West should compensate Russia for fighting terrorists in Syria: Pundit

dp

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Using ad hominum attacks doesn't change the fact that what you are saying is factually untrue. They did attack IS targets. Saying they didn't is a lie.

Even the qoute you used to back up this false claim, contradicts itself.

You even contradict yourself.

Russia is not even attacking ISIS, I think only 1 of like 22 strikes targeted ISIS.

If only 1 strike targeted IS, they are still attacking IS. The source you used earlier showed they targeted IS in at least two different areas.

And my post is to highlight while Putin states the MAIN goal is ISIS, it's a lie.

So where is your source that shows that he stated this?

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Using ad hominum attacks doesn't change the fact that what you are saying is factually untrue. They did attack IS targets. Saying they didn't is a lie.

My statement was "I believe 1 in 22 strikes". Claiming I used an ad-hom to change the subject about me calling you out for being an apologist doesn't change the fact you are lying about what I said to change the topic about what Russia is doing.

Even the qoute you used to back up this false claim, contradicts itself.

You even contradict yourself.

How can I contradict myself when that is all 1 sentence. There is no contradiction. You claim there is to change the subject and remove the focus from the fact that 90+% of the strikes are not against ISIS.

If only 1 strike targeted IS, they are still attacking IS. The source you used earlier showed they targeted IS in at least two different areas.

I said I thought it was about 1 in 20, at one time it was, it's now about 2 strikes. You are right, I was way off.

So where is your source that shows that he stated this?

Phage already sourced one.

Russia insists that its initial eight targets were Islamic State militants, saying its warplanes struck command points, military equipment, arms depots, and warehouses controlled by the terror group.

www.bloomberg.com...
That's a lie.

“The military goal of the operation is strictly to provide air support for the [Syrian] government forces in their fight against Islamic State,” he said.

Is that quote good enough for you?

If the Syrian Army with Russia’s help manages to score victories against Islamic State, this would expose the US as not really trying to defeat the terrorist group militarily, but actually trying to channel its aggression against Damascus, Syrian political analyst Annar Waqqaf told RT.

Only talking about ISIS.

www.rt.com...

Russian Air Force destroys ISIS command center, training camp (VIDEO)

www.rt.com...

Except that is Aleppo and it was not ISIS they attacked. The fact they keep saying ISIS everywhere shows they are claiming them as their main objective.

a reply to: Phage

You mean the quote which states the purpose of the mission? This quote?

That is not the qoute that one of us is ignoring. You are doing the same as you did before. Ignoring the rest of the qoutes in that article.

Ignoring Putin's own words.

a reply to: RogueWave

That is not the qoute that one of us is ignoring.

Right. I'm not ignoring it. You are.

Ignoring Putin's own words.

Yeah. But then I suppose terrorists are who ever he and Assad say they are. Right? Doesn't matter if they are ISIS at all. The stated purpose of the mission doesn't matter if you can make it up as you go along. I suppose what Ivanov said is irrelevant. Just his own opinion. You see a lot of that in high ranking Russians. Or are they just making it up? Or lying?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

My statement was "I believe 1 in 22 strikes".

No this was your statement,

Russia is not even attacking ISIS, I think only 1 of like 22 strikes targeted ISIS.

The false claim is contradicted in the same statement.

you are lying about what I said

I obviously am not. You are the one leaving out the problematic part of the statement you made. so who is lying here?

a reply to: Phage

Right. I'm not ignoring it. You are.

I am ignoring it even though I adressed it?

Btw, I didn't even say you were ignoring it. I said that it was NOT a qoute that was being ignored by one of us......

But then I suppose terrorists are who ever he and Assad say they are. Right? Doesn't matter if they are ISIS at all.

The discussion was about what was said about their intentions in Syria. It is clear that according to Putin, they are there to help Assad fight of terrorists and that they consider the opposition to be terrorist groups.

All i was saying is that he never said they would be going after IS exclusively.

a reply to: RogueWave

All i was saying is that he never said they would be going after IS exclusively.

Yeah. He is sort of a weasel, isn't he. But then, I don't think anyone really thought he would only be going after ISIS.
And I guess he really doesn't care much about what his Parliament says.

they are there to help Assad fight of terrorists and that they consider the opposition to be terrorist groups.

Can you provide a quote from him to that effect?

a reply to: Phage

Can you provide a quote from him to that effect?

I already did. Care to actually read my posts?

Yeah. He is sort of a weasel, isn't he.

He is a weasel because he is actually doing what he said, instead of saying one thing and doing something else?

