Western coalition strikes Syrian army compound, several dead, dozen injured - reports

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: markosity1973

NATO did not kill gadaffi... Is there some other language I can use so you can understand this?

НАТО не убивать gadaffi.

الناتو لم تقتل القذافى

L'OTAN n'a pas tué Kadhafi.

नाटो नहीं मार gadaffi है।

北约没有杀死。首次踏

Stop trolling dude. You have misread and misquoted myself and others all the way through this thread, like you always do.

a reply to: markosity1973

No I have not. What I have done is call some people out who made false claims.

Such as yourself and your false claim that NATO killed gadaffi while your own source says something completely different.

When you get called out and cant support your claim you go for the personal attack while trying to say I misquoted you and others, which I have not.

I believe you have now used all 4 categories in my signature line... ironic.

originally posted by: markosity1973
You know, like in an election or something instead of with a bullet like those NATO animals did to Gadaffi, leaving Libya in a terrible state doing so.

Show me where you were misquoted.

a reply to: Revolution9

I am not allowed to update, something about a 4 hour window

But, of course the West will deny it much like they've denied and fabricated things in the past, not saying Russia and other players in this game do not do this but the West have a reputation for not being very honest

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: Discotech

OP YOU NEED TO UPDATE!

The Syrian Government said 3 deaths.

THE COALITION ARE SAYING THEY DID NOT DO IT.

Syria conflict: Coalition denies air strike on army camp

"The Syrian government has said three of its soldiers have been killed in a US-led coalition air strike, but the coalition has denied responsibility. "

Lol, how right you were Benjamin Franklin. I always double check;

“Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.”

Darn, that is an understatement!

Can you please fix that link, it goes to a blank page. I want to read and see for myself.

Thanks

a reply to: Xcathdra


There you go


www.telegraph.co.uk... l

And as William Hague said it nearly brings to a close NATO missions there

NATO

Telegraph link not working for some reason so another source

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Is this proof Syria working with isil

a reply to: 727Sky

and that`s exactly what is going to happen, all the Nato countries are going to be told to "get the F**K out,we got this"
I believe that`s why Russia brought in all that anti-aircraft hardware and have partnered up with the Kurds and are supplying them now.
There will be no excuses for any Nato planes to be in Syrian air space, no more excuses like " we are just dropping supplys to the "moderate" terrorists".
Making Syria a no fly zone for nato aircraft would be the best to do, too many cooks spoil the soup.
Let Russia and their coalition handle this.If Nato wants to bomb something they can head over to Saudi Arabia and start bombing the people who are financing the terrorists.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: 727Sky

and that`s exactly what is going to happen, all the Nato countries are going to be told to "get the F**K out,we got this"
I believe that`s why Russia brought in all that anti-aircraft hardware and have partnered up with the Kurds and are supplying them now.
There will be no excuses for any Nato planes to be in Syrian air space, no more excuses like " we are just dropping supplys to the "moderate" terrorists".
Making Syria a no fly zone for nato aircraft would be the best to do, too many cooks spoil the soup.
Let Russia and their coalition handle this.If Nato wants to bomb something they can head over to Saudi Arabia and start bombing the people who are financing the terrorists.

Please post proof that Saudi Arabia is financing terrorists.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: boncho

One of the better YT channels trying to keep tabs on the losses and gains happening in Syria is South Front ...

Excellent source!

Thank you for this.

As for the OP I would like to echo other members call for Russia to establish a no-fly zone.

It needs to be done fast.

I agree with those, who say Russia needs to take charge ... sincerely hope the Russians have the balls for it.

However, on this specific issue ... I have to ask one question. And this one is similar to Turkey in Iraq ... how come a small enclave of Syrian soldiers, were capable of holding it there for so long? These ISIS appear very capable of exterminating this camp, in the corridor of the year that has passed ...

Not accusing the Syrian government, but perhaps the British were right ... this particular enclave, is like the Turks ... has an "agreement" with the ISIS in the area. Maybe they wear masks on sundays, and uniforms on saturdays.

Just asking this question ... couldn't this be. We've already seen Turkey with their hand in the cookie jar. Would it really be so far fetched, that a small enclave, totally surrounded by ISIS ... would strike a deal for its own survival and the british caught them with their fingers in the cookie jar?

originally posted by: elementalgrove

It really is always the same old story with good old Xcathdra.

I am sure he feels the same when groupthink sets in and only one complementary view is allowed in a discussion. His original point is correct though unless you want to rewrite history. However, dragging us back to topic.

To correct some comments made by people who should know better.

NATO is not bombing Syria. The French, US and the UK are bombing ISIS in Syria. Qatar, Saudi, Jordan, and the UAE are also bombing ISIS in Syria. Russia is bombing everyone, including civilians if emerging reports are correct. The UN is supportive of airstrikes against ISIS.

The macho people who think Russia is going to turn on its magical (untried) AA missile system and start imposing authority live in the land of Nod, IMHO. Even Putin is not that stupid. It does not take a brainy person to see that Putin is in a complicated position and if he starts to hit moderate opposition groups then he'll start to face losses because they will start shoot back.

If Russia is to play a meaningful part in a solution then Putin will need to start to work towards a solution, which may involve the sacrifice of that particularly nasty dictator, Mr Assad.

originally posted by: paraphi
that particularly nasty dictator, Mr Assad.

Is he really a nasty dictator though ? I was reading an article on Assad's history and rise to power and something said in the comments got me thinking

Actually, in spite of being located in the middle of the most complex geo-political situation on the planet, inheriting a disfunctional economy loaded with corrupt officials, Bashar has led Syria to: having one of the most tolerant (religious and minorities) societies in the Mideast; equal rights for women; vastly improved education; reformed economy that was becomming known as the place to do business in the ME; etc etc. Assad's crimes are this: he won't let the Muslim Bros (with the US allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar) turn secular Syria into an Islamic fundamentalist state; he said "No" to Qatar's deal for a pipeline from the South Pars gas field and "yes" to Iran's deal; he said "no" to the US when we dictated to him the price for admission into the US friendly nations club (you can't have any dealings with Iran); he said "no" when the US told him he couldn't have a political relationship with Hezbollah. Those are his real crimes. More power to him. He's got more courage, more heart, more sense, and more class than all his opposition put together.

From this article

Even the article itself doesn't paint him as the all evil dictator the West are claiming him to be

So what is true ? It seems he had an impossible task to do and he was never even supposed to be in power until his brother died

What are the terrible things he has supposedly done apart from what I can gather, dictating Syrians should attempt to live more modern lives ?

so this is how the denier and chief shows he's on top of terrorism.
get his flunkies to hit the wrong targets or were they the right ones.

originally posted by: paraphi
If Russia is to play a meaningful part in a solution then Putin will need to start to work towards a solution, which may involve the sacrifice of that particularly nasty dictator, Mr Assad.

No, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Russians decide to play "safe" though.

Who do you think you are, deciding "Assad" needs to go? Let us "assume" he has murdered 200 thousand of his people. If you are an american, you've murdered MILLIONS, literally. Who are you to judge, who is to live and who isn't. The only LIBERATION you perform, is the liberation of the life of some 500 thousand children in Iraq. As in Fallujah ... the only justice you bring, is Abu Grahib ... sodomize prisoners. And the only "future" justice you support, is Guantanamo ... incarseration, without trail or justification. The only words, that come through your mouth ... are lies and deceit. Your history, weather an American or Brit, is that of mass genocide. Of indigenous people around the world.

Between the US and Assad ... Assad, is the nice guy. Literally.

ISIS has got a few things right ... the only way to deal with the US/UK is with a bullet. You don't talk to war criminals, and mass murderers, like the president of the US and prime minister of britain. The problem with ISIS, is ... they're targeting the wrong people, and thus ... they are giving the US and UK, the very ammo they need to continue their terror.

