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

Either way it doesn't really matter, the world we live in is such that as soon as they are destroyed another group will rise up and take it's place, this has been going on for centuries, it is the modern equivalent of The Lernaean Hydra...

it won't end until all parties stop persecuting each other for their beliefs,Jews kill Muslims, Muslims kill Jews & Christians and historically speaking Christians kill everyone including other Christians, as i said it's been going on for centuries the chances of it ending in my lifetime are very slim indeed..

the fact that Russia has all but dismantled Isis in such a short time all but confirms to me that the coalition was never really trying to stop them, more likely they were doing as little as possible in the hopes that they would all destroy each other..

The world we live in is a terrifying place mostly because we can't trust anything that comes from the media or politicians, until that changes we will be stuck in a state of perpetual destruction

a reply to: Vasa Croe

How so? It was probably calculated from the start. Stay out of the battle because the consensus around the world was for the US to stay out. We did for the most part and just simply let someone else do the work.

Sure "you" did.

Only problem, "you" wanted Assad gone, and now the "someone else", you have doing the work for you, is actually helping Assad.

I guess this is all part of that brilliant plan you just came up with spontaneously in order to make it look like your government's skeme didn't fail miserably, out of some misplaced sense of nationalism.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RogueWave

I think the idea of flat out distrusting people fleeing a bad situation is a bad precedent to set. Are there terrorists among the refugees? Maybe, but that is no reason to just assume that they all are and treat them all accordingly.

Neither I, nor Spy, said, or implied such a thing.

a reply to: DJW001

One thing doesn't exclude the other. I also didn't ask a question that needed clarification.

dbl

a reply to: RogueWave

One thing doesn't exclude the other. I also didn't ask a question that needed clarification.

Where do I ask you to clarify a question in this thread? Also, why are there insinuations designed to foster distrust of refugees suddenly coming from the people who claim to be on the side of the Syrians? Is this an attempt to punish people who are disloyal to the Assad regime? (Because that's what it looks like.)

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Isurrender73

This is not my agenda. My agenda is peaceful resolution, which may not have been possible 200 hundred years ago but is today.

Is it? What peaceful resolution has Assad and Putin offered to grant Freedom to the people of Syria?

This is not about human rights or freedom.

The Syrian president said it might come as a surprise if he mentioned the “crucial juncture” in what happened in Syria, saying it is “something that many people wouldn’t even think of.”

“It was the Iraq war in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq. We were strongly opposed to that invasion, because we knew that things were moving in the direction of dividing societies and creating unrest. And we are Iraq’s neighbors. At that time, we saw that the war would turn Iraq into a sectarian country; into a society divided against itself. To the west of Syria there is another sectarian country – Lebanon. We are in the middle. We knew well that we would be affected. Consequently, the beginning of the Syrian crisis, or what happened in the beginning, was the natural result of that war and the sectarian situation in Iraq, part of which moved to Syria, and it was easy for them to incite some Syrian groups on sectarian grounds.”

He went on to mention that the West “officially” adopted terrorism in Afghanistan in the early 1980s, calling the terrorists“freedom fighters,” and that it didn’t fight Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) when it appeared in Iraq under American sponsorship in 2006.

“All these things together created the conditions for the unrest with Western support and Gulf money, particularly from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and with Turkish logistic support, particularly since President Erdogan belongs intellectually to the Muslim Brotherhood....

“All these factors together brought things to what we have today. Once again, I say that there were mistakes, and mistakes always create gaps and weak points, but they are not sufficient to cause that alone, and they do not justify what happened. And if these gaps and weak points are the cause, why didn’t they lead to revolutions in the Gulf States – particularly in Saudi Arabia which doesn’t know anything about democracy? The answer is self-evident, I believe.”

On ISIS and terrorism

Assad said that Syria is “at war” with terrorism which is supported by foreign powers, and that political forces should unite around what Syrians want – which is security and safety for everyone.

“That means we should first unite against terrorism. That is logical and self-evident,” Assad said.

He stated: “There are forces fighting terrorism now alongside the Syrian state, which had previously fought against the Syrian state....

When asked about making the border area with Turkey an area free of Islamic State, Assad said that notion implies that terrorism is allowed in other regions. “That is unacceptable,” he said.

“Terrorism should be eradicated everywhere; and we have been calling for three decades for an international coalition to fight terrorism.”

Assad added: “If you are worried about [refugees], stop supporting terrorists. That’s what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees.”

He added that Western propaganda is reporting that the refugees are fleeing the Syrian government – which media outlets call a “regime” – even though they are actually fleeing terrorists.

That “propaganda” will only lead to more refugees for the West, the Syrian president said.

Assad accused Western propaganda of oversimplifying the Syrian crisis and reporting that “the whole problem in Syria lies in one individual.” He added the consequence of that rhetoric is for people to say “let that individual go and things will be alright.”

He also said the West will continue to support terrorism as long as he is in power “because the Western principle followed now in Syria and Russia and other countries is changing presidents, changing states, or what they call bringing regimes down. Why? Because they do not accept partners and do not accept independent states.”

On a political solution to the Syrian crisis...

“We have to continue dialogue in order to reach consensus as I said, but if you want to implement anything real, it’s impossible to do anything while you have people being killed, bloodletting hasn’t stopped, people feel insecure. Let’s say we sit together as Syrian political parties or powers and achieve a consensus regarding something in politics, in economy, in education, in health, in everything. How can we implement it if the priority of every single Syrian citizen is to be secure? So, we can achieve consensus, but we cannot implement unless we defeat the terrorism in Syria.
www.mintpressnews.com...

