It is crazy! Our now former mate who meets queenie and gets a load of cool gear to drop the barrel bombs with
As Sven says, there are plenty more that refute the picture the good old BBC paints.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
It is crazy! Our now former mate who meets queenie and gets a load of cool gear to drop the barrel bombs with
As Sven says, there are plenty more that refute the picture the good old BBC paints.
Primarily the females allowed out in Raqqah on their own are the religious police,, enforcing strict islamic law and if these are disobeyed stricter punishment is normally carried out.
Im not even mentioning ISIS here I'm talking about terrorist Islamists i.e predominantly in Idlib. which are very much the same as ISIS but just don't get as much newspaper time as they are smaller scale.
Much like
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36835678
And that is coming from the BBC who are absolute drivel.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,016
- Location
- La France
How many people has Assad killed outside of his own country?
Don't remember who bombed it, but pretty sure it was before Russia joining in. Plus Russia doesn't really bomb IS.
Anyone they want to bomb.
Even ISIS which along with the "rebels" they have also bombed. Syria requested help because terrorists were taking over the country. Not rebels.
Russia was mainly bombing pretty much every non IS syrian rebel group, including those who were spending more time fighting IS than Assad.
It's also notable that Russia was making zero effort to avoid civilian casualties, so whilst America makes mistakes when it's bombing the likes of IS and A;#Quada, at least they try to avoid killing civilians in job lots by generally using reasonably accurate munitions (Russia is or was using area bombing and artillery strikes which are great for flattening an area, but pretty much say you don't care about who you kill - a little like Assad's use of barrel bombs pushed out the back of helicopters).
Every single woman walking the streets of raqqah is not religious police
otherwise that would be a lot of religious police!Going back to what we were discussing though: it isn't either/or Assad ruled/terrorist ruled territory. There are plenty of places doing just fine without either tyrannical rule. So why do you seem Pro Assad, when they can have neither and clearly be better off?
Last edited:
You cant go to war with disparate elements who identify "differently" from eachother just because of a name.
They all need to be lumped together and blown to pieces, otherwise Mujahideen/Al Qaeda/IS will just reappear under a new name somewhere else.
They all need to be lumped together and blown to pieces, otherwise Mujahideen/Al Qaeda/IS will just reappear under a new name somewhere else.
Any proof of that? It was noted that since Assad requested Russian assistance in destroying ISIS they recaptured more land in a matter of weeks than since the entirety of the western bombing (who incidentally were bombing both ISIS (who they armed) and Assad).
Russia were also the ones exposing Turkeys complicity with ISIS which is conveniently ignored and plastered over.
Why do ISIS care about who they kill? Did they care about who they killed when they fired chemical shells into Syrian positions?
Every single woman walking the streets of raqqah is not religious police
Going back to what we were discussing though: it isn't either/or Assad ruled/terrorist ruled territory. There are plenty of places doing just fine without either tyrannical rule. So why do you seem Pro Assad, when they can have neither and clearly be better off?
They will more than likely be with their partners.
And please do tell me where is doing fine without government rule?
There are none. All the places not populated by government troops are under hard-line sharia law aka all the areas are under Al-Nusra influence aka the garbage re brand that is Jabhat Fateh Al Sham. A hard-line wahhabi group.
Last edited:
There is no terrorist group in Syria that spends more time fighting ISIS than the SAA. You only need to look at the areas that are in direct contact with each other to know this, the terrorists have next to no land which boarders ISIS territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map
http://syria.liveuamap.com/
It takes 10 seconds of research to realise this.
The so called carpet bombing is on the front lines where i would not expect any civilians to be living. And as for hospital bombing maybe i should move to Syria as they seem to have about 10x the number of hospitals compared to here in the UK. Rebel propaganda that's all.
Sorry but you don't know what you are taking about. There are actually thousands of outlying villages that are not affected. ISIL/terrorist/Assad forces can't occupy them all!
Come on, I thought being an ex pongo you'd understand that.
Name me one, which is not under control or is massively influenced by a hard-line Islamist group or proctected by the SAA Mr ratatouille.
Last edited:
I would suggest that terrorists were in control of Syria before the civil war kicked off. I don't really care whose bombing who, but portraying Russia as the gallant hero riding to the rescue of a honorable ally is disingenuous.
Who said honourable?
I'm merely stating facts. So your argument I that Syria was better/would be better under ISIS than Assad?
There aims and goals are out there for all to see, they clearly explain what they want, why and there methods to do so.
Mainly being liberation of Syria and creating "shariah" state.
Not perfect but they have a lot of popular support in Syria. They are seen as protecting the people.