So should the USA now applaud Russia for seriously kicking of some ISIS/ISIL butt over
The last 72 hours?
Over the last 48 hours, Russia has destroyed a fleet of 500 ISIS trucks used to smuggle oil out of Syria. 355 [targets] were destroyed in the countryside of Aleppo, Idleb, Raqqa and Dir Ezzor during the last 48 hours. The Russian air force, in cooperation with the Syrian air force, carried out 186 sorties against ISIS sites in Syria, Syria news agency reported. It added 26 command-centers, 35 depots, 28 fortified sites, 3 training camps, 8 explosive factories and 86 heavy-weapon stores were destroyed.
to fight them over here?
Let them have the blowback, I'm not interested in more of the same failed military misadventurers that brought is to this point.
Wow. Just wow.
Your objection isn't to the death, destruction, or even genocide. You just don't want us involved.
So drop your pearls.
I don't believe there is a military solution to this problem.
... you're more than happy to let Putin commit Russian lives to this issue?
Try to get a consistent story, but on someone else's time. I'm done with this circular, nonsensical argument.
That is their business. Let's stay out of it.
You are trying not to understand. I don't believe you are that lacking in comprehension. But maybe you are.
... ugh. I still dislike your attitude.
This place is full of chicken hawks...
Really? Russia has been targeting Syrian rebel since it got there. Not ISIS.
They are bombing our allies in Syria, not ISIS.
What do you think that Russian jet was doing in Turkey, no where near ISIS?
Are you insinuating the Russia was in Turkey to bomb Turkey?
They are in Syria near the border. That is who Russia was bombing.
Again, they are targeting Syrian rebels to help Assad, not fighting ISIS.
Yes, the word resembles English-derived forms like "Chinamen." It's not. The -men suffix has nothing at all to do with the English word "man" or "men." It means something like "similar to" or "like" in another, probably extinct or nearly extinct branch of the great far-flung Indo-European linguistic space.
They're not necessarily of "Turkish descent"; they are Turkic, are of Turkic descent, can be called Turks in the right context, and speak Turkish (probably not the standard literary form). But since "Turk" in English often means "citizen of Turkey or member of that particular ethnic group, narrowly construed" the word "Turkmen" does the trick.
They have deliberately been targeting the rebels opposing Assad, I totally agree with that, but they've also hit some ISIL areas as well.
Putin isn't a stupid man, and he knows how to play the media while playing up the confusion of most westerners over the multi-faceted allies and opposition in the region.
I've followed it closely and I realize what's taking place there. The region the fighter jet was in is not controlled by ISIL, but rather held by the very anti-Assad rebels Putin has been bombing. It's obvious where Putin's sympathies are in reality.
I suppose propaganda works to an extent.
Then there's the complexities of alliances and enemies in the region. It's not something you can understand at a glance. You have to actually have been following the region and know the complex histories to even vaguely grasp the who, where and why of things. It's not like the west at all. Which may explain why some westerners get confused?
You have factions within factions. You have this group supporting Assad, and that group opposing Assad, and ISIS is against Assad.
Even over a year ago, you had testimony on The Hill that the USA should be "looking to aid these individuals who have risked their lives to combat the Assad regime and to combat the ISIL terrorists that theyre fighting today.
Then you had McCain arguing against that position: that the U.S. would not get many recruits among the Syrian rebels if the mission was to fight ISIS alone.
Theyll also be fighting against Bashar Assad which theyve been doing for a number of years before ISIL was ever a significant factor, he told Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey.
Our focus is on ISIL, Hagel said, while Dempsey referred to an ISIL-first strategy.
The Assad regime and its allies in Tehran and Moscow see the new focus on defeating ISIS as an opportunity to alleviate international pressure on Damascus, even suggesting that the West partner with Assad in tackling the terrorists.
The administration insists there will be no coordination with the regime if it extends the campaign of airstrikes against ISIS from Iraq into Syria, but is also not prioritizing regime-change as part of its anti-ISIS strategy.
So considering the fact that there has been a great bit of division about what to do, among people who are spending serious time dealing with the situation, and you can hardly fault people on DU for being confused.
On edit: When POV, the PBS news show, sent its reporters to Syria, I thought it quite tellling that some of the people they interviewed had first fought on one side, and now are fighting on the other!
And as far as I can tell, I wrote this as a question - perhaps rhetorical, perhaps not.
with fifty families instead of two, all shooting at each other.
be getting the destruction of our Syrian rebel allies, the saving of the Assad dictatorship and saber rattling with Turkey.
And it has been. What's surprising, or I guess it's not really, that so many on DU don't get it.
What I mean is it's extremely complicated. It's easier just to take what someone says as being real sometimes, and not worry about figuring out what's going on yourself.
I'm not saying that's better, just sometimes what's easier is just too tempting.
So it great that Russia is hitting ISIS but they seems to be focusing more heavily on anti Assad rebel forces.
and barbarism. where the line on one ends and one begins.
if the syrian govt collapsed all true hell would erupt in that gawd forsaken place.
In effect, this is a policy shift on Assad.
11/19/15 - Obama: Assad must go:
I don't see much discussion of what would happen if Assad was overthrown but Libya and Iraq are not easily forgotten.
Assisting with rolling back ISIS from Northern Syria by providing air support and material assistance to the Kurdish YPG over the past several months? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html
At least DU should applaud that right? I mean looking at the ideological bend of that group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)), seems like they'd get along great here on DU.
But I guess if they're not pro-Assad, they're basically ISIS...
Don't believe anything you hear and half of what you see. Just because you heard this somewhere does not make it so. Remember that we are constantly being played by powerful interests. Don't accept anything at face value.
These are the lessons I learned from living through 8 years of the GWB administration.
He is undertaking diplomatic dealings with the Russians to ask them to ONLY target ISIS.
So that should indicate that prior to this decision of the last 48 hours, the Russians were targeting ISIS.
I guess my info is as good as his.
not everything said to be targeting ISIS is in ISIS-held territory.
Unless you look at the details, you'll be sure to miss where the devil is hiding in plain sight.
Nowhere do those places get called "ISIS-held." You have to follow the logic. "Russians bombed ISIS-held territory. (blah-blah-blah.) Russians bombed X." Therefore, X must be ISIS-held territory. But unless you make the connection explicitly and then question it, it's easy to overlook that X wasn't ISIS-held. That's a pain. It's time-consuming. It requires knowing a lot of facts and details.
Putin, OTOH, is a whole 'nother level of not giving a shit about civilians. But, hey, in his case, it must have been a mistake, right? Where is the screaming about Russia creating more terrorists?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
so ISIS (Saudi/Qatar/Turkey-backed mercs) is/was helping with that.
"Truth is the first casualty of war." - Winston Churchill
The USA always does what is right, after it has exhausted all other possibilities!
The difficult point being what happens to Assad. Russia's bombing might be an attempt to bolster Assad's position and avoid a compromise that gives them less control going forward.
Kerry, Obama etc are in negotiation mode and Putin is not easy to deal with but they realize he can do some of the dirty work.
That is a concern. I wonder how many innocent civilians were killed in this bombardment?
One that we helped create. I can neither applaud nor criticize the actions of Russia.
They didn't actually mention that they were Russian strikes but the fact that there were cyrillic letters in the video and that it had previously been shown on Russian TV kind of gave the game away.
and let Putin do what needs to be done by whatever means available. Backchannel support would be appropriate but the public posture should be low-profile.
Putin is a ruthless SOB and will do what has to be done.