ISIL operations centre in Idlib, Syria ‘destroyed’ by Russian airstrike

[Harsh Jones]

There is this today from Agence France-Presse on these particular strikes and Russia's air strikes so far...

Several military sources and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said Russia had hit areas controlled by groups other than IS.

A security source said they had been aimed at "military positions and command centers held by the Army of Conquest in Jisr al-Shughur... and Jabal al-Zawiya in Idlib."

British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, meanwhile, said that just five percent of Russian air strikes had targeted IS fighters,

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russia-hits-syria-barack-obama-warns-action-a-recipe-for-disaster-1225657

Russian air force bombings of almost only rebel and and non-IS locations caused rebel commanders yesterday to instruct civilians not to go to mosque last evening due to concerns over the new Russian air strikes. Rebel areas are already viewing Russian air forces operating in Syria as no different from Assad's air forces that bomb civilian centers to include schools and mosques.

Today they are bombing ISIS. That was news from the first day. Russia is proving that the US was only pretending to cut ISIS down with their air campaign.

What Russia is doing is legal under international law. Even when they are bombing US proxy rebels. Russia has an internationally recognized treaty with the internationally recognized government of Syria to protect its naval port.

[Steely Dan]

It looks like the operations centre was indeed bombed, I rang them up to check and was left listening to dreadful piped music for ages.

P.s Nobody who sets foot in Syria comes out looking better than when they went in, well not since Saul of Tarsus left as Paul the apostle.

[Harsh Jones]

Rebels or ISIS - it all goes towards stability in Syria, which is a good thing for the region.

No mention in these articles of the hospital the US bombed in Afghanistan yesterday...

Now there's propaganda.

Two of 'em yet. Only the Putin flying fanboyz could conceive or accept the final statement as it is written.

Not propaganda.

The US is trying to oust Assad. After the debacles in Iraq (now a complete mess thanks to the US) and Libya (now a complete mess thanks in part to the US) - it appears nothing has been learnt.

Putin has clearly stated that his priority is stability - now you can believe that or not but you can be sure that if that IS the case - he will go after all factions looking to overthrow the government there and replace them with something else. That something else could quite possibly be Muslim extremists.

Or maybe Iraq and Libya are all roses now and it's purely Russian propaganda that makes them look like Extremist infested hell holes where it's not even safe to go to the local market.

As for the final statement - http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/03/us-afghanistan-attack-idUSKCN0RW0HC20151003 - 9 dead yesterday after the US bombed an Afghan hospital - or is this also pro-Russian propaganda too?

The fact the US is trying to oust Assad is widely reported. By most media sites. Putin has been known to tell lies before. Hard to trust what he says. But up to you if you believe him. Don't forget the billions of dollars he's getting from Syria for weapons. Without Assad, that stream of money (desperately needed by Putin) is gone. Perhaps that has something to do with this? LOL

As far as stability, it was the Arab Spring uprising against Assad, and his brutal response to it, that caused all of this. The general population there won't allow him to stay.

Afghanistan is off topic. There are other topics covering that one.

Yeah. The US is trying to oust the legitimate government of Syria in ways that are against international law.

US Attack On Syria Violates International Law

therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com...

The Real News

US Attack On Syria Violates International Law. Michael Ratner: .... And if they don't get it, if they don't get it, it's an illegal war, it's an illegal use of force. It's a war ...

And to your other non point.

Putin has said that he will attack anyone who is fighting the legitimate govt of Syria. The West wasted no time in contending that Russia is targeting areas that aren’t known to be strategically significant for ISIS.

Here is what the Wall St Journal said:

But with the exception of the area east of the town of Salamiyah in Hama province, none of the areas listed by the Syrian regime have a known presence of Islamic State fighters. They are largely dominated by relatively moderate rebel factions and Islamist groups like Ahrar al-Sham and the al Qaeda affiliate the Nusra Front.

Yes the WSJ said that.

[craigt3365]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Look at the map. Most strikes are in rebel held territory, not ISIS held territory.

That was only the first day of bombing you are talking about. Yes, the first day was against the moderate US proxies like Al Queda. Today the targets are ISIS.

According to the UK, only 1 in 5 targets are ISIS. As of today. No change in the strategy of Russia to help the Assad regime battle anti-government rebels.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/03/middleeast/syria-russia-airstrikes/

Saturday marks the fourth day Russia has carried out airstrikes in Syria.

And with every passing day, the international community raises alarms over Moscow's intentions.

In a joint statement, a coalition made up of the United States, Britain, Turkey, France, Germany, Qatar and Saudi Arabia accused Russia of attacking the Syrian opposition and civilians, instead of fighting ISIS.

