So we get to start anew here. I likely know less about this conflict as I focused mainly on Ukraine and that has enough conflict. This should then be more pro-US orientated as i doubt I could find much to present a defense for ISIL anyways if I wanted to. But there are questions still regarding ISIL's objectives and funding, ect., I'd like to have answers to. And nothing can be learned if one only views this crisis from one side!
The US led airstrikes at night meant to batter ISIL's base in Syria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLhKHFGBUEg
Even RT news seemed OK with this attack as they only mention that the Syrian government never gave their approval https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBou3kjfN60
RT shows footage later of a village devastated by the shelling. hard not to notice the lack of vehicles, equipment, or anything else to suggest this was anything but a village as villagers young and old are trying to dig bodies out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rlP-KxgM-c
The problem that I continue to have over such as this is that ISIL is another US bred group as al Qaedea once was. There is again so much proof showing that US dollars formed, trained and backed them and now we are to believe that they have just run amuck. Coincidence is a pill that is getting hard to swallow these days and thus one has got to be wanting to ask how many more pills there yet to be swallowed.
Will this event in any way be an attempt to draw Putin into this battle too? Will this event be a means to maybe challenge Russian ships as they might try to relay information to Syria as they did during the last US conflict of 2013as shown here by CNN? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9SwNgDr3Ic
So this is the ground floor...we can start here and watch what occurs and how events progress. But this time maybe we should look harder and challenge actions and try to instead attempt to predict results. Then maybe see if we have discovered a pattern or better reasoning as to why each event had or was to occur. I have no clue if this concept could work. It just seems that it might be fun to guess motives and see where the rabbit hole eventually leads.
I try not to use the overplayed NWO theories but agree that even Obama and other world leaders started that rumor too by casually mentioning it time to time in their speeches. We all have likely heard too the depopulation theories and such, but they are again drifting off into the realm of vague conjecture. But is there common factors at play that tie Syria in with the Ukraine crisis or that of the Gaza Strip? Or are each of these separate entities and their flaring up at the same time is just coincidence?
Your title says US attacks Syria.....
Seems they were joined with Arab allies in the attack against the militants.
Is this the article your are referring too?
Must be, as there was only one attack so far on Syria.
If you read this article, Syria was told many hours ahead it was about to happen.
U.S. and Arab allies launch first strikes on militants in Syria
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKCN0HI03A20140924?i=6&irpc=932
Just to add, in case you don't want to read the whole thing.
Tightly controlled Syrian state TV interviewed an analyst who said the air strikes did not amount to an act of aggression because the government had been notified. "This does not mean we are part of the joint operations room, and we are not part of the alliance. But there is a common enemy," said the analyst, Ali al-Ahmad.
A sense of humor is absolutely essential to survival.
Changed the name already to narrow the focus.... thanks. I admit that I do see it somewhat as an attack on Syria too as otherwise they'd include Syria in this endeavor to save further conflict. I know too that Syria wouldn't give the OK and so they went ahead without it.
What I also fail to understand is why they don't at least use their drones and guided missiles to further convince the public that their targets are just. This shelling from afar is great against an enemy that has near equivalent abilities, but we, the public, never see any technology used from an enemy that justifies such measures. From what we've seen in the past , even Blackhawk helicopters could have dealt with this threat and the public could be better informed to show proofs of their actions. Thu a more honest approach would maybe even then help redeem past US incursions such as claiming WMD's in Iraq and so on.
There are so many other ways to get this job done and remove people's doubts along the way. Yet their approach always seems to be total destruction with no possibility of proving justification by retrieving evidence even after the fact. There is never anything left it seems to either prove or disprove after their heavy shelling.
BTW, has there been any attacks yet on the US? All I've heard mention is there is the potential that ISIL will do something as they have even threatened to. Seems I always want some proof to go with the pudding as too much has already occurred just on false information.
