CIA-backed rebels, civilians reportedly targeted by Russian airstrikes in Syria

Who is obfuscating when France bombs children ?

First French air strike in Syria 'kills 30 jihadists'

"The French air strike (on Sunday) on an IS training camp in eastern Syria killed at least 30 Isis fighters including 12 from the 'Cubs of the Caliphate,'" said Rami Abdel Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Isis calls its child soldiers "Cubs of the Caliphate".

Abdel Rahman said foreign Isis fighters were also among the dead, and that he strike had wounded around 20 people.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sublimecraft

There are civilians left in Syria and to state there are none there seems to be a backhanded way of allowing Assad / Russian forces to kill anyone not supporting Assad.

If Assad is so popular then why didn't the civilians support Assad when this started?

Russia made it's intention clear that it sees IS as a major issue, and IS needs to be stopped. While, Assad also openly said to step aside if situation worsens. But how worse are we talking about?

However, the Ruskies also made it known that it would be a grave mistake to not support Assad's forces who are currently at the forntline against IS.

It's a complex propaganda war, to say the least any and everything can go wrong with the way things are split between Russia and allies vs the West.

The perfect ingredients to start of ww3.

a reply to: stumason
I thought the UAE were part of the coalition of killing?

a reply to: yorkshirelad

And that is exactly what the Russians are doing.

The first two days of strikes have focussed on area's that have no IS positions at all and are in fact around the cities of Homs which the Government has been fighting for over a few years.

We screwed up in Iraq and Libya. Neither country is better off after our involvement. Yes saddam and gadaffi were tyrants, but it appears tyrants are the only people capable of dealing with the extremist sections in the region. Our allies in the region are hardly bastions of freedom and democracy, yet we happily supply arms and support to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. We put boots on the ground to tackle Assad forces who are now being supported by Russian military, basically we are slowly walking into ww3. Maybe I'm misreading the situation, maybe I should be more trusting of BBC news, but they've hardly showered themselves with glory in their coverage of the Syrian crisis. The FSA were never a democracy loving freedom fighting organisation. Even the CIA claimed they had a " flicker" of extremism amongst their ranks and this coverage of a supposed chemical attack was pretty poorly done.

I don't want to seem like I'm supporting conspiracy theories or Russia, I'm not. I'm just confused by the whole situation, I'm prepared to be wrong, but BBC reporting has left me unconvinced of the reality on the ground

a reply to: leajay01

And where, exactly, is the UAE?

I'll give you a clue....

It's next to Qatar, in the Gulf.....

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: intrptr

NGO's hmmmm ?

Time to mention the guy :

Soros Criminal Conviction Exposes "Human Rights" Scam

Russia to bar Soros, other foreign NGOs

Thanks for the boost…

Soros has built a global empire of networked nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) allegedly promoting "human rights," "freedom," "democracy," and "transparency." His Open Society Institute funds amongst many others, Amnesty International (page 10), Global Voices, and Human Rights Watch. In reality these NGOs constitute a modern day network of imperial administrators, undermining national governments around the world and replacing them with a homogeneous "civil society" that interlocks with "international institutions" run from and on behalf of Wall Street and London. And contrary to popular belief, Soros has built this empire, not against "conservative" ambitions, but with their full cooperation.

I knew I smelled a rat…

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You mean what ISIS, and the article in question, call "cubs of the caliphate" or "child soldiers"?

That would be on ISIS for recruiting children to kill.

a reply to: intrptr

So Soros and NGO's are just making everything up with regards to Syria and AssaD?

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's why IMO 'boots on the ground' are probably more appropriate than 'carpet bombing'.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: Xcathdra

That's why IMO 'boots on the ground' are probably more appropriate than 'carpet bombing'.

