their way with the implicit protection of nearby Turkish military forces. Attempts by Syria to attack these convoys and the terrorists flowing in with them have been met by Turkish air defenses.Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) published the first video report from a major Western media outlet illustrating that ISIS is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but billions of dollars worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO member Turkey’s borders via hundreds of trucks a day.

The report titled, “‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey, (http://www.dw.de/is-supply-channels-through-turkey/av-18091048)” confirms what has been reported by geopolitical analysts (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/nato-using-al-qaeda-rat-lines-to-flood.html) since at least as early as 2011 – that ISIS subsides on immense, multi-national state sponsorship, including, obviously, Turkey itself.Looking at maps of ISIS-held territory and reading action reports of its offensive maneuvers throughout the region and even beyond, one might imagine hundreds of trucks a day would be required to maintain this level of fighting capacity. One could imagine similar convoys crossing into Iraq from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Similar convoys are likely passing into Syria from Jordan.In all, considering the realities of logistics and their timeless importance to military campaigns throughout human history, there is no other plausible explanation to ISIS’s ability to wage war within Syria and Iraq besides immense resources being channeled to it from abroad.If an army marches on its stomach, and ISIS’ stomachs are full of NATO and Persian Gulf State supplies, ISIS will continue to march long and hard. The key to breaking the back of ISIS, is breaking the back of its supply lines. To do that however, and precisely why the conflict has dragged on for so long, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and others would have to eventually secure the borders and force ISIS to fight within Turkish, Jordanian, and Saudi territory – a difficult scenario to implement as nations like Turkey have created defacto buffer zones within Syrian territory which would require a direct military confrontation with Turkey itself to eliminate.....


http://www.globalresearch.ca/logisti...s-guns/5454726 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726)

[jimnyc]

One year on from the strongest air force in the world supposedly going to war with a ragtag terrorist group in one of the most exposed and open environments on the earth and ISIS are still as strong as ever. That in itself is absolute proof that the United States does currently not want to destroy ISIS.

We did NOT go to war with them. We have a leader that sends in sporadic bombings which do little to nothing to stop them as a group. This needs an all out air assault AND boots on the ground now, unfortunately. But for starters, we should be dropping bombs 50x more than we are now and wiping out their routes, communications and supplies. And it of course would be nice if other countries got together as well to help eradicate these scumbags.

[Christie Brinkley]

We did NOT go to war with them. We have a leader that sends in sporadic bombings which do little to nothing to stop them as a group. This needs an all out air assault AND boots on the ground now, unfortunately. But for starters, we should be dropping bombs 50x more than we are now and wiping out their routes, communications and supplies. And it of course would be nice if other countries got together as well to help eradicate these scumbags.
If the United States wanted to destroy them even with an air campaign alone ISIS would of been destroyed by now. It is not Obama it is the whole anglo-american establishment that accepts this.

[jimnyc]

If the United States wanted to destroy them even with an air campaign alone ISIS would of been destroyed by now. It is not Obama it is the whole anglo-american establishment that accepts this.

It's not that simple. They are in and out of towns and in 3 countries that I'm aware of, 2 solidly. While I wouldn't mind if they dropped a few nukes, they won't go that route, nor with non-nuke massive ordinances. What they're doing is patch work. The world starts to get into a bit of a hissy fit the more and more action we take.

[Christie Brinkley]

It's not that simple. They are in and out of towns and in 3 countries that I'm aware of, 2 solidly. While I wouldn't mind if they dropped a few nukes, they won't go that route, nor with non-nuke massive ordinances. What they're doing is patch work. The world starts to get into a bit of a hissy fit the more and more action we take.
This is not Vietnam where you simply drop as many bombs to inflict the most damage, we live in an age of laser guided missiles and drones. The middle east is one of the most watched places by air on the earth I think by now the United States would of gathered enough intelligence to cripple ISIS by destroying its command and supply capabilities. They know where they are, they simply won't bomb them.

[hjmick]

Hopefully the beginning of the end for ISIS, but I don't think the rest of the world will see it that way. I think we need more than an advisory role, as do some other leading countries, IMO.

-----

U.S. to deploy special forces to Syria in advisory role



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is expected to announce on Friday a decision to deploy a small number of special operations forces in an advisory role to Syria, U.S. administration and congressional sources said.

One source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the number of special operations forces to be deployed was "tiny" but did not give a number.

The sources said the move reflected a wider strategy of strengthening moderate rebels in Syria even as Washington intensifies its efforts to find a diplomatic solution to end to the four-and-a-half year Syrian civil war.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-deploy-special-forces-syria-advisory-role-sources-142157547.html#


Gosh... Seems like I remember another instance where we sent troops into a civil war as "advisors..."

Hmm... When was that...?

Where was that...

[Christie Brinkley]

Gosh... Seems like a remember another instance where we sent troops into a civil war as "advisors..."

Hmm... When was that...?

Where was that...
At least back in Vietnam they were actually trying to destroy the enemy!

[jimnyc]

This is not Vietnam where you simply drop as many bombs to inflict the most damage, we live in an age of laser guided missiles and drones. The middle east is one of the most watched places by air on the earth I think by now the United States would of gathered enough intelligence to cripple ISIS by destroying its command and supply capabilities. They know where they are, they simply won't bomb them.

Doesn't Russia have the same technology? Why yes, they do! And you say they are only there for ISIS - how much have they crippled ISIS so far?

You can laser guide buildings and such, but that doesn't help you find the folks, nor differentiate between thousands of them and thousands of civilians.

[jimnyc]

They know where they are, they simply won't bomb them.

Oh, so why doesn't Russia bomb them then? Or are you saying that the US is the only country capable of good intel? I didn't realize that Russia sucked so much and was so far behind us in the technology department. :dunno:

[Christie Brinkley]

Oh, so why doesn't Russia bomb them then? Or are you saying that the US is the only country capable of good intel? I didn't realize that Russia sucked so much and was so far behind us in the technology department. :dunno:
Russia is bombing them and it is having results in pushing the terrorists back. Over 1,600 terrorist targets have been hit (https://www.rt.com/news/320168-syria-russia-operation-month/) in one month...
Compared to the United States bombing (empty buildings) in October they only dropped 84 bombs, 2.8 bombs a day (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d74bbba-7efa-11e5-a1fe-567b37f80b64.html#axzz3q95DjF7O)...

[Christie Brinkley]

Doesn't Russia have the same technology? Why yes, they do! And you say they are only there for ISIS - how much have they crippled ISIS so far?

You can laser guide buildings and such, but that doesn't help you find the folks, nor differentiate between thousands of them and thousands of civilians.
In some aspects it has better equipment, they have only been at it for 1 month bombing terrorists and they have turned the tide of the war. In the major towns and cities in terrorist held areas there are very few civilians still there.

[jimnyc]

Russia is bombing them and it is having results in pushing the terrorists back. Over 1,600 terrorist targets have been hit (https://www.rt.com/news/320168-syria-russia-operation-month/) in one month...
Compared to the United States bombing (empty buildings) in October they only dropped 84 bombs, 2.8 bombs a day (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d74bbba-7efa-11e5-a1fe-567b37f80b64.html#axzz3q95DjF7O)...

But you made it sound as if it were easy, that the US could go in and get rid of them easily. Russia only got 1600 of them?

We made more than that 84 bombs you state - in september of 2014 alone, and that was a year ago, so I think your link is for crap. Your own papers show more than that for one month last year...


-----

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/08/us-bombing-campaign-iraq-obama-isis

[jimnyc]

In some aspects it has better equipment, they have only been at it for 1 month bombing terrorists and they have turned the tide of the war. In the major towns and cities in terrorist held areas there are very few civilians still there.

Turned the tide of the war? Are you kidding me? Sorry, but 1600 of ISIS would be about 10% maximum of ISIS.

How far into Iraq is Russia at this point? How many of ISIS have they killed in Iraq?

[Christie Brinkley]

But you made it sound as if it were easy, that the US could go in and get rid of them easily. Russia only got 1600 of them?

We made more than that 84 bombs you state - in september of 2014 alone, and that was a year ago, so I think your link is for crap. Your own papers show more than that for one month last year...


-----

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/08/us-bombing-campaign-iraq-obama-isis
The link was referring to bombs dropped during this month and last month not last year. If Russia can achieve 1600 terrorist targets destroyed with only 1 air base then the United States could obliterate ISIS if it wanted to.

[jimnyc]

Btw, as to our limited bombing, and Russia's massive amount of 1600 deaths that have "turned the tide of the war"... US has killed almost 10x that amount.

---
Paris (CNN)The U.S.-led coalition against ISIS has recorded more than 10,000 ISIS deaths since the campaign against the extremist group began nine months ago, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken told France Inter radio.

Blinken's remarks came in an interview given Tuesday after coalition members joined Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi for a conference in Paris that assessed progress in the campaign.

Asked whether Iraqi forces backed by the coalition were capable of standing up to ISIS, Blinken said they could.

"Indeed, when you act against a force like Daesh, which is a terrorist force with a totalitarian ideology, and that does not fear death, we recorded an enormous loss for Daesh. More than 10,000 since this campaign started. And this will eventually have an effect.''

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/middleeast/isis-conflict/index.html

[jimnyc]

The link was referring to bombs dropped during this month and last month not last year. If Russia can achieve 1600 terrorist targets destroyed with only 1 air base then the United States could obliterate ISIS if it wanted to.

And I would say that over 10k shows they are. That's nearly 1/3rd of their "army" from many counts.

[Christie Brinkley]

Turned the tide of the war? Are you kidding me? Sorry, but 1600 of ISIS would be about 10% maximum of ISIS.

How far into Iraq is Russia at this point? How many of ISIS have they killed in Iraq?
The Majority of ISIS' supplies and arms are in eastern Syria not in Iraq. The SAA is now on the offensive in taking back parts of Aleppo and taking out terrorists near Damascus, before the Russians started the campaign the government was close to collapsing.

[jimnyc]

And tell me, Christie, while you condemn the US military or those running the show...

How many of your countries soldiers are still there? How many bombing campaigns have they run? How much of ISIS have they taken out? WHY are they letting them run free?

[Christie Brinkley]

Btw, as to our limited bombing, and Russia's massive amount of 1600 deaths that have "turned the tide of the war"... US has killed almost 10x that amount.

---
Paris (CNN)The U.S.-led coalition against ISIS has recorded more than 10,000 ISIS deaths since the campaign against the extremist group began nine months ago, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken told France Inter radio.

Blinken's remarks came in an interview given Tuesday after coalition members joined Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi for a conference in Paris that assessed progress in the campaign.

Asked whether Iraqi forces backed by the coalition were capable of standing up to ISIS, Blinken said they could.

"Indeed, when you act against a force like Daesh, which is a terrorist force with a totalitarian ideology, and that does not fear death, we recorded an enormous loss for Daesh. More than 10,000 since this campaign started. And this will eventually have an effect.''

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/middleeast/isis-conflict/index.html
1600 terrorist targets (deaths would be much higher).

Do you think I am taking the word of a US government official to give a rounded off number like that? The proof is in the pudding are the terrorists being weakened... ISIS is not after a year of the worlds strongest air force 'bombing them'.

