Trump admin shot down an SAA jet near Raqqa

SDF are 50% Kurds the rest are mixed militants siding with ISIS or whichever group meets there goals on the ground
Hardly innocent...or worthy of aircover.

American aircraft and artillary have zero right operating and esp engaging Syrian aircraft and troops, making demands and lines in the sand when it's not yours is not ok.

The SDF is not in Raqqa to free it's citzen's, rather force them out of death or desperation to join ISIS or other extremist groups in its fight against the Syrian government.

They and their ISIS partners are there to take and hold territory period.

ISIS and the SDF(rebels) and by extension the USA are synonymous.

I'm amazed after Libya and such countries there are still regime change sympathizers, blind and ignorant to it's long-term miserable effects, that only increase poverty/radicalism and eventually and ultimately human suffering.

If we don't want this stuff showing up at our front door, stop poking the bees nest over there.
Let Syria sort itself out.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: Nikola014

Sometimes you just worder what on Earth is going on.................................... Why are our governments backing the Sunni terrorists? Shia never attacked us while Sunnis causing mayhem around the world including in your Yugoslav south whatever they call it these days

People have really short memories i see. IRAN has always been hostile to the US since the shah was deposed. They took an American embassy hostage . They funded AL qeada and provided technical support for them in the 1998 US embassy bombing in Kenya.

In March 2015, U.S. federal judge Rudolph Contreras found both Iran and Sudan complicit in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole by al Qaeda,

It was shown in court the 9/11 hijackers received training in Sudan set up by Iran. 8 out of the 10 terrorists flew in to the US from Iran.

Iran harbors terrorists openly on its borders for example Sa'ad bin Laden yes he's his son. And yes he swears to avenge his fathers death with American blood. But oddly lives in Tehran even broadcasts his threats from there. I could keep going talking about there support for hezbola and the trouble they cause.

But I'll wrap this up by saying Iran is the biggest supporter of world terrorism. Even the ayatollah put out a statement saying they were going to support terrorists against the west. So maybe some education on your part as you rethink about how peace loving Iran really is.

a reply to: dragonridr

The Americans wanted the Shah deposed after the Shah began to defy American imperialism; this was the Shah's attempt at nationalization in order to curtail to the Iranian people, who were becoming more and more rebellious to his rule. EDIT: A particular example was the diplomatic row over the USA calling the gulf the "Arabian Gulf", and the Shah insisted that it was the "Persian Gulf".

POTUS Raegan even had a Freudian slip at a press conference where he admitted to conspiring with the Ayotollah to topple the Shah, and insinuated that this was the American agenda all along.

And thus, the mutually-beneficial relationship between Islamist revolution and American foreign policy was born. Funny how every Islamist revolution ever since played right into US foreign policy objectives, particularly in terms of whom the revolution deposes and also for when it comes time to paint the revolutionary regimes as casus beli for formal invasion.

let me guess, the US is not going to answer to anyone and there will be no sanctions and no accountability is expected and WWIII is not on the brink... unless it was any other country that shot down a jet halfway across the globe from their Homeland. and NK is the greatest threat to the free world according to sessions... after the recent sale of jet fighters to Qatar ....

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Your insane and way off on your time lines. First Reagan didn't even get in to office before the shah was ousted. Regain ends up negotiating with Iran to release US hostages. So tour whole reagan theory is just stupid and dosent fit with reality. Maybe you have been effected by the Mandela effect and in your universe Reagan was in office 4 years aerlier.

As for the shah he was an important US ally at the time because of the radar systems and airforce basses we had in Iran. It was actually part of the US early warning system. If Russia launched an IBM the US was alerted through Iran. The Shah being deposed seriously hurt strategically against the Russians

here's the lay of the land, for perspective...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Your insane and way off on your time lines. First Reagan didn't even get in to office before the shah was ousted. Regain ends up negotiating with Iran to release US hostages. So tour whole reagan theory is just stupid and dosent fit with reality. Maybe you have been effected by the Mandela effect and in your universe Reagan was in office 4 years aerlier.

