Russia bombing Isis/ Syria?

[sir baconface]

Are you confusing them with Manchester united ?

The Russkis have greater firepower but less brass neck.

 

[Trolleyhead]

The Arab Spring started it all, without Western interference, in Tunisia. The West's response to that didn't help but it's difficult to say what (if anything) the West should have done.

Please tell me you don't really believe that the "Arab Spring" was without Western interference ?

 

[west didsblue]

Please tell me you don't really believe that the "Arab Spring" was without Western interference ?

As I said, the Arab Spring started in Tunisia. I've not seen or read anything to suggest that Western powers were involved. Once it spread to other countries, of course the West got involved. Some Western leaders naively thought that the overthrow of a few dictators wouldn't have any negative consequences. In retrospect we should have left them to it.

 

[-nibz-]

The west wants Syria fucked off

They arm people to do it

*These cunts now kill anyone*

The west bomb empty places

Russia mentions to the west about joining in knowing they've pulled the west's pants down

The west haven't got a leg to stand on

Russia bombs

Allahu Akbar!!

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

We should just let Russia get on with it. The region would be more stable with Assad and let the Russians destroy ISIS in the process without the anti-western handwringing.

completely agree. Without assad the whole region would fall apart. Other countries with rebel uprising like libya, egypt are now in a complete mess.

 

[RichardDunneOwnGoal]

Fair bit of evidence to say Assad didn't use chemical weapons and it was the rebels that did.

Not true, this is the attack that led to the international crisis:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

That was the 'red line' bluff, when the world watched as footage of children choking on their own mucus and suffocating due to exposure to Sarin went unanswered.

All the evidence pointed to it being a regime crime, UN's report was to deduce whether or not there had been use of chemical weapons, not to find out who was culpable and attribute blame, but from all the evidence gathered, the types of shells used, the trajectory of the rockets and where they landed, the strain of Sarin and its purity, everything pointed to the regime being responsible. This was the conclusion Human Right's Watch and Amnesty International IIRC.

There was no real evidence that it was a false flag or a crime committed by anyone but the regime, but this is of course what was parroted online and on RT. A convenient conspiracy to muddy the water and attribute the blame elsewhere.

The 'red line' was crossed, but the West was divided on the issue, there was no real appetite to uphold the promise and Obama's bluff was called. Russia intervened and offered a compromise, sensing this weakness, and acted as an intermediary and negotiated the disarmament of the regime's chemical weapons. Ensuring Assad dodged the bullet.

But, now their Sarin's been take from them, they're still using chlorine gas, apparently:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/03/syria-war-crime-chlorine-gas-attack/

There has been evidence of opposition militas trying to acquire chemical weapons though, you're right about that. I think it was proven some had the precursors once as well. But in respect of the attack on Ghouta, I think there's little to no doubt that the regime was responsible.

 

[urban genie]

all the pontificating about russian from the US and then the dozy twats bomb an hospital in afganistan

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-staff-killed-in-afghanistan-hospital-bombing

Russia and america should stop fighting a proxy war and work together to defeat and completely wipe ISIL of the planet, Assad can be dealt with later, through peacefull means around a diplomatic table, a cease fire between him and his rivals and then a concentration of force against them cunts in ISIL

 

[mammutly]

Why does IS seem to be the most popular of all the protagonists? Nobody is falling over themselves to die without pay for any of the other armies, but people are flocking to IS to do just that spending their own money in the process.

The West continues to try to impose a Christian value system on the poorer parts of a feudal Islamic world. Democracy? In Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria? Really?

Maybe try it Saudi first, see if it works there.

 

[aguero93:20]

Why does IS seem to be the most popular of all the protagonists?

They're offering more to the (muslim) people of the region. An Islamic caliphate covering the entire region that IS plans to control would be a world superpower.

 

[Ducado]

Why does IS seem to be the most popular of all the protagonists? Nobody is falling over themselves to die without pay for any of the other armies, but people are flocking to IS to do just that spending their own money in the process.

The West continues to try to impose a Christian value system on the poorer parts of a feudal Islamic world. Democracy? In Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria? Really?

Maybe try it Saudi first, see if it works there.

They get promised loads of things to entice them to join