Valid point, in fact they are even doing good over in Yemen by supporting the democratically elected government forces in coalition efforts against Iranian backed extremists.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
You hilariously can't answer the so what of anything you've posted. Default answer? Call me troll (in my own thread), brilliant.
It's a shame they don't really adhere much to laws of armed conflict and it's also pretty difficult to moderate that when it comes to their air strikes. Still, if the Houtis are launching SSMs over at Riyadh, they're well within their right to retaliate.
If you poke a dog, you don’t get to cry about it if it attacks you.
They are only within their right because they joined into a conflict they shouldn’t have. The houthis are within their right to attack their enemy. As apparently it’s gucci that the Saudis are allowed to kill journalists in foreign countries and bomb defenceless school children in buses, there are no rules.
The west is failing rather spectacularly in this holier than thou moral position.
SO WHAT?
You do realise it was militarised Zaidis that first started attacks on Riyadh? This was in response to Sunni ideologies being pushed from SA. The Shia insurgency has since been armed and funded by the Iranians. SA didn't have a choice in being in the conflict if it is them who are being attacked.
Anyhow, by your logic, if the Houthis are green lighted to attack their enemies then surely the Saudis are?
Troll. You've lost any point you could have had. Come in here bleating some holier than thou dross like you've made some revelation and like anyone actually cares. Go back to reading info wars or somewhere else you can pretend anyone cares what you think.
But my question was 'poignant'. SO WHAT?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,450
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...o-confront-iran-threats/ar-AAB2m1j?li=BBnb7Kz
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.3351b0d86ce0
Looks like Iran is next on the map for conquest/destabilisation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.3351b0d86ce0
Looks like Iran is next on the map for conquest/destabilisation
Was wondering how long before someone mentioned things with Iran. Some significant escalation behind the scenes tonight by the looks of it - wonder if it will turn into more active hostilities.
EDIT: One kind of awkward angle is that Iran is moving assets around for strategic, probably defensive, reasons and the US has no choice even if they had no other motives but to treat that as a potential threat even though it is most likely not which then turns the heat up more when the US moves thing around in reaction.
EDIT: One kind of awkward angle is that Iran is moving assets around for strategic, probably defensive, reasons and the US has no choice even if they had no other motives but to treat that as a potential threat even though it is most likely not which then turns the heat up more when the US moves thing around in reaction.
Yeah, they seem set on starving them economically which might as well be a declaration of war. Nuts.
UK & France defending Al Qaeda in Syria yet again even if it means war with Russia after Syria launches an offensive on the jihadi-infested Idlib.
Of course Syrian and Russian weapons seem to invariably hit schools, hospitals and 'first responders' (i.e., the UK-funded & founded White Helmets). Oh look, talk of a chemical weapons attack...not predictable at all.
Good to see our government is on the same side as jihadis and is prepared to go to war with a nuclear-armed country to ensure their safety. Makes you proud to be British.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...g-peace-treaty-un-russia-turkey-a8905011.html
“I am deeply concerned by the escalation in military action by Russia and the Syrian regime in Idlib,” Mr Hunt said on Tuesday. “This has included horrifying reports of attacks on schools, hospitals and first responders.
“The latest offensive – a flagrant violation of the ceasefire agreement that Russia itself agreed with Turkey – is only compounding what was already a dire humanitarian situation in Idlib.”
He threatened a “swift and appropriate response” if Russia or Turkey used illegal chemical weapons.
Here's a US official stating Idlib is the biggest Al Qaeda haven in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpcIDFDDqo0
Of course Syrian and Russian weapons seem to invariably hit schools, hospitals and 'first responders' (i.e., the UK-funded & founded White Helmets). Oh look, talk of a chemical weapons attack...not predictable at all.
Good to see our government is on the same side as jihadis and is prepared to go to war with a nuclear-armed country to ensure their safety. Makes you proud to be British.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...g-peace-treaty-un-russia-turkey-a8905011.html
“I am deeply concerned by the escalation in military action by Russia and the Syrian regime in Idlib,” Mr Hunt said on Tuesday. “This has included horrifying reports of attacks on schools, hospitals and first responders.
“The latest offensive – a flagrant violation of the ceasefire agreement that Russia itself agreed with Turkey – is only compounding what was already a dire humanitarian situation in Idlib.”
He threatened a “swift and appropriate response” if Russia or Turkey used illegal chemical weapons.
Here's a US official stating Idlib is the biggest Al Qaeda haven in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpcIDFDDqo0
Last edited:
Soldato
These should be major political issues that inform which parties people vote on. But they're not. The main parties all seem to share the same foreign policy positions and public debate on these issues never happens.
Meanwhile, I watched a video on YouTube the other day and the site was very eager to inform me "RT is paid for in part or in whole by the Russian government".
Yep, doesn't matter who you vote for the warmongering schizophrenic foreign policy remains the same. Our corporate and state press are just as bad as they let them get away with insanity like that and amplify it.
Saw that on YouTube as well. Of course the BBC isn't described in similar terms, it's a much more benign-sounding 'public broadcast service'. Sad we have to look at foreign news outlets just to point out the obvious problems with our foreign policy. Probably why they want it taken off air.
It's treason to criticise our government's foreign policy which as in league with Al Qaeda in Syria? Care to explain that one? I take it by your comment you are in favour of helping Al Qaeda?
Where is the praise or defence of dictators? That's just the usual smear of anyone anti-war.
I am not interested in debating every bottom feeder who relies on Youtube and crackpot conspiracy theories for his talking points. Your views are not worth discussing, the only positive thing one could get out of reading them would be insight related to the workings of paranoid delusions.
You aren't interested as you have no arguments against what I have said so resort to lazy smears and running away when asked to back up your nonsense allegations.
The person in the YouTube video I posed is Brett H. McGurk, the US envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State. He made those comments saying Idlib was an Al Qaeda safe haven in 2017 and since then it has only gotten worse. That is a fact.
Here's the UN confirming it.
"U.N. Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura said there was a high concentration of foreign fighters in Idlib, including an estimated 10,000 fighters designated by the U.N. as terrorists, who he said belonged to the al-Nusra Front and al Qaeda."
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-m...ia-battle-with-10000-terrorists-idUKKCN1LF15M
The last time there was talk of a Syrian and Russian offensive against them in August 2018 the UK, US and France threatened military action in their favour if there was another convenient chemical weapons attack (as there always are when the jihadis are cornered).
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ips-idlib-assault-regime-rebels-a8513096.html
They have just said the same thing again after Syria has started another offensive.
So you are in favour of protecting Al Qaeda then? And you call me a traitor...
Imagine putting so much effort into regurgitating dross you scoured from the Internet only when to be asked what the "so what" of it all is he can't answer! He was completely stumped and clearly just got upset. Leave him to post, it gives him satisfaction that he thinks people care.
Let's just recap your earlier nonsense discussion with me.
1. I post a link to a declassified US intelligence report clearly showing that the US backs jihadis in Syria and wished to see the creation of what later became ISIS.
2. You reply 'not genuine'.
3. I give a link backing it up.
4. You reply 'not genuine' again.
5. I provide proof even you can't argue with so you drop that and then proceed to infantile 'SO WHAT' questioning asking why I am posting information related to the origins of ISIS in a thread entitled 'ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread'.
Clearly posting info about ISIS in a thread discussing ISIS is inexplicable behaviour. Why did you start this thread again?
That you think saying 'SO WHAT' is some kind of gotcha question speaks volumes about what passes for brains inside your head.
You are a troll who hasn't a clue what he is talking about hence the resort to ad hominem and silly questions as you have nothing worth saying.
Last edited: