Putin explains who is supporting ISIL

originally posted by: Jonjonj

A very prescient post this is. I honestly believe that most Americans do not really want to be the dictators of modern mores, but it shames me to admit that sadly I believe that my own country,the UK, against the will of its own people, will follow the USA into the mud.

As an Australian I know exactly how you feel and I'm sure many Americans feel the same way. Their government and ours wants more and more from us whether is it more involvement in their conflicts, more hardware and money to fund it or taking more migrants from the conflicts and instabilities they created. It's time to say NO. HELL NO!

I would be fine with supporting a strategy that was getting results but if anything under the current strategy we are funding and enabling those who want to destroy us and allowing them to strike us at home in the future through our migrant policies. Talk is cheap and with all the money spent where are the results? Libya is a mess, Iraq is a mess and do they really think we are so stupid to believe that if Assad was gone it would be any better than these failures? That doesn't seem likely.

a reply to: grandmakdw

These faux-Muslims (Daesh) are really a cancer
on society and a cancer upon the world.

As Putin has pointed out these hired mercenaries have little to do with Islam, they hide behind that facade to influence the West who's sentiments are easily aroused by anti religious fervor due to their conditioning in the main stream. You don't need to mention Muslims anymore, who have nothing to do with the insurgencies occurring in all the Middle Eastern wars started by NATO. Instead for once, try pointing out the real culprits.

Otherwise, you're just being duped like the rest of the masses, or ringing the bell of the oligarchs for your own ends, whichever.

a reply to: Danton

Talk is cheap and with all the money spent where are the results? Libya is a mess, Iraq is a mess and do they really think we are so stupid to believe that if Assad was gone it would be any better than these failures? That doesn't seem likely.

Small leap of logic from that to understanding they want these places to be "a mess", keeps them from uniting and rising against their occupiers and the depletion of their resources, namely oil and minerals.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The UN mandate and no fly was led by France, Lebanon and the UK, NOT the US.

Everything in the Middle East is led by the US military under NATO's or other Proxie's banner.

Russia and China both abstained.

We get that you hate the US however would it be possible for you to use facts instead of just making crap up?

You're the 'master of crap' on ATS. For others…

It was the third time that Russia and China had vetoed resolutions on Syria since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began, and the collegial atmosphere in the Council chambers was tinged with bitterness and acrimony afterward.

---

Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador, also angrily denounced the vetoes. “We have missed yet another critical opportunity to work together,” she told the Council. Ms. Rice called it a “dark day.”

New York Times

Ms. Rices tantrum about it…When she mentions a "couple members" she is referring to Russia and China. Bwah Wah, can't make this stuff up.

originally posted by: intrptr

Everything in the Middle East is led by the US military under NATO's or other Proxie's banner.

Again no. You made a statement about Libya and the US and it was wrong. Trying to move the goal post are we? Saudi
Secondly Saudi Arabia and other countries are doing their own thing with regards to Yemen. That is not US led nor NATO led.

originally posted by: intrptr
You're the 'master of crap' on ATS. For others…

Yet my correction of your wrong information has been factual where as your statement was not.

originally posted by: intrptr

It was the third time that Russia and China had vetoed resolutions on Syria since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began, and the collegial atmosphere in the Council chambers was tinged with bitterness and acrimony afterward.

---

Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador, also angrily denounced the vetoes. “We have missed yet another critical opportunity to work together,” she told the Council. Ms. Rice called it a “dark day.”

New York Times

Ms. Rices tantrum about it…

When she mentions a "couple members" she is referring to Russia and China. Bwah Wah, can't make this stuff up.

Any particular reason you are using Rice instead of our UN Ambassador? Any reason why you had to go back several years for the clip?

Russia has vetoed security council resolutions that could resolve the situation and hold Assad accountable. Russia refused and as such we have seen Russia create yet another frozen conflict in Syria. Russia would not have even gotten involved except for its own self interests, namely the number of radical Muslims who left Russia to fight and who will most likely be returning back to Russia at some point.


The very fact Russia is attacking non ISIS forces it calls into question Russia's intent.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The very fact Russia is attacking non ISIS forces it calls into question Russia's intent.

The fact is Russia is attacking those attacking the Syrians.

The legitimate government is Syria, not some mercenaries hired by the West to force "Regime Change" on another Middle Eastern Nation.

a reply to: intrptr

So Russia one again lied to the world, and the Russian people, when he stated they were going to Syria to stop ISIS.

check


Secondly I will remember your position next time we see each other in a Ukraine thread.

a reply to: FlySolo

let us follow..

a reply to: FlySolo

There is something I am not understanding here.. Putin is bombing the us supported rebels which are along the border of israel, and so eu press, more specifically french mainstream media, is stating that Putin is bombing unexpected targets, and that he should be going after the strongholds of Daesh..which are in the eastern more northern area..

Is it alright to go after the us created rebels, and will he later go after Daesh..? Maybe someone can help clarify things a bit for me..


Thank you!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr

So Russia one again lied to the world, and the Russian people, when he stated they were going to Syria to stop ISIS.

check


Secondly I will remember your position next time we see each other in a Ukraine thread.

He isn't stopping ISIS or Daesh? Who is he going after then?

a reply to: tony9802

He said he was going there to fight ISIS.

What he is actually doing is actively supporting the Assad regime by labeling all fighters not loyal to Assad as ISIS.

a reply to: FlySolo

Cutting through the BS.

Putin began airstrikes, drone strikes and general operations over the past 24 hours in Syria.

Already it has become clear that he is not just striking ISIS, but also US and European backed rebel forces and civilian populations opposed to Assad.

If the US had boots on the ground there, we would already be at war with Russia.

Putin's aim is not to defeat ISIS, but to destabilize Syria with the aim of Russia swooping in to clean up the mess.

The real story is that this is not Russia supporting Assad. This is Russia laying the groundwork for a Ukraine scenario. It is Putins new modus operando for expanding the Russian empire. The Russian economy is in dire straits and expansion is his only viable recovery strategy. Growth through consumption of other nations.

Syria possessed 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil as of January 2013, which makes it the largest proved reserve of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean according to the Oil & Gas Journal estimate.

www.ibtimes.com...

This is simply a global robbery...Putin is there for the Oil and Natural Gas. He needs the money.

This is

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tony9802

He said he was going there to fight ISIS.

What he is actually doing is actively supporting the Assad regime by labeling all fighters not loyal to Assad as ISIS.

Notice that he waiting long enough to make sure the Assad regime was sufficiently weakened and desperate first.

This isn't a rescue mission...it's heist. It is as if the cops show up during a riot and start randomly shooting people and robbing Jewelry stores.

Syria is his now in his view.

a reply to: tony9802

Is it alright to go after the us created rebels, and will he later go after Daesh..? Maybe someone can help clarify things a bit for me..

It is suicide. Sooner or later they will hit an American or Israeli target. Even if the US is slow to respond, Israel will retaliate and draw America fully in the war. The Russian economy will be destroyed by Putin's adventurism.

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
a reply to: FlySolo

In truth I agree with much of what he said...

That still does not mean he is out for anyones best interests other than his own!

What's his best interest here then? Why get involved?

It's the same as it ever was...

Syria is a major port for Russia.... They want control of it and the thought of Americans controlling such a valuable sensitive area is unacceptable to Russia.

but the reason the Americans are putting pressure on this area has to do with the fact that Russia has been working to devalue the petrodollar for the last two decades.

If Russia would like to take her foot of the wests oil arteries... the west will take her foot off of their trade arteries....

a reply to: Indigo5

Putin's aim is not to defeat ISIS, but to destabilize Syria with the aim of Russia swooping in to clean up the mess.

I will have to disagree with your stance here I'm afraid. Russia has no interest in destabilizing Syria, US has already done that. Russia's main interest is to protect their investments. Sure, lets cut the bs. The entire mid east crisis is because of the oil. Russia wants to build a pipeline to EU via Syria and the US wants to make sure that never happens. Bottom line. All the other subsequent crap that follows is a direct result of this US lead "humanitarian" war effort to overthrow Assad. It's pretend, fantasy, lies to cover a more realistic, militaristic reason to control the flow of petro dollars. That's what it comes down to. So lets all cut the BS and face the facts as they are clearly the true reasons why this mess is happening.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
a reply to: FlySolo

In truth I agree with much of what he said...

