Agreed. Same thing each and every time. But the right words can sometimes help a few to see things for what they are, if they are not willfully blind. Without mentioning names, I'm very thankful to all who have taken the trouble to do so.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Agreed. Same thing each and every time. But the right words can sometimes help a few to see things for what they are, if they are not willfully blind. Without mentioning names, I'm very thankful to all who have taken the trouble to do so.
Which was part of Georgia... would you also, using the same logic, state that Assad attacked Douma first?
Soldato
You're probably the type who still thinks the iraq invasion was a good idea
If that's the logic, why didn't the US send troops to Northern Ireland during the Troubles?
Soldato
I didn't know south ossetia had jihadists or isis...
You're asking the wrong poster.
Double standards is a worse evil than neutrality.
That is another half-truth (west being against ISIS), no better example of which is the fact that the leader of the White Helmets is banned from entering the US. Meaning they are against ISIS being and acting in certain places, whilst not in others. The history of the Syrian war is replete with numerous examples of the west steering ISIS out of places they don't want them to be (parts of Iraq) and INTO places they want them to be (Syria). Bizarrely, this steering was sometimes publicly carried out by Obama, in televised speeches. Where, instead of stating he would destroy ISIS, he stated which places he didn't want them to go near (American bases, certain Iraqi oil fields etc), or else. Which naturally informed them of where they were supposed to go, if they didn't want US strikes upon them. Since then, the US merely slapped them every once in a while, when they didn't behave how they were supposed to (focus on fighting Assad and give up other agendas). Then, for a long time, months if not years, ISIS oil truck convoys regularly made their way out of Syria with Syrian oil, all under the watchful eye of all the American satellites. The US also basically claimed the presence of ISIS in Syria as the excuse for the US being in Syria. It's all an evil farce, and some people keep falling for it.
You know what the subliminal message is now, under Trump. "We want you to stage more chemical attacks, you've been slacking. We are eager to have an excuse for more missile strikes. They are very handy for me personally too, when there's a fire in Trump tower, my lawyer's office is raided, white powder in envelopes is getting sent to my children, and a porn actress is making allegations that won't go away. Golly gee, it seems that my personal interests can be achieved by just going along with the agendas NATO surprises me with."
Last edited:
I mean you might be right but that is nothing more than wild assumption and seeing what you want to see and ignoring anything that doesn't agree with what you want to see.
I have no doubt that is how the message will be understood by the Jihadis. You cannot teach Assad not to use chemical weapons when there is no proof he has any.
Soldato
What double standards are those? Who has killed ~400,000 people in Syria?
On the one hand you're lambasting the Allies for getting involved, then on the other hand, you're criticising them from defending their own assets in the region. Are you saying they can't defend their own assets? You don't want America to be involved, so that's what they've done, not got involved, they've warned of repercussions if their own assets are threatened, what do you expect them to do?
ah... just saw the Alex Jones rant... if you want an explanation for the above poster's rather weird POV (the UK/US, France are now supporting ISIS, wat??? Turn off main stream media etc..) just keep in mind he watches info wars - Alex Jones has lost his **** and it is quite funny to watch
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
It's worth pointing out that "chemical weapons" in Syria have only killed about 1000+ compared to the 100,000's by conventional weapons.
That number is shared by all groups in Syria, including the rebels, ISIS, FSA and SAA reportly...
Wait, how do you simultaneously have assets in Syria, but not be involved?
Also, although i'm starting care less and less about this as i discuss it, the dude is fighting a rebellion, and they have weapons stolen from the armed forces or sold through the Saudi/Israeli vectors... what did anyone expect to happen?
This war wouldn't have happened had we just allowed Assad to leave peacefully, instead we allowed Saddam and Gaddafi to be hung and shot respectively in full view of the world, such barbarism is not our way, yet there it was. Instead we have all sorts of death and destruction instead. Did anyone really expect Assad to just walk out in front of his protesters to be killed?
You will disagree, that's fine, but it's how it is frankly, ofcourse i don't disregard the fact that the Russians have had assets there for decades (USSR ally, and what not), which might make my point irrelevant.
Last edited:
I see that you're all about ignoring all proof of what the west's relationship with ISIS is. Simple answer to your questions, to keep it short: (1) they can and do defend their own assets, (2) they should not train, fund and supply Jihadis with weapons, which they have, all along.
But sure, make out that it's absolutely fine to chuck a radioactive object, that you made even more radioactive, into your neighbour's house, through an open window. And then claim because of that, that you have the right to take a few rooms of your neighbour's house to deal with the contamination that you helped cause yourself, and bully him when you fancy, until your neighbour leaves the house and a friend of yours takes it over.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
As I expected, the only intelligence that they have and our government has is... social media posts. LOL
Meanwhile, across the pond...
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/14...t-legal-justification-even-congress-cant-see/
Soldato
Wait, how do you simultaneously have assets in Syria, but not be involved?
Also, although i'm starting care less and less about this as i discuss it, the dude is fighting a rebellion, and they have weapons stolen from the armed forces or sold through the Saudi/Israeli vectors... what did anyone expect to happen?
This war wouldn't have happened had we just allowed Assad to leave peacefully, instead we allowed Saddam and Gaddafi to be hung and shot respectively in full view of the world, such barbarism is not our way, yet there it was. Instead we have all sorts of death and destruction instead. Did anyone really expect Assad to just walk out in front of his protesters to be killed?
You will disagree, that's fine, but it's how it is frankly, ofcourse i don't disregard the fact that the Russians have had assets there for decades (USSR ally, and what not), which might make my point irrelevant.
Minimal amount of assets against ISIS, the West went in to help fight that. This idea you can fight a terrorist organisation like ISIS without having some sort of ground assets is completely off base. Should we have just let ISIS do their thing?
ISIS are the west's assets on the ground. You're seeing things inverted, as you've been programmed to.
Soldato
Just allow them all to get on with it then basically?
Where's the proof that we've done all these chemical attacks, if you can provide some, I'll happily change my tune.
You have to be more specific than the West I'm afraid, you're generalising too much. Whose assets are they exactly?