I did find videos showing the exodus of 150,000 refugees as stated in Reuters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTti_xXYwx8
Most at least agree that the US created the instability in these regions by destroying the leaders or dictators that controlled the region. But the problems arise when the masses refuse to accept the imposed leader put in place by the US as they only see this new leader for what he is, a puppet of the US. Would it not be better to maybe put someone in power that was at least more acceptable to the people and though less a puppet, could at least remain in control as he would then have the majorities backing.
This makes one conclude that the US obviously wishes for this region to be in constant turmoil or they'd otherwise see the cost effectiveness of doing things somewhat different.
Kill two birds with one stone
im not visionary but thats my guess
Kill two birds with one stone
im not visionary but thats my guess
But how? Is this just an attempt to get Russia to commit in some way instead of their "holing up" and silent treatment tactics which they have been using for some time now.
The US was treating Syria as an enemy last year and proclaiming they are more a less assisting them this year with UN approval. That detail alone should make all nations leary. The claim that Russia invaded Ukraine when delivering it's first load of humanitarian aid is only a month old and US isn't considered invading when they just drop bombs instead?
There has to be a logical reason that the US would face a further loss of face. Russia gained much of it's present popularity for intervening last year and quelling what appeared to be a volatile situation by getting Syria to turn over all their chemical weapons(seems only the super powers can have these). Russia showed they were more willing to get involved in 2013. This year they haven't done anything since acquiring Crimea through a vote that was seen as legitimate enough by the world that no one could reciprocate at the time. A large scale propaganda event has been in place since then to reverse this aspect.
It seems hard to believe that even more UN allies won't to want to disassociate themselves with the US if this next venture should fail. So I'm betting that this isn't a bluff. The US must be holding some wild card that should swing the balance to their side if they pull this off. Is it just to draw them out of their hole or is there more to this.
Just gotta clean this crystal ball a little more to see a little further.........
I have been reading about this for many days/weeks trying to sort out whos' who and what they are doing (or planning on doing), after all Canada is in this as well. The whys, I already knew. 🙁
I have read til my eyes want to drop out of my head.
Loads of info on reuters.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKCN0HI03A20140923?irpc=932
Just keep hitting the 'Next 10 Headlines' at the bottom of the page to sort thru them all.
There is one report of how US and as well as a lot of other countries that are involved in stopping IS, want to be sure nothing helps Assad, but to get rid of IS. Just can't find it right now... *sigh*..so many reports out.
Later if I can find it... got loads if work to do here.
Putin must be a little ticked, seeing buddy Assad is saying its ok by them for the bombing to be carried out in Syria. So hes been kinda put on 'ignore' by a lot of countries...that doesn't set well with him.
I noticed Putin's last message was a little more toned down. 😉
A sense of humor is absolutely essential to survival.
Lets see what others figure when they read even this first part of Reuters article......
WASHINGTON/BEIRUT (Reuters) - The United States and its Arab allies bombed militant groups in Syria for the first time on Tuesday, killing scores of Islamic State fighters, members of a separate al Qaeda-linked group and opening a new front amid shifting Middle East alliances.
The attacks encountered no objection, and even signs of tacit approval, from President Bashar al-Assad's Syrian government, which said Washington had warned Damascus in advance.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates participated in or supported the strikes against Islamic State targets, U.S. Central Command said. The countries are hostile to Assad but now fear the fighters who emerged from the rebellion they backed in Syria's 3-year-old civil war.
U.S. President Barack Obama said in a televised statement that the breadth of the coalition, including the five Arab states, showed the United States was not alone in its second campaign of air strikes. Since Aug. 8, U.S. air strikes have hit militant targets in Iraq, where Washington supports the government, but had held back from a military engagement in Syria, where it is at odds with Assad.
The White House said some of the strikes in Syria had targeted an al Qaeda affiliate known as the Khorasan group, which it said had been plotting an imminent attack either in the United States or in Europe.
"Once again, it must be clear to anyone who would plot against America and do Americans harm that we will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists who threaten our people," Obama said before leaving the White House for the United Nations.