"These military actions constitute a further escalation and will only fuel more extremism and radicalization," the statement said.

It questioned whether Russia's primary concern is attacking ISIS or propping up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

[Soutpeel]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Look at the map. Most strikes are in rebel held territory, not ISIS held territory.

That was only the first day of bombing you are talking about. Yes, the first day was against the moderate US proxies like Al Queda. Today the targets are ISIS.

According to the UK, only 1 in 5 targets are ISIS. As of today. No change in the strategy of Russia to help the Assad regime battle anti-government rebels.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/03/middleeast/syria-russia-airstrikes/

Saturday marks the fourth day Russia has carried out airstrikes in Syria.

And with every passing day, the international community raises alarms over Moscow's intentions.

In a joint statement, a coalition made up of the United States, Britain, Turkey, France, Germany, Qatar and Saudi Arabia accused Russia of attacking the Syrian opposition and civilians, instead of fighting ISIS.

"These military actions constitute a further escalation and will only fuel more extremism and radicalization," the statement said.

It questioned whether Russia's primary concern is attacking ISIS or propping up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

But your taking this info from CNN hardly an impartial news source are they...maybe not as bad as Fox news. .but CNN forwards its own agenda's and propaganda

[Harsh Jones]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Look at the map. Most strikes are in rebel held territory, not ISIS held territory.

That was only the first day of bombing you are talking about. Yes, the first day was against the moderate US proxies like Al Queda. Today the targets are ISIS.

According to the UK, only 1 in 5 targets are ISIS. As of today. No change in the strategy of Russia to help the Assad regime battle anti-government rebels.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/03/middleeast/syria-russia-airstrikes/

Saturday marks the fourth day Russia has carried out airstrikes in Syria.

And with every passing day, the international community raises alarms over Moscow's intentions.

In a joint statement, a coalition made up of the United States, Britain, Turkey, France, Germany, Qatar and Saudi Arabia accused Russia of attacking the Syrian opposition and civilians, instead of fighting ISIS.

"These military actions constitute a further escalation and will only fuel more extremism and radicalization," the statement said.

It questioned whether Russia's primary concern is attacking ISIS or propping up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The US is now classifying Al-Qæda as moderate anti govt rebels. That should tell you enough about the US's credibility in Syria.

There isn't anything "curious" about this and Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his intent to keep the Assad regime from falling.

[craigt3365]

Yeah. The US is trying to oust the legitimate government of Syria in ways that are against international law.

US Attack On Syria Violates International Law

therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com...

The Real News

US Attack On Syria Violates International Law. Michael Ratner: .... And if they don't get it, if they don't get it, it's an illegal war, it's an illegal use of force. It's a war ...

And to your other non point.

Putin has said that he will attack anyone who is fighting the legitimate govt of Syria. The West wasted no time in contending that Russia is targeting areas that aren’t known to be strategically significant for ISIS.

Here is what the Wall St Journal said:

But with the exception of the area east of the town of Salamiyah in Hama province, none of the areas listed by the Syrian regime have a known presence of Islamic State fighters. They are largely dominated by relatively moderate rebel factions and Islamist groups like Ahrar al-Sham and the al Qaeda affiliate the Nusra Front.

:clap2:Yes the WSJ said that.

It's not just the US, it's an international coalition of almost 60 countries (including Arab countries) now trying to oust the dictator Assad. For better or worse. And let's not forget the crimes against humanity Assad is and will be facing in the future. Also violations of international law, right?

Not sure why you think what the WSJ said is funny. It's true. You need to provide a link. Not appropriate to post that without a link. The first sentence Google's back to Zero Hedge. Not a reliable news source.

This topic is about Russia bombing an op center in Idlib. Can you show a map indicating this bombing was in ISIS controlled territory? So far, most have not been.

[craigt3365]

The US is now classifying Al-Qæda as moderate anti govt rebels. That should tell you enough about the US's credibility in Syria.

There isn't anything "curious" about this and Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his intent to keep the Assad regime from falling.

It's a huge mess. Caused a lot by the influence of outsiders over the past century or so. I doubt any outsider has any credibility in Syria right now.

And yes, Putin has been up front saying he'd fight anybody against Assad. But used ISIS as an angle to legitimize the attacks.

Unfortunately, even Assad has no credibility any more. Kinda like trying to help Gaddafi in the last days of his rule. It ain't gonna work.

[simple1]

To date it has been well documented that Assad forces engage in ethnic cleansing, rape and murder of civilians in regained territory. It will be interesting to see if the Russians are able or have the desire to try and minimise Assad's activities that border on genocide.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/19/a-damning-indictment-of-syrian-president-assad-s-systematic-massacres.html

At this stage one thing is certain the volume of refugees will increase. It begs the question what additional resources are being funded for the countries bordering Syria to shelter and process refugees as well as reduce the flow on effect on EU countries.