[jimnyc]

The Majority of ISIS' supplies and arms are in eastern Syria not in Iraq. The SAA is now on the offensive in taking back parts of Aleppo and taking out terrorists near Damascus, before the Russians started the campaign the government was close to collapsing.

Last I read there were a minimum of 10,000-15,000 ISIS/ISIL in Iraq. Why do they get a free pass from Russia then? You do realize that a TON of their weapons ARE coming from within Iraq as well.

[Christie Brinkley]

And tell me, Christie, while you condemn the US military or those running the show...

How many of your countries soldiers are still there? How many bombing campaigns have they run? How much of ISIS have they taken out? WHY are they letting them run free?
The UK plays only a symbolic role, it has little to do with the wider plan of the middle east.

[jimnyc]

1600 terrorist targets (deaths would be much higher).

Do you think I am taking the word of a US government official to give a rounded off number like that? The proof is in the pudding are the terrorists being weakened... ISIS is not after a year of the worlds strongest air force 'bombing them'.

Russia takes out 1600 and is weakening them

USA takes out 10,000+ and is doing nothing.

You're a comical USA hater at least.

[Christie Brinkley]

Last I read there were a minimum of 10,000-15,000 ISIS/ISIL in Iraq. Why do they get a free pass from Russia then? You do realize that a TON of their weapons ARE coming from within Iraq as well.
With around 100,000 terrorists in total. Their capital is in Syria and the majority of their land is in Syria.

[jimnyc]

The UK plays only a symbolic role, it has little to do with the wider plan of the middle east.

Symbolic role? LOL Is that code for "can't help" - "can't do shit"? I don't think folks with cowards for leaders should be condemning countries out there ACTUALLY fighting.

[Christie Brinkley]

Russia takes out 1600 and is weakening them

USA takes out 10,000+ and is doing nothing.

You're a comical USA hater at least.
Don't you understand what I am saying, there is a difference between 1600 terrorist targets destroyed and 10,000 terrorists killed ​(if that claim from the US government is not a lie).

[NightTrain]

How about asking our NATO and M.E. allies like Turkey and "good friends" the Saudis to stop the ISIS supply lines?
no U.S. troops necessary.
We've already given and/or sold them BILLIONS in arms, planes and training.

If we actually want to stop ISIS that is.

ISIS supply lines FYI

...ISIS’ supply lines run precisely where Syrian and Iraqi air power cannot go. To the north and into NATO-member Turkey, and to the southwest into US allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Beyond these borders exists a logistical network that spans a region including both Eastern Europe and North Africa.Terrorists and weapons left over from NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011 were promptly sent to Turkey and then onto Syria – coordinated by US State Department officials and intelligence agencies in Benghazi – a terrorist hotbed for decades.The London Telegraph would report in their 2013 article, “CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html),” that:[CNN] said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.
Weapons have also come from Eastern Europe, with the New York Times reporting in 2013 in their article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?_r=0),” that:From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.
And while Western media sources continuously refer to ISIS and other factions operating under the banner of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or “moderates,” it is clear that if billions of dollars in weapons were truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS would be dominating the battlefield.Recent revelations have revealed (http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/25/washington-confesses-to-backing-questionable-actors-in-syria/) that as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.Just How Extensive Are ISIS’ Supply Lines? While many across the West play willfully ignorant as to where ISIS truly gets their supplies from in order to maintain its impressive fighting capacity, some journalists have traveled to the region and have video taped and reported on the endless convoys of trucks supplying the terrorist army.Were these trucks traveling to and from factories in seized ISIS territory deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory? No. They were traveling from deep within Turkey, crossing the Syrian border with absolute impunity, and headed on their way with the implicit protection of nearby Turkish military forces. Attempts by Syria to attack these convoys and the terrorists flowing in with them have been met by Turkish air defenses.Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) published the first video report from a major Western media outlet illustrating that ISIS is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but billions of dollars worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO member Turkey’s borders via hundreds of trucks a day.

The report titled, “‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey, (http://www.dw.de/is-supply-channels-through-turkey/av-18091048)” confirms what has been reported by geopolitical analysts (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/nato-using-al-qaeda-rat-lines-to-flood.html) since at least as early as 2011 – that ISIS subsides on immense, multi-national state sponsorship, including, obviously, Turkey itself.Looking at maps of ISIS-held territory and reading action reports of its offensive maneuvers throughout the region and even beyond, one might imagine hundreds of trucks a day would be required to maintain this level of fighting capacity. One could imagine similar convoys crossing into Iraq from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Similar convoys are likely passing into Syria from Jordan.In all, considering the realities of logistics and their timeless importance to military campaigns throughout human history, there is no other plausible explanation to ISIS’s ability to wage war within Syria and Iraq besides immense resources being channeled to it from abroad.If an army marches on its stomach, and ISIS’ stomachs are full of NATO and Persian Gulf State supplies, ISIS will continue to march long and hard. The key to breaking the back of ISIS, is breaking the back of its supply lines. To do that however, and precisely why the conflict has dragged on for so long, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and others would have to eventually secure the borders and force ISIS to fight within Turkish, Jordanian, and Saudi territory – a difficult scenario to implement as nations like Turkey have created defacto buffer zones within Syrian territory which would require a direct military confrontation with Turkey itself to eliminate.....


http://www.globalresearch.ca/logisti...s-guns/5454726 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726)
revelarts

I wouldn't quote anything from globalresearch.ca... that guy is an ass clown. Same guy that claimed the US knew in advance about an earthquake, but kept it quiet because we wanted the tsunami to kill a bunch of brown people in Indonesia. He's a nutjob.

[Christie Brinkley]

Symbolic role? LOL Is that code for "can't help" - "can't do shit"? I don't think folks with cowards for leaders should be condemning countries out there ACTUALLY fighting.
Really fighting them to destroy them or only appearing to fight them to maintain a narrative? I would rather the UK be out of the conflict than being in it faking the true objective.

[jimnyc]

Don't you understand what I am saying, there is a difference between 1600 terrorist targets destroyed and 10,000 terrorists killed ​(if that claim from the US government is not a lie).

And of course if the commies aren't lying. You believe them, but want to come here and say you don't believe the USA? More comedy! Sounds more like trolling.

I'm sorry you have to live in the "land of the cowards" when it comes to this one. :dunno:

[jimnyc]

Really fighting them to destroy them or only appearing to fight them to maintain a narrative? I would rather the UK be out of the conflict than being in it faking the true objective.

That's what I would say if I were you too. :lol:

[Christie Brinkley]

And of course if the commies aren't lying. You believe them, but want to come here and say you don't believe the USA? More comedy! Sounds more like trolling.

I'm sorry you have to live in the "land of the cowards" when it comes to this one. :dunno:

1. They are not communists (I know that is hard to understand because it has be ingrained in you to hate Russia from a young age)
2. Proof is in the pudding as I have said the SAA are going on the offensive and taking back territory and securing major supply routes.
3. How is a country a coward for not wanting to fake the destruction of terrorists with a few token bombs dropped on empty buildings and old artillery pieces?

[Christie Brinkley]

That's what I would say if I were you too. :lol:
Not much of a debate then?

[jimnyc]

No point in feeding the trolls. Would be kinda like the UN condemning us, or the French while waving their white flags. The greatest country on the face of the planet only laughs at the cowardly who condemn from afar! Yeah, yeah, say we're not, come up with excuses for why your country can't handle the heat, why Russia should be trusted and the USA is lying. Blah. Blah. Blah.

And your leaders, your military and your posts only show why we are the greatest. Thanks!!

[jimnyc]

Not much of a debate then?

You offered nothing other than unsubstantiated accusations about how the USA has it's own narrative and other crap - right in the face of MORE deaths and destruction done to ISIS than anyone else in the world.

Adios, you're a waste and trolling.

[Christie Brinkley]

No point in feeding the trolls. Would be kinda like the UN condemning us, or the French while waving their white flags. The greatest country on the face of the planet only laughs at the cowardly who condemn from afar! Yeah, yeah, say we're not, come up with excuses for why your country can't handle the heat, why Russia should be trusted and the USA is lying. Blah. Blah. Blah.

And your leaders, your military and your posts only show why we are the greatest. Thanks!!
So just close your mind to the facts then? Government can always be trusted because I pay my taxes to it?

So being cowardly is not wanting to drop token strikes on 'targets' (empty buildings) and fake that you are destroying ISIS?


I am not condemning bombing ISIS, I WANT THE BOMBS TO BE DROPPED ON VIABLE TARGETS AND MORE OF IT. I am condemning acting like you want to destroy ISIS when you have been proven not to be destroying ISIS.

1 year, strongest air force in the world, still the ragtag gang of thugs with AK47's are as strong as ever in the most open and exposed environment on the earth

It's a joke if you believe the official story.

[Christie Brinkley]

You offered nothing other than unsubstantiated accusations about how the USA has it's own narrative and other crap - right in the face of MORE deaths and destruction done to ISIS than anyone else in the world.

Adios, you're a waste and trolling.
So a US official says it and it makes it true? While video footage of the thousands of airstrike is online for you to look at with the Russians dropping bombs day and night pushing back the terrorists while the SAA go on the offensive? As I have said, proof is in the pudding if ISIS were crippled the Iraqi army would be moving in and would of pushed them out of the country by now.

[NightTrain]

So a US official says it and it makes it true?


Very well, where is your basis for believing it's not true?

[jimnyc]

Very well, where is your basis for believing it's not true?

Because it's the USA, and not Russia? :lol:

I wouldn't bother, he repeats the same thing and posts very little to backup his "facts".

[Christie Brinkley]

Very well, where is your basis for believing it's not true?
They lie about every other thing in the past like Russians supposedly bombing hospitals, when asked for evidence the 'official' sights 'media reports' (no proof) from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights who often make up claims with no evidence at all. The 'Observatory' is ran by this idiot from his 2 bedroom house in Coventry of all places!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

[Christie Brinkley]

Because it's the USA, and not Russia? :lol:

I wouldn't bother, he repeats the same thing and posts very little to backup his "facts".
Well I have actually given an example, would you mind countering that with the Russians lying or saying something which is untrue?

[jimnyc]

Well I have actually given an example, would you mind countering that with the Russians lying or saying something which is untrue?

Unlike YOU, I haven't accused ANYONE of lying. Try reading back. It's YOU taking Russia for it's word at every corner and claiming that the USA is lying. How about REALLY answering NT's question, if you re-read it.

[Christie Brinkley]

Unlike YOU, I haven't accused ANYONE of lying. Try reading back. It's YOU taking Russia for it's word at every corner and claiming that the USA is lying. How about REALLY answering NT's question, if you re-read it.
If they have video evidence in their bombing campaign of bombs actually hitting active targets around Syria day in day out then it is not their word it is fact.

[jimnyc]

They lie about every other thing in the past like Russians supposedly bombing hospitals, when asked for evidence the 'official' sights 'media reports' (no proof) from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights who often make up claims with no evidence at all. The 'Observatory' is ran by this idiot from his 2 bedroom house in Coventry of all places!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

Go ahead and ask Medecins Sans Frontieres if there were any hospitals hit by Russia. I guess they lie too, and they said 12 hospitals were hit.

[jimnyc]

If they have video evidence in their bombing campaign of bombs actually hitting active targets around Syria day in day out then it is not their word it is fact.

And I've been watching video attacks on ISIS by the USA for a year now. That's FACT. But I guess you'll proclaim they are videos of them hitting the desert. :rolleyes:

[NightTrain]

They lie about every other thing in the past like Russians supposedly bombing hospitals, when asked for evidence the 'official' sights 'media reports' (no proof) from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights who often make up claims with no evidence at all. The 'Observatory' is ran by this idiot from his 2 bedroom house in Coventry of all places!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking


So, you're saying it's safe to say that any facts and figures presented by the US Government Official responsible for stating official numbers is automatically a lie because you say so?

Sorry, not good enough.

Unless you have links from reputable sources contradicting what the official numbers are, you should do yourself a favor and qualify that with "In my opinion".

[Christie Brinkley]

Go ahead and ask Medecins Sans Frontieres if there were any hospitals hit by Russia. I guess they lie too, and they said 12 hospitals were hit.
The state department said that Russians are bombing civilian areas while they gave evidence from Soros funded white helmet brigades ('humanitarian' organisation) that used pictures from a totally different attack before the Russians started the bombing campaign.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7868&stc=1

[jimnyc]

The state department said that Russians are bombing civilian areas while they gave evidence from Soros funded white helmet brigades ('humanitarian' organisation) that used pictures from a totally different attack before the Russians started the bombing campaign.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7868&stc=1

And that has WHAT to do with doctors without borders saying they hit 12 hospitals, which you said the US lied about?

[Christie Brinkley]

So, you're saying it's safe to say that any facts and figures presented by the US Government Official responsible for stating official numbers is automatically a lie because you say so?

Sorry, not good enough.

Unless you have links from reputable sources contradicting what the official numbers are, you should do yourself a favor and qualify that with "In my opinion".
Their track record is terrible. The narrative is not factual and it does not have to be, all it needs is the support of the American government and it is the 'official story'.

[Christie Brinkley]

And that has WHAT to do with doctors without borders saying they hit 12 hospitals, which you said the US lied about?
State department is saying Russians are killing civilians using examples from 'humanitarian organisations' like the white helmets.

[jimnyc]

Their track record is terrible. The narrative is not factual and it does not have to be, all it needs is the support of the American government and it is the 'official story'.

Then PROVE what is not factual./

Were there not as many deaths as stated? Not as many targets hit? I've watched like 500 videos myself of bombing campaigns in the past year. What were they hitting, Russians? LOL

Oh, but then again, Russia has such a spectacular track record, along with the UK, of COURSE it's the US who lies! :lol:

[jimnyc]

State department is saying Russians are killing civilians using examples from 'humanitarian organisations' like the white helmets.

And yet they DID hit 12 hospitals. Are hospitals not civilians over there? Why would doctors without borders make such claims about the Russians, why would they lie? You do realize that doctors without borders is not the USA, right?

[Christie Brinkley]

Then PROVE what is not factual./

Were there not as many deaths as stated? Not as many targets hit? I've watched like 500 videos myself of bombing campaigns in the past year. What were they hitting, Russians? LOL

Oh, but then again, Russia has such a spectacular track record, along with the UK, of COURSE it's the US who lies! :lol:
Not saying that Russia never lies but at least Russia does not use 'press reports' that refer to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights for evidence!

Like this article
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/10/22/13-dead-as-russia-strike-hits-hospital.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Co ntent&utm_content=5628b73804d30101f4000001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Forward to 25 seconds


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBxI1kaY-w4

[Christie Brinkley]

And yet they DID hit 12 hospitals. Are hospitals not civilians over there? Why would doctors without borders make such claims about the Russians, why would they lie? You do realize that doctors without borders is not the USA, right?
MSF said they did not know who was responsible for the attacks

"It is difficult to determine who is responsible for the air strikes that led to the destruction of the hospitals," said Dekhili.
"We were not witnesses, so we cannot be precise on that."


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1029343621/msf-hospital-russia-bomb-claim.html#ixzz3q9NWMbMw

[NightTrain]

Their track record is terrible. The narrative is not factual and it does not have to be, all it needs is the support of the American government and it is the 'official story'.


Again, you are claiming that the US numbers are a lie, without any sort of backup other than Christie Brinkley's word.

All you've done to provide that is a nebulous "Well, it's happened before." Making claims like that doesn't help your argument, rather the contrary is true.

[jimnyc]

MSF said they did not know who was responsible for the attacks

"It is difficult to determine who is responsible for the air strikes that led to the destruction of the hospitals," said Dekhili.
"We were not witnesses, so we cannot be precise on that."


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1029343621/msf-hospital-russia-bomb-claim.html#ixzz3q9NWMbMw

And yet the USA is in Iraq, and it's Russia with air strikes mainly in Syria. Go figure. I guess they swapped places here and there.

[jimnyc]

Again, you are claiming that the US numbers are a lie, without any sort of backup other than Christie Brinkley's word.

All you've done to provide that is a nebulous "Well, it's happened before." Making claims like that doesn't help your argument, rather the contrary is true.

Cuz it was on "sputniknews", it must be true then! :beer:

[Christie Brinkley]

And yet the USA is in Iraq, and it's Russia with air strikes mainly in Syria. Go figure. I guess they swapped places here and there.
The Syrian government have an air force:rolleyes:

[Christie Brinkley]

Cuz it was on "sputniknews", it must be true then! :beer:
Ah attack the source not the story;) Give me evidence MSF said it was the Russians then

[jimnyc]

The Syrian government have an air force:rolleyes:

Sure. Sure thing. Big evil USA bad. Russia and Syria great. We just watch from afar as cowards and make accusations. Have a great day!

Good luck, NT!!! :laugh:

[Christie Brinkley]

Wait a second, you posted an article from CNN? CIA news network is a very credible source! Especially when they were proven to be faking that they were in the middle east when they were in the CNN studio!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg

[jimnyc]

Ah attack the source not the story;) Give me evidence MSF said it was the Russians then

Adios, you're a waste, no offense of course. :lol:

[Christie Brinkley]

Sure. Sure thing. Big evil USA bad. Russia and Syria great. We just watch from afar as cowards and make accusations. Have a great day!

Good luck, NT!!! :laugh:
Did I say they were great? At least they don't fake who they are fighting.

[jimnyc]

Wait a second, you posted an article from CNN? CIA news network is a very credible source! Especially when they were proven to be faking that they were in the middle east when they were in the CNN studio!!!



And we just busted the UK as liars a few weeks back, red handed. And then refuse to help out against terrorists. I'll stay here with the brave willing to fight the scum.

You're welcome for your safety.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Doesn't Russia have the same technology? Why yes, they do! And you say they are only there for ISIS - how much have they crippled ISIS so far?

You can laser guide buildings and such, but that doesn't help you find the folks, nor differentiate between thousands of them and thousands of civilians.

They've just started Jim and where do you get the tally on their results?
Suddenly that Russia is there striking ISIS, THE ASSHOLE BAMBOY DECIDES TO SEND IN ADVISERS!
2=2= 4..
THE ADVISORS ARE NOT THERE TO HELP DESTROY ISIS --they are there to help protect it against the Russians!
FACT.. OBAMA LIES TO CONTINUE HIS ISIS AID PROGRAM...-Tyr

[Christie Brinkley]

And we just busted the UK as liars a few weeks back, red handed. And then refuse to help out against terrorists. I'll stay here with the brave willing to fight the scum.

You're welcome for your safety.
Keep closing your mind;) Government loves you:rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Hopefully the beginning of the end for ISIS, but I don't think the rest of the world will see it that way. I think we need more than an advisory role, as do some other leading countries, IMO.

-----

U.S. to deploy special forces to Syria in advisory role



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is expected to announce on Friday a decision to deploy a small number of special operations forces in an advisory role to Syria, U.S. administration and congressional sources said.

One source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the number of special operations forces to be deployed was "tiny" but did not give a number.

The sources said the move reflected a wider strategy of strengthening moderate rebels in Syria even as Washington intensifies its efforts to find a diplomatic solution to end to the four-and-a-half year Syrian civil war.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-deploy-special-forces-syria-advisory-role-sources-142157547.html#

You mean *all* 50 Special Forces troops?

[Gunny]

I cannot stand the misuse of military personnel. I'm not taking Joe Schmoe the admin clerk into combat with me. He needs to be making sure I get my pay. SPecial Forces personnel are called "special forces" for a reason. They are NOT ground force troops in the conventional sense. And 50 people are less than 2 platoons -- meaning not even a company.

I suppose they won't be in combat either, like MSgt Wheeler wasn't. :rolleyes:

This is just another Obama token response to political pressure. ISIS needs to be fought on the ground in Iraq with overwhelming force and send their asses packing back to Syria. Secure the border, then do an about face and shove Iran back into their own damned country. We have the capability. Our so-called Commander in Chief has no balls.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tis a sad day for me here to find out two very intelligent members believing that lying son of a marxist bitch obama and his lies in regards to what he is doing in Syria !~

Remember back when he called ISIS- THE VARSITY TEAM ?
WELL, THAT WAS HIM DOWNPLAYING THEM AS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. And why did he do that?
I'LL TELL YOU THE WHY- BECAUSE THEY WERE SMALL THEN, VULNERABLE AND OUT IN OPEN DESERT NOT DISPERSED.
ESSENTIALLY VERY WEAK AND AT THAT POINT VERY VULNERABLE TO AIR STRIKES!

REMEMBER BACK WHEN HE ONLY WANTED THEM--"CONTAINED"_..??

GET THE PICTURE? "Contained" but not destroyed! Why not- destroyed??

He does not want them destroyed as they serve a purpose in duality.
First to give him cover to send billions of dollars worth of tanks, arms and munitions there to later "just leave" for them to pick up (in Iraq).
Knowing that for the muslim Caliphate to rise prophecy holds Syria be part of it, an integral part!
Assad bars that as long as he is in power!

Now comes the Russians to truly start hitting ISIS AND THAT FFING TRAITOR STARTS HIS PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN AGAINST THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FAKING IT AS HE WAS DOING.

Wake up and smell the coffee amigos.

Putin is (for his own reasons granted) doing what the lying bastard obama only pretended to do.
Check on the number of U.S. air strikes that were coming back to base with full payload intact.
NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO DROP THE MUNITIONS!
THATS SO THE NUMBER OF AIR STRIKE MISSIONS IS HIGH BUT THE RESULTS MINIMAL..

I AM USA ALL THE WAY, so my pointing out what bambastard is truly doing there and my explaining why Putin actually does this nation a favor in hitting ISIS is important and why it pisses off obama piece of lying shit and why his propaganda campaign cranked up against the Russians..

I take only AMERICA'S SIDE.. -Tyr

[Gunny]

Tis a sad day for me here to find out two very intelligent members believing that lying son of a marxist bitch obama and his lies in regards to what he is doing in Syria !~

Remember back when he called ISIS- THE VARSITY TEAM ?
WELL, THAT WAS HIM DOWNPLAYING THEM AS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. And why did he do that?
I'LL TELL YOU THE WHY- BECAUSE THEY WERE SMALL THEN, VULNERABLE AND OUT IN OPEN DESERT NOT DISPERSED.
ESSENTIALLY VERY WEAK AND AT THAT POINT VERY VULNERABLE TO AIR STRIKES!

REMEMBER BACK WHEN HE ONLY WANTED THEM--"CONTAINED"_..??

GET THE PICTURE? "Contained" but not destroyed! Why not- destroyed??

He does not want them destroyed as they serve a purpose in duality.
First to give him cover to send billions of dollars worth of tanks, arms and munitions there to later "just leave" for them to pick up (in Iraq).
Knowing that for the muslim Caliphate to rise prophecy holds Syria be part of it, an integral part!
Assad bars that as long as he is in power!

Now comes the Russians to truly start hitting ISIS AND THAT FFING TRAITOR STARTS HIS PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN AGAINST THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FAKING IT AS HE WAS DOING.

Wake up and smell the coffee amigos.

Putin is (for his own reasons granted) doing what the lying bastard obama only pretended to do.
Check on the number of U.S. air strikes that were coming back to base with full payload intact.
NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO DROP THE MUNITIONS!
THATS SO THE NUMBER OF AIR STRIKE MISSIONS IS HIGH BUT THE RESULTS MINIMAL..

I AM USA ALL THE WAY, so my pointing out what bambastard is truly doing there and my explaining why Putin actually does this nation a favor in hitting ISIS is important and why it pisses off obama piece of lying shit and why his propaganda campaign cranked up against the Russians..

I take only AMERICA'S SIDE.. -Tyr

We should have trashed their sorry a$$es THEN and THERE.

[jimnyc]

Tis a sad day for me here to find out two very intelligent members believing that lying son of a marxist bitch obama and his lies in regards to what he is doing in Syria !~

I hope that's not directed at me, as I've stated nothing about what Obama has stated. I make my claims based on research from articles around the world, and from videos I can see with my own eyes. All I've stated about Obama is that 1) we should never have left Iraq and that 2) what we are doing now is insufficient, and that we should be dropping MOAB's and have massive boots on the ground to eradicate ISIS. But there have in fact been thousands of ISIS killed, just in a sporadic manner.

Also, even if we only took out one ISIS member, it's more than most other countries are doing, especially world leaders/superpowers. They want US to get involved so that we get blamed for any controversy.

[jimnyc]

We should have trashed their sorry a$$es THEN and THERE.

I said when we first went into Iraq and Afghanistan that they should have hit them hard. But everyone wants to play the PC game and then the world complains that we are evil and mean.

I said when I first learned about ISIS that they should just nuke the fuckers. But only kill 10,000 and we are told we are evil & incompetent.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

we should have trashed their sorry a$$es then and there.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccccccccc ccctttttttttttlllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy!!!

and the why we did not tells all, doesn't it?????--tyr

[Gunny]

I hope that's not directed at me, as I've stated nothing about what Obama has stated. I make my claims based on research from articles around the world, and from videos I can see with my own eyes. All I've stated about Obama is that 1) we should never have left Iraq and that 2) what we are doing now is insufficient, and that we should be dropping MOAB's and have massive boots on the ground to eradicate ISIS. But there have in fact been thousands of ISIS killed, just in a sporadic manner.

Also, even if we only took out one ISIS member, it's more than most other countries are doing, especially world leaders/superpowers. They want US to get involved so that we get blamed for any controversy.

I'm not sure I actually get tyr's post. I agree with leaving Assad in power, BUT, Syria has always been a Russian vassal state. At the same time, the same argument can be made about keeping Saddam in power. Assad and Hussein weren't much different.

We should let them kill each other and then we can mop up the rest.

[Christie Brinkley]

I said when we first went into Iraq and Afghanistan that they should have hit them hard. But everyone wants to play the PC game and then the world complains that we are evil and mean.

I said when I first learned about ISIS that they should just nuke the fuckers. But only kill 10,000 and we are told we are evil & incompetent.
Allegedly kills 10,000

[jimnyc]

Allegedly kills 10,000

Allegedly Russia killed a handful of ISIS as well. And VERY allegedly they are there for ISIS only, and not killing civilians.

[jimnyc]

I'm not sure I actually get tyr's post. I agree with leaving Assad in power, BUT, Syria has always been a Russian vassal state. At the same time, the same argument can be made about keeping Saddam in power. Assad and Hussein weren't much different.

We should let them kill each other and then we can mop up the rest.

Day one - should have dropped nukes all over. Other cowardly nations want to stay away, then we handle it our way. :)

[Christie Brinkley]

Allegedly Russia killed a handful of ISIS as well. And VERY allegedly they are there for ISIS only, and not killing civilians.
If you say so;)

[NightTrain]

Tis a sad day for me here to find out two very intelligent members believing that lying son of a marxist bitch obama and his lies in regards to what he is doing in Syria !


I don't know if it's true or not. Given that Bambam controls the narrative, I expect it probably is false.


However, I don't like anyone making accusations with absolutely zero backup, despite being repeatedly pointed out.

If I make any kind of statement like that, I will always qualify it with "IMO", which is the proper thing to do, rather than making a wild accusation and presenting it as fact when it's completely indefensible.

I hammer Gabby every time she pulls that shit, and I won't apologize for doing it. It doesn't matter who does it, I'll still point it out because it's wrong.

That's my point.

[Gunny]

Day one - should have dropped nukes all over. Other cowardly nations want to stay away, then we handle it our way. :)

Damn I hope you're never President. You CAN'T drop nukes all over. :laugh: The fallout would destroy the Earth. THAT is why I actually fear Iran getting nukes and Obama's a dumbass. The Cold War was a standoff with nukes by two sides that wanted to survive. Different story than a bunch of jihadi's that don't care if they die as long as they take everyone else with them.

[jimnyc]

If you say so;)

Sounds like a retard when I make such uneducated and unsubstantiated remarks, huh? :lol: Now you know what I'm playing with.

[Christie Brinkley]

Sounds like a retard when I make such uneducated and unsubstantiated remarks, huh? :lol: Now you know what I'm playing with.
Well if you say it is true because the government says it is true then it must be true! Reality is defined by the State Department.

[jimnyc]

Damn I hope you're never President. You CAN'T drop nukes all over. :laugh: The fallout would destroy the Earth. THAT is why I actually fear Iran getting nukes and Obama's a dumbass. The Cold War was a standoff with nukes by two sides that wanted to survive. Different story than a bunch of jihadi's that don't care if they die as long as they take everyone else with them.

Point is, fuck the others, drop massive ordinances, and don't stop until the entire area is free of ISIS. Don't be PC for other countries and ignore the fact that some are too much of pussies to enter the arena.

[jimnyc]

Well if you say it is true because the government says it is true then it must be true! Reality is defined by the State Department.

And yet I've posted NOTHING by the state department.

I have to ask now - how old are you? I see you relentlessly having issues comprehending what NT and I have posted, and replying in manners that have nothing to do with the question asked. I would expect such for a 14-18 year old. I'm not being a dick either, so don't take it that way. But you say weird things, like you did above, which shows you didn't even read my posts. Odd is all.

[Christie Brinkley]

And yet I've posted NOTHING by the state department.

I have to ask now - how old are you? I see you relentlessly having issues comprehending what NT and I have posted, and replying in manners that have nothing to do with the question asked. I would expect such for a 14-18 year old. I'm not being a dick either, so don't take it that way. But you say weird things, like you did above, which shows you didn't even read my posts. Odd is all.
You did quote a US government 'official' who just said they killed 10,000 but you are taking that as being truth.

[jimnyc]

You did quote a US government 'official' who just said they killed 10,000 but you are taking that as being truth.

Oh please, there are estimates around the world anywhere from 5k - 12k from what I have read, I posted the first article I found on a quick search. And yet you think Russia is perfect against ISIS and I've seen extremely little to see them as having done anything at all more than what the US has. I guess you believe the commies more. No surprise.

[jimnyc]

Well if you say it is true because the government says it is true then it must be true! Reality is defined by the State Department.

My apologies, I was wrong, your friends are fighting!!

'Twice as Many' British Muslims Fighting for ISIS Than in UK Armed Forces

http://europe.newsweek.com/twice-many-british-muslims-fighting-isis-armed-forces-265865

[Christie Brinkley]

Oh please, there are estimates around the world anywhere from 5k - 12k from what I have read, I posted the first article I found on a quick search. And yet you think Russia is perfect against ISIS and I've seen extremely little to see them as having done anything at all more than what the US has. I guess you believe the commies more. No surprise.
They are not communists.

[jimnyc]

They are not communists.

Sure.

[Gunny]

Thing is, a rose by any other name ... We're repeating history. We did this pre-WWI, and pre-WWII. We sit around doing nothing, placating totalitarian regimes until everything escalates out of control. Then we have to get our butts kicked before we realize, "Oh we might want to do something". The Battle of Britain. Pearl Harbor. How many times do we have to give France back to France only to have them snub their noses at us?

Heaven forbid we take some proactivity and shut it down when it will cost WAY less in lives and materiel. Let's wait for a disaster. Then we can have another world war.

[jimnyc]

Speaking of ISIS and the UK. I'm reading that the UK is losing the fight against radical extremism from Islam. They make up a little over 4% of the UK. Why can't this be handled? Is 4% too large of a group to control? I really don't know.

[Christie Brinkley]

Sure.
That must be why they have capitalism then...:rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Thing is, a rose by any other name ... We're repeating history. We did this pre-WWI, and pre-WWII. We sit around doing nothing, placating totalitarian regimes until everything escalates out of control. Then we have to get our butts kicked before we realize, "Oh we might want to do something". The Battle of Britain. Pearl Harbor. How many times do we have to give France back to France only to have them snub their noses at us?

Heaven forbid we take some proactivity and shut it down when it will cost WAY less in lives and materiel. Let's wait for a disaster. Then we can have another world war.

Can we maybe just drop 2 nukes then, and repeat history again? :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't know if it's true or not. Given that Bambam controls the narrative, I expect it probably is false.


However, I don't like anyone making accusations with absolutely zero backup, despite being repeatedly pointed out.

If I make any kind of statement like that, I will always qualify it with "IMO", which is the proper thing to do, rather than making a wild accusation and presenting it as fact when it's completely indefensible.

I hammer Gabby every time she pulls that shit, and I won't apologize for doing it. It doesn't matter who does it, I'll still point it out because it's wrong.

That's my point.

All for truth myself my friend. And when I make comments based solely upon my own views I almost always qualify with an "IMHO". And whenever I miss doing that be it noted that its always inherently implied.

However,also true about me is whenever I see any of friends on a wrong path I speak up. For their benefit and to always maintain my own integrity intact.
Everything the obama does as president is within his agenda to Weaken this nation, IMHO.

THUS HIS STORY AND SUPPOSED--"FACTS"- ABOUT WHAT HE DOES IN SYRIA AND ALSO WHAT HE CLAIMS RUSSIA NOW DOES THERE WILL BE LACED WITH HIS USUAL LIES, IN MY OPINION OF COURSE.

We can not get to the entire truth because we must depend on "others" for most of the information.

Now who here thinks we can depend on "facts" the obama government puts out or that of supposed "facts" put out by other media entities controlled by the globalists and or their allies? Not me!

I use logic, the logic that points out how obama made sure that ISIS was --NOT DESTROYED-- at its start, at its EARLY INFANCY, WHERE IN ONE LARGE CONCENTRATED GROUP OUT IN OPEN DESERT, WHERE AIR STRIKES COULD HAVE EASILY DONE THE JOB!