Well considering how some people on this site react to US being involved, well, anywhere lets see what Russia can do. They can send in the ground forces to protect Assad.

a reply to: stumason
Not arguing with you stu, my thoughts are clear, no bombs just diplomacy or we will have live like our grandparents or great grandparents in war, unless the leaders change, which can't happen soon

Kill all terrorist. Who gave the US, UK, France, Turkey and the gulf countries the right to arm, train and fund 'rebels' in the first place? No one. There is only one legitimate goverment, and if the other countries would not have intervened there would have been much less bloodshed. A country where more than half is fundamentalist muslim needs a dictator. Im sorry but we all know its true. You think poor farmer mohammed that is unhappy with the goverment continues the fight for over 5 years..? Its hardcore jihadis that fight for their fairytale book. The difference between the jihadis and IS is that the jihadis dont threaten the west (yet.). Ridiculous that these people are seen as 'moderate' eventhough they wish the entire world to be under sharia law. Well, keep sending them another couple of thousand TOW missles (150.000 dollar each), its not my taxpayer money that is spent there on Jihadi animals...

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
Interview of Max Abrahms on RT :

‘Huge propaganda war’ going on to discredit Russian anti-terrorist efforts in Syria

Yep anyone with two brain cells would realize both sides will squeal and use every means possible to look good in the light while behind their back there is nothing but black ops.

Thanks for the link. right or wrong interesting...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Wait and see ...
But my guess is that Russia is not after a massive troop deployment in Syria. More like supporting Assad's loyalist soldiers. The Iranians, on the other hand, are more likely to provide troops to Syria.

a reply to: stumason

"I don't believe "official/unofficial" sources, I do however place my 100% trust in a widely discredited media outlet which is known to blatantly lie and be so infused with bias it seeps out of it's nose"…..

What a bummer, theres two sides to every story.

a reply to: Xcathdra

well, anywhere lets see what Russia can do. They can send in the ground forces to protect Assad.

They won't have to send in ground troops, Syria military will do its own mopping up. All the Russians have to do is actually target any forces arrayed against the Syrians. Something the US hasn't been doing.

Should be easy, just look for the new, white pick up trucks with guns mounted on the back.

originally posted by: leajay01 no bombs just diplomacy or we will have live like our grandparents or great grandparents in war, unless the leaders change, which can't happen soon

How well did Diplomacy work out when dealing with Hitler?
How well did Diplomacy work out after WWII when Eastern Europe was occupied?

There are some issues that just defy logic and common sense. An analogy -

A guy goes to watch a protest at his city center. The protestors are demanding a withdrawal of all military personnel from country B. The protest leader is telling the crowd that was is not the answer and that countries must turn the other cheek and use diplomacy to resolve the issue. The speaker goes on and when he stops talking the guy walks up to the protester and as hard as he can he jacks the guy right in the face, knocking him to the ground.

The Protestor gets up and is about to fight when the guy tells the protestor to turn the other cheek and that fighting is never the answer. The protestor thinks for a min and takes the advice by not responding to the attack.

The guy looks at the Protestor and as hard as he can he jacks the protestor in the fact as hard as he can, bloodying his nose and knocking him to the ground. The Protestor recovers and starts coming at the guy who hit him. Before he can attack though the guy tells the protestor violence is not the answer and to turn the other cheek, that fighting is not worth it.

The protestor is thinking things over when the guy, again as hard as he ca, jacks the guy in the face again, this time breaking his nose and sending him back to the ground.

Moral of the story -
There are going to be times in life when a person must make a stand and do harm to individuals who measure success by the number of people they can kill, regardless if they are military or civilian. When someone is out to end you, you have a choice -

* - Take a stand and fight and if necessary die to put an end to that threat for not only yourself but for everyone else..


or


* - Stand their and be slaughtered, accepting defeat by your own actions.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: intrptr

Iran has had Quds forces in Iran for a few years now helping Assad.

As for Syria and ground forces.. If people are going to argue that the situation cant be won with merely air support then how is Russia going to operate then?

a reply to: yorkshirelad

The real grass roots revolt by Syrians was hijacked by outside agitators the way the CIA always begins subversion of targeted countries. But you can compare how bad Assad is with human rights in his own country all day, to other countries who's sole occupation seems to be violating national sovereignty of whole other nations on a regular basis…

Number of nations militarily invaded by Syria = 0.