The Islamic State

[windwalker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFO1AtjoUoo

Brigitte Gabriel: Radical Islam: The Plan to Destroy America from Within: Infiltration (2011)

[Steve James]

The implication of Lavrov's statements posted above is that after a year of claiming to bomb ISIS, but doing very little damage, a conclusion can be drawn that there was partial support for ISIS as a way to achieve the USA goal of regime change in Syria

I don't know who's bombing whom. I only hear claims. The criticism that the US has not been bombing IS is rather futile coming from the Russians --who have admittedly just started bombing IS specifically after their aircraft was downed. If the US position is unclear, then the Russian one is even more obscure. All that's clear is that both sides (and most of the rest of the west) wants to bomb IS now. In addition, the majority of the US efforts have been attacks, by drones or bombing, of IS leadership.

Afa success, who has been successful? How is success measured? Why hasn't bombing been more successful? And, finally, if bombing is unsuccessful, would sending ground troops be better?

Yes, Syrian rebels have attacked Russian tanks with TOW missiles. Well, according to them, the Russians were shooting at them and they responded with the weapons they had. It's expected. But, as noted, the Russians intervened on their own. If Russia is cooperating now, it is because it is necessary. Suddenly, the Russians and the rebels have a common enemy.

Men on the ground are men on the ground. The US does not have masses of ground troops there, and that's a good thing. It's fine --with me-- if Russians are put in jeopardy. Ultimately, the solution should be Syrian. But, I'm not sure how likely that is.

[Michael]

Following Assad's visit to Moscow in late October, Putin said Assad was willing to work with the rebels in order to fight ISIS.

Mr Assad met Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Tuesday and thanked his Russian counterpart for launching airstrikes against his opponents in Syria.

Both leaders also agreed during the talks that political steps must follow military operations.

After the meeting with the Syrian leader, Mr Putin said he and Mr Assad had discussed Russia's possible support for armed rebels in Syria.

"I asked him: What do you think if we find armed Syrian opposition which is ready to oppose and truly fight terrorists, the IS?" Mr Putin told journalists in Sochi.

"What would you think if we support their efforts in the fight against terrorists in the same way we are supporting the Syrian army?"

"He [Assad] replied: 'I would view this positively'."

"We are now thinking about this and trying to implement these agreements, if it works out," Mr Putin added.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-24/russia-ready-to-provide-air-support-to-syria-rebels-fighting-is/6882626

[Steve James]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFO1AtjoUoo

Brigitte Gabriel: Radical Islam: The Plan to Destroy America from Within: Infiltration (2011)

Americans will destroy themselves much faster than the Islamists can. They already do.

[Steve James]

Yeah, I'll bet the RT reports that the Russians have been trying to get Assad and the rebels to get along for years. Anyway, the question is whether Assad agreed to cede or share power with the rebels. Shucks, it would have happened already if it hadn't been for ... It doesn't matter. Taking credit for the talks that must come is senseless. Having a cease fire and a certain amount of "peace" is the only way to stem the flow of refugees, which leads to their dispersion globally and the fear in Mississippi that the Muslims are coming. Of course, that's how they'll get all the fancy military gear in those small towns. So, the terrorists succeed --in generating the reaction they want-- the gun and arms manufacturers get richer -- and dollars to donuts soon people who want to get tough with Muslims will find they've lost some of their own rights. I have no problem with gov't intrusion, and I also understand that life and violence are random. Sooner or later, some fool is going to do something stupid; I can't stop it; and it's a lottery ticket whether I'll a victim.

[Michael]

I don't know who's bombing whom. I only hear claims. The criticism that the US has not been bombing IS is rather futile coming from the Russians --who have admittedly just started bombing IS specifically after their aircraft was downed.

Afa success, who has been successful? How is success measured?

You can measure daily sorties and targets hit. You can also measure how much territory ISIS gains or loses. Some successes are big enough to measure, such as Kobani, which was a success of USA air support to YPG Kurds in getting ISIS out of that city, and the same thing just happened in Sinjar. Those successes are so significant it's pretty easy to document them. Another large success was FSA rebels helping Russia end the ISIS' seige on the Kulweis (sp?) air base outside Aleppo.

