West should compensate Russia for fighting terrorists in Syria: Pundit

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well I've already fact checked you and you're incorrect. This is the ISIS territory as per the ISW on your original map.

www.businessinsider.com...

I would have to say you're using an obsolete map to push a rather amusing lie. As per RT:

The Russian Air Force has conducted more than 60 flights and bombed over 50 Islamic State targets in three days, according to Russia’s top armed forces official. He added the strikes have significantly reduced the terrorists’ combat capabilities.
“The airstrikes were being conducted night and day from the Khmeimim airbase and throughout the whole of Syria. In three days we managed to undermine the terrorists’ material-technical base and significantly reduce their combat potential,” Lieutenant General Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Main Operation Directorate of the General Staff of Russia’s armed forces, told reporters on Saturday.

He added that according to Russian intelligence the militants are fleeing the area that was in their control.

“There is panic and defection among them. About 600 mercenaries have left their positions and are trying to reach Europe,” he said.

www.rt.com...

I

Btw, this is just one random guy suggesting that Russia should be compensated. It is a stupid suggestion.

It doesn't mean anything.

The problem, analysts say, is that Russia doesn't seem to be pounding ISIS targets. Instead, they say, Russia appears to be attacking rebels to help crush Syrian dissent and bolster Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"Russian warplanes conducted 20 airstrikes on the rebel-held towns of Rastan and Talbisah north of Homs City, as well as on the towns of Al Latamneh and Kafr Zeita in Hama Province," the institute said.

It added that "local Syrian sources claim the airstrikes exclusively targeted rebel positions."

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: RogueWave

A random guy? A random guy? But...but. He's somebody!
Or was (a state senator).
So...not really random but yeah, it doesn't really mean anything.

a reply to: Phage

Random enough to be called random.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

presstv.com

Your map is July 8th and MINE is obsolete?

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well I've already fact checked you and you're incorrect. This is the ISIS territory as per the IWS on your original map.

Why did you not link the CURRENT map? Maybe because it shows I am right?
www.npr.org...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That was the last one the ISW website, July 8th 2015. Yours is March 4th 2015. Am I missing something? Last I checked July comes after March. Besides, that March map shows ISIS controlled areas that are in the same area Russia bombed on day 1. Nothing like the first map you showed.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Why did you not link the CURRENT map? Maybe because it shows I am right?

The map you just linked is from March 4, 2015.

You are aware that March comes before July?

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Why did you not link the CURRENT map? Maybe because it shows I am right?

The map you just linked is from March 4, 2015.

You are aware that March comes before July?

Oops, this is the one I meant to link. It must not have copied. You can clearly see ISIS is not where these strikes are landing.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That was the last one the ISW website, July 8th 2015. Yours is March 4th 2015. Am I missing something? Last I checked July comes after March. Besides, that March map shows ISIS controlled areas that are in the same area Russia bombed on day 1. Nothing like the first map you showed.

I meant to link one from another site, because your source is old. You claimed my info was outdated even though its not, because your outdated 4 month old map was different.
www.npr.org...

Here is the latest from YOUR source ...

Key Takeaway: Russian airstrikes continue to primarily target Syrian opposition groups in areas far from ISIS's core terrain. These strikes are concentrated in northwestern Syria, particularly in rebel-held areas of Idlib Province and the northern countryside of Hama Province. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed only three airstrikes targeting positions in known ISIS-held terrain between October 1 and October 3. However, local reporting only confirmed two of these strikes. The Russian air campaign in Syria appears to be largely focused on supporting the Syrian regime and its fight against the Syrian opposition, rather than combatting ISIS.

iswresearch.blogspot.com...


So my post is proven right.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So my post is proven right.

The post that said this?

Pretty hard to be attacking ISIS when the strikes are not done in territory ISIS controls.

Obviously your first map does show attacks in IS controlled areas and your source also says so.

Russia never said they would be going after IS exclusively. They said they were there to support Assad.

a reply to: RogueWave

Russia never said they would be going after IS exclusively. They said they were there to support Assad.

Ah. I see. So they said they were going to fight rebels too? Straight from good old reliable RT.

“The military goal of the operation is strictly to provide air support for the [Syrian] government forces in their fight against Islamic State,” he said.

www.rt.com...

That sounds sort of exclusive, doesn't it?

a reply to: Phage

This is what Putin said,

He pointed out that, from Russia’s point of view, there is only one regular army in Syria – the army of President Bashar Assad. “And he is confronted with what some of our international partners interpret as an opposition. In reality, Assad’s army is fighting against terrorist organizations,” Putin said.

www.rt.com...

The qoute you are using is saying that they will strictly use air attacks and no ground troops against IS. It's not intended to say that they will only attack IS.

He also said this,

Ivanov stressed that no ground operations are planned in Syria. Russia would use its warplanes to hit terrorist targets when requested by the Syrian government.

And the article itself says this,

The upper chamber of the Russian parliament has unanimously given a formal consent to President Putin to use the nation’s military in Syria to fight terrorism at a request from the Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Maybe you missed those parts when you were busy cherrypicking that one qoute that seemed to support your viewpoint.

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So my post is proven right.

The post that said this?

Pretty hard to be attacking ISIS when the strikes are not done in territory ISIS controls.

Obviously your first map does show attacks in IS controlled areas and your source also says so.

Russia never said they would be going after IS exclusively. They said they were there to support Assad.

No, my post that said this ....

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: FlySolo

Russia is not even attacking ISIS, I think only 1 of like 22 strikes targeted ISIS.

Which was then proven with a map from HIS source.

Thanks.

a reply to: RogueWave

And my post is to highlight while Putin states the MAIN goal is ISIS, it's a lie. Their goal is to attack anyone who is against Assad, and since the rebels are the bigger threat, they are the focus. ISIS is barely touched. Putin will happily let ISIS grow if it helps Assad somehow.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Russia is not even attacking ISIS, I think only 1 of like 22 strikes targeted ISIS.

So what was proven? Even that qoute contradicts itself. They obviously did attack IS, just not exclusively. As far as I can tell they said they were going to support Assad fighting of terrorists.

And my post is to highlight while Putin states the MAIN goal is ISIS, it's a lie.

Where does he state this?

Putin will happily let ISIS grow if it helps Assad somehow.

Really, Putin will? Why is IS still there in the first place with the US supposedly after them? If anyone has allowed IS to exist it is the US.

Either that or the US is not capable of doing anything about them.

a reply to: RogueWave

Maybe you missed those parts when you were busy cherrypicking that one qoute that seemed to support your viewpoint.

You mean the quote which states the purpose of the mission? This quote?

“The military goal of the operation is strictly to provide air support for the [Syrian] government forces in their fight against Islamic State,” he said.

Of course, they are free to expand that definition, right? Russia seems to be pretty flexible after all.

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Russia is not even attacking ISIS, I think only 1 of like 22 strikes targeted ISIS.

So what was proven? Even that qoute contradicts itself. They obviously did attack IS, just not exclusively. As far as I can tell they said they were going to support Assad fighting of terrorists.

And my post is to highlight while Putin states the MAIN goal is ISIS, it's a lie.

Where does he state this?

Putin will happily let ISIS grow if it helps Assad somehow.

Really, Putin will? Why is IS still there in the first place with the US supposedly after them? If anyone has allowed IS to exist it is the US.

Either that or the US is not capable of doing anything about them.

I sourced everything I said, you are clearly some form of ultra Russian apologist, no point dealing with you. Even flysolo thought having almost every attack against rebels not ISIS sounded totally off.