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: MrSpad

We know from NGOs on the ground that Russia is just bombing random places and using dumb bombs to do so.

Whaaa? Now you've lost all credibility and I didn't even finish reading what you wrote. That is so false I don't even want to respond anymore

Of course ignoring non government observer groups and the Syrian Civil Defense Force volunteers who report every civilian death is a good idea if you want to pretend that Putin has not continued Assad's bombing strike using not precision guided weapons. You know those barrel bomb specials that Assad drops from helicopters into neighborhoods he considers disloyal. Sure lets ignore the people pulling the bodies out and believe RT. Respond or not, it does change what is really happening. And if you think the Muslim world is going sit by while Russia kills Syrian Civilians that are no where near ISIS targets in large numbers you are sadly mistaken. Now we are going to see a real flow of weapons and volunteers heading to Syria. Weapons that nobody has sent before will be showing up. This war is about to get really ugly. And the sad part is Russia does not have the power to save Assad. Even Assad's little ceasefire with AlQuida and AnNursa is not going to help.

originally posted by: RogueWave
Russia is not even attacking ISIS, I think only 1 of like 22 strikes targeted ISIS.

Your Russian apologist mind is in overdrive spinning this. Even a basic level of English knows my statement means Russia is barely attacking ISIS, since the part of my quote you refused to bold indicates I am saying he launched 1 strike. So nowhere did I deny he attacked the once. Hence you are lying about what I said.

I obviously am not. You are the one leaving out the problematic part of the statement you made. so who is lying here?

Since it was all part of the same sentence it's only problematic for you. It's clear I indicated there was a strike against ISIS, and the interpretation of my comment is that ISIS is barely on Russia's radar as far as targets, yet it's all they talk about, meaning they are lying about their agenda.

Context matters, and context includes the WHOLE statement, not the half you want to highlight.

a reply to: MrSpad

ou know those barrel bomb specials that Assad drops from helicopters into neighborhoods he considers disloyal...

Proof? Sources?

while Russia kills Syrian Civilians that are no where near ISIS targets in large numbers

Any proof for this?

originally posted by: RogueWave
He is a weasel because he is actually doing what he said, instead of saying one thing and doing something else?

I believe attacking rebels and then posting a video claiming you are hitting ISIS is the definition of weasel.

originally posted by: RogueWave

Any proof for this?

Map has already been posted along with photos of the areas he has hit and the people on the ground talking about civilian casualties.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Context matters, and context includes the WHOLE statement, not the half you want to highlight.

What a load of nonsense. You said Russia didn't attack IS, clearly, when they did. If you meant something else you should have typed something else.

Furthermore you posted a map earlier that showed multiple attacks on IS controlled areas.

So no matter how you twist it, the statement that Russia didn't attack IS is false.

Well the USA has bombed a hospital on saturday.
Civilians will be killed no matter who is doing the bombing but If russia actually sorts out ISIS can we all agree it is a good thing?.

originally posted by: RogueWave

What a load of nonsense. You said Russia didn't attack IS, clearly, when they did. If you meant something else you should have typed something else.

I did type something else. You just want to cut my sentence off in the middle to fit your Russian apologist agenda. My sentence does not end where you want it to end. My sentence ends where I stopped it, not you.

Furthermore you posted a map earlier that showed multiple attacks on IS controlled areas.

So no matter how you twist it, the statement that Russia didn't attack IS is false.

Yep, I said it was 1 attack, there has been another, so now it's 2. I already said that, you know I did, you just look for any angle to weasel into. There is no significant difference between 1 of 20 and 2 of 20.

Care to explain why Russia is attacking rebels and then claiming they hit ISIS?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I believe attacking rebels and then posting a video claiming you are hitting ISIS is the definition of weasel.

What video?

Map has already been posted along with photos of the areas he has hit and the people on the ground talking about civilian casualties.

I didn't see any verifiable sources, footage, or eyewitness reports. If I missed them please point them out to me.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There is no significant difference between 1 of 20 and 2 of 20.

There is a significant difference between NONE and one or two, though.

Btw, who provided the info you are relying on?

My sentence does not end where you want it to end. My sentence ends where I stopped it, not you.

What are you talking about. I qouted your entire sentence and bolded the part THAT YOU LEFT OUT.

Wth?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Well the USA has bombed a hospital on saturday.
Civilians will be killed no matter who is doing the bombing but If russia actually sorts out ISIS can we all agree it is a good thing?.

ISIS gone is a good thing, but Russia's view of Syria is not necessarily good, where any revolt by actual Syrians needs to be destroyed and them all killed.