As for the shah he was an important US ally at the time because of the radar systems and airforce basses we had in Iran. It was actually part of the US early warning system. If Russia launched an IBM the US was alerted through Iran. The Shah being deposed seriously hurt strategically against the Russians

My worldview is not the same as your's, so therefore I must be "insane"? You people are still using that old and tired playbook?

First off, I never said Raegan was POTUS at the time, nor did I say that he personally had anything to do with it.

Raegan, being an actor elected as president, was quite interesting in that he did not know what he was getting into at the time. Right from the start, he seceded a fair amount of executive authority to Pentagon brass to direct national policy (aka the "deepstate", being a organization of top officials that dictate national policy while being above such petty matters as elections or laws). He was so passive with understanding such policy that he even required daily intel briefings to be portrayed to him in TV format, as opposed to round table discussions.

And as Raegan's presidency went on, he made several interesting gaffes as if he were an observer to national policy, instead of an actor. One of these was his comments on the USA working with the Ayatollah and the Islamists in order to replace the Shah. This was at a press briefing and it was recorded. I watched the recording. It was presented to me by Iranians who were actually in Iran at the time. These Iranians knew what was up. They knew that, overall, not much really changed with the Iranian revolution, except for the illusion that they no longer had an American-controlled puppet dictatorship. The overall point, as presented to me, was that the Americans knew that the Islamists were going to oust the Shah, and instead of continuing to back the failing Shah regime, they struck a deal with the Islamists. Do you really think the whole Contra scandal was contrived to save some hostages? The hostages were the stalking horse that presented the opportunity. If the DPRK held a hundred Americans captive right now, would you think it would be logical to buy them back by giving the DPRK combat aircraft and other advanced weaponry? Of course not, but I bet you would believe it anyway if they told you that was the case.

But keep repeating the same mainstream narrative all you want. It's not really "insane" when you look at other Islamist regimes and their relationship with the USA, such as the Eisenhaur doctrine that formed an informal alliance with Saudi Arabia. Or the open secret that the USA supported and backed both Iran and Iraq into a war in the 1980s in order to destroy each other's military capabilities and economies.

As for your final comment, the Shah was on the verge of booting out American advisors just so it could distance itself as a sovereign power. The Shah saw this as the only way his regime could survive after all it had done to his people, and to be honest, he was probably sick and tired of being an American lapdog.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

Raegan, being an actor elected as president, was quite interesting in that he did not know what he was getting into at the time.

Whoah Nelly.
Reagan was Governor of California from 67-75, he was far from a political novice.

You might do well to bone up on your history lessons.

‘Will Not Hesitate to Defend Coalition or Partner Forces From Any Threat’

This I interpret as a defacto declaration of war against Syra and its partners.

Rebels and ISIS elements, their strongholds,Syrian territory held ,their future advancements, are now under the protection of the USA military.
They want to carve up Syria under the protection and guise of fighting ISIS.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

You indeed did say Reagan was involved go back and read your post. You got caught with using alternative history. I'm guessing you got history lessons in Iran. Because you are wrong on almost every count. Reagan was very heavy in to foreign policy he was the one that broke russia. I suggest you go pick up a real history book and take the time to learn what happened with Iran. Your even wrong on Iran contra. That was not how Reagan got the embassy staff released.

Iran contra involved teying to get a Americans released who were captured by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution AKA the Iranian military. Iran has never been a friend of the west and has been caught dozens of times supporting terrorism. Makes Saudi Arabia look weak in comparison.

I guess you support Iran for what ever reason but don't try to blow smoke up people butts. Iran is far more dangerous than any other middle eastern nation.

a reply to: dragonridr

If you think Iran is far more dangerous than any other middle eastern nation,
you've been looking under the wrong side of the bed.

originally posted by: all2human
SDF are 50% Kurds the rest are mixed militants siding with ISIS or whichever group meets there goals on the ground
Hardly innocent...or worthy of aircover.

American aircraft and artillary have zero right operating and esp engaging Syrian aircraft and troops, making demands and lines in the sand when it's not yours is not ok.

