West should compensate Russia for fighting terrorists in Syria: Pundit

a reply to: FlySolo

That's pretty naive. First, you're just parroting western propaganda re: the civilians. Have you checked the news lately what happened in Afghanistan? US bombing a doctors without borders hospital. Yeah, apologists alright...

What's your point? Muslims burn American flags because of things like that

Second. The Muslim world doesn't give a crap about civilians being bombed anyway. They kill each other. What do you think would happen if Russia accidentally kills civilians? Are you suggesting they'll take up arms over it? lol.

Really? Then why are they so upset about the Palestinian situation?

a reply to: DJW001

MY source you linked says they "also" attacked the army of conquest. Along with Daesh.

Russia is not fighting terrorists, it is supporting Assad's regime.

I don't get this oxymoron everyone is clinging too. ALL factions against Assad ARE "terrorists". If Putin is supporting Assad, then naturally, the "opposition" is the enemy. And the Opposition are backed US mercenaries. It makes sense to wipe them all out.

a reply to: DJW001

Really? Then why are they so upset about the Palestinian situation?

Because of Israel.

a reply to: FlySolo

I see you are buying into the Russian propaganda that anyone who opposes Assad is a terrorist. That is simply not true. As for eliminating Daesh, that cannot be done by killing people. For every jihadist killed, two more will be inspired to join. Daesh must be fought in the minds of believers, not on the battlefield.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: DJW001

Really? Then why are they so upset about the Palestinian situation?

Because of Israel.

So, in your estimation, Muslims do not care about human life, they only hate Jews?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FlySolo

I see you are buying into the Russian propaganda that anyone who opposes Assad is a terrorist. That is simply not true. As for eliminating Daesh, that cannot be done by killing people. For every jihadist killed, two more will be inspired to join. Daesh must be fought in the minds of believers, not on the battlefield.

I'm buying into it because it's the only narrative that makes sense. I watch both sides and make an informed decision. Or at least try too. It's very multifaceted. But what seems to be coming out in wash is that Us's bombing campaign and meddling with mid east mercenaries is what caused this whole thing. 5000 strikes and 1 year later to rid ISIS, Assad still needs to ask Russia for help. Then almost immediately, right on cue, the west pushes the news story about Russia missing targets and is killing civilians. It's all predictable.

As for the every jihadist killed comes another, yes, that's what I have believed for a long time. Until I learned those Jihadists are only in it for the money. If US isn't effectively squashing them, then ya, they'll come back. I don't think Putin will be as kind. They're running away from their posts and 600 surrendered the other day. Daesh has called off prayer in Raqqa because of the Russian bombing. Yet, this is the first time they've called off Prayer since US has already been bombing for a year. What does that tell you?

a reply to: FlySolo

Now you are confusing the Iraqis with the Syrians and the foreign jihadis. Yes, the Iraqis have been running away, and the Syrian Sunnis sometimes get radicalized and join Daesh, but Daesh is not in it for the money, they are in it for their immortal souls, and Putin's bombs can do nothing but grow their numbers.

a reply to: DJW001

Right, Daesh/ IS is not in it for the money, but everyone else is. If ISIS pays more, then thats where everyone will go. It's a messed up highly complicated matter.

a reply to: Phage

My DEAR Phage are YOU suggesting a former KGB colonel might have a hidden agenda?
One that DOESN'T involve terrorrism?

a reply to: MrSpad

What was his strategy in the FIRST place?
He ALREADY poked the west because of weak leadership NOW he wants to try his luck with Islam?

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

Totally agree, disinformation is an old trait of the west and this (what so called ATS moderator) uses it with relish.

Russian planes getting shot down because rebels got stringer manpads? then be ready for other places to heat up which will require US to send its troops back to the war zones.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

He ALREADY poked the west because of weak leadership NOW he wants to try his luck with Islam?

That should make those in Chechnya none to happy.

I hope he doesn't take his relationship for granted, as this whole kill jihadists that are against Syria may bite him in the rear back at home.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: DJW001

Right, Daesh/ IS is not in it for the money, but everyone else is. If ISIS pays more, then thats where everyone will go. It's a messed up highly complicated matter.

No. Daesh is a spuiritual path one must be prepared to die for. It is a perversion of the traditional Islamic futuwwah. The Iraqis are largely in it for solidarity, if they are shi'ite, or money, if they are sunni. It is clear you have no understanding at all at what is really going on over there; the roots of the conflict are centuries old and Putin was a fool to step into it.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I hope he doesn't take his relationship for granted, as this whole kill jihadists that are against Syria may bite him in the rear back at home.

We will be treated to the "Jihad Ivan Variety Beheading Family Hour Show" in no time.

a reply to: DJW001

My understanding of the ME is growing more and more everyday. All it takes is to argue with people on the internet and a google tab right next beside it.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: DJW001

My understanding of the ME is growing more and more everyday. All it takes is to argue with people on the internet and a google tab right next beside it.

Then why do you say stupid things "like they're all in it for the money?" Do people blow themselves up for the money?

Donald Trump: Middle East Would Be Better Off With Saddam, Gaddafi

Donald Trump said Sunday that the Middle East would be more stable if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi were still in power.Donald Trump said Sunday that the Middle East would be more stable if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi were still in power.

When asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he thought the region would be "safer" with Hussein and Gaddafi ruling Iraq and Libya, respectively, the real estate mogul and ersatz Republican presidential candidate replied, "It's not even a contest."

Trump reasoned that had the United States not forced Hussein out of power in Iraq, the Islamic State would not have come into existence.

And he contended that ousting Gaddafi had led to chaos in Libya, including the fatal 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

"Libya is ... nobody even knows what's goin' on over there," Trump said. "It's not even a country anymore."

Trump often makes sense...Certainly more sense that any of the GOP candidates

One thing is for sure

America is the cause of a lot of pain and misery in the earth

a reply to: Willtell

Donald Trump will say anything that contradicts Republican policy.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Even flysolo thought having almost every attack against rebels not ISIS sounded totally off.

Yes, I thought it sounded off because it was..erm you were off. Now I'm researching your claims and am finding you're not actually researching anything.

You just posted a source from AUGUST, it's not August. I posted the most updated version of YOUR source ... which flat out said Russia is not targeting ISIS. How am I off when YOUR source agrees with me? You keep showing outdated information from months ago claiming it's right, and then I post updates from a few days ago, from YOUR sources ... and you claim it's off.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well I've already fact checked you and you're incorrect. This is the ISIS territory as per the ISW on your original map.

www.businessinsider.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Here is the latest from YOUR source ...

Key Takeaway: Russian airstrikes continue to primarily target Syrian opposition groups in areas far from ISIS's core terrain. These strikes are concentrated in northwestern Syria, particularly in rebel-held areas of Idlib Province and the northern countryside of Hama Province. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed only three airstrikes targeting positions in known ISIS-held terrain between October 1 and October 3. However, local reporting only confirmed two of these strikes. The Russian air campaign in Syria appears to be largely focused on supporting the Syrian regime and its fight against the Syrian opposition, rather than combatting ISIS.

iswresearch.blogspot.com...

Same source, except you used months old data, and I used days old data. How am I wrong again? Or is the source only valid when it agrees with you?

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: DJW001

MY source you linked says they "also" attacked the army of conquest. Along with Daesh.

Russia is not fighting terrorists, it is supporting Assad's regime.

I don't get this oxymoron everyone is clinging too. ALL factions against Assad ARE "terrorists". If Putin is supporting Assad, then naturally, the "opposition" is the enemy. And the Opposition are backed US mercenaries. It makes sense to wipe them all out.

So if the Canadian government went rogue and started massacring citizens and you took up arms against them you are a terrorist? Or would Putin have to call you a terrorist then you are?