Edited October 4, 2015 by simple1

[Publicus]

 

Time for the rebels and ISIS form an alliance

 

Everything Putin has done so far with his air force's bombing campaign opens the possibility, yes. Probability. Increasing likelihood.

Putin bombing only non-ISIS groups, except for minor and forced limited token bombings of ISIS due to US Coalition and allied demands, marks Putin among these anti-Assad groups as committedly pro-Assad.

As ISIS is also anti-Assad, and ISIS knows they will come into Putin's crosshairs sooner or later, the two divergent opposition groups can out of necessity unite or at the least cooperate for a necessary time being, perhaps by the end of the year. This year has seen unprecedented cooperation among anti-Assad forces to the point that Putin has had to intervene to literally save Assad's regime, even if only temporarily. So the precedent exists and it has a strong present track record of success.

US coalition partners in the region that also and always have never been squeamish about terrorists they like are already quietly cooperating with certain groups that, because of their different or changes of ideology, purposes, goals, have for several years now been called 'moderate' by Washington, Paris, Berlin, London and elsewhere. While there in fact is not such a thing as a moderate terrorist, there are exclusively asymmetric fighting groups that are entirely disinterested in global jihad and that just do not see Satan when they look towards the West, the United States or US coalition partners in the ME.

The distinctions have become of a critical importance in dealing with tyrants such as Assad and now the tyrant in chief, Putin.

The Prez GW Bush absolutism of with us or against us has been soundly rejected in Washington and was for radically differing reasons never accepted by Nato or by the governments of the ME, so it is conceivable such an alliance could get the attention of the United States. It is already accepted by Israel, which has been working with al-Nusra for the past three years despite its (now fading) background as the former al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Most important to Israel about al-Nusra is that they are Syrians fighting for Syria. Both Israel and al-Nusra want Assad done and gone, number one, first and foremost.

Putin is meanwhile in the same situation as the United States, i.e., to prevail quickly and decisively large scale ground forces must be committed. Washington won't do it and Putin knows he cannot do it either. Putin will be ruthless in his use of his air forces but, invariably, air power will not be enough and it will never be enough. The best fighters on the ground will prevail and the rebels have dominated the Syrian army all of this year, to include Iranian boots on the ground.

It is still the ground game that matters most.

[rethaier]

Most other media sites are saying this is not ISIL territory....

Please give a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Look at the map. Most strikes are in rebel held territory, not ISIS held territory.

And I predict those USA armed and financed rebels will join ISIS when they are ready.

[craigt3365]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Look at the map. Most strikes are in rebel held territory, not ISIS held territory.

And I predict those USA armed and financed rebels will join ISIS when they are ready.

Perhaps to battle the Iranian funded groups?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-09/iran-spends-billions-to-prop-up-assad

Iran Spends Billions to Prop Up Assad

Iran is spending billions of dollars a year to prop up the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, according to the U.N.'s envoy to Syria and other outside experts. These estimates are far higher than what the Barack Obama administration, busy negotiating a nuclear deal with the Tehran government, has implied Iran spends on its policy to destabilize the Middle East.

On Monday, a spokeswoman for the U.N. special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, told me that the envoy estimates Iran spends $6 billion annually on Assad's government. Other experts I spoke to put the number even higher. Nadim Shehadi, the director of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at Tufts University, said his research shows that Iran spent between $14 and $15 billion in military and economic aid to the Damascus regime in 2012 and 2013, even though Iran's banks and businesses were cut off from the international financial system.

Again...too many outsiders interfering. They should all leave.

[Wombat6]

Most other media sites are saying this is not ISIL territory....

Please give a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Look at the map. Most strikes are in rebel held territory, not ISIS held territory.

Isn't that an American News source??? What else would you expect them to say....not always the truth IE Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction.????

[craigt3365]

Most other media sites are saying this is not ISIL territory....

Please give a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Look at the map. Most strikes are in rebel held territory, not ISIS held territory.

Isn't that an American News source??? What else would you expect them to say....not always the truth IE Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction.????

Do a Google search. Various maps show up on various websites. NY Times is an independent news source. And biased just like very other news source out there. One way or another.

[Publicus]

Challenging the credibility of mainstream media news organizations on either side of this divide is a fool's errand yet it remains a favorite tact of the Putin fanboyz.

Supporters on either side go nowhere when they say a given post is the product of MSM propaganda organs and therefore invalid. They do this whether a MSM source is cited or not, regardless.