In New York, Obama planned more talks to enlarge the alliance against extremist groups that emerged and gained power while trying to topple Assad. In a reversal, Turkey indicated Tuesday it would provide military or logistical backing.
"We will give the necessary support to the operation," President Tayyip Erdogan told Turkish broadcaster NTV.
The NATO ally, which is alarmed by Islamic State but also worried about Kurdish fighters and opposed to any action that might help Assad, had refused a military role in the coalition while 46 of its citizens were held by the group in Iraq. Turkey is home to a major U.S. base in Incirlik, which officials said has not been used so far in the strikes in Iraq or Syria.
Warplanes and ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles struck dozens of targets including fighters, training compounds, headquarters and command and control facilities, storage sites, a finance center, trucks and armed vehicles, CENTCOM said.
"I can tell you that last night's strikes were only the beginning," said Rear Admiral John Kirby, a U.S. Defense Department spokesman. He called the overnight attacks "very successful" but gave few other details.
The U.S.-led coalition launched 16 airstrikes on Islamic State across Syria, CENTCOM said in a statement later on Tuesday.
Washington also said U.S. forces had acted alone to launch eight strikes in northeastern Syria on what they called the Khorasan group.
Militants on social media mourned Khorasan's reputed leader, Mohsin al-Fadhli, a former associate of al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. U.S. officials have not confirmed his death.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the war in Syria, said at least 70 Islamic State fighters were killed in strikes that hit at least 50 targets in the provinces of Raqqa, Deir al-Zor and Hasakah.
It said at least 50 fighters and eight civilians were killed in strikes on the Khorasan group, which was thought to operate in Syria with the Nusra Front, another al Qaeda offshoot that opposes Islamic State.
The air attacks fulfill Obama's pledge to strike in Syria against Islamic State, a Sunni Muslim group that has seized swathes of Syria and Iraq, slaughtering prisoners and ordering Shi'ites and non-Muslims to convert or die.
It remains to be seen how effective air strikes can be in Syria, where Washington lacks a strong ally to fight the group on the ground. The militants vowed reprisals, and an allied group is threatening to kill a French hostage captured in Algeria.
In Washington, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI said they had alerted law enforcement agencies to a threat from Syrian-based al Qaeda operatives "nearing the execution phase for an attack in Europe or the homeland."
I find that this comes off like the plot of a badly written book.
- Why would the Syrian President like such actions occurring in his country without his approval? Proclaiming signs of tacit approval is conjecture at best.
- How would they know the Khorasan group had been plotting an imminent attack? Only in movies do you tell others of whom your attacking in advance...
- Militants on social media mourned Khorasan's reputed leader's death. I'd doubt any militants would so obviously paint themselves as being such openly on Facebook or such similar programs. That would be just dumb....
- The militants vowed reprisals... why wouldn't they just do it to show there are reprisals? Again usually vowing to do such is only done in the movies.
And this approach goes on and on. Each comment having little to do with the last as if they were reducing the news to short form and presenting how individuals reacted to some news or other they'd heard. That is too weird when trying to wrap my head around the contents. The author doesn't tie anything together and this approach leaves gaps where one's mind is supposed to then just "fill in the blanks"?
It's the format that makes this a hard read! The comments and conclusions are also hard to believe and so paints the article more as just propaganda in my opinion.
they hit on petrol site first of course 😀
i bet 1$ that Bashar al-Assad will be gone beffor isis
they hit on petrol site first of course 😀
i bet 1$ that Bashar al-Assad will be gone beffor isis
Good point and no, I won't take that bet!
I can't imagine that the US would directly take him out, but I'm betting they stir the pot until maybe someone else does it for them. The US is still hiding behind the charade that they are there to help so far. ISIL is real all right , but someone else is obviously backing them because they seem to have no real agenda so far but to just to make things run amuck and thus keep a few specific countries defenses weak and in constant inner turmoil.
