What's new

West battles Russia but not terrorists in Syria – Shoigu

Negative Geronimo.They're just not helping Assad against ISIS which is understandable.People should just pull their heads out of the RT toilette masquerating as a news outlette to have a proper view on reality.

Makes no difference how you look at it. If the ISIS had not attacked Iraq in 2014, the US would have maintained status quo by not attacking ISIS at all.

ISIS didn't just pop into existence, they have been in existence for years before that. 1999, that's when they came into existence. They are the ones who led the Iraqi insurgency for a decade after the Iraq War. The Northern Iraq offensive by ISIS was nothing new, it's been happening since 2003.

The entire situation is quite black and white for the Russians and Iranians for extremely obvious reasons, they both want to prop up Shia Islam with the Shia dominated Syria and Iraq. But it's a grey area for the Americans. The Americans are 'helping' Iran defeat ISIS in Iraq, but at the same time refuse to do anything against their strongholds in Syria because ISIS is necessary to defeat Assad.

You need to get real.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/

There are far too many vested interests in the survival of ISIS.

The main reason why Turkey intervened and captured ISIS territory on their border
was to block the Kurd from joining two territories.
The Turks have their own agenda.

That doesn't even make sense. The Kurds in those regions are already joined. PKK has camps in Iraq, Turkey and Syria. And the PKK is also fighting ISIS, along with the other Kurdish groups.

The Turks are in Iraq so they can directly support ISIS offensive against the Kurds, as they are already doing in Turkey and Syria. In fact they wanted ISIS to create a buffer zone between the Turkish and Syrian border. But it didn't work out because Al Qaeda did not allow Al Nusra's alliance with ISIS, followed by the Russian intervention.

The Turks had also planned to invade Syria in a big way like they did Iraq. But the Russian intervention foiled their plans for Syria. In fact, the Turkish plans to invade Syria is the reason why the Russians stepped in. The Turks have already taken the town of Jarabulus, this time to fight the Kurdish YPK. The action against YPK actually started with the Battle of Kobani, where the Turks bombed Kurdish positions, which allowed ISIS to attack the town.

ISIS and the planned invasion of Iraq and Syria are the reasons why there was an attempted coup in Turkey.
 
Makes no difference how you look at it. If the ISIS had not attacked Iraq in 2014, the US would have maintained status quo by not attacking ISIS at all.

ISIS didn't just pop into existence, they have been in existence for years before that. 1999, that's when they came into existence. They are the ones who led the Iraqi insurgency for a decade after the Iraq War. The Northern Iraq offensive by ISIS was nothing new, it's been happening since 2003.

The entire situation is quite black and white for the Russians and Iranians for extremely obvious reasons, they both want to prop up Shia Islam with the Shia dominated Syria and Iraq. But it's a grey area for the Americans. The Americans are 'helping' Iran defeat ISIS in Iraq, but at the same time refuse to do anything against their strongholds in Syria because ISIS is necessary to defeat Assad.

You need to get real.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/

There are far too many vested interests in the survival of ISIS.



That doesn't even make sense. The Kurds in those regions are already joined. PKK has camps in Iraq, Turkey and Syria. And the PKK is also fighting ISIS, along with the other Kurdish groups.

The Turks are in Iraq so they can directly support ISIS offensive against the Kurds, as they are already doing in Turkey and Syria. In fact they wanted ISIS to create a buffer zone between the Turkish and Syrian border. But it didn't work out because Al Qaeda did not allow Al Nusra's alliance with ISIS, followed by the Russian intervention.

The Turks had also planned to invade Syria in a big way like they did Iraq. But the Russian intervention foiled their plans for Syria. In fact, the Turkish plans to invade Syria is the reason why the Russians stepped in. The Turks have already taken the town of Jarabulus, this time to fight the Kurdish YPK. The action against YPK actually started with the Battle of Kobani, where the Turks bombed Kurdish positions, which allowed ISIS to attack the town.

ISIS and the planned invasion of Iraq and Syria are the reasons why there was an attempted coup in Turkey.

There are Kurdish controlled areas both to the East and West of the Turkish incursion.
I doubt that Turkey considers ISIS an ally, both Kurds and ISIS are enemies, but Kurds
are a bigger threat, and thus get priority when strikes are considered.

Russia and Iran considers maintaining Assad a priority, and therefore fully supports the Syrian genocide.

The US wants Assad and ISIS gone, and supports Kurds, Iraqi government, but not Assad.
It has made some limited attempts to support rebels (FSA) in Syria, with little to show for it.
Does not mean that they support ISIS in Syria.

As been shown in other threads, the main support to ISIS appears to come from KSA and Gulf States.
 
There are Kurdish controlled areas both to the East and West of the Turkish incursion.
I doubt that Turkey considers ISIS an ally, both Kurds and ISIS are enemies, but Kurds
are a bigger threat, and thus get priority when strikes are considered.