That still does not mean he is out for anyones best interests other than his own!

What's his best interest here then? Why get involved?

It's the same as it ever was...

Syria is a major port for Russia.... They want control of it and the thought of Americans controlling such a valuable sensitive area is unacceptable to Russia.

but the reason the Americans are putting pressure on this area has to do with the fact that Russia has been working to devalue the petrodollar for the last two decades.

If Russia would like to take her foot of the wests oil arteries... the west will take her foot off of their trade arteries....

Yes, I agree. So? Who's the bad guy then? Rather, who's the lesser of the two evils? The fact the US is playing their "bleeding heart" card to the liberal masses under the bs guise of a "humanitarian" plight to "save" the Syrian people from a ruthless dictator is beyond fiction I don't know what else to say. WE all know the true reason for this war so lets stop pretending we're watching a different movie.

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
a reply to: FlySolo

In truth I agree with much of what he said...

That still does not mean he is out for anyones best interests other than his own!

What's his best interest here then? Why get involved?

It's the same as it ever was...

Syria is a major port for Russia.... They want control of it and the thought of Americans controlling such a valuable sensitive area is unacceptable to Russia.

but the reason the Americans are putting pressure on this area has to do with the fact that Russia has been working to devalue the petrodollar for the last two decades.

If Russia would like to take her foot of the wests oil arteries... the west will take her foot off of their trade arteries....

Yes, I agree. So? Who's the bad guy then? Rather, who's the lesser of the two evils? The fact the US is playing their "bleeding heart" card to the liberal masses under the bs guise of a "humanitarian" plight to "save" the Syrian people from a ruthless dictator is beyond fiction I don't know what else to say. WE all know the true reason for this war so lets stop pretending we're watching a different movie.

Absolutely...

But do you think Joe Public can see through the smoke??

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: grandmakdw

Yes Putin is the only world leader
who is strong enough
who is man enough
to kill the cancer in the world
that is ISIS and Muslim extremism.

Putin has stated that the insurgencies in the ME have nothing to do with true Islam. In the OP video he states these are hired mercenaries working for whomever pays the most. Thats the reality, stop with the anti Muslim rhetoric.

This is not anti-Muslim rhetoric.

It is the truth.
The USA punished a soldier who tried to prevent the rape of a boy
because he was told it was their culture.
You know sex slavery abounds in ISIS, it is all over the news.
You know that women in Saudi are treated like pets on a leash
These things are not anti-Muslim, they are fact.

I clearly said that ISIS
is a perverted version of ISIS
one that was destroying the lives
of good and decent Muslims.

I clearly said they have
perverted Islam so badly
that they have become a
cancer on the world with their
perversions in the name of Allah,
that they are destroying and
besmirching the name of Allah.

That is not anti-Muslim rhetoric,
it is the truth, the cancer of this
perverted version of Islam must
be destroyed before it destroys
true Islam as well as the rest of the world.

The politically correct culture
and leaders of the world
become afraid when people say
things like "This is anti-Muslim"
NO
it is actually pro-real Islam
the version that respects women
and their choices and feelings,
the one that wants to live in peace
with others, the one that is appalled
by sexual perversion, the one that is
appalled by slavery of any kind.

When you say what you said about
people who point out the ugliness and
cancerous and evil behavior of this perverted
version of Islam, then you are by default
supporting their perverted behavior and
how they destroy the lives of good Muslims
by causing suspicion and hatred.

Excellently well-said Grandma. You couldn"t be more correct. His attempt to label your first post as anti-Muslim is a great example of how this PC bs has led us to this dark place we currently find ourselves. Political correctness is dangerous.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

But do you think Joe Public can see through the smoke??

If enough people stand up and say something. I'm doing my part, but sadly, I'm an island.