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

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So what?,they're targeting other terrorist groups.
Russia and Iran have been asked to help Syria and under their defence treaty they are obliged to.
Syria has lost more than half of it's land mass to militants and they want it back, is this unreasonable?
All combatants occupying Syrian land should be targeted, not just ISIS
Cherry picking terrorists groups isn't going to fly
either follow the legal route, or pay the consequences
this is/would be the case in any other country
It's a hard lesson but necessary.

I am not debating reasonable or not, that's an entirely different topic. I am merely pointing out Russia talks up ISIS when the vast majority of strikes were not against ISIS.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You know the Rebels and ISIS are one and the same right?

Ridiculous opinion to have considering they are fighting each other. It's like saying the North and South were the same group during the US Civil war.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not the first time US played two factions against each other. You need to wake up brah and see reality for what it really is.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

pfft what are you talking about? Listen, instead of arguing absolute nonsense, why not just come clean with what you want to see happen?

There has been no nonsense, you are just mad still you kept claiming I was wrong in the other thread when the source YOU posted said the exact same thing I said, and you hated it.

If you are for the US taking out Assad. You are on the wrong side of history friend. You keep making these wild claims the Russia doesn't want to take out ISIS.

I said no such thing. You are lying and using logical fallacies.

Nothing to back that up. Nothing. Just because the US isn't bombing exactly where you think they should, doesn't make you a war general or anything. You know nothing of the strategies going on there and neither do I. But to just come out and say Russia isn't doing anything about ISIS is extremely short-sighted.

Maybe you should read what I wrote, this part of your post clearly shows you have no clue, that or you do know and keep using your logical fallacies to try to make my argument something else because my argument was already proven correct by YOUR source. Here it is again.

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.

Your source said that.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not the first time US played two factions against each other. You need to wake up brah and see reality for what it really is.

Wake up? You just agreed with me, how do you get everything you say so wrong, you must be clouded by an intense hatred or something.

The person I replied to said they are ONE faction, not two. I said no, they are two factions. You then say I am wrong, they are two factions and I need to wake up. Except you AGREED with me and don't even know it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not mad at all. I'm sitting back on my sofa, laptop on my lap, arm stretched out and typing one finger to you that you don't know what you're talking about. You've been going on and on since Oct 1 that Russia isn't doing anything about ISIS. We're into day 4 or 5 now where CLEARLY ISIS is getting defeated. But you're still yammering about a blog comment from the first day of the campaign. Catch up son, we're almost a week into it. Fact is, your stuck on an opinion that's already a week old and refuse to change your stance because you get little dopamine hits when someone challenges you. Give it up, ISIS has been attacked and your argument is already old news.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not the first time US played two factions against each other. You need to wake up brah and see reality for what it really is.

Wake up? You just agreed with me, how do you get everything you say so wrong, you must be clouded by an intense hatred or something.

The person I replied to said they are ONE faction, not two. I said no, they are two factions. You then say I am wrong, they are two factions and I need to wake up. Except you AGREED with me and don't even know it.

I'm going to be point blank here. Are you a teenager? Because you talk like one. ISIS and the Rebels paycheck are signed by the same person. If it's too complicated to see what we're telling you then perhaps this forum is over your head.

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not the first time US played two factions against each other. You need to wake up brah and see reality for what it really is.

Wake up? You just agreed with me, how do you get everything you say so wrong, you must be clouded by an intense hatred or something.

The person I replied to said they are ONE faction, not two. I said no, they are two factions. You then say I am wrong, they are two factions and I need to wake up. Except you AGREED with me and don't even know it.

I'm going to be point blank here. Are you a teenager? Because you talk like one. ISIS and the Rebels paycheck are signed by the same person. If it's too complicated to see what we're telling you then perhaps this forum is over your head.

Hilarious, the person who starts attacks talking about embarrassing me is the one to bring in age.

So now you change your story after I point out you agreed with me.

Not the first time US played two factions against each other.

ISIS and the Rebels paycheck are signed by the same person.

So are they one and the same faction, or two different factions? Make up your mind. Seriously, I think I need to stop dealing with you as it's becoming pathetic.

You claim an October 1st map is obsolete and the July 8th map is better information.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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 ISW on your original map.

You claim they are two factions, then when I point out that was my claim you go back and say they are the same.

You are all over the place and can't make a reply without a logical fallacy. Your flip flopping in order to support Russia is really a thing of beauty, you refuse to let any fact get in your way. I leave yo to your ignorance.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So now you change your story after I point out you agreed with me.

I haven't changed any story. Both armies are paid to fight the same guy. Which ever army does it first wins but to the States who's paying the armies, doesn't care. It's like coke being the same company as pepsi. It doesn't take a brain to understand that.