The REAL Terrorists, are the US/UK and Germany. Even if the money comes out of Saudi Arabia, I don't think King Saud or Fassal is some "smart" guy behind all the scheme. He's just a dumb knob, playing into the hands of the ruling class. Just like mad King Erdogan, with his delusional dreams of an Ottoman empire.

If Russia backs down, the consequences of that will be enormous ... the US/UK may even win all the battles in the middle east ... but they will lose the war.

It isn't important to win battles, it's important to win the war ... and the US/UK and their coalition can NEVER win the war. NOT EVER. These entities are like Adolf Hitler of the modern world ... the people of the US and large parts of Europe, has so much blood on their hands ... they can NEVER wash it off.

The ONLY solution, is if a third party, takes up the role of the "opposing" force ... the one that "balances the force", so to speak. And even THAT ... may be too late.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: elementalgrove

It really is always the same old story with good old Xcathdra.

I am sure he feels the same when groupthink sets in and only one complementary view is allowed in a discussion. His original point is correct though unless you want to rewrite history. However, dragging us back to topic.

To correct some comments made by people who should know better.

NATO is not bombing Syria. The French, US and the UK are bombing ISIS in Syria. Qatar, Saudi, Jordan, and the UAE are also bombing ISIS in Syria. Russia is bombing everyone, including civilians if emerging reports are correct. The UN is supportive of airstrikes against ISIS.

The macho people who think Russia is going to turn on its magical (untried) AA missile system and start imposing authority live in the land of Nod, IMHO. Even Putin is not that stupid. It does not take a brainy person to see that Putin is in a complicated position and if he starts to hit moderate opposition groups then he'll start to face losses because they will start shoot back.

If Russia is to play a meaningful part in a solution then Putin will need to start to work towards a solution, which may involve the sacrifice of that particularly nasty dictator, Mr Assad.

Thank you for a fine example of group think of the opposing side.

How are you justifying the west actions in Syria? They used the same story to destroy Libya and Iraq, so even if you wished to leave out the obvious agenda at work and take it from a perspective of actually caring about liberating populations from "evil dictators" their methods obviously does not work. These three countries have become a living hell.

The western led coalition- spent over the past year conducting illegal airstrikes against "Daesh" which led to them strengthening the areas they control, taking more land, stealing more oil and miraculously selling it to many countries allied with the west. Ironic thing is that the Syrians I speak with, talk about how those airstrikes actually take out infrastructure, as if they wanted to destroy the country not the invaders.

It has taken Russia 2 months to destroy this network, legally mind you, based up international law that is. Yet somehow, the western MSM have the audacity to claim that Russia is not fighting Daesh. It is absurd that people parrot this nonsense.

The people of Syria are clearly with Assad, even if you want to go with the notion that he is an evil dictator, the alternative is Daesh, if the will of the people actually opposed Assad, there would have been a revolution their long ago. What we have is the west's typical intelligence agencies toppling governments by funding the "opposition" there is not a dictator on the planet that has more blood on their hands than our alphabet agencies.

Not sure if this posted, after the syrian army bombing by US aircrafts... While ago they also bombed a small village with children...link

it was breaking news 1 hour ago.

So the US is saying the Russian's did it and the Russian are only saying that they want to work with the US and coordinate efforts. The lack of response from Russia means they likely accidentally hit the Syrians and do not want the US putting out the evidence. Otherwise Russia would be complaining like usual.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

Please point out where NATO killed gadaffi.

Your source -

At the time of capture, Gaddafi was already wounded with gunshots to his leg and to his back, Bakeer said. He was then dragged 50 yards to a black Jeep and thrown on to the bonnet. Several rebel fighters surrounded him, beating him about the face, before he was shot in the stomach and head.

The ever constant attempts to link / blame NATO is getting old. Its not enough (well maybe for pro russians) to make a claim and be unable to support it. That mentality didn't work for the ussr in the cold war and it wont work for russia / pro russians now.


As for the topic its looking like I was correct about the airstrike.