Why hasn't bombing been more successful?

The USA was doing sometimes 10 sorties per week during the year of coalition attacks prior to Russia's. Russia just did 289 in two days. Compare this to the number of sorties against Iraq in the first Gulf War. We know the bombing can be successful against a military that has targets like ISIS, such as tank convoys, so when it's not successful over a long period of time, this is because of the intention of the USA coalition, which is theorized to be a faction in the US military that are insubordinate to Obama, as evidenced by Gen. Allen declaring a no-fly zone in Syria around July 24, 2015, against or without Pres. Obama's approval.

And, finally, if bombing is unsuccessful, would sending ground troops be better?

Based on general knowledge as well as 25 years of USA/NATO wars and occupation in the Middle East, the only solution is for the existing government and capable military of Syria do the ground fighting because they will remain when the war is over. If other armies are permitted by the Syrian government, such as Hezbollah or Iran, to join some ground forces, they will not have the inevitable problems of an occupying army that happened to the USA in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Russia has always said they will not get into a ground war in Syria; I don't think that will change and I hope USA/NATO will have the same policy for military, but will send in aid workers later to rebuild the country.

Yes, Syrian rebels have attacked Russian tanks with TOW missiles. Well, according to them, the Russians were shooting at them and they responded with the weapons they had. It's expected. But, as noted, the Russians intervened on their own. If Russia is cooperating now, it is because it is necessary. Suddenly, the Russians and the rebels have a common enemy.

When I mentioned Russian tanks in Syria, I meant they were used by the Syrian army. I don't believe any Russian military are operating tanks in combat in Syria, but they only sold these tanks to Syria in the past.

Men on the ground are men on the ground. The US does not have masses of ground troops there, and that's a good thing. It's fine --with me-- if Russians are put in jeopardy. Ultimately, the solution should be Syrian. But, I'm not sure how likely that is.

The Vienna agreement from October 30 says this, that Syria will decide.

[Michael]

Yeah, I'll bet the RT reports that the Russians have been trying to get Assad and the rebels to get along for years.

[Michael]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFO1AtjoUoo

Brigitte Gabriel: Radical Islam: The Plan to Destroy America from Within: Infiltration (2011)

Eight minutes into her story it's worse than Ben Carson's autobiography. 10 year old girl drags parents out of mountain bomb shelter in Lebanon mountains, "as cold as Minnesota", where they burnt fuel without ventilation underground in 8'x10' room. They made a pact that whoever woke up first from the carbon monoxide poisoning would drag the others outside and wake them. Totally absurd lies and exaggerations to evoke sympathy for her main points about religious persecution.

A lot of speakers look fine when they have the podium and can tell their story, but IMO, her tone and style of speech is very emotional and confrontational in other videos where there is back and forth, such as this one.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

A demagogue or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower socioeconomic classes in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness.

[Michael]

Oh, Mighty Isis!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boXtqvcrpKM

[grzegorz]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2t7UYyur_H8

[Michael]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2t7UYyur_H8

I think the brown nerd backed out right before he was gonna find true love, but maybe not ISIS.

[grzegorz]

IS is spreading across Afghanistan.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ghanistan/

A couple of minutes in there is a teacher teaching children to become Jihadists and use guns, some kids look less than five.

[grzegorz]

The Turks shot down Russian aircraft.



http://news.yahoo.com/warplane-crashes- ... 31995.html

[Michael]

Putin says that Russia signed a deal about procedure to avoid air conflict with USA coalition (edit: maybe just with USA), of which Turkey is a part, implying Turkey violated this agreement. He also complains Turkey did not contact Russia after the shooting, but contacted NATO.

https://www.rt.com/news/323262-putin-downing-plane-syria/

[Steve James]

Turkey was wrong, but it's war. The plane was probably in Turkish airspace, but not over Istanbul or a strategic target. Turkey went to NATO because it was an obvious snafu. However, remember that it only takes an order from one over-eager fella for a button to be pushed. To their credit, the Soviets had the least itchiest fingers.