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

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.

Depends on your viewpoint and interpretation.
The US has bombed quite a few targets they "claim" were in the hands of ISIS, but which were Syrian Government owned installations.

Bottom line is, the US, under international law, has no place being there in the first place tooling around the skies of a sovereign nation. They make such a big deal about Russia being in Crimea / Ukraine, a sovereign nation, and impose sanctions and rally the troops, then do the exact same thing they are criticizing Russia for and it's al supposed to be fine and dandy?

Russia has pulled a bit of a stroke in engaging those attacking Assad, after having been invited in to do so and help an ally. The US can hardly cry that the Russians are hitting their ISIS assets, so claim they are killing civilians instead. How very predictable and pathetic!

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

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

They are not attacking Daesh, they are attacking Syrians who oppose the Assad regime. Daesh cannot be defeated militarily. If a region gets too hot for them to control, they scurry away like cockroaches, only to return after the government troops go elsewhere. Dasesh is an ideology, not an army. Innocent civilians will die as collateral damage. This is inevitable in war. It is happening in Ukraine, it is happening in Palestine, it has been happening in Syria. It is regrettable, but it is a fact of war. To claim it is not happening is a lie.

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

No, I am remembering with bitterness. I would genuinely like to see Bush and Cheney tried for violating their constitutional oaths. Now, are you supporting Russia in killing civilians in a foreign country while condemning the United States for doing so?

a reply to: Britguy

Actually, the legal basis for attacking IS in Syria (not Assad - they haven't done that) is well founded and the exact same legal basis that the Russians are using.

They were invited into Iraq by the Iraqi Government to assist - as IS span the border, that invitation extends to Syria to strike at IS.

a reply to: DJW001

Yeah, if the US wanna lips service about a major terrorist crisis. Then I think they US should shoosh. It is risky business dealing with terrorist who use civilians as shields, US knows better.

How else to rid of IS without loss of civilian lives, is a good point to consider and is one that cannot possibly be avoided as long as IS holds majors cities accros Syria.

Perhaps US should stop with the lips service and come up with a coalition with Russia instead of accusing Russia.

a reply to: Britguy

Oh, and the US isn't claiming that the Russians are "hitting their ISIS assets" - you're putting words in their mouth to try and prove your point. They are actually claiming they are hitting non-IS targets - the exact opposite what you said they are claiming.

Russia has so far concentrated it's efforts on the Army of Conquest alliance in the North West - miles away from the nearest IS positions.

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

What part of: "there can be no military victory over an idea" do you not understand?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

What part of: "there can be no military victory over an idea" do you not understand?

You tell me, since you think it's ok for US to lip service while IS has US weapons obtained from other US backed rebels. While millions have been displaced.

And the US can't do much but accuse Russia with every chance they have?

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

You tell me, since you think it's ok for US to lip service while IS has US weapons obtained from other US backed rebels. While millions have been displaced.

The US should not be providing weapons to anyone in that area. It is a fratricidal holocaust and the United States needs to keep away. If Putin wants to get his hands bloody and completely destroy the credibility of the Russian Federation, that is his prerogative. History will not remember him kindly; perhaps even less so than Bush-Cheney.

Daesh is a spiritual quest for inner peace through outward action. It must be allowed to burn itself out. You cannot destroy it, only defend against it. But why am I arguing with someone named "InnerPeace?"

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

You tell me, since you think it's ok for US to lip service while IS has US weapons obtained from other US backed rebels. While millions have been displaced.

Daesh is a spiritual quest for inner peace through outward action. It must be allowed to burn itself out. You cannot destroy it, only defend against it.

But why am I arguing with someone named "InnerPeace?"

No, I don't think Daesh or IS, got any thing to do with inner peace, they are extremist hell bound on forcing thier laws on civilians.

No we're not arguing here, we are sharing our views on the Syrian crisis, that's how I see it.

No harm done.

Peace

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

No, I don't think Daesh or IS, got any thing to do with inner peace, they are extremist hell bound on forcing thier laws on civilians.

You should read Sun-Tse. Knowing one's enemy and one's self is the only way to certain victory. Daesh is a spiritual quest to its fighters, it must be combated accordingly. Remember, they consider dying on their quest to be martyrdom; that's a good thing.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: stumason

Assad needs to go - it is estimated that he and his forces are responsible for 9/10 deaths in Syria and it is from him that most of the refugees are fleeing…

Wash, rinse, repeat. Western Mantras aside, The US is responsible for training, arming and funding the insurgencies that are doing most of the killing in Syria.

Sorting them out is easy, all the Russians have to do is take aim at anyone shooting at the Syrians.

That isn't true.

What's currently going on in Syria is a REPEAT of the SOVIET war in Afghanistan.

The Peshwar Seven is Fighting the Tehran EIght.

The West chose P7 The East Chose T8.


GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TEAMS!

I absolutely love people blaming the west. I really do.

Be nice if people would open up a history book to see the farce for what it is.

a reply to: neo96

What's currently going on in Syria is a REPEAT of the SOVIET war in Afghanistan.