Then later made sure ISIS GOT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF U.S. MILITARY HARDWARE, TANKS MUNITIONS ETC IN IRAQ JUST LEFT FOR THE TAKING!

I can not remember a single case where the obama told the damn truth on anything..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Can we maybe just drop 2 nukes then, and repeat history again? :)

No nukes, we do not need them. We have or at least did have an air force and other military that can or could have wiped them out easily.
Even now we could if we truly were hitting them have done major, major damage and wiped out their supply lines and ammo dumps etc. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

No nukes, we do not need them. We have or at least did have an air force and other military that can or could have wiped them out easily.
Even now we could if we truly were hitting them have done major, major damage and wiped out their supply lines and ammo dumps etc. -Tyr

Perhaps, but it's quicker with a nuke, and more fun!!

[Gunny]

Can we maybe just drop 2 nukes then, and repeat history again? :)

Like I said before ... we don't need nukes. B-52s, 1K lb bombs and a green light would make place look like a moonscape. Then you send in the Marine Corps and Army to clean up. You let us do our damned jobs I guaran-f-ing-tee you that litter box would last 90 days.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Perhaps, but it's quicker with a nuke, and more fun!!
Nukes not need Jim, ,as neutron bombs would work much betteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

[jimnyc]

Like I said before ... we don't need nukes. B-52s, 1K lb bombs and a green light would make place look like a moonscape. Then you send in the Marine Corps and Army to clean up. You let us do our damned jobs I guaran-f-ing-tee you that litter box would last 90 days.

And look at Iraq under a R and a D administration, all too afraid to drop the big guys, wanting to be politically correct and appease other countries. Maybe before, but NOW they should start dropping them, and if anyone has an issue with it, let THEM go in and reign in ISIS.

[Gunny]

Nukes not need Jim, ,as neutron bombs would work much betteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

You guys are funny but we as humans would never survive the number of nukes it would require to take out the Middle East.

But I'm about sick of this sh*t. They've been trying to invade for centuries and NOW they're getting away with it under a different name: refugee. Screw THAT. A damned Syrian refugee moves in next to ME, and he best not touch the fence. I'm an electrician, remember? And a Marine. I can arrange some "surprises". :laugh2:

They've been taught to hate us too long. It's ingrained in them. Here's where my analytical think comes in: they need to be destroyed. Again. Only the job needs to be finished this time.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Like I said before ... we don't need nukes. B-52s, 1K lb bombs and a green light would make place look like a moonscape. Then you send in the Marine Corps and Army to clean up. You let us do our damned jobs I guaran-f-ing-tee you that litter box would last 90 days.

ISIS HAS NOW CARVED OUT A LARGE TERRITORY AND ARE NOW CONSOLIDATING THEIR GAINS..
No nation controls that landed mass, thus our military has the munitions to make roads, bridges etc, useless.
We could be hitting their supply lines , ammo dumps etc.
We are not..
As you know, its a bullshit lie the obama is running on this nation.
Thus, Russia actually hitting them has provoked a very pissed off bambastard to dare openly announce sending in U.S. military personnel.

So now we supposedly have both USA and Russia hitting ISIS!!
So are we to believe both nations hitting the same damn enemy are making no major headway?
And that along with Assad's fighters is not winning or inflicting major damage on ISIS??

Somebody is lying about their hitting ISIS, LOGIC DICTATES THAT TRUTH.-Tyr

[Gunny]

Allegedly Russia killed a handful of ISIS as well. And VERY allegedly they are there for ISIS only, and not killing civilians.

Does it matter? THAT is the whole problem with us nowadays. Doesn't matter what strategic objective is gained, it's "How many civilians did we kill?" I got a couple of answers for that:

One, the p*$$y-a$$ enemy needs to come out and play on the damned battlefield and quit hiding behind civilians like the cowardly SOB's you are.

Two, fight or flight. Fight for your own damned country instead of rowing across the Med. It ain't like you can't get weapons at the local pawn hut. Instead of the people uprising against outsiders, they're doing a mass exodus.

If you aren't willing to fight for your own culture, society and your own damned lives, don't come here. Our boat's already overloaded with those types.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You guys are funny but we as humans would never survive the number of nukes it would require to take out the Middle East.

But I'm about sick of this sh*t. They've been trying to invade for centuries and NOW they're getting away with it under a different name: refugee. Screw THAT. A damned Syrian refugee moves in next to ME, and he best not touch the fence. I'm an electrician, remember? And a Marine. I can arrange some "surprises". :laugh2:

They've been taught to hate us too long. It's ingrained in them. Here's where my analytical think comes in: they need to be destroyed. Again. Only the job needs to be finished this time.

Not me, I said no nukes. I said "neutron bombs", = no long range radioactive fallout. Destroys only humans/animals not infrastructure etc. -Tyr



http://www.britannica.com/technology/neutron-bomb

Neutron bomb
Nuclear weapon
Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica

Neutron bomb, also called enhanced radiation warhead, specialized type of nuclear weapon that would produce minimal blast and heat but would release large amounts of lethal radiation. A neutron bomb is actually a small thermonuclear bomb in which a few kilograms of plutonium or uranium, ignited by a conventional explosive, would serve as a fission “trigger” to ignite a fusion explosion in a capsule containing several grams of deuterium-tritium. The bomb might have a yield, or explosive strength, of only one kiloton, a fraction of the 15-kiloton explosion that devastated Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945. Its blast and heat effects would be confined to an area of only a few hundred metres in radius, but within a somewhat larger radius of 1,000–2,000 metres the fusion reaction would throw off a powerful wave of neutron and gamma radiation. High-energy neutrons, though short-lived, could penetrate armour or several metres of earth and would be extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effects, the neutron bomb might be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but might not endanger nearby cities or other population centres. It could be launched on a short-range missile, fired by an artillery piece, or possibly delivered by a small aircraft.

The neutron bomb was conceived in the United States in the 1950s and first tested in the 1960s. For a brief period in the 1970s, an enhanced radiation warhead was fitted onto the Sprint antiballistic missile (see Nike missile) with the expectation that a pulse of high-energy neutrons released by the exploding warhead would inactivate or prematurely detonate an incoming nuclear warhead. Also during the 1970s, the neutron bomb was considered by some American military planners to have a convenient deterrent effect: discouraging an armoured ground invasion of western Europe by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. At least in theory, a defending NATO country might sanction the use of the bomb to annihilate Warsaw Pact tank crews without destroying its own cities or irradiating its own population. To this end, enhanced radiation warheads were built for the short-range Lance missile and for a 200-mm (8-inch) artillery shell. However, other military strategists warned that fielding a “clean” nuclear weapon might only lower the threshold for entering into a full-scale nuclear exchange, and some civilian groups objected to the very notion of applying the label “clean” to a weapon that killed by irradiation while sparing property. The warheads were never deployed in Europe, and U.S. production ceased in the 1980s. By the 1990s, with the Cold War confrontation over, both the missile warheads and artillery shells were withdrawn.

Other countries tested neutron bombs during the 1970s and ’80s, including the Soviet Union, France, and China (the latter possibly using plans stolen from the United States).

[jimnyc]

So now we supposedly have both USA and Russia hitting ISIS!!

That's what it "should" be right now, with the USA in Iraq and Russia in Syria. Between the 2 they should be able to take care of ISIS. And it sure wouldn't hurt if others with formidable armed forces would also join in. Not happening for too many reasons though.

What I want to hear is from all of the generals and those on the ground, what do they need to win, and to lose minimal lives. Then we know what they want, and what is being given to them. I wouldn't trust Obama if you gave me a billion dollars, but I would believe a collection of military leaders. Shame, some are likely afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions/jobs. I think they're in there, and with minimal effort and sporadic bombings. Deaths of course, but then allowing for rebuilding and recruiting. Take the head of the snake of. All I care about is killing ISIS and saving every last American life. If some folks on the ground get killed, I'm sorry, but war sucks.

[jimnyc]

Does it matter? THAT is the whole problem with us nowadays. Doesn't matter what strategic objective is gained, it's "How many civilians did we kill?" I got a couple of answers for that:

One, the p*$$y-a$$ enemy needs to come out and play on the damned battlefield and quit hiding behind civilians like the cowardly SOB's you are.

Two, fight or flight. Fight for your own damned country instead of rowing across the Med. It ain't like you can't get weapons at the local pawn hut. Instead of the people uprising against outsiders, they're doing a mass exodus.

If you aren't willing to fight for your own culture, society and your own damned lives, don't come here. Our boat's already overloaded with those types.

But we're "better than them" so we have to play by different rules, while they break them and kill our men and women. Fuck that, instead of picking in between and looking for them like roaches, just light up the whole place.

[Gunny]

That's what it "should" be right now, with the USA in Iraq and Russia in Syria. Between the 2 they should be able to take care of ISIS. And it sure wouldn't hurt if others with formidable armed forces would also join in. Not happening for too many reasons though.

What I want to hear is from all of the generals and those on the ground, what do they need to win, and to lose minimal lives. Then we know what they want, and what is being given to them. I wouldn't trust Obama if you gave me a billion dollars, but I would believe a collection of military leaders. Shame, some are likely afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions/jobs. I think they're in there, and with minimal effort and sporadic bombings. Deaths of course, but then allowing for rebuilding and recruiting. Take the head of the snake of. All I care about is killing ISIS and saving every last American life. If some folks on the ground get killed, I'm sorry, but war sucks.

Won't happen. Different agendas. Putin is propping up Assad. O-blah-blah is politically posturing and making a token effort.

So can anyone explain WHY we're attacking in Syria when most of ISIS is in Iraq? Oh yeah. Obama declared victory and his lame-ass campaign promise is more important the reality on the ground so the last thing he is going to do is commit combat troops to the ground to re-take ground they already had.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's what it "should" be right now, with the USA in Iraq and Russia in Syria. Between the 2 they should be able to take care of ISIS. And it sure wouldn't hurt if others with formidable armed forces would also join in. Not happening for too many reasons though.

What I want to hear is from all of the generals and those on the ground, what do they need to win, and to lose minimal lives. Then we know what they want, and what is being given to them. I wouldn't trust Obama if you gave me a billion dollars, but I would believe a collection of military leaders. Shame, some are likely afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions/jobs. I think they're in there, and with minimal effort and sporadic bombings. Deaths of course, but then allowing for rebuilding and recruiting. Take the head of the snake of. All I care about is killing ISIS and saving every last American life. If some folks on the ground get killed, I'm sorry, but war sucks.

Jim, the obama has canned(forced into retirement or demoted) all top generals etc. , not willing to go along with his shit and fake war ..
He runs a propaganda action designed to suit his own very anti-american ends--all top military that stood against that were dealt with.
Our military was not only greatly downsized BY OBAMA , it was ALSO VERY SELECTIVELY purged during that action IMHO. -TYR

[Gunny]

But we're "better than them" so we have to play by different rules, while they break them and kill our men and women. Fuck that, instead of picking in between and looking for them like roaches, just light up the whole place.

You of all people know about me and rules once engaged. There ain't any.

I just had a mini-ha-ha moment though. Me and you and Prez and VP. We can let Jeff be SecDef. Under NO circumstances is tyr allowed to touch anything that shoots or explodes. :laugh2:

I'm thinking the Middle East would have a SERIOUS issue. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Won't happen. Different agendas. Putin is propping up Assad. O-blah-blah is politically posturing and making a token effort.