You claim an October 1st map is obsolete and the July 8th map is better information

No, there you go taking my statements out of context again. YOUR map from BBC Oct 1 only showed a tiny spot of GREY where you said is ISIS. My earlier map of JULY 8 shows much heavier ISIS control and not the little grey spots. All of the redish area is ISIS. That was my point. Fack!! i'm going to get myself post banned again if I keep up with you. Get with the game son. You have no argument and speaking of logical fallacy, you're struggling to debate me but keep taking sh!t out of context to fill your imaginary GAPS.

originally posted by: FlySolo

I haven't changed any story. Both armies are paid to fight the same guy. Which ever army does it first wins but to the States who's paying the armies, doesn't care. It's like coke being the same company as pepsi. It doesn't take a brain to understand that.

I agree, it's just like that. Because Coke and Pepsi are not the same company. They are two different companies that compete against each other.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

sigh* it was an analogy. Don't start arguing with me about coke and pepsi now.

eta:

I agree, it's just like that.

hold on. What? Are you sure you know what you're agreeing to?

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

sigh* it was an analogy. Don't start arguing with me about coke and pepsi now.

Yes, and a good one. Two different companies that compete, two separate factions, like Rebels and ISIS. Perfect analogy and illustrates my position perfectly.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

sigh* it was an analogy. Don't start arguing with me about coke and pepsi now.

Yes, and a good one. Two different companies that compete, two separate factions, like Rebels and ISIS. Perfect analogy and illustrates my position perfectly.

No it doesn't illustrate your point. It illustrates my point. The entire premise of my analogy was to show two factions under the umbrella of one company.

a reply to: tony9802

It could be destroyed, but it won't be....if destruction was the objective, why did the US supply weapons ?

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

sigh* it was an analogy. Don't start arguing with me about coke and pepsi now.

Yes, and a good one. Two different companies that compete, two separate factions, like Rebels and ISIS. Perfect analogy and illustrates my position perfectly.

No it doesn't illustrate your point. It illustrates my point. The entire premise of my analogy was to show two factions under the umbrella of one company.

Coke and Pepsi are not under the umbrella of one company.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

yes, I know that. My point was IF they were the same company, it would describe the similarities of the different factions in the ME. Never mind, no more analogies. America is sponsoring the war in Syria pretending to be two different factions. Can't get anymore straight up than that.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Black_Fox

I hope it is true but it will be disastrous for the USA if true.
Russia comes in and sorts out ISIS in three days? I really doubt it but If true.

I wouldn't find it very surprising. Just goes to show what can be accomplished when they actually put some real effort into it and stop working against Assad. The Western world claims to be fighting ISIS, but behind the scenes they are using ISIS and similar groups as puppets for their agendas in the ME. The Western world cares more about toppling the Assad regime than it cares about destroying some rag tag terrorist groups in some far off land. Russia is a super power just like the US, of course it would be easy for them to annihilate ISIS when they really put their mind to it. If anything the US is now fighting a proxy war against Russia by covertly supporting rebel groups tightly linked to ISIS.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: FlySolo
You're right and wrong. It's about protecting the legitimate government. ISIS is just one of those enemies

That makes me fully right, not right and wrong. They talk up ISIS when their real goal is the elimination of any threat to Assad. They will attack rebels and talk about hitting ISIS.

ISIS is one of the many enemies, and is not a real risk to Assad at this moment in time, the rebels are, so that is where Russia will concentrate strikes, because their goal is not ISIS, ISIS is merely a small part of their actual goal, keep Assad in power.

Russias goal is to help there ally end terrorism in Syria. The Rebels and ISIS are both terrorist groups.

They are both trying to overthrow Assad by a military coup. They both have been supported by US and our Middle East allies. There is no such thing as moderate terrorists. No one is fighting for freedom, everyone is fighting for power and control.

If I was Putin and Russia I would be doing exactly the same thing. Anyone who has a gun pointed towards Assad is a terrorist at this time.

From all the reports Russia is attacking both the Rebels who have been admittedly supported by the US, which is an international war crime. And ISIS the nightmare created by a failed ME policy in Libya and Iraq, which were also international war crimes.

There are no good guys, but Syria is better off with Assad in power at the moment. We can work on the diplomatic stuff after Syria is stable.

At this point I am not even sure I believe Assad was ever anything more than a dictator doing what he had to do to keep control, and the same goes for Saddam and Gaddafi.

I don't trust any of the BS the US government has said about the ME and it's leaders.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Reasonable post. I would disagree that they are all terrorists though, there are Syrians who simply want their freedom, that does not make them a terrorist (and does not mean they can't also be one).

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Isurrender73

Reasonable post. I would disagree that they are all terrorists though, there are Syrians who simply want their freedom, that does not make them a terrorist (and does not mean they can't also be one).

Definition of Terrorism - The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Yep they are all terrorist by definition.

Ghandi and Mandela were not terrorist. Rebels with guns trying to overthrow a government are terrorist by definition. We don't get to change the meaning of words. There are diplomatic ways to solve these issues.

Unfortunately the USAs version of diplomacy has been the support of Terrorism, but somehow if there backed by the US they are freedom fighters. And it has finally backfired.