The only possible distinction of any meaning or value between MSM here or there is that one society's MSM is privately owned and operated while the other society's MSM is state owned and directed. Accordingly, when the NYT supports the US government, it does so by free and conscious choice. When Russia Today supports Putin and his policies, it is more than likely it supports Putin & Co because if it doesn't support the boss then Siberia is a cold and lonely big place.

It's a baker's dozen of six of one and seven of the other.

[Harsh Jones]

 

Time for the rebels and ISIS form an alliance

 

Everything Putin has done so far with his air force's bombing campaign opens the possibility, yes. Probability. Increasing likelihood.

Putin bombing only non-ISIS groups, except for minor and forced limited token bombings of ISIS due to US Coalition and allied demands, marks Putin among these anti-Assad groups as committedly pro-Assad.

As ISIS is also anti-Assad, and ISIS knows they will come into Putin's crosshairs sooner or later, the two divergent opposition groups can out of necessity unite or at the least cooperate for a necessary time being, perhaps by the end of the year. This year has seen unprecedented cooperation among anti-Assad forces to the point that Putin has had to intervene to literally save Assad's regime, even if only temporarily. So the precedent exists and it has a strong present track record of success.

US coalition partners in the region that also and always have never been squeamish about terrorists they like are already quietly cooperating with certain groups that, because of their different or changes of ideology, purposes, goals, have for several years now been called 'moderate' by Washington, Paris, Berlin, London and elsewhere. While there in fact is not such a thing as a moderate terrorist, there are exclusively asymmetric fighting groups that are entirely disinterested in global jihad and that just do not see Satan when they look towards the West, the United States or US coalition partners in the ME.

The distinctions have become of a critical importance in dealing with tyrants such as Assad and now the tyrant in chief, Putin.

The Prez GW Bush absolutism of with us or against us has been soundly rejected in Washington and was for radically differing reasons never accepted by Nato or by the governments of the ME, so it is conceivable such an alliance could get the attention of the United States. It is already accepted by Israel, which has been working with al-Nusra for the past three years despite its (now fading) background as the former al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Most important to Israel about al-Nusra is that they are Syrians fighting for Syria. Both Israel and al-Nusra want Assad done and gone, number one, first and foremost.

Putin is meanwhile in the same situation as the United States, i.e., to prevail quickly and decisively large scale ground forces must be committed. Washington won't do it and Putin knows he cannot do it either. Putin will be ruthless in his use of his air forces but, invariably, air power will not be enough and it will never be enough. The best fighters on the ground will prevail and the rebels have dominated the Syrian army all of this year, to include Iranian boots on the ground.

It is still the ground game that matters most.

Wow. So you guys believe the clap trap from Washington so much that you would side with Isis before Putin ? Unreal

Putin isn't fighting a politically correct war. So he has a chance of making a real difference. Sucks if you aren't on his team

[Harsh Jones]

Most other media sites are saying this is not ISIL territory....

Please give a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Look at the map. Most strikes are in rebel held territory, not ISIS held territory.

Isn't that an American News source??? What else would you expect them to say....not always the truth IE Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction.????

Do a Google search. Various maps show up on various websites. NY Times is an independent news source. And biased just like very other news source out there. One way or another.

Putin never said that he wasn't going to bomb non isis terrorists. So get that out of your head.

I can't find anything that says the US has a assembled a 60 country coalition. I think you are talking about the Iraq war. Was that ever a success.

Russia has China on its side. That's a big UN vote.

[Publicus]

 

Time for the rebels and ISIS form an alliance

 

Everything Putin has done so far with his air force's bombing campaign opens the possibility, yes. Probability. Increasing likelihood.

Putin bombing only non-ISIS groups, except for minor and forced limited token bombings of ISIS due to US Coalition and allied demands, marks Putin among these anti-Assad groups as committedly pro-Assad.

As ISIS is also anti-Assad, and ISIS knows they will come into Putin's crosshairs sooner or later, the two divergent opposition groups can out of necessity unite or at the least cooperate for a necessary time being, perhaps by the end of the year. This year has seen unprecedented cooperation among anti-Assad forces to the point that Putin has had to intervene to literally save Assad's regime, even if only temporarily. So the precedent exists and it has a strong present track record of success.

US coalition partners in the region that also and always have never been squeamish about terrorists they like are already quietly cooperating with certain groups that, because of their different or changes of ideology, purposes, goals, have for several years now been called 'moderate' by Washington, Paris, Berlin, London and elsewhere. While there in fact is not such a thing as a moderate terrorist, there are exclusively asymmetric fighting groups that are entirely disinterested in global jihad and that just do not see Satan when they look towards the West, the United States or US coalition partners in the ME.