This really smells of CIA tactics and so again, who would benefit from this chaos? Neither Russia or any of the countries infected with ISIL activities have anything to gain and lots to lose. The US has only received threats against them so far and no action, yet they ready and massed to fight in defense of those same enemies they confronted just last year....unlikely.
Check out this old video from back in 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg3rmVBv9bs
This shows how air superiority alone pretty much allows one to rule all the gameplay. Having the ability to simply call in airstrikes beats all the ground forces any of these small nations can muster and the video proves this with 200 kills and no losses.
The only thing standing in a super powers way today would be another super power. The only means of maybe defeating a super power without weakening your own defenses too much is likely by whittling away at the economic structure that supports the superpower. Limit it's resources and trade, and make it's neighbours on all sides enemies to guard against. That is what I suspect the US is presently doing at Russia's doorstep.
RT's Crosstalk debates this issue of attacking ISIL in Syria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaTGqI0XGx8
Fairly basic debate but one point of interest is the mention that the US will soon run out of targets... then what? Will they decide that since their already there, to deal with the Syrian government now. This present strategy has a very short timeframe even as an excuse to intervene on another countries soil (if even this were an acceptable excuse). Many countries already have taken offense to the US's neglect of diplomacy regarding this matter. To prolong the duration of their military presence will be seen as a major thread by many nations.
they hit on petrol site first of course 😀
RT's Crosstalk debates this issue of attacking ISIL in Syria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaTGqI0XGx8
Fairly basic debate but one point of interest is the mention that the US will soon run out of targets... then what? Will they decide that since their already there, to deal with the Syrian government now. This present strategy has a very short timeframe even as an excuse to intervene on another countries soil (if even this were an acceptable excuse). Many countries already have taken offense to the US's neglect of diplomacy regarding this matter. To prolong the duration of their military presence will be seen as a major thread by many nations.
This is what your idea of debate is, where everybody is on the same side. But anyways, what is your position on this matter? You only post stuff from RT but what do you think the international community do about this if anything?
This is what your idea of debate is, where everybody is on the same side. But anyways, what is your position on this matter? You only post stuff from RT but what do you think the international community do about this if anything?
Pretty hard to post anything else these days but RT. Seems that everything else is blocked (at least to my region). Even RT's comments seem to now be very cautionary to qualify. But I know you'll proclaim that everyone now believes the US acts of aggression as just. No, I don't believe all that is said in the above debate either, but I do believe that others should know that there are other viewpoints to hear and consider too, as all that we hear on our daily news is very one sided and even more biased.
Can you not put yourself in anothers place even for a moment to consider what it must be like to have a superpower play with all that you know in life? Imagine that your home and family are threatened overnight because the US decided to invade. But maybe thats a harsh word because they are only bombing it, right? Just as they did to Iraq and Libya.
Back to the point. So the question which they posed in the debate and I then did too was what will the US do when they run out of targets? They now hold the region in their control... a region/route that Russia needs to continue their trade with other nations. If they control this route, Russia will have to suffer further or finally retaliate. In this way, it will appear that Russia is the aggressor when in fact they are being forced to act.
I have shown the paths walked that lead me to this conclusion as a means to allow others to view them themselves and see whether they agree with the approach. It is obvious that you do not agree but also obvious as that you do not debate either. Instead you prefer character attack on myself as a means of swaying others instead. What you should be doing is present other reasons or possibilities that the US committed to this path. That is how a debate works.
The reason many nations fear these actions of the US is that they know this path leads to a clash of super powers and inevitably WW3. Without the protests of many nations against this act, war is eminent. Without the people protesting to their governments not to allow such acts, their government will just remain quiet. Without a voice of protest from you and me, others around us will remain quiet. We consider the majority of the people "sheeple" when your don't even hold out your own sleeve to note that you wear the same clothing as the rest of them do.
Why didn't you start the thread by presenting this events from the very beginning. With the rise of ISIS and all the atrocities they done in the region. I