ISIS left so weakened by airstrikes and desertion it could be destroyed in just HOURS

a reply to: DJW001

Okay, now you're just pissing me off.

Good.

Here's a sample of coming attractions:

What a ridiculous argument. You have no proof of current civilian casualties so you need to focus on situations from the past, while you continue to speak of Russians killing civilians in Syria.

Pathetic.

I am not even going to post the American killings from the past.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
ISIS using mosques as shelter as they know Russia will never hit them there – Defense Ministry

And in order to better understand where the Syrian casualties are reported as of the western MSM :

Lol, it's all coming apart at the seams, it seems.

a reply to: RogueWave

The Russians are claiming that Daesh is using mosques to justify bombing mosques. Let's return to this is a few days when there is actually something discuss.

a reply to: DJW001

Let's return to this is a few days when there is actually something discuss.

Maybe you shouldn't have been running your mouth if you are aware that there is nothing to discuss.

The Russians are claiming that Daesh is using mosques to justify bombing mosques.

Such BS.

First, why would they want to hit mosques if IS is not even there? Because they are evil?

Second, why would they say this,

Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) forces are sheltering in mosques and trying to hide their vehicles around them, Antonov told reporters Tuesday, citing video evidence. “Knowing our careful, respectful attitude to mosques they understand that we would never - under any circumstances – carry out airstrikes against civilian facilities,” he said, following a meeting with Defense press attachés from several countries, with a US representative among them. Antonov emphasized that Russia uses data from space and air surveillance - not only information gathered from the Syrian Army. “We check the data a hundred times. Our decisions are well balanced, deliberate and calculated. We carry out airstrikes only if we are 100 percent sure that we are hitting the right target,” Antonov said.

if their intention is to start bombing mosques? Would it not be better to say nothing, beforehand?

www.rt.com...

a reply to: BelowBottomSecret

Sorry, but I gave you a star for your avatar...

Bubbles...love it.

a reply to: RogueWave

Such BS.

First, why would they want to hit mosques if IS is not even there? Because they are evil?

No, because it would take too much effort to avoid hitting mosques. That's one of the things that slowed the coalition down, remember?

a reply to: DJW001

No, because it would take too much effort to avoid hitting mosques. That's one of the things that slowed the coalition down, remember?

Apparently they are putting a lot of effort into getting it right, and still kick ass.

originally posted by: DJW001
No, because it would take too much effort to avoid hitting mosques. That's one of the things that slowed the coalition down, remember?

How much effort did the US coalition avoid when hitting an Afghan hospital ?
That doesn't seem to slow down the coalition imo.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: BelowBottomSecret

Sorry, but I gave you a star for your avatar...

Bubbles...love it.

That was on page one. Is this the first time you entered the thread? What made you click it now?

Anyways, welcome.

originally posted by: DJW001
No, because it would take too much effort to avoid hitting mosques. That's one of the things that slowed the coalition down, remember?

So, neutral medical facilities should setup in mosques?
2nd.

I'm sure the last terror expert told us it would take at least 70 years to fight ISIS.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: DJW001
No, because it would take too much effort to avoid hitting mosques. That's one of the things that slowed the coalition down, remember?

How much effort did the US coalition avoid when hitting an Afghan hospital ?
That doesn't seem to slow down the coalition imo.

Ding ding ding! For ten extra points, work in a reference to 9/11.

a reply to: RogueWave

Maybe you shouldn't have been running your mouth if you are aware that there is nothing to discuss.

The very first post was a prediction that "ISIL" will fall in a few hours. That was days ago. Is it wrong to continue speculating on how future events will unfold?

a reply to: DJW001

Retrospectively, it may be interesting to see how long the Russians will take to do the job.
And to wonder why the US failed for so long.

Do you fear the Russian intervention or just the fact that it might be successful ?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Do you fear the Russian intervention or just the fact that it might be successful ?

Neither: I just think it is a foolish move on Putin's part. Once again, Russia will be perceived as being anti-Muslim. Just you wait and see.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: DJW001
No, because it would take too much effort to avoid hitting mosques. That's one of the things that slowed the coalition down, remember?

So, neutral medical facilities should setup in mosques?
2nd.

They should be properly marked, wherever they are. A certain recent event was due to incompetence, not design.

a reply to: DJW001

So far ...

In Assad’s heartland, villagers see Russians as saviours

originally posted by: DJW001
They should be properly marked, wherever they are. A certain recent event was due to incompetence, not design.

A single strike hitting a marked, advertised, and sanctioned neutral hospital is incompetence.

Sustained strikes, for over an hour, guided by SF on the ground...is something else.

a reply to: DJW001

The very first post was a prediction that "ISIL" will fall in a few hours. That was days ago. Is it wrong to continue speculating on how future events will unfold?

It is if you are basically making accusations without anything to back it up.

But I get what you are trying to say, you mean that one day soon Russia is going make the same idiot mistake that the US made last week by bombing a known hospital. A 30 min sustained mistake.

Let's see how credible any further claims are. They have to be better than that one guy that is teh "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights", from his living room in his house in England.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: DJW001

So far ...

In Assad’s heartland, villagers see Russians as saviours

www.theguardian.com...

The Russians are the heroes of the hour. People greet the few foreigners who visit with a cheerful Russian “Dobry den!” and shout out their enthusiasm for President Putin, who they believe will deliver them from terrorism. Many think the west is supporting Isis, which they call by its Arabic acronym, Daesh.

“We can see that the Russians are determined to defeat Daesh and the terrorists, whereas by contrast the Americans and their coalition don’t seem to have the same determination,” said Safwan al-Saada, the governor of Tartus. “In the last year they said they were fighting terrorism, but Daesh grew stronger, not weaker, so we can say their coalition is not serious.”