The distinctions have become of a critical importance in dealing with tyrants such as Assad and now the tyrant in chief, Putin.

The Prez GW Bush absolutism of with us or against us has been soundly rejected in Washington and was for radically differing reasons never accepted by Nato or by the governments of the ME, so it is conceivable such an alliance could get the attention of the United States. It is already accepted by Israel, which has been working with al-Nusra for the past three years despite its (now fading) background as the former al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Most important to Israel about al-Nusra is that they are Syrians fighting for Syria. Both Israel and al-Nusra want Assad done and gone, number one, first and foremost.

Putin is meanwhile in the same situation as the United States, i.e., to prevail quickly and decisively large scale ground forces must be committed. Washington won't do it and Putin knows he cannot do it either. Putin will be ruthless in his use of his air forces but, invariably, air power will not be enough and it will never be enough. The best fighters on the ground will prevail and the rebels have dominated the Syrian army all of this year, to include Iranian boots on the ground.

It is still the ground game that matters most.

Wow. So you guys believe the clap trap from Washington so much that you would side with Isis before Putin ? Unreal

Putin isn't fighting a politically correct war. So he has a chance of making a real difference. Sucks if you aren't on his team

No one is siding with ISIS.

Putin will drive events in Syria from this point forward so his decisions and actions will determine how the anti-Assad players conduct themselves, align, realign, lie low or intensify etc.

Al Qaeda on the ground in Syria is not bin Laden's al Qaeda nor is it a favorite in Tehran; quite the opposite in Tehran. Indeed, the Israelis and Nusra Front composed of Syrians opposed to Assad get along fine.

People who support Putin and the Russian school of take no prisoners warfare deserve a special punishment of having to sit through seven consecutive days of UN meetings and sessions in New York.

The CCP Boyz of Beijing voting with Russia at the UNSC is routine and the regular thing rather than a news bulletin. It has no impact on developments in Syria as one veto will quite do the trick.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Publicus

[simple1]

Most other media sites are saying this is not ISIL territory....

Please give a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Look at the map. Most strikes are in rebel held territory, not ISIS held territory.

And I predict those USA armed and financed rebels will join ISIS when they are ready.

And eventually, unless they transfer allegiance to Daesh, they would be cannibalised by Daesh.

Shiite forces in Syria and Iraq are committing war crimes against the Sunni civilian population, so it's no surprise various Sunni groups are combining forces against them.

There have been some examples in Iraq where Sunni tribes refused to join Daesh and were subsequently massacred. Hopefully the US led coalition can re-establish the successful Sunni Awakening program, though that's unlikely given the alignment of the Iraqi government with Iran.

Edited October 6, 2015 by simple1

[craigt3365]

Wow. So you guys believe the clap trap from Washington so much that you would side with Isis before Putin ? Unreal

Putin isn't fighting a politically correct war. So he has a chance of making a real difference. Sucks if you aren't on his team

Where did anybody say they are siding with Isis? Don't troll.

We're just trying to point out some of the issues with Russia's attacks. If they were focused on Isis, then great! Unfortunately, they are not 100% doing this and there are many civilian casualties. Which definitely sucks.

[boomerangutang]

This escalation could lead to a mini WWIII.

[konying]

Do not overlook that the Russian Federal Security Bureau figures something like 2500 Russians are fighting in Syria on one of the several sides. Some may remain in Syria, some may go elsewhere, many will return with their Shiria Jihad to Russia. Putin and Russia would have to deal with this either way, but Putin throwing Russia into the mix in Syria invites and opens a long term conflict for Russia both in Syria, the ME and in Russia the mother.

Russia's economy is tanking yet a country can't support a long term military engagement without bucks, unless of course it gains some new sources of revenue and wealth. Putin, Iran, Syria, enough of Iraq etc are aligned against the US/EU and allies such as Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the like. Putin's military buildup would, if he used all that's there right now, wipe out, say, ISIS in a short order.

Oh the usual patriotic drivel from the same people.

Funny how Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Even funnier was the upper cut Obama got and still in knock out mode.

But to make you feel better, Russia is moving in 150 000 troops .

[craigt3365]

Do not overlook that the Russian Federal Security Bureau figures something like 2500 Russians are fighting in Syria on one of the several sides. Some may remain in Syria, some may go elsewhere, many will return with their Shiria Jihad to Russia. Putin and Russia would have to deal with this either way, but Putin throwing Russia into the mix in Syria invites and opens a long term conflict for Russia both in Syria, the ME and in Russia the mother.