So can anyone explain WHY we're attacking in Syria when most of ISIS is in Iraq? Oh yeah. Obama declared victory and his lame-ass campaign promise is more important the reality on the ground so the last thing he is going to do is commit combat troops to the ground to re-take ground they already had.

Some say more in Syria, but suffice to say there are a lot in both countries, and spreading, and growing.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You of all people know about me and rules once engaged. There ain't any.

I just had a mini-ha-ha moment though. Me and you and Prez and VP. We can let Jeff be SecDef. Under NO circumstances is tyr allowed to touch anything that shoots or explodes. :laugh2:

I'm thinking the Middle East would have a SERIOUS issue. :laugh2:

I would find the top general most like Chesty Puller, PUT HIM IN SUPREME COMMAND, GIVEN AMPLE MEN AND RESOURCES and demand a plan to go in there and kill all of those bastards that fired at us. Every damn one of them--just as Chesty Puller would have done..
So no, I would not need shooting or exploding anything myself, instead just the authority to put in place under strict command the forces that act as we did in WW2 AND IN KOREA, BEFORE MACARTHUR GOT SHAFTED BY THAT BASTARD TRUMANN.
Bring us back to that forgotten strategy/tactic of fighting to actually win!! --TYR

[Gunny]

I would find the top general most like Chesty Puller, PUT HIM IN SUPREME COMMAND, GIVEN AMPLE MEN AND RESOURCES and demand a plan to go in there and kill all of those bastards that fired at us. Every damn one of them--just as Chesty Puller would have done..
So no, I would not need shooting or exploding anything myself, instead just the authority to put in place under strict command the forces that act as we did in WW2 AND IN KOREA, BEFORE MACARTHUR GOT SHAFTED BY THAT BASTARD TRUMANN.
Bring us back to that forgotten strategy/tactic of fighting to actually win!! --TYR

I love the way everyone thinks Chesty Puller was so good. He got his men butchered at Tarawa. What he would have done is frontal assault after frontal assault and win by attrition. His one brilliant move was to flank the North Koreans at Inchon.

You fight smarter, not harder. I'd first line up my carriers ... the Med, Red Sea and the Gulf ... then I'd use a pincers movement except a 3 pronged attack instead of two. Every plane on every boat would be loaded to the nines and Navy and Marine pilots aren't like Air Force ones. They fly in LOW and nail you. I'd have 3 MEUS and 2 Airborne divisions hovering above the attack from two carriers, then when clear, drop the Airborne and MEU's onto the ground. The third carrier provides close air support while the first two carriers' planes refit.

[revelarts]

@revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760)

I wouldn't quote anything from globalresearch.ca... that guy is an ass clown. Same guy that claimed the US knew in advance about an earthquake, but kept it quiet because we wanted the tsunami to kill a bunch of brown people in Indonesia. He's a nutjob.


Sigh. Nighttrain I'm sorry you'd say that.
the info in what i quote was sourced back to mainstream news and gov't docs .

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?_r=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/25/washington-confesses-to-backing-questionable-actors-in-syria/
http://www.dw.com/en/is-supply-channels-through-turkey/av-18091048
Interviews with Trukish truckers, Kerdish fighters and others talking about shipments of hundreds of trucks with goods weapons and fighters crossing the boarder and suppling ISIS and the Trukish officials -high and low -doing NOTHING to stop it.

And here's more
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u-s-trained-isis-at-secret-base-in-jordan/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/
the DOD doc that states the Western position to work with all groups

but if you want to the dismiss the info he simply repeats because you don't like some things the guy said about other stuff ok fine. people do it all the time. It's not intellectually honest but it allows people to ignore information without having to think about it.

Seems you guys should know by now that i try not to post junk info.



AMY GOODMAN: “The Wall Street Journal recently revealed new details about how Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, Saudi’s former ambassador to the United States, is leading the effort to prop up the Syrian rebels. The Wall Street Journal reports Prince Bandar has been jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow seeking to undermine the outside machine. The journal also reports intelligence agents from Saudi Arabia, the US, Jordan and other allied States are working at a secret joint operation center in Jordan to train and arm handpicked Syrian rebels.

ADAM ENTOUS: Last summer they be created this operation center, and what what is happening now is you have actually more CIA officers now there at that base than there are Saudi personnel. They fly weapons in. The Saudis are the ones who are doing the bulk of this. They buy the weapons largely in places like Eastern Europe, and to a certain extent Libya, and they bring into this base, which has a landing strip and store houses for the weapons to be stored. They, the Saudis and the Jordanians draw on the defectors, largely from the Syrian military which already have a good degree of military training, and they’re brought to this base where different intel-agencies train them, and the Americans are there,the Brits are there, the French are there, the Saudis, UAE is there. And then they train them and then they send them into the fight but very, very slowly this process has been built up over the last couple of months.”
(Source: Iran-Contra Redux? Prince Bandar Heads Secret Saudi-CIA Effort to Aid Syrian Rebels, Topple Assad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqtSaIikQ-o) | Time Reference: 34:11


LT. GENERAL MCINERNEY:
“Syria we backed, I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people, and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and that’s a little confusing to people, so I’ve always maintained and go back quite some time that we were backing the wrong types.I think it’s gonna turn out maybe this weekend, in a new special that Brett Baer’s gonna have Friday, it’s gonna show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS.
So we helped build ISIS. Now there’s a danger there and I’m with you.”
(Source: Lt. General McInerney says Obama helped build ISIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elPBhP0mZTI) | Time Reference: 38:19)

[revelarts]

Also does anyone here care if Obama get a declaration of war from congress to "put boots on the ground"?
like that old law the constitution says.

it's like "the law" right? people ought obey the law i've been told.

[Gunny]

Sigh. Nighttrain I'm sorry you'd say that.
the info in what i quote was sourced back to mainstream news and gov't docs .

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?_r=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/25/washington-confesses-to-backing-questionable-actors-in-syria/
http://www.dw.com/en/is-supply-channels-through-turkey/av-18091048
Interviews with Trukish truckers, Kerdish fighters and others talking about shipments of hundreds of trucks with goods weapons and fighters crossing the boarder and suppling ISIS and the Trukish officials -high and low -doing NOTHING to stop it.

And here's more
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u-s-trained-isis-at-secret-base-in-jordan/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/
the DOD doc that states the Western position to work with all groups

but if you want to the dismiss the info he simply repeats because you don't like some things the guy said about other stuff ok fine. people do it all the time. It's not intellectually honest but it allows people to ignore information without having to think about it.

Seems you guys should know by now that i try not to junk info.

Is it Twilight Zone time again? First off, they're Kurds, not kerds. Second, why the Hell would they be supporting ISIS?

You can post all the links you want. I was there. Anytime you want a class on the Islamic sects vs the Arab sects in the region, let me know. You got too much conspiracy crap in your head.

[revelarts]

.. First off, they're Kurds, not kerds.

you're absolutely right.



Second, why the Hell would they be supporting ISIS?
they aren't they are just reporting what the see. the ISIS supply lines unmolested by our NATO allies Turkey.



You can post all the links you want. I was there. Anytime you want a class on the Islamic sects vs the Arab sects in the region, let me know. You got too much conspiracy crap in your head.
so you wrote the DoD doc that says they knew they were creating/supporting a radical islamic front that would weaken Assad and threaten the stability of the new Iraq?

Look gunny if you don't like to read or watch news reports that might go outside your experience in the M.E. that's fine but please don't claim you know it all. no one does. But if we're honest we'll review all the facts available and make determinations going forward.

[Gunny]

you're absolutely right.


they aren't they are just reporting what the see. the ISIS supply lines unmolested by our NATO allies Turkey.


so you wrote the DoD doc that says they knew they were creating/supporting a radical islamic front that would weaken Assad and threaten the stability of the new Iraq?

Look gunny if you don't like to read or watch news reports that might go outside your experience in the M.E. that's fine but please don't claim you know it all. no one does. But if we're honest we'll review all the facts available and make determinations going forward.

Not been paying attention to me or Christie Brinkley? Turks are totally self-absorbed and they aren't doing crap unless they think they can benefit from it.

Let's try your last over again. I don't claim I know it all. But I know more than YOU. You can't make up your mind. You're a conspiracy theorist that believes the propaganda train. Brilliant.

Please, DO tell me which country over there you've even been too, much less lived in. I've lived in both Turkey and Greece, and got more time in the Middle East than you have in a barber shop. Difference between me and you is if I don't know anything about a subject matter, I keep my mouth shut. I talk about what I know and I damned sure don't like some wimp trying to tell me what they read in the paper is more than what I've SEEN.

So you might want to re-think your passive aggressive bullshit with ME.

[revelarts]

Not been paying attention to me or Christie Brinkley? Turks are totally self-absorbed and they aren't doing crap unless they think they can benefit from it.

Let's try your last over again. I don't claim I know it all. But I know more than YOU. You can't make up your mind. You're a conspiracy theorist that believes the propaganda train. Brilliant.

Please, DO tell me which country over there you've even been too, much less lived in. I've lived in both Turkey and Greece, and got more time in the Middle East than you have in a barber shop. Difference between me and you is if I don't know anything about a subject matter, I keep my mouth shut. I talk about what I know and I damned sure don't like some wimp trying to tell me what they read in the paper is more than what I've SEEN.

So you might want to re-think your passive aggressive bullshit with ME.
Gunny i've tried being cool with you. I never attacked you here. but you come out of the gate NOT WITH info but with petty crap about what you think of me.

Your getting to be like AT. Just pissing in my direction with BS commentary because you got zero real info to reply to my comments except lame insults and chest beating.

look, if you got some facts to post from your vast experience that refutes what i post then just do it.
if not then, i suggest you take your own advice and keep your mouth shut about what you don't know.

direct enough for ya.

[Gunny]

Gunny i've tried being cool with you. I never attacked you here. but you come out of the gate NOT WITH info but with petty crap about what you think of me.

Your getting to be like AT. Just pissing in my direction with BS commentary because you got zero real info to reply to my comments except lame insults and chest beating.

look, if you got some facts to post from your vast experience that refutes what i post then just do it.
if not then, i suggest you take your own advice and keep your mouth shut about what you don't know.

direct enough for ya.

I come out of the gate with info it was my damned business to know. Not some bullshit internet report. I got zero info? No, I'm not Hillary. I got plenty of info. When you reading yahoo ass gets a clearance AND access and we both have secure servers I'll clue your ass in. Otherwise, STFU with all your stupid retellings of misinformation. You don't know jack shit and you believe a bunch of media bullshit.

Don't tell ME my business bitch.

[revelarts]

I come out of the gate with info it was my damned business to know. Not some bullshit internet report. I got zero info? No, I'm not Hillary. I got plenty of info. When you reading yahoo ass gets a clearance AND access and we both have secure servers I'll clue your ass in. Otherwise, STFU with all your stupid retellings of misinformation. You don't know jack shit and you believe a bunch of media bullshit. Don't tell ME my business bitch.

