CIA-backed rebels, civilians reportedly targeted by Russian airstrikes in Syria

Russia is looking after its own investment, they can't do business with a western backed puppet leader, which Iran would be next if the west would win this regime change, all this has took 14 years to play out, it's nearing it's conclusion, mujahideen, Al queada, Al nusra, Isis, isil and now is, yawn is there a pattern here?:yawn:

originally posted by: romilo
Ehm why would they want to left another terrorist group active in the country, even if they aint the ISIS guys and why would ppl want to support these terrorist and supply em like USA does? If anything this should be clear truth that USA is behind the terrorism inside Syria and most likely have been since it beginning. Russia should bomb those CIA terrorrist guys to hell out there as well.

I strongly agree with your sentiments, to bomb the terrorist wether IS or not. As much as I would like to go with it, I think the US war mongers, are pressuring Russia by keeping tabs on their every move and accusing them with every chance to further thier agenda of getting rid of the Assad regime and painting the Kremlin as the bad guys together with Assad as always.

But the Kremlin has made a smart move to hold talks with the US to avoid any incidents that may lead to a possible confrontation between the two.

This is getting complicated.

a reply to: romilo

Yah, US is in tight spot politically, crying abut ISIS and all as justification for "intervening". How can they not applaud Russians for also attacking their "common foe"?

Because for the US, insurgents are US backed and Assad is the real target.

a reply to: Xcathdra

From a tactical perspective, even if you're after a massive troop deployment (and I think it's not the case for the Russians), you should always consider a preliminary bombing campaign. With air force - or artillery.

This is just the beginning of the operations, Russian is still bringing stuff in Syria to consolidate their current presence. I'm quite sure we will see a difference in the results achieved by the Russians because they won't try to spare 'moderate jihadist' given that they have no interest for them.
Given that the Russian actions will be coordinated with Assad's troops, they are likely to be more efficient as well. The resistance of the jihadists will be ensure by the weapons and ammo that foreign regimes provide them (not suggesting the US, more like Wahhabi states).

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: romilo

Because for the US, insurgents are US backed and Assad is the real target.

Aha there you go, it's quite clear isn't it. No wonder others are accussing Obama for treason.

The truth is really coming out now with Russia's move against all insurgents.

I wonder if Putin ordered this attacks (on Rebels) on purpose to see how the US reacts. I guess the Ruskies got thier confrimation of the US accussing them with the same rhertoric public statements.

a reply to: intrptr

Because Russia isn't attacking IS - their attacks have so far hit groups like the "Army of Conquest" rebel allianc in the North West near Homs - IS has no presence there.

originally posted by: intrptr
Number of nations militarily invaded by Syria = 0.

Hahahaha..

You lying little bugger...

Syria has invaded both the Labanon and Israel in it's short life.

a reply to: stumason

Because Russia isn't attacking IS - their attacks have so far hit groups like the "Army of Conquest" rebel alliance in the North West near Homs - IS has no presence there.

Russia is attacking whomever the Syrian military asks them to.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: stumason

Because Russia isn't attacking IS - their attacks have so far hit groups like the "Army of Conquest" rebel alliance in the North West near Homs - IS has no presence there.

Russia is attacking whomever the Syrian military asks them to.

So?

You said:

Yah, US is in tight spot politically, crying abut ISIS and all as justification for "intervening". How can they not applaud Russians for also attacking their "common foe"?

Indicating that the US couldn't moan about Russian involvement if the're attacking a common foe - they are not.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
Interview of Max Abrahms on RT :

‘Huge propaganda war’ going on to discredit Russian anti-terrorist efforts in Syria

Update from Putin :

“As for media reports claiming that the civilian population is suffering, we are prepared for such information attacks. The first reports about civilian casualties emerged even before our planes got in the air.”

Source : RT

a reply to: stumason

Indicating that the US couldn't moan about Russian involvement if the're attacking a common foe - they are not.

According to Russia, Assad government is the legitmate goverment, and that's not arguable.

Russia is admittedly attacking any insurgents against Assad, by request of the Assad government.

Your missing the point, if IS a common foe, why aren't the US involved directly on the ground. If anything the US's priority is with Assad and not with IS.

Do you not see the irony?

I must be becoming psychic. I had a bad feeling about this from the outset. But then, who didn't.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Wow. Russia has invented a high tech bomb that can kill terrorists without harming civilians or nearby property. Hooray for Russia! Do you really believe this, or are you starting to see how flimsy Russian propaganda really is?

Aaaaah! So now the US is concerned about civilians? When did that policy change?

Shock and awe, drone strikes etc...etc! Thousands of civilians killed by their hand or their proxy killers, and now we are supposed to accept that they somehow give a crap about civilian casualties? Pass the sick bag please!

As for the line that Russia is bombing the "moderate" rebels? Who the hell are they? I thought most had left or joined ISIS anyway.

Bottom line, the US and it's handler / foreign policy maker wanted Assad out and chaos to reign, for the profitable ongoing war machine, the partition of Syria and the control of another puppet government. Assad just isn't going to leave and hand over the country to those nutjobs and has invited the Russians to the fray, as he is allowed to do, being the legitimate leader. The US has no place being there in the first place and nobody invited them.

a reply to: DJW001

Putin is a former spy, he must have stolen the plans from the US.

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

How is it ironic, when the US has not actually carried out any attacks on the Assad regime?

That is the point being missed here - the US and allies have only been striking at IS and have largely left Assad alone.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Wow. Russia has invented a high tech bomb that can kill terrorists without harming civilians or nearby property. Hooray for Russia! Do you really believe this, or are you starting to see how flimsy Russian propaganda really is?

Rather than claim propaganda, explain what's wrong with attacking IS.

Are you forgeting that the US also killed civilians in both Iraq and Libya. How hypocritical of statement?

a reply to: Britguy
Hear hear unfortunately Cameron is trying to help out the US, maybe Corbyn can disuade parliament? We do need to cut the strings of the puppet masters.

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

According to Russia, Assad government is the legitmate goverment, and that's not arguable.

According to everyone else, he's not, and that's not arguable.

Russia is admittedly attacking any insurgents against Assad, by request of the Assad government.

Correct. Naturally, there will be collateral damage. Is it worth accidentally killing innocent civilians in order to keep a dictator for life in office?

Your missing the point, if IS a common foe, why aren't the US involved directly on the ground.

Because there is no political will to shed more American blood in the region. The US is prepared to spend little more than lip service, and even that is a bad idea.

If anything the US's is priority is with Assad and not with IS.

It started out that way because Daesh was not much of a threat. Unfortunately, Daesh has rushed into the power vacuum created by the regional civil wars and has grown to become a player. Unfortunately, because it is a nation without a country or government, it is impossible to tell which actors belong, which no longer belong, and which might decide to join.

Do you not see the irony?

Do you see the irony in Putin moving into an area so like Afghanistan in the 80s?

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

How is it ironic, when the US has not actually carried out any attacks on the Assad regime?

That is the point being missed here - the US and allies have only been striking at IS and have largely left Assad alone.

Yeah, because IS and other western backed rebels are doing the job of giving Assad a hard time.

A majority of Syria is under rebel control. What impact has the West had on elimanting IS from the start?

Infact, IS has became more powerful, so obviously the US isn't doing much are they?