Russia's economy is tanking yet a country can't support a long term military engagement without bucks, unless of course it gains some new sources of revenue and wealth. Putin, Iran, Syria, enough of Iraq etc are aligned against the US/EU and allies such as Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the like. Putin's military buildup would, if he used all that's there right now, wipe out, say, ISIS in a short order.

Oh the usual patriotic drivel from the same people.

Funny how Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Even funnier was the upper cut Obama got and still in knock out mode.

But to make you feel better, Russia is moving in 150 000 troops .

Russia is bombing innocent civilians. If that was the US, what would your comments be then? I'm not that patriotic, just like the facts laid out properly.

150,000 troops will definitely move the world closer to WWIII. Not a good thing.

[Publicus]

Do not overlook that the Russian Federal Security Bureau figures something like 2500 Russians are fighting in Syria on one of the several sides. Some may remain in Syria, some may go elsewhere, many will return with their Shiria Jihad to Russia. Putin and Russia would have to deal with this either way, but Putin throwing Russia into the mix in Syria invites and opens a long term conflict for Russia both in Syria, the ME and in Russia the mother.

Russia's economy is tanking yet a country can't support a long term military engagement without bucks, unless of course it gains some new sources of revenue and wealth. Putin, Iran, Syria, enough of Iraq etc are aligned against the US/EU and allies such as Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the like. Putin's military buildup would, if he used all that's there right now, wipe out, say, ISIS in a short order.

Oh the usual patriotic drivel from the same people.

Funny how Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Even funnier was the upper cut Obama got and still in knock out mode.

But to make you feel better, Russia is moving in 150 000 troops .

Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Instant myth, rhetoric, PR. Add Russian bullshit and mix.

Now come 150,000 Russian troops in to the ME in addition to Iran combat forces on the ground in Syria, China docking its single aircraft carrier at Tartus with designs to send CCP pilots on missions into Syria in the Middle East. Baghdad is aligned with Russia, Assad and the rest of 'em.

This is already looking worse than the United States in Iraq courtesy of Bush-Cheney.

The alarms and red lights are going off in Riyahd, Cairo, Tel Aviv, Beruit, the Gulf states, Kuwait, throughout North Africa and in Ankara which yesterday chased a Russian fighter plane out of Turkey airspace and for which Putin apologized. SecDef Ashton Carter is in Rome today meeting with all the Nato allies.

Putin's economy is going deeper and deeper into the tank, Putin is stymied in Ukraine, so now Putin is going for broke in Syria and the Middle East.

It's of small comfort this isn't the Guns of August nor is it Poland 1939....not yet.

[simple1]

Do not overlook that the Russian Federal Security Bureau figures something like 2500 Russians are fighting in Syria on one of the several sides. Some may remain in Syria, some may go elsewhere, many will return with their Shiria Jihad to Russia. Putin and Russia would have to deal with this either way, but Putin throwing Russia into the mix in Syria invites and opens a long term conflict for Russia both in Syria, the ME and in Russia the mother.

Russia's economy is tanking yet a country can't support a long term military engagement without bucks, unless of course it gains some new sources of revenue and wealth. Putin, Iran, Syria, enough of Iraq etc are aligned against the US/EU and allies such as Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the like. Putin's military buildup would, if he used all that's there right now, wipe out, say, ISIS in a short order.

Oh the usual patriotic drivel from the same people.

Funny how Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Even funnier was the upper cut Obama got and still in knock out mode.

But to make you feel better, Russia is moving in 150 000 troops .

Russia is bombing innocent civilians. If that was the US, what would your comments be then? I'm not that patriotic, just like the facts laid out properly.

150,000 troops will definitely move the world closer to WWIII. Not a good thing.

I don't believe it will happen, my take the report is only media speculation.

[Pakboong]

Wow. So you guys believe the clap trap from Washington so much that you would side with Isis before Putin ? Unreal

Putin isn't fighting a politically correct war. So he has a chance of making a real difference. Sucks if you aren't on his team

Where did anybody say they are siding with Isis? Don't troll.

We're just trying to point out some of the issues with Russia's attacks. If they were focused on Isis, then great! Unfortunately, they are not 100% doing this and there are many civilian casualties. Which definitely sucks.

I am a bit ashamed to admit that my country, USA, and its allies have conducted 67,000 sorties on ISIS this past year and Russia has conducted 60 and it appears that Russia has done quite a bit more with their 60 sorties. Now, we know how Russia is always lying so maybe that they actually conducted much more than 60. Problem is, all has happened in less than a week.

[konying]

Do not overlook that the Russian Federal Security Bureau figures something like 2500 Russians are fighting in Syria on one of the several sides. Some may remain in Syria, some may go elsewhere, many will return with their Shiria Jihad to Russia. Putin and Russia would have to deal with this either way, but Putin throwing Russia into the mix in Syria invites and opens a long term conflict for Russia both in Syria, the ME and in Russia the mother.