Seems to me you should have enough public info to easily reply and refute my post Gunny. but you don't. do you?
So you're full of crap as far as i can tell G.

when you do have some public info try again.
name calling is a little boys game you use instead of facts.
sorry i'm not playing.

when you do have some public info to share I'll take a look, until then I'll just skip your post to me here, they're a waste of time.

[Gunny]

Seems to me you should have enough public info to easily reply and refute my post Gunny. but you don't. do you?
So you're full of crap as far as i can tell G.

when you do have some public info try again.
name calling is a little boys game you use instead of facts.
sorry i'm not playing.

when you do have some public info to share I'll take a look, until then I'll just skip your post to me here, they're a waste of time.

Seems to me you should quit listening to "public info". My suggestion would be notching down your know nothing mouth a gear or two. You think you're so smart and you don't even know when to shut up and who to not fuck with. You can bring it on this board or in my front yard. I got an address. And I'm in the mood.

I don't need public info and that's a pussy excuse. I can't violate the terms of my security clearance and I sure as Hell ain't doing it for a know nothing on a message board. Unlike your heroine Billary, I understand the terms and conditions of said clearance and that unlike her, they'll throw MY ass in prison for violating Titles 17, 18, 19 and 18 of the US Code.

What you need to do is learn to not believe all the bullshit you stuff your fucking head with. If you think I don't understand the dispositions in the Middle East and who is doing what, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

I damned sure don't need some wimpy ass basement dweller armchair quarterback telling me what I do and don't know.

[revelarts]

<tbody>
ISIS Secures US-Made Weapons, Ships Tanks to Syria Front
Officials: Probable ISIS Has Stinger Missiles
by Jason Ditz, June 17, 2014
Print This | Share This
Creating and equipping a brand new Iraqi military wholecloth was no problem for the US. It was a win-win, a chance to train up a new “ally” and ship massive amounts of US arms-makers equipment abroad.

It’s looking less wise now, as the Iraqi soldiers drop their US gear and run, and the advancing Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the same group that used to be al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during the US occupation, is finding itself in possession of a lot of shiny new US military exports.

Indeed, ISIS has secured so many US-made vehicles that they don’t even need them all on the Iraq side of their new Islamic state, and reports say they are sending a number of US-made tanks, trucks and Humvees into Syria, to be used by ISIS fighters on the Syrian front.

Perhaps even more dangerous, US officials say it is “probable” that US-made anti-aircraft missiles are now in ISIS hands, meaning all air traffic in the region is in serious danger.

</tbody>

ISIS Secures US-Made Weapons, Ships Tanks to Syria Front -- News from Antiwar.com (http://news.antiwar.com/2014/06/17/isis-secures-us-made-weapons-ships-tanks-to-syria-front/)
ISIS moving seized US tanks, Humvees to Syria | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/17/isis-moving-seized-us-tanks-humvees-to-syria/)

If we'd never gone to Iraq there'd be no arms or Iraqi base for Isis.
And most of the Saddam troops that have transformed INTO ISIS would still be in Iraq as secular state soldiers. not in Syria and attacking the new Iraqi gov't as Sunni extremist.

But now that we're at this point what role did the U.S. via Obama policy play in AIDING the growth of ISIS in Syria.


The US didn’t interfere with the rise of anti-government jihadist groups in Syria that finally degenerated into Islamic State, claims the former head of America’s Defense Intelligence Agency, backing a secret 2012 memo predicting their rise.An interview (https://youtu.be/SG3j8OYKgn4?t=8m49s) with retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), given to Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, confirms earlier suspicions that Washington was monitoring jihadist groups emerging as opposition in Syria.
General Flynn dismissed Al Jazeera’s supposition that the US administration “turned a blind eye” to the DIA’s analysis. Flynn believes the US government didn’t listen to his agency on purpose.
“I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision,” the former DIA chief said.

The classified DIA report (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/) presented in August 2012, stated that.
“The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al- Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” being supported by “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey.”
The document recently declassified through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), analyses the situation in Syria in the summer of 2012 and predicts:
“If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”
The report warns of “dire consequences” of this scenario, because it would allow Al-Qaeda to regain its positions in Iraq and unify the jihadist Sunni forces in Iraq, Syria and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against all other Muslim minorities they consider dissenters.
“ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards of unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory,” the DIA report correctly predicted at the time.
Those groups eventually emerged as Islamic State (IS formerly ISIS/ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front, an Islamic group loyal to Al-Qaeda.
Unlike the US State Department, which rushed to label the declassified DIA memo as unimportant soon after its declassification, the DIA’s former head expressed full trust in the 2012 report, stressing he “paid very close attention” to this document, adding “the intelligence was very clear.”
Al Jazeera notes that Lieutenant General Michael Flynn became “the highest ranking intelligence official to go on record,”saying the US and other states, notably Turkey and the Gulf Arab states, were sponsoring Al-Qaeda-led rebels in Syria with political support and weapons in an attempt to overthrow President Bashar Assad.
When Al Jazeera’s Hasan asked Flynn why he didn’t attempt to stop the US coordinating arms transfers to Islamic extremists, the retired general said:
“I hate to say it’s not my job, but my job was to ensure the accuracy of our intelligence,” said Flynn, who also served as director of intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during the US hunt for Bin Laden.


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/09/19/general-flynn-spills-beans-on-decision-to-let-isis-evolve-dia-report-revisited/

[Gunny]

You got a point besides always being against your own country?

[revelarts]

16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/10/30/16-times-obama-said-there-would-no-boots-ground-syria/74869884/)

Quote:

<tbody>
Since 2013, President Obama has repeatedly vowed that there would be no "boots on the ground" in Syria.

But White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the president's decision Friday to send up to 50 special forces troops to Syria doesn't change the fundamental strategy: "This is an important thing for the American people to understand. These forces do not have a combat mission."

Earnest said the promises of "no boots on the ground" first came in the context of removing Syrian President Bashar Assad because of his use of chemical weapons. Since then, Syria has become a haven for Islamic State fighters.

Here's a recap of Obama's no-boots pledge:

Remarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

"In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

"After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope."

Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan."

Remarks at the Pentagon, July 6, 2015

"There are no current plans to do so. That's not something that we currently discussed. I've always said that I'm going to do what's necessary to protect the homeland. One of the principles that we all agree on, though, and I pressed folks pretty hard because in these conversations with my military advisers I want to make sure I'm getting blunt and unadulterated, uncensored advice. But in every one of the conversations that we've had, the strong consensus is that in order for us to succeed long-term in this fight against ISIL, we have to develop local security forces that can sustain progress. It is not enough for us to simply send in American troops to temporarily set back organizations like ISIL, but to then, as soon as we leave, see that void filled once again with extremists."...




</tbody>

and the rest...

Obama should keep his word, but that's to much to expect.

[revelarts]

Placeholder articles for future reading.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/10/us-turkey-buffer-zone-to-save-isis-not.html

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/nato-using-al-qaeda-rat-lines-to-flood.html

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/10/us-invasion-of-syria-begins.html

[DLT]

Hopefully the beginning of the end for ISIS, but I don't think the rest of the world will see it that way. I think we need more than an advisory role, as do some other leading countries, IMO.

-----

U.S. to deploy special forces to Syria in advisory role

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is expected to announce on Friday a decision to deploy a small number of special operations forces in an advisory role to Syria, U.S. administration and congressional sources said.

One source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the number of special operations forces to be deployed was "tiny" but did not give a number.

The sources said the move reflected a wider strategy of strengthening moderate rebels in Syria even as Washington intensifies its efforts to find a diplomatic solution to end to the four-and-a-half year Syrian civil war.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-deploy-special-forces-syria-advisory-role-sources-142157547.html#

In an "advisory" role? To advise who about what?

Sounds to me like Obammy is or may be deploying a few good men to help his good buds in ISIS out in a pinch....

a Russian pinch.

[Drummond]

16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/10/30/16-times-obama-said-there-would-no-boots-ground-syria/74869884/)

Quote:

<tbody>
Since 2013, President Obama has repeatedly vowed that there would be no "boots on the ground" in Syria.

But White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the president's decision Friday to send up to 50 special forces troops to Syria doesn't change the fundamental strategy: "This is an important thing for the American people to understand. These forces do not have a combat mission."

Earnest said the promises of "no boots on the ground" first came in the context of removing Syrian President Bashar Assad because of his use of chemical weapons. Since then, Syria has become a haven for Islamic State fighters.

Here's a recap of Obama's no-boots pledge:

Remarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

"In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

"After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope."

Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan."

Remarks at the Pentagon, July 6, 2015

"There are no current plans to do so. That's not something that we currently discussed. I've always said that I'm going to do what's necessary to protect the homeland. One of the principles that we all agree on, though, and I pressed folks pretty hard because in these conversations with my military advisers I want to make sure I'm getting blunt and unadulterated, uncensored advice. But in every one of the conversations that we've had, the strong consensus is that in order for us to succeed long-term in this fight against ISIL, we have to develop local security forces that can sustain progress. It is not enough for us to simply send in American troops to temporarily set back organizations like ISIL, but to then, as soon as we leave, see that void filled once again with extremists."...



</tbody>

and the rest...

Obama should keep his word, but that's to much to expect.

Did it occur to you that it's pronouncements like those from Obama that could've encouraged ISIS to concentrate on Syria ? Just as it was Obamas' much-publicised intentions to withdraw troops from Iraq that then saw a concentrated terrorist resurgence there !!

[revelarts]

Did it occur to you that it's pronouncements like those from Obama that could've encouraged ISIS to concentrate on Syria ? Just as it was Obamas' much-publicised intentions to withdraw troops from Iraq that then saw a concentrated terrorist resurgence there !!

see how you and others can make fairly serious leaps to guesses about Obama and others motives without any neg commentary.
but i post gov't docs, testimony of generals, links to mainstream news reports, and think tanks plans to gov't going back 10 years that merge with various actions over 2 administrations and i'm called out as over the edge in my "opinions".


but yes Drummond a lot of things "occur to" me. but you don't go far enough here.
Sure Obama's pronouncements could have encourage ISIS but i think sending aid in the form of weapons, and allowing supplies to get to them via the "moderates" the Turks and Saudis, Plus a collation of U.S. and U.K. troops training islamic extremist from various M.E. states with Syrians rebels and AQ from Libya in secret bases in Jordan probably encouraged them a even more.
And Obama's much-publicised intentions to withdraw troops from Iraq according to the timing and plan written, signed and much-publicized by the by George W. Bush admin certainly allowed them to room to maneuver.

lets fill out the story here. give everyone the full credit due.

[Balu]

Did it occur to you that it's pronouncements like those from Obama that could've encouraged ISIS to concentrate on Syria ? Just as it was Obamas' much-publicised intentions to withdraw troops from Iraq that then saw a concentrated terrorist resurgence there !!

While Obama proclaims Russians keep on acting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOyC5JEmMU

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In an "advisory" role? To advise who about what?