If a nation bows down to US superiority human rights violations are overlooked. Assad would not back down so the US armed rebels and when Assad killed them the propaganda machine spun the rhetoric to make Assad the bad guy.

What Assad is saying makes more since then anything that has come out of the mouth of a US leader in 20 years. I am done believing anything I have been told about Assads human rights violations by western propaganda.

a reply to: DJW001

Where do I ask you to clarify a question in this thread?

You didn't, and I didn't say that. I also didn't ask you for a clarification of the comment you responded to.

Also, why are there insinuations designed to foster distrust of refugees suddenly coming from the people who claim to be on the side of the Syrians? Is this an attempt to punish people who are disloyal to the Assad regime? (Because that's what it looks like.)

What insinuations are that? What people are that? Why are you asking me?

a reply to: RogueWave

What insinuations are that?

You know, that Europeans need to be afraid that "IS fighters," ie; terrorists, are mixed in with the refugees. Here's an example:

To me it seems the vast majority of media in Europe is in fact ignoring the possibility of IS fighters among the refugees.

I would say it is a legitimate concern.

What people are that?

To a tyrant like Assad, you must either be completely loyal and be willing to die for him, or you are a traitor and deserve death or worse. Most of the refugees are fleeing Syria; they are traitors in Assad's eyes. By spreading the suspicion that the refugees are harboring terrorists, these "traitors" will suffer by being refused entry, or will be attacked by fascist groups. Fascists, incidentally, generally seem to support Assad.

Why are you asking me?

Because you're the one doing it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you pay any attention at all to what you are doing here?

originally posted by: FlySolo

Great video.

Freedom fighters.
Free Syrian Army

The tactic of using the term Free is getting old.

You can be guaranteed that any group backed by the US who use the term free have absolutely no concern for freedom, justice or humanity.

a reply to: DJW001

You know, that Europeans need to be afraid that "IS fighters," ie; terrorists, are mixed in with the refugees. Here's an example:

And this is not a legitimate concern?

So you are saying that I am one of these people "designing" "insinuations" to "punish" people disloyal to Assad?

This doesn't make sense on so many levels.

First off, like I said, it is a legitimate concern, looking at it from any logical perspective.

Second, who says that refugees are per definition disloyal to Assad?

Third, how are my words capable of punsihing anyone?

Fourth, as if I am the only European citizen who's country is taking in these refugees to have this concern.

Fifth, I didn't even insinuate that all refugees are terrorists.

You are really grasping at straws here.

originally posted by: DJW001

To a tyrant like Assad, you must either be completely loyal and be willing to die for him, or you are a traitor and deserve death or worse.

To the tyrannical US military complex anyone who doesn't bow down to US international policy is considered a terrorist. "Your either with us or a terrorist." Ask Saddam and Gaddafi how going against the tyrannical US leaders worked out for them.

Pot meet Kettle

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


That is exactly the Trojan Horse the Caliphate wants you (the non Muslim western world) to see...

the ploy is for ISIS to appear to have disbanded and fled for safer environs
and have just a core skeleton crew of martyrs go on about the atrocities expected of "IS" soldiers for the Caliphate

the whole of Europe & America are blundering headlong into an era of Insurrection & Anarchy, but lone gunmen and cells of extremists will bring both the EU & USA to their collective knees,,, and Russia will fare no better as the Eurasians combine together to tear apart Russia also (led by a Chechnya 'Atilla' no less)

just out of interest how come only the daily express reported this

a reply to: DJW001

By spreading the suspicion that the refugees are harboring terrorists, these "traitors" will suffer by being refused entry, or will be attacked by fascist groups. Fascists, incidentally, generally seem to support Assad.

Noone said they are "harboring" terrorists, Grimah. This would indicate that they are doing this on purpose. Noone said that.

Btw, how many of these refugees of whom noone can be sure of who is among them has the US of A taken in?

originally posted by: RogueWave

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RogueWave

I think the idea of flat out distrusting people fleeing a bad situation is a bad precedent to set. Are there terrorists among the refugees? Maybe, but that is no reason to just assume that they all are and treat them all accordingly.

Neither I, nor Spy, said, or implied such a thing.

So what's the problem then? If you don't think that the refugees should be treated as terrorists and believe that almost all of them AREN'T terrorists, then why even bring up the point in the first place?

a reply to: FlySolo

? What will the neo cons say about US? What will everyone say about the US? I think it will be pretty transparent by then.

Oh, pretty much what they say and think now. That Obama is a useless President, who talks a big game, but his "line in the sand" is crap.

So..it's been more than a few hours since I read this yesterday..is it over?..didn't think so.

I dont think they will be defeated as long as various governments continue to send them reinforcements. They most likely have an advanced tunnel network that leads into various countries outside of Syria.

So until thier tunnel network and supply lines are cut they will be mobile moving underground.

The elephant in the room is the various countries supporting the terrorist armies, until they are delt with the war will continue.

So in my opinion this will most likely happen in a few ways:

1. The direct approach, which is Assad goes to war with the various countries which are sponsoring these terrorists.
2. The indirect approach, which is Assad with allies like Iran, Russia, decide to start civil wars with mercs in other countries much like what is happening in Syria, but in countries like Jordan, Qutar, Isreal, and Turkey.