Russia's economy is tanking yet a country can't support a long term military engagement without bucks, unless of course it gains some new sources of revenue and wealth. Putin, Iran, Syria, enough of Iraq etc are aligned against the US/EU and allies such as Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the like. Putin's military buildup would, if he used all that's there right now, wipe out, say, ISIS in a short order.

Oh the usual patriotic drivel from the same people.

Funny how Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Even funnier was the upper cut Obama got and still in knock out mode.

But to make you feel better, Russia is moving in 150 000 troops .

Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Instant myth, rhetoric, PR. Add Russian bullshit and mix.

Now come 150,000 Russian troops in to the ME in addition to Iran combat forces on the ground in Syria, China docking its single aircraft carrier at Tartus with designs to send CCP pilots on missions into Syria in the Middle East. Baghdad is aligned with Russia, Assad and the rest of 'em.

This is already looking worse than the United States in Iraq courtesy of Bush-Cheney.

The alarms and red lights are going off in Riyahd, Cairo, Tel Aviv, Beruit, the Gulf states, Kuwait, throughout North Africa and in Ankara which yesterday chased a Russian fighter plane out of Turkey airspace and for which Putin apologized. SecDef Ashton Carter is in Rome today meeting with all the Nato allies.

Putin's economy is going deeper and deeper into the tank, Putin is stymied in Ukraine, so now Putin is going for broke in Syria and the Middle East.

It's of small comfort this isn't the Guns of August nor is it Poland 1939....not yet.

I realize for a patriot like yourself, truth does not sit well.

Thankfully enough people have their eyes open to see the facts.

But please continue to trump your own horn and beat your chest.

Do not worry about Putins economy, it is not in trillions of dollars in debt, worry about yours

Despite your deep belief in US military superiority and Russian inferior military, Putin did more damage than the mighty US in over a year and 5 billion dollars down the drain.

A good reason why US administration and allies have shut up and sitting quietly.

In Ukraine, they were not so quite, now seeing just a few planes, and missiles, they do not dare to open their mouth, but a few silly statements.

In Ukraine, they were sending more troops and money and military gear, and training and- and -and -and

Now in Syria all over sudden they are ONLY prepared

[Publicus]

Do not overlook that the Russian Federal Security Bureau figures something like 2500 Russians are fighting in Syria on one of the several sides. Some may remain in Syria, some may go elsewhere, many will return with their Shiria Jihad to Russia. Putin and Russia would have to deal with this either way, but Putin throwing Russia into the mix in Syria invites and opens a long term conflict for Russia both in Syria, the ME and in Russia the mother.

Russia's economy is tanking yet a country can't support a long term military engagement without bucks, unless of course it gains some new sources of revenue and wealth. Putin, Iran, Syria, enough of Iraq etc are aligned against the US/EU and allies such as Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the like. Putin's military buildup would, if he used all that's there right now, wipe out, say, ISIS in a short order.

Oh the usual patriotic drivel from the same people.

Funny how Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Even funnier was the upper cut Obama got and still in knock out mode.

But to make you feel better, Russia is moving in 150 000 troops .

Russia is bombing innocent civilians. If that was the US, what would your comments be then? I'm not that patriotic, just like the facts laid out properly.

150,000 troops will definitely move the world closer to WWIII. Not a good thing.

I don't believe it will happen, my take the report is only media speculation.

Whether or not it happens or to that number depends a lot on the offensive going on in the central region since last week, around Hama and in the south of Ildib province. Assad's reconstituted army and Russian air forces are attacking various rebels in their positions. The reports by AP are that it's fierce as was expected.

Rebels got coordinated toward the end of last year which contributed strongly to their successes this year in reducing Assad's army to 80,000 from its 300,000 of several years ago and in taking a lot of ground, air bases, transport links and the like. Rebels are quite united now against Putin and Assad.

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports I've seen say the combined Syrian-Russian forces have managed to take a couple of towns but not much else to show for a week of heavy lifting. Rebels are still pretty much where they were when the offensive started Wednesday a week ago while their use of the US TOW anti-tank missiles has hit a number of Assad tanks and other armored vehicles.

If Putin is satisfied whenever the dust clears from this offensive there may not be more Soviet Russian troops. If Putin is dissatisfied with the capability of the remains of Assad's army Putin is going to have to import Russian ground forces in large units. The rebels know this too and last night received an airdrop of 50 tons of weapons and ammunition via US military C-130 Hercules cargo planes escorted by F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighters.