Sounds to me like Obammy is or may be deploying a few good men to help his good buds in ISIS out in a pinch....

a Russian pinch.
That is exactly what the SOB is doing!
Notice how he never dared to send in ANY U.S. military ground forces until Russia arrived and started hitting ISIS--FOR REAL!??
2+2, always equal 4!!
Exactly who are those U.S. military forces advising and what U.S. INTEL (SATELLITE IMAGES, etc.) ARE THEY GIVING ISIS commanders on placements/movements of Assad's and Russian forces!??
How sad is it that this nation allows this filthy (jihadist muslim in hiding) treasonous bastard to run a fake war-- and actually be helping our nation's muslim terrorist enemies!!!!!!??????
I'll tell you just how sad-- nation destroying sad!!! OURS!! --Tyr

[Gunny]

That is exactly what the SOB is doing!
Notice how he never dared to send in ANY U.S. military ground forces until Russia arrived and started hitting ISIS--FOR REAL!??
2+2, always equal 4!!
Exactly who are those U.S. military forces advising and what U.S. INTEL (SATELLITE IMAGES, etc.) ARE THEY GIVING ISIS commanders on placements/movements of Assad's and Russian forces!??
How sad is it that this nation allows this filthy (jihadist muslim in hiding) treasonous bastard to run a fake war-- and actually be helping our nation's muslim terrorist enemies!!!!!!??????
I'll tell you just how sad-- nation destroying sad!!! OURS!! --Tyr

What he's doing is making a token effort to say he's done something.

[Gunny]

see how you and others can make fairly serious leaps to guesses about Obama and others motives without any neg commentary.
but i post gov't docs, testimony of generals, links to mainstream news reports, and think tanks plans to gov't going back 10 years that merge with various actions over 2 administrations and i'm called out as over the edge in my "opinions".


but yes Drummond a lot of things "occur to" me. but you don't go far enough here.
Sure Obama's pronouncements could have encourage ISIS but i think sending aid in the form of weapons, and allowing supplies to get to them via the "moderates" the Turks and Saudis, Plus a collation of U.S. and U.K. troops training islamic extremist from various M.E. states with Syrians rebels and AQ from Libya in secret bases in Jordan probably encouraged them a even more.
And Obama's much-publicised intentions to withdraw troops from Iraq according to the timing and plan written, signed and much-publicized by the by George W. Bush admin certainly allowed them to room to maneuver.

lets fill out the story here. give everyone the full credit due.

Serious leaps, huh? We HAD control of the ME. Obama and his pronouncements gave it away.

[Drummond]

One year on from the strongest air force in the world supposedly going to war with a ragtag terrorist group in one of the most exposed and open environments on the earth and ISIS are still as strong as ever. That in itself is absolute proof that the United States does currently not want to destroy ISIS.

You've put your case a little too strongly and sweepingly, I think.

I'm sure America as a whole would be delighted to see ISIS destroyed.

Nonetheless, two fairly simply-explained factors are getting in the way of any really serious attempt to arrange their demise.

Firstly ... OBAMA. He has shown precious little interest in taking the steps necessary to ensure ISIS's destruction, indeed, his policy thus far has apparently been tailored to ensure that no fundamental harm comes to ISIS as a whole.

Secondly ... war weariness on the part of the American people. Perhaps I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but unless I'm much mistaken, after Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans are tired of expending troops and resources on theatres of war overseas. Obama, but of course, is tapping into that, and taking full advantage.

America, as a whole ... I'm sure DOES want to see ISIS destroyed, but I think a certain bone-weariness has set in. Happily for America, though, they don't quite suffer from the strength of Leftie-driven hatred of all 'war-antagonisms' (as they'd see it) that our own Left is riddled with, Christie.

[Black Diamond]

Serious leaps, huh? We HAD control of the ME. Obama and his pronouncements gave it away.

Weren't like 90% of Isis in one spot? You know the JV team?

[Black Diamond]

You've put your case a little too strongly and sweepingly, I think.

I'm sure America as a whole would be delighted to see ISIS destroyed.

Nonetheless, two fairly simply-explained factors are getting in the way of any really serious attempt to arrange their demise.

Firstly ... OBAMA. He has shown precious little interest in taking the steps necessary to ensure ISIS's destruction, indeed, his policy thus far has apparently been tailored to ensure that no fundamental harm comes to ISIS as a whole.

Secondly ... war weariness on the part of the American people. Perhaps I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but unless I'm much mistaken, after Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans are tired of expending troops and resources on theatres of war overseas. Obama, but of course, is tapping into that, and taking full advantage.

America, as a whole ... I'm sure DOES want to see ISIS destroyed, but I think a certain bone-weariness has set in. Happily for America, though, they don't quite suffer from the strength of Leftie-driven hatred of all 'war-antagonisms' (as they'd see it) that our own Left is riddled with, Christie.

Sadly, it seems most Americans care more about who the kardashians are screwing.

[Drummond]

What he's doing is making a token effort to say he's done something.

Yes. I think that's it, in a nutshell. Just barely enough to maintain the image of, as he'd sell it, 'a good President, loyal to her interests' ... but not nearly enough to be of any consequence. He could do far, far more. He REFUSES to.

[Drummond]

While Obama proclaims Russians keep on acting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOyC5JEmMU


Sad to say (.. from my point of view ..) .. I have to agree, Balu. Putin is, indeed, doing what must be done. To the extent it applies, I can't deny that he deserves much credit for it.

I can qualify that, though, by also pointing out that Putin isn't against ISIS per se ... just anyone who threatens Assad's rule over Syria. If they weren't Muslim terrorists, but some other aggressors entirely, I don't doubt that Putin's reaction would be much the same.

[Balu]

Russian Mi-24 in Syria. Looks much more impressive than those in air-shows.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mD4hklsRqk&feature=iv&src_vid=nbagQ-KGcOA&annotation_id=annotation_339124907

[Balu]

I can qualify that, though, by also pointing out that Putin isn't against ISIS per se ... just anyone who threatens Assad's rule over Syria. If they weren't Muslim terrorists, but some other aggressors entirely, I don't doubt that Putin's reaction would be much the same.

I think that you will have nothing against our supplying your moderate opposition with our moderate weaponry. Won't you?:laugh:

[Christie Brinkley]

Obama uses US soldiers as human shields to defend terrorists... wow.

[Drummond]

I think than you will have nothing against our supplying your moderate opposition with our moderate weaponry. Won't you?:laugh:

Your meaning is unclear to me.

[Drummond]

Obama uses US soldiers as human shields to defend terrorists... wow.

Obama's capable of anything.

[Christie Brinkley]

Obama's capable of anything.
Including ordering a strike on those US military personnel to then blame it on Russia.

[Gunny]

I think that you will have nothing against our supplying your moderate opposition with our moderate weaponry. Won't you?:laugh:

You mean since you can't afford it? We feel "real" special y'all doing the job on a credit card. :laugh:

[Gunny]

Obama uses US soldiers as human shields to defend terrorists... wow.

Just wanted to wire me up, huh? That's exactly what he's doing. Which politician in history hasn't sent the solders off to die for THEIR cause?

[Balu]

Your meaning is unclear to me.

You are not aware, that the USA are supplying so called "moderate opposition" with arms and trained them? You don't know about the recent scandal in your Congress, as you spent for training this opposition over 500.000.000 US$? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif

[Christie Brinkley]

You are not aware, that the USA are supplying so called "moderate opposition" with arms and trained them? You don't know about the recent scandal in your Congress, as you spent for training this opposition over 500.000.000 US$? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif
Only 4 'moderates' to show for it?:lol:

[Balu]

Russian Defense Ministry says militants in Syria change tactics November 09, 21:42 UTC+3 MOSCOW

The terrorists are trying to use the defensive maneuver strategy, regularly moving and dodging strikes of both the Syrian government troops and Russian aviation



MOSCOW, November 9. /TASS/. The Russian military have observed a change in the tactics of terrorists in Syria - they now act "not so brazenly" as before, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov told reporters on Monday.

"We have observed a significant change in the terrorists’ tactics throughout the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic. The gangs now act not so brazenly as a month ago," he said.




According to him, the terrorists are trying to use the defensive maneuver strategy, regularly moving and dodging strikes of both the Syrian government troops and Russian aviation.
"The routes of supplies of arms and ammunition are constantly changing. This is done mainly during the night with all the elements of masking," the defense spokesman said.
Previously, the Russian army’s General Staff said that Russian air strikes in Syria destroyed the militants’ command and control and logistics system and that the militants were experiencing an acute shortage of ammunition, weapons and fuel. The main forces of the militants have lost the fighting capacity, the General Staff said.
On September 30, Russia’s Aerospace Force started to deliver the first pinpoint airstrikes against the militants’ positions. The Russian aviation grouping comprises more than 50 aircraft and helicopters, including the Sukhoi Su-34 and Su-24M bombers, Su-25 attack aircraft, Su-30SM fighters and Mil Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters.
Since the start of its operation in Syria, conducted at the request of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the Russian aircraft have performed hundreds of sorties to destroy dozens of ammunition depots, factories for the production of explosives and command posts. Also, overnight to October 7, the Caspian Flotilla ships delivered a massive strike on the IS objectives in Syria, using Kalibr NK shipborne cruise missiles. The Russian authorities have said on many occasions that Russia’s military forces would not take part in any ground operation in Syria.

[Russ]

Russian Mi-24 in Syria. Looks much more impressive than those in air-shows.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mD4hklsRqk&feature=iv&src_vid=nbagQ-KGcOA&annotation_id=annotation_339124907


Balu - what are the "white flare" things that the helicopters keeps shooting out in multiple directions? Are they some kind of offensive weapon, or are they heat sources to misdirect any incoming heat-seeking weapons?

[Balu]

Balu - what are the "white flare" things that the helicopters keeps shooting out in multiple directions? Are they some kind of offensive weapon, or are they heat sources to misdirect any incoming heat-seeking weapons?

These are traps for your IR Stingers.

http://pvo.guns.ru/images/other/usa/stinger/3.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEgr4lnwkY0

[Drummond]

Including ordering a strike on those US military personnel to then blame it on Russia.

Well, Putin's capable of anything, too, don't forget.

Consider the current sport scandal, which our media (it's a leading story on the BBC, as I expect you know) is reporting as being State-sponsored. Even O'Brien, on LBC earlier today, was moved to comment that Russia lived, morally speaking, 'on a different planet to the rest of us'.

[Drummond]

You are not aware, that the USA are supplying so called "moderate opposition" with arms and trained them? You don't know about the recent scandal in your Congress, as you spent for training this opposition over 500.000.000 US$? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif

'My' Congress, Balu ? You have apparently forgotten that, like you, I'm not an American.

[Balu]

'My' Congress, Balu ? You have apparently forgotten that, like you, I'm not an American.

True. You are not an American. You are from the UK. But I did not make a mistake.
GB is not an independent country. I don't think you want me to remind you whose poodle was Tony Blair. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

[Gunny]

True. You are not an American. You are from the UK. But I did not make a mistake.
GB is not an independent country. I don't think you want me to remind you whose poodle was Tony Blair. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

That was kind of a dumb statement. Little parable for you:

We may fight among each other, but 85% of us are European and most of that are UK descendants. I'm Scot and English. And in case you missed WWII, go ahead and fuck with the ancestors.

Fact is, had Hitler not betrayed Stalin, they were dividing Europe between them. Stalin was as bad or worse than Hitler. Your sorry country exists only because of US. Because all those bullets and bandaids an ammo didn't come from anything your country did.

And as a descendant of Scots ,,, fuck you. Rome couldn't even conquer us they had to build a wall to keep us away from THEM.

Same old story. I can pick on my brother all I want but I wouldn't suggest you doing it.