Russia and Iran considers maintaining Assad a priority, and therefore fully supports the Syrian genocide.

The US wants Assad and ISIS gone, and supports Kurds, Iraqi government, but not Assad.
It has made some limited attempts to support rebels (FSA) in Syria, with little to show for it.
Does not mean that they support ISIS in Syria.

As been shown in other threads, the main support to ISIS appears to come from KSA and Gulf States.

The US is not directly supporting ISIS in Syria. They are doing the same thing that they did for Pakistan with respect to India. They just ignored Pakistan's support of proxy groups and nuclear armament targeted against India. The same thing's happening with the ISIS.

That's why the Russian DM said what he said, that the US is doing nothing about ISIS or even the Al Nusra, both being Saudi proxies, with the US turning a blind eye to that.
 
The US is not directly supporting ISIS in Syria. They are doing the same thing that they did for Pakistan with respect to India. They just ignored Pakistan's support of proxy groups and nuclear armament targeted against India. The same thing's happening with the ISIS.

That's why the Russian DM said what he said, that the US is doing nothing about ISIS or even the Al Nusra, both being Saudi proxies, with the US turning a blind eye to that.

If Assad resigned and was replaced by a democratic government, I am sure many countries would help Syria get rid of both,
 
The main reason why Turkey intervened and captured ISIS territory on their border
was to block the Kurd from joining two territories.
The Turks have their own agenda.

Turkey respects Iraq soveriginity and even Abdullah Ocalan doesnt agrees with PKK.

PKK is being armed by those countries who wants to control OPEC.
 
If Assad resigned and was replaced by a democratic government, I am sure many countries would help Syria get rid of both,

The country will be taken over by the Al Qaeda, backed by the Saudis. How well do you think the democracies of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are doing today? All three countries are in the middle of civil wars.

The US has practically handed over Afghanistan to India, Iraq to Iran and Libya to Al Qaeda. There is no real democracy in these countries.

There is no democracy in the Muslim Middle East.

The west and particularly the Gulf monarchies want disorder in Syria, not peace. It's because Syria is a secular state. And the war won't stop until Syria is a fully Sunni state or its minority people are kicked out or killed. You guys have been fed so much propaganda that you don't realize that NATO is clearing the path for a much greater genocide of the Syrian people than Assad can ever commit. No different from Iraq or Afghanistan.

You may not know this since you have no clue, since your media is busy trying to curtail any information that supports Assad, but most of the civilians who died are Alawites/Shiites, the very people Assad belongs to and is trying to protect. They are all being butchered by the Sunni "moderates", Al Nusra/Qaeda and ISIS. That's apparently Assad's "genocide".
 
The country will be taken over by the Al Qaeda, backed by the Saudis. How well do you think the democracies of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are doing today? All three countries are in the middle of civil wars.

The US has practically handed over Afghanistan to India, Iraq to Iran and Libya to Al Qaeda. There is no real democracy in these countries.

There is no democracy in the Muslim Middle East.

The west and particularly the Gulf monarchies want disorder in Syria, not peace. It's because Syria is a secular state. And the war won't stop until Syria is a fully Sunni state or its minority people are kicked out or killed. You guys have been fed so much propaganda that you don't realize that NATO is clearing the path for a much greater genocide of the Syrian people than Assad can ever commit. No different from Iraq or Afghanistan.

You may not know this since you have no clue, since your media is busy trying to curtail any information that supports Assad, but most of the civilians who died are Alawites/Shiites, the very people Assad belongs to and is trying to protect. They are all being butchered by the Sunni "moderates", Al Nusra/Qaeda and ISIS. That's apparently Assad's "genocide".


Show some sources of deaths and perpetrator then...

NATO is not doing a lot in Syria, the main activities are in Iraq.
Syria is only a part of the struggle between Sunni headed by KSA and Shia headed by Iran.
They need to resolve their differences.
 
Last edited:
Show some sources of deaths and perpetrator then...

Why will you find western sources with that? Just look at the religion of the people being killed, simple.

Plus genocide is happening in areas not under Assad's control. Apart from that both sides are responsible for collateral damage, but that's something very difficult to control. NATO is responsible for more collateral damage than Assad and Saddam combined.

Do you know how the west and Saudis term as genocide versus the actual definition of genocide?

If Assad attacks Aleppo, the Saudis say that over 500,000 people are at the risk of genocide by Assad. But these are actually collateral damage. What the Saudis don't mention is the fact that their proxies don't allow the civilians to run away instead, force them to stay in Aleppo, that becomes genocide. And as far as the West is concerned, the rebel groups are "civilians". So attacking these "civilians" is equal to genocide.

