Islamic State makes closest advance to Aleppo, Iranian General killed

originally posted by: RyleeNator
a reply to: stumason

I never said there was a carrier I said the Chinese are involved with military advisers for now just because there is no ships don't mean they aren't helping

Can you back this up with any evidence.

China has remained neutral in action and deed in the Middle east.

a reply to: stumason

Mysterx was the first one to mention China getting involved he said "China are send their own `advisors` into Syria " now I know there was an ing missing and probably a misspelling and that's why you couldn't understand "ah bless" but their was no mention of aircraft carriers or the like it's the 10th post so yes you are wrong everybody knows there's no naval support but that don't debunk military advisers

a reply to: RyleeNator


The Chinese have sent a small delegation to discuss anti-terrorism issues. Sometimes advisors are just advisors.

a reply to: DJW001

Have I misquoted your reply to my assertion that Iraq was considering asking Russia s help??

originally posted by: RyleeNator
a reply to: DJW001

Have I misquoted your reply to my assertion that Iraq was considering asking Russia s help??

Has Iraq invited Russian troops in?

a reply to: DJW001

Is advice not a form of involvement ??????

a reply to: DJW001

"Considering" telling USA to pack there bags and asking Russia s help since Russia is doing an outstanding job arranging 70 virgin's for the jihadists the word I use was considering and in time I would say it's inevitable

a reply to: RyleeNator

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I apologize for my earlier outburst. You quoted me out of context in an accusatory way. Russia would not dare cross into Iraq without Bagdahd' s permission, and Bagdahd would need to consider the United States' reaction before inviting them in. If the government aligns too strongly with Iran, it might lead to a secessionist movement among the Sunnis, and further civil war.

Heads Up!!!!!!!!!!
Personal attacks, bickering, snarky comments, name-calling stop now!!!
If you are wondering if this is about you, please read the following....You are responsible for your own posts.

*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Community Announcement re: Decorum

There will be consequences to those who ignore this reminder.....


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: DJW001

I accept your apology
I apologize if did not portray you in the right context but that's how I read it we shall agree to disagree

Yea it sounds like they tried to take Aleppo but met resistance where was at very least Iranian ally personnel.

"Hamedani had been playing an "important role... reinforcing the front of Islamic resistance against the terrorists", it added.

Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, described Hamedani's death as "a huge loss" in the fight against jihadist groups in Syria.

Quoted by the IRNA news agency, he said the loss would be "avenged" and that this would lead to the "complete destruction" of these groups."

It sounds more like ISILS are just making sure they will be hunted down even more furiously now.


Also another news states now that Russian air force hit 60 Islamic States targets in Syria, in the last 24h.

a reply to: romilo

Hmmmm... so now for some reason they have stopped firing missiles from the Caspian. I wonder why?

a reply to: DJW001

Well that some reason could be anything really, it could be related to that how westerns made the story about failing missiles, it could be some sort of message to Russians and Iran like warning, make them double guess every strikes.. It could be that those missiles are not going out until they are again needed, or it could be that it indeed was truth and 4 of those missiles lost their control and landed Iranian soil and are not flying now because they are trying to fix the cause or something.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: earthling42

Oh right, so you have taken the poll then?

I'd be interested in seeing the results of what you learned when you canvassed the whole of Syria...

It's evident that not all or even 'most' Syrians oppose Assad, since the majority are fighting FOR Assad, not against him, so quite how you support the assertion that 'most' Syrians oppose him is a mystery.

If most were against him, he would have gone years ago.

SOME of the Syrian population are against him obviously, but again, the majority of those 'Syrian rebels' are not even Syrian to begin with, having been drafted into Syria by Saudi Arabia and it's corrupt cohorts.

The only Syrians fighting for Assad are the Alawites something they have been getting angry about since it is costing them dearly. If most Syrian supported Assad this war would have been over at the start before most of his 350,000 man Army with tanks, aircraft and artillery started changing sides. If Iran, Russia and Hezbollah pulled out, Assad would fall almost over night.

a reply to: MrSpad

Alawites, other sjiites, christians (12% of the population), druze, Yazidis and even sunnis are in the SAA. The minorities know that if Assad falls they will be faced with genocide, and i think that there are enough sunnis that have enough of the ''terrorists that slaughter entire families'' just to quote a refugee..

the 'civil war', carefully manipulated and created by the USA according to Wikileaks Assange, would have been over years ago if USA, UK, France, Saudi, Israel, Qatar, Turkey & UAE wouldn't have meddled in the first place. A lot less bloodshed.

Chinese advisors, because they have modern experiences in such a situation they are able to advise what?

So what is the U.S. Led Alliance plan to ending this, Assad must go, now or later, but what about the terrorist and territories, whose boots are going to clean it out?

a reply to: MrSpad

Blatant propaganda ... and one would say ... lies.

Map

If you look at this map, you will see that the area which is being referred to is already under IS control. What the OP isn't telling you, that the WHITE area you see here, is ISIS controlled territory. The dark grey area, is ISIS front lines ... their forces are concentrated here, and battle is going on. The yellow area is controlled by rebel forces, and not by the government.

The US, with OP in the front will tell you that IS does not equal the rebels. This isn't true ... as every piece of land, the rebels overcome ... becomes ISIS territory. And the white, doesn't have a "concentration" of ISIS soldiers, but it's under their control.

So, YES ... the Russian are right in concentrating on the "rebel" front, as they are the actual battle group. ISIS is just the "mop" squad, that comes behind and scare the population out ... those they didn't behead.

Year ago

Here is a map of the situation, a year ago ... as you can see, back then Alappo was under government control. And you can see ISIS stretching itself.

Two days ago from CNN

Here again, is another map from CNN from october 8th, as you can see Aleppo is already under ISIS control. Also, what you can see on this picture is that only "concentration" of ISIS forces are shown. And area's that aren't being "contested" are shown in WHITE color. This includes ISIS territory (which is the majority of Syria) as well as the Kurish territory.

So, direct misinformation.

So I just woke up and a quick browse of "news" sites shows a new anti=Russia narrative. And that is that not only is Russia not hitting IS (the narrative of the last few days) but their strikes against Western-backed rebels are actually assisting IS.

You simply can't make this sh#t up. Oh...yea...you can.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: intrptr

Whichever side you wave a flag for...hell of war is hell of war, and most ordinary people will do their best to avoid being killed..and so, leave.

Most ordinary people would take their loved ones with them. Some ulterior motive going on here.