Umm, the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, the US backed Afghans wore them down till they left. That doesn't compare at all with Syria, today.

US is backing insurgents (not Syrians) in a bid to "Regime Change" Syria… into what, Iraq, LIbya, or Afghanistan?

Another fine mess the US got itself into. Read history yourself. Empires always bite off more then they can chew, eventually conquering too much territory, spreading too thin and leaving too many enemies in their wake. Thats why they all inevitably collapse, from within.

a reply to: intrptr

Oh yeah it does.

SAME EXACT PLAYERS.

The reason Syria is screwed is because the House of Saudi wants to build a pipeline there.

Iran says no we want to.

That's what it is ALL about.

a reply to: neo96

Well yah, ultimately, its all about the oil. As long as the International oil corporations have control of the oil bearing regions, they don't care what it costs in blood and treasure to get at it, either.

They trump Saudi and Iranian oil interests by the way. Iran's next.

That might be changing though, for the first time Russians are being forced to take an active role to preserve their interests.

Looking at it closer and closer, what a brilliant countermove, at this time and space.

How Russia could not bomb the USA loved terrorist they like to call rebels? Should Russia just ignore em and let em keep destroying the country? It makes no sense at all that USA is backing one group trying to destroy the country and its president and in other hand its saying how its bombing another terrorist group in the area whom are trying to destroy the county and its president, same time they want to kill the president as well.. Why is it right that USA supplies and trains at least one of these terrorist groups officially, whom many are from former AL QUAIDA, that we supposed to hate and believe they committed 911 attacks in a first place..

a reply to: intrptr

Umm, the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, the US backed Afghans wore them down till they left. That doesn't compare at all with Syria, today.

You need another history lesson. Th Afghans elected a pro-Soviet leader. Traditionalists objected to his modernizing, so he asked for Russian help. Russia sent in troops to defend the legally elected government just like in Syria.

US is backing insurgents (not Syrians) in a bid to "Regime Change" Syria… into what, Iraq, LIbya, or Afghanistan?

US is backing Syrians. Others are backing Daesh. Lebanese and Iranians have been fighting on Assad's side. Who are the insurgents?

Another fine mess the US got itself into. Read history yourself. Empires always bite off more then they can chew, eventually conquering too much territory, spreading too thin and leaving too many enemies in their wake. Thats why they all inevitably collapse, from within.

That's what happened to the USSR, and that is what might happen to the Russian Federation if they don't get rid of Putin.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr


"You need another history lesson. Th Afghans elected a pro-Soviet leader. Traditionalists objected to his modernizing, so he asked for Russian help. Russia sent in troops to defend the legally elected government just like in Syria."




- If Russia were attacking Syrian government here, i would have very different view of the situation right now as well but they are there supporting Syrian government by their own request, while USA is supporting terrorist whom trying to destroy the government. SOmehow it looks like the Afghan situation in past reversed with USA vs Russia yet many ppl still supports USAs stand here, again it looks very much as double standard, no?

If its question that Assad and hes government is the evil here, should this situation be handled bit different than driving the country in ruins by backing groups that want to destroy the country and its current government?

There are so many lies and secret deals going behind the scenes that its a miracle if this whole cake wont collapse and thrive terrorism else where in the world very soon.

edit on 1-10-2015 by romilo because: (no reason given)

Vasa Croe:

Well...this will certainly heat things up a bit. So Russia tells the US to back off first, then bombs CIA assets and civilians. I don't see this being swept away or looked over by the US forces at all. I can only see this escalating at this point. Russia just bombed US assets according to the US government.

Rightly so. The CIA or any other American agency shouldn't even be in Syria, but seeing as how the CIA fomented civil war in Syria, and seeing as how America both trained and armed the rebels and ISIS via its proxy Saudi Arabia, any deaths and loss of military or covert personnel is entirely the fault of the American military and the American government.

Always bear this in mind...

America does not have a say on the sovereignty of other countries, nor does America or any other Western country have a right to foment civil strife in a sovereign country and help to escalate it to a civil war. Yet, that is what happened in Syria. The West thought it had weakened Russia, but in fact it is very strong, and Putin will not allow Assad to fall simply because the West wishes it so.

Putin has basically swatted the very irritating American gnat aside and told it in no uncertain terms to either get out or get hurt. Good on Putin.

American hegemonic ambition fell spectacularly today, with its arse well and truly kicked by the Russian boot of Putin. Hopefully now, Russia can set about bringing some real stability back to Syria and the region, and give hope to Syrian refugees that they might soon return home.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

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

That is one of the funniest things I have seen in a while.

RT discussing propaganda...yet that is what they are used for by the Kremlin.

What will they come up with next?

a reply to: DJW001

US is backing Syrians.

But, "Assad Must Go", right?

That doesn't work on me. US always invents an enemy to justify Humanitarian intervention (invasion) and Regime Change to install its own puppet regime.

So did the Soviets, like you have pointed out.