These guys are "civilians" apparently.
http://edge.live,leak.com/80281E/u/u/thumbs/2012/Sep/19/f70b43554e9e_sf_5.jpg

Remove the comma between live and leak.

Here, western backed rebels have put Alawites in cages so Assad doesn't bomb them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...aged-pro-Assad-captives-as-human-shields.html

This article demonizes Assad, for obvious reasons, even though these people are fighting for their right to survive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...avy-price-for-loyalty-to-Bashar-al-Assad.html

Western propaganda machine is so well oiled that it is disgusting to people like me. They don't even bother to mention that if the Alawites don't fight back they will be killed in the tens of thousands in a real genocide, not the western definition of genocide. You think ISIS gives a damn about the Alawites? Their civilian areas are already under attack.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire...attacks-in-syria-s-alawite-heartland-kill-148

Throughout this conflict, only the Russians have made sense. Regardless of how bad Assad is, the opposition forces are even worse. Forget democracy, there won't be a country left if Assad is ousted.

NATO is not doing a lot in Syria, the main activities are in Iraq.

This is what the Russians are saying. Read OP.

Syria is only a part of the struggle between Sunni headed by KSA and Shia headed by Iran.
They need to resolve their differences.

No chance of that happening. It's one or the other.
 
Why will you find western sources with that? Just look at the religion of the people being killed, simple.

Plus genocide is happening in areas not under Assad's control. Apart from that both sides are responsible for collateral damage, but that's something very difficult to control. NATO is responsible for more collateral damage than Assad and Saddam combined.

Do you know how the west and Saudis term as genocide versus the actual definition of genocide?

If Assad attacks Aleppo, the Saudis say that over 500,000 people are at the risk of genocide by Assad. But these are actually collateral damage. What the Saudis don't mention is the fact that their proxies don't allow the civilians to run away instead, force them to stay in Aleppo, that becomes genocide. And as far as the West is concerned, the rebel groups are "civilians". So attacking these "civilians" is equal to genocide.

These guys are "civilians" apparently.
http://edge.live,leak.com/80281E/u/u/thumbs/2012/Sep/19/f70b43554e9e_sf_5.jpg

Remove the comma between live and leak.

Here, western backed rebels have put Alawites in cages so Assad doesn't bomb them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...aged-pro-Assad-captives-as-human-shields.html

This article demonizes Assad, for obvious reasons, even though these people are fighting for their right to survive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...avy-price-for-loyalty-to-Bashar-al-Assad.html

Western propaganda machine is so well oiled that it is disgusting to people like me. They don't even bother to mention that if the Alawites don't fight back they will be killed in the tens of thousands in a real genocide, not the western definition of genocide. You think ISIS gives a damn about the Alawites? Their civilian areas are already under attack.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire...attacks-in-syria-s-alawite-heartland-kill-148

Throughout this conflict, only the Russians have made sense. Regardless of how bad Assad is, the opposition forces are even worse. Forget democracy, there won't be a country left if Assad is ousted.



This is what the Russians are saying. Read OP.



No chance of that happening. It's one or the other.

Collateral damage is when a military target is attacked and civilians die.
When barrel bombs are dropped on a marketplace, it is not collateral damage,
is is indiscriminate targetting of civilians, and when repeated for the umpteenth time
it becomes genocidial.

I am not surprised that Assad forces are preferring barrel bombing areas controlled by the opposition
over areas controlled by his own forces.

Jaysh-al-Islam keeping Alawites in cages are a Saudi creation.
Nothing that I condone, and John Kerry has called them terrorists.
Calling them Western backed seems an overstatement.
 
Collateral damage is when a military target is attacked and civilians die.
When barrel bombs are dropped on a marketplace, it is not collateral damage,
is is indiscriminate targetting of civilians, and when repeated for the umpteenth time
it becomes genocidial.

That's very naive. Your country will do the exact same thing in that situation. It's a method to protect your own citizens by sending the message that 'their' citizens will be targeted too.

Why do you think the US destroyed the Iranian passenger jet to end the Iran-Iraq War? That's not genocide. Genocide is something entirely different.

For example, the Nazi extermination of Jews or the Pakistani extermination of Bengalis is genocide. But the British bombing of German cities and American bombing of Tokyo during WW2 in order to break the will of the people are not genocide. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also not genocide.

Don't get suckered into such hopeless propaganda, your lot are supposed to be some of the most literate people in the world.

Calling them Western backed seems an overstatement.

What are US troops doing among the rebels then?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...orced-to-run-away-from-us-backed-syrian-rebe/

American troops are freely operating among them. What more proof do you want?
 
That's very naive. Your country will do the exact same thing in that situation. It's a method to protect your own citizens by sending the message that 'their' citizens will be targeted too.

Why do you think the US destroyed the Iranian passenger jet to end the Iran-Iraq War? That's not genocide. Genocide is something entirely different.