[konying]

Do not overlook that the Russian Federal Security Bureau figures something like 2500 Russians are fighting in Syria on one of the several sides. Some may remain in Syria, some may go elsewhere, many will return with their Shiria Jihad to Russia. Putin and Russia would have to deal with this either way, but Putin throwing Russia into the mix in Syria invites and opens a long term conflict for Russia both in Syria, the ME and in Russia the mother.

Russia's economy is tanking yet a country can't support a long term military engagement without bucks, unless of course it gains some new sources of revenue and wealth. Putin, Iran, Syria, enough of Iraq etc are aligned against the US/EU and allies such as Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the like. Putin's military buildup would, if he used all that's there right now, wipe out, say, ISIS in a short order.

Oh the usual patriotic drivel from the same people.

Funny how Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Even funnier was the upper cut Obama got and still in knock out mode.

But to make you feel better, Russia is moving in 150 000 troops .

Russia is bombing innocent civilians. If that was the US, what would your comments be then? I'm not that patriotic, just like the facts laid out properly.

150,000 troops will definitely move the world closer to WWIII. Not a good thing.

1. According to whom? US?

2. US did not bomb innocent civilians?

3. 100 000 troops, will put US back to its place and keep it there for a while at least

[Exsexyman]

Do not overlook that the Russian Federal Security Bureau figures something like 2500 Russians are fighting in Syria on one of the several sides. Some may remain in Syria, some may go elsewhere, many will return with their Shiria Jihad to Russia. Putin and Russia would have to deal with this either way, but Putin throwing Russia into the mix in Syria invites and opens a long term conflict for Russia both in Syria, the ME and in Russia the mother.

Russia's economy is tanking yet a country can't support a long term military engagement without bucks, unless of course it gains some new sources of revenue and wealth. Putin, Iran, Syria, enough of Iraq etc are aligned against the US/EU and allies such as Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the like. Putin's military buildup would, if he used all that's there right now, wipe out, say, ISIS in a short order.

Oh the usual patriotic drivel from the same people.

Funny how Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Even funnier was the upper cut Obama got and still in knock out mode.

But to make you feel better, Russia is moving in 150 000 troops .

Russia did more damage inn3 days than US managed in 3 years.

Instant myth, rhetoric, PR. Add Russian bullshit and mix.

Now come 150,000 Russian troops in to the ME in addition to Iran combat forces on the ground in Syria, China docking its single aircraft carrier at Tartus with designs to send CCP pilots on missions into Syria in the Middle East. Baghdad is aligned with Russia, Assad and the rest of 'em.

This is already looking worse than the United States in Iraq courtesy of Bush-Cheney.

The alarms and red lights are going off in Riyahd, Cairo, Tel Aviv, Beruit, the Gulf states, Kuwait, throughout North Africa and in Ankara which yesterday chased a Russian fighter plane out of Turkey airspace and for which Putin apologized. SecDef Ashton Carter is in Rome today meeting with all the Nato allies.

Putin's economy is going deeper and deeper into the tank, Putin is stymied in Ukraine, so now Putin is going for broke in Syria and the Middle East.

It's of small comfort this isn't the Guns of August nor is it Poland 1939....not yet.

I realize for a patriot like yourself, truth does not sit well.

Thankfully enough people have their eyes open to see the facts.

But please continue to trump your own horn and beat your chest.

Do not worry about Putins economy, it is not in trillions of dollars in debt, worry about yours

Despite your deep belief in US military superiority and Russian inferior military, Putin did more damage than the mighty US in over a year and 5 billion dollars down the drain.

A good reason why US administration and allies have shut up and sitting quietly.

In Ukraine, they were not so quite, now seeing just a few planes, and missiles, they do not dare to open their mouth, but a few silly statements.

In Ukraine, they were sending more troops and money and military gear, and training and- and -and -and

Now in Syria all over sudden they are ONLY prepared

In another post Publicus quotes information he gained from the 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights'. The SOHR was long ago exposed as a one man band propaganda front. Despite it's grand sounding title it is operated by one man, Abdul Rahman, from a small house in Coventry, a small town in the West Midlands of England. A member of the so called 'opposition' in Syria, who is funded by the EU and one other European country, almost certainly the UK. Rahman fled Syria in 2000 when two colleagues were arrested for anti government activities, and was smuggled into Britain, where the British Government re settled him in Coventry, where he set up his fraudulent one man band propaganda unit, which has now been operating for at least ten years. And people still believe that this current Syrian crisis started with a 'spontaneous' uprising by the people in 2013, with The West playing no part! Pull the other one!

http://beforeitsnews.com/international/2013/04/exposed-syrian-human-rights-front-is-eu-funded-fraud-2456208.html

Edited October 13, 2015 by Exsexyman