It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ISIS left so weakened by airstrikes and desertion it could be destroyed in just HOURS

page: 15
41
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tony9802


It seems The Russians may be on the verge of defeating ISIS,
when The DOD said it was impossible to defeat ISIS-- What a bunch of
bonehead liars (The DOD)

Rebel 5




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: tony9802


It seems The Russians may be on the verge of defeating ISIS,
when The DOD said it was impossible to defeat ISIS-- What a bunch of
bonehead liars (The DOD)

Rebel 5



Things are not always what thy "seem."



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: rebelv

With you on that.. how you keeping..






posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




Yes I do: they have demonstrated why it has been four years and Assad still can't take his country back on his own. The army has no stomach for a fight.


Say it has more to do with the Syrian rebels backed by US finance, training and arms.. The train them up and the go and join ISIS.. Its a crying shame but its the truth...



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DJW001




Yes I do: they have demonstrated why it has been four years and Assad still can't take his country back on his own. The army has no stomach for a fight.


Say it has more to do with the Syrian rebels backed by US finance, training and arms.. The train them up and the go and join ISIS.. Its a crying shame but its the truth...


According to Ashton Carter He said in a hearing that.... quote: It is hard to find People (rebels) who can be counted on to have the right mind set and ideology...Not be alined With Groups like ISIL.

According to Gen Austin in the same hearing: Quote: The once who remain in the fight are from 4 to 5 (Free Syrian Rebels).

Are you now going to tell me that Russia have been bombing the free Syrian rebels? According to defence secretary Ashton Carter and Gen Austin there there are only 4 to 5 (free Syrian rebels) in Syria.

- These 4 to 5 free Syrian rebels must be very, very ,very well trained and very well equiped since they are able to occupy such wast territories in Syria. These 4 to 5 rebels hold how many cities all by them selves? One each????

- And these 4 to 5 fighter are fighting ISIL and Assads troops all by them selves.....Get out of here.



Here is a fun vid:





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: tony9802

Ngl, but i think Putin/Russia have actually made better progress by bombing ISiS and other "rebels"...where the US just sat with one hand up the rear and passing easy to get weapons with the other.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
ISIS will be hard to fully defeat as they are nebulous and frequently operate on both sides of the border, between Iraq and Syria. I also don't see Russia doing much in the barren countryside of NE Syria where ISIS has it's operational base, but have been attacking targets near Damascus and Homs in western/central Syria. ISIS's focus has never been the overthrowing of Assad, they are just exploiting a beneficial situation, but their operational focus has been in the abandoned Syrian countryside and Iraq.

ISIS will have to be taken care of in Iraq - Stabilization of Syria would help in dismantling them, but it won't end the violence - ISIS gets kicked out of a city/town/village, Shiite militia comes in, terrorizes and murders the Sunni civilian population - Sunni population further support whatever Sunni militia is willing to fight. It's just an extension of the boiling Iran vs Saudi fight that has been raging in the region for a long time, and honestly, there are no "good guys" on either side.

I do agree that the operational capacity of ISIS has been greatly exaggerated by the media - the territory that they control is pretty much abandoned no-mans land dotted by the occasional outpost, with Mosul, Iraq being their largest occupied area.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: tony9802 ISIS so disillusioned by US impotency that they didn't see our other nut had dropped



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Totally.

It would seem, trying to stop everyone who really wants to defeat ISIS

Rebel 5



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

What's disastrous for the United States? We could've done the same thing. If not for our coward in Chief.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: STEEM
Well played Russia, well played. But but.. Now they moved to Europe. Just all happened to quick for me eyes this is a chess game. Whoever is responsible for ISIS must of engineered the refugee movement also. Russia checkmated this "entity" so it moved where it couldn't be exterminated quickly. What is Russia's next move.. Hmm guess we have to wait and see but I don't think the "entity" was counting on Russia to intervene. Why do I suddenly respect Putin? Well played!


Edit: I do not think at all the USA has connections to ISIS like many of you say, that's total bull#! But they are to wealthy all of a sudden not to be funded by s governent entity. It's all in the ME, just saying.


You need to research the US and Saudi connections... they run heavily through the Bush clan, it's why Prince Bandar is often called Bandar Bush. To think that they aren't working together to create this horrific media darling to spread fear into the sheeple you are absolutely kidding yourself.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brainiac
a reply to: boymonkey74

What's disastrous for the United States? We could've done the same thing. If not for our coward in Chief.


You are right, we "could have." But when you support and train many of the enemies you can't bomb them. They need them for their fear campaign. It has nothing to do with Obama, stop viewing this chess match two dimensionally.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Sure or not ? The 'attack on ISIS' is just a cover-up for Russia to bomb hospital and non-ISIS rebels. Nothing bombed in northeast of Syria where it is full of ISIS.

Looks like the Syrian president is desperate enough to sell his ass for Russia's help to get rid of any force that opposes him.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
wouldn't it be fantastic if Russia after defeating ISIS in Syria went and liberated Iraq afterwards and done it within a couple of months and said to the world.

Look it took us months to achieve what the western Allies couldnt achieve in years.

Jobs done ISIS defeated new democratic governments elected



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer


Say it has more to do with the Syrian rebels backed by US finance, training and arms.. The train them up and the go and join ISIS.. Its a crying shame but its the truth...


The rebels didn't have an air force, Assad does. What does that tell you? It was only after European nations started giving the rebels air support that Putin suddenly decided to join in the fun. What does that tell you?



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Do you seriously think that spreading the fighting into Iraq will pacify the situation? It will be interesting to see Russia have the same problems the United States did. Hostile populations, duplicitous leaders, untrained or disloyal native irregulars... good luck with all that Vladimir Vladimirovich!



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




The rebels didn't have an air force, Assad does. What does that tell you? It was only after European nations started giving the rebels air support that Putin suddenly decided to join in the fun. What does that tell you?


Russia is there on the request of their ally.

What business do the EU and US have there? And by what UN mandate?


edit on 7-10-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave


Russia is there on the request of their ally.


It took Putin long enough to get involved. Why now? Why not send in "peacekeepers" four years ago to prevent things getting out of hand? Is it possible he wanted Assad's position to be so perilous that he would be willing to make any concession? Just speculating, of course. Can you see any reason why Russia did not act sooner? After all, they are supposed to be allies and Russia has naval assets in the area.


What business do the EU and US have there? And by what UN mandate?


Daesh has been violating Turkish borders. Turkey is a member of NATO. Now Russia is violating Turkish airspace. Not good.

What UN mandate does Russia have?

edit on 7-10-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




It took Putin long enough to get involved. Why now? Why not send in "peacekeepers" four years ago to prevent things getting out of hand? Is it possible he wanted Assad's position to be so perilous that he would be willing to make any concession? Just speculating, of course. Can you see any reason why Russia did not act sooner? After all, they are supposed to be allies and Russia has naval assets in the area.


Always finding another angle to try and pin something on Putin....

What don't you understand. Assad didn't ask for help earlier apparently. Now you blame Putin for not acting earlier.......

I think they couldn't have waited much longer to protect their interest.



Ivanov said the upper house of parliament had backed military action by 162 votes to zero after President Bashar Assad had asked for Russian military assistance. The Syrian presidency confirmed that in a statement, saying Assad had written to Putin and Russia was increasing its military support as a direct result of that appeal. Ivanov said Russia was only acting to protect its own interests in Syria, where it maintains a Soviet-era naval facility at Tartous, its only access to the Mediterranean. read more: www.haaretz.com...


www.haaretz.com...




Just speculating, of course


Yes, off course.




Now Russia is violating Turkish airspace. Not good.


Please, there was one incident.

US led forces are violating Syria's airpace 24/7 and supposedly dropping bombs on their territory. Who gave them permission?




Daesh has been violating Turkish borders. Turkey is a member of NATO.


Please cite your legal justifications under international law.

Russia doesn't need a UN mandate, they are there providing assistance at the request of a sovereign state, inside that sovereign state.

There is an international law that allows that, can't really find it now.

I can tell you that one requirement for the US would be to have permission granted by Syria, according to int. law.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave


What don't you understand. Assad didn't ask for help earlier apparently. Now you blame Putin for not acting earlier.......


That doesn't quite answer the question, does it? Putin could have spoken with Assad, gotten a mandate from the UN and sent in peacekeepers before the situation got out of hand. Why didn't he?




top topics



 
41
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join