For example, the Nazi extermination of Jews or the Pakistani extermination of Bengalis is genocide. But the British bombing of German cities and American bombing of Tokyo during WW2 in order to break the will of the people are not genocide. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also not genocide.

Don't get suckered into such hopeless propaganda, your lot are supposed to be some of the most literate people in the world.



What are US troops doing among the rebels then?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...orced-to-run-away-from-us-backed-syrian-rebe/

American troops are freely operating among them. What more proof do you want?

The Swedish Army educates its soldiers on the Geneva Convention.
There is nothing in the training that indicates that deviating from the Geneva Convention
is acceptable in any form, so no, we would not do the same thing.

First result of googling "genocide":

The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I think that fits very well my own interpretation of genocide, as well as the actions by Assad.

The US did not destroy an Iranian passager jet to end the war, they destroyed it because they deemed it a threat.
For this, they have admitted the mistake, and payed compensation.

Some rebels are backed, some are not.
FSA is known to have been backed by the US, and they are the ones mentioned in this article.
The rebels keeping the Alawites in cages were not FSA.
 
Last edited:
The Swedish Army educates its soldiers on the Geneva Convention.
There is nothing in the training that indicates that deviating from the Geneva Convention
is acceptable in any form, so no, we would not do the same thing.

All that will be forgotten when Sweden gets involved in a 'real' war. Fighting is in your blood. All your education will be forgotten and your evolutionary traits for war will resurface when your population is pushed to the extreme.

Economics and strategy will take precedence over Geneva conventions then.

First result of googling "genocide":

The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I think that fits very well my own interpretation of genocide, as well as the actions by Assad.

The US did not destroy an Iranian passager jet to end the war, they destroyed it because they deemed it a threat.
For this, they have admitted the mistake, and payed compensation.

You will be surprised. The US shot down the jet in July and the 8 year war, which the Iranians had no plan in ending, ended in August. It was a typical US threat. You think the US has followed Geneva Convention back during the Vietnam War?

Bombing a civilian center is not a deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Some rebels are backed, some are not.
FSA is known to have been backed by the US, and they are the ones mentioned in this article.

So now you agree that 'some' rebel groups are backed by the US. Good.

There are no moderate groups in Syria. Did you notice that they were yelling they won't allow Christians in Syria also? It appears the West has its own definition for 'moderate'.

The rebels keeping the Alawites in cages were not FSA.

The city is mentioned. It's Damascus. There's only the US backed FSA in strength there. The group is not part of FSA, but is allied to the West.
 
All that will be forgotten when Sweden gets involved in a 'real' war. Fighting is in your blood. All your education will be forgotten and your evolutionary traits for war will resurface when your population is pushed to the extreme.

Economics and strategy will take precedence over Geneva conventions then.

You will be surprised. The US shot down the jet in July and the 8 year war, which the Iranians had no plan in ending, ended in August. It was a typical US threat. You think the US has followed Geneva Convention back during the Vietnam War?

Bombing a civilian center is not a deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

So now you agree that 'some' rebel groups are backed by the US. Good.

There are no moderate groups in Syria. Did you notice that they were yelling they won't allow Christians in Syria also? It appears the West has its own definition for 'moderate'.

The city is mentioned. It's Damascus. There's only the US backed FSA in strength there. The group is not part of FSA, but is allied to the West.

Whether to follow the Geneva Convention or not is a personal choice.
I believe in following the Convention regardless of the status of the opponent, simply to maintain
my personal sanity.
The VIETCONG were considered criminals by the South Vietnamese and not treated
according to the Geneva Convention. They had not signed the convention,
US policy was to hand over prisoners to the South Vietnamese, but they also made
them change their policy so after some time the South Vietnamese decided
that the Convention was applicable.
That said both sides were not in compliance.
I have seen figures that 60% of the US pilots captured were tortured,
and the US maintained interrogation centres which many POWs did not survive.
It was a dirty war.

The plane was shot down July 3rd.
A ceasefire was brokered by the UN a little bit later, but both Iraq and Iran went on offensives anyway,
20-25 July, with the final ceasefire on 8th of August.
With offensives occuring AFTER the incident, I would say that it had little if none effect.

Already at the beginning of the Syrian Rebellion, it was deemed problematic to find
any "good guys". "moderates" is therefore a relative and not an absolute term.
The US has supported the FSA but at this stage it is questionable if FSA actually exists.
That is why support from the West is luke-warm at best.
Majority of support comes from KSA and Gulf States.
The group imprisoning the Alawites share the goal of wanting Assad gone, but
have been called terrorists by John Kerry.


The way the Assad forces behave is systematic enough for me,
and since often the targets are purely civilian, in massive numbers
the choice is between surrender and extermination.
That is genocide in my book,
We will just have to agree to disagree,
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Back
Top Bottom