Sorry but according to the reports we had US Special forces on the ground with the SDF coordinating their missions and training. I'd rather shoot down a Syrian jet than see one US soldier come home in a body bag.

a reply to: xstealth
Hate to be the one to say it but they have no right being there,they were not invited, they weren't asked to come to the party
I know these guys are embedded with SDF
They knew what they were getting into when they signed up for this crap.
I would never want anyone to miss out on going home to their families but if they are going to play buddy buddy with militants,terrorists and their ISIS cohorts taking territory, seeking the overthrow of the government, they are playing with fire.
Have to say they have it coming, hopefully in the form a ride home.

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: xstealth
Hate to be the one to say it but they have no right being there,they were not invited, they weren't asked to come to the party
I know these guys are embedded with FSA
They knew what they were getting into when they signed up for this crap.
I would never want anyone to miss out on going home to their families but if they are going to play buddy buddy with the likes of ISIS and militants taking territory with the goal of overthrowing the government they are playing with fire.
Have to say they have it coming, hopefully in the form a ride home.

First kurdish are not Isis. They are the ones fighting Isis and why they get US support even though Turkey doesn't like it. The kurds are Shia and sunni one if the feweather groups in the middle east that get along because for them being kurdish is more important than religious identity.

If they were not fighting Isis then Isis would have already taken Iraq and Syria. There goal is simple they want to have a country for their people. They have been driven out of most countries in the middle east. They see thus fight as just more than sropping Isis but gaining there ancestral homeland.

As far as assad he was warned against using air support against the Kurds. He was told US troops were training them to fight Isis. In fact I actually have a friend there hell of a first sergeant. What you believe is happening is fake news created by Russia. Russia wanted to make it seem the US was supporting Isis because it makes it OK for them to support a tyrant that kills his own people.

As former military I'll say they could shoot down the whole sirian air force if it would save just one US soldier.

a reply to: dragonridr

Uh-huh....And the US still has no right to be there...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: allsee4eye

Let's hope Syria takes a valuable lesson from this .. Obama is gone. Trump is actually serious about fighting ISIS.

Thats makes no #ing sense.


We are serious about attackinf ISIS.......so we are going to shoot down a Syrian jet attacking ISIS.

Your argument is all manner of WTF.

Yes, I heard they were targeting Isis on zerohedge.

Also, USA allies were seen standing by while Isis left raqqa.

So Syrian jet was bombing fleeing convoy of Isis.

They try to make it confusing with all the different names but there are two sides. Pro Assad and anti Assad. Or pro Russian and anti Russian cause Assad is Russian puppet. So the pro Russians were bombing anti Russians and the USA shot down a pro Russian jet. That crosses Russian red line but let's face it, Russia does not have the strength to go toe to toe with USA. So Russia will retaluate in some weird long game move. Need to check the timing but the Iran missiles could have been the payback. You shoot down our jet, OK, Iran will target your bases from afar. Then you got a Philippines boat ramming the anti ballistic missile destroyer and taking it out of action leaving the aircraft carrier in Japan exposed. That was a nice chess move. Now you got Philippines moving towards the red, and as soon as they did you got Isis uprising with USA troops position for a phillipenes coup. Seriously, this is the conventional phase of ww3. Once one side loses the conventional war.......then it goes to superweapons?

Or is all of this just 1984 never ending war to keep in military industrial complex ticking over and Trump and Putin play golf while citizens are obliterated by weapons.


a reply to: allsee4eye

a reply to: Flatcoat

Sole superpower in the world. The US csn do whatever it wants with whatever discretion.

Stop us. Who will stop us? No one, no one can. The US operates independently and if it wishes to go there, they will and HAVE.

So yeah, you saying we don't have that "right" has literally zero meaning in any of these conversations. Welcome to reality.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Flatcoat

Sole superpower in the world. The US csn do whatever it wants with whatever discretion.

Stop us. Who will stop us? No one, no one can. The US operates independently and if it wishes to go there, they will and HAVE.

So yeah, you saying we don't have that "right" has literally zero meaning in any of these conversations. Welcome to reality.

And thats why you generate so much hatred towards you.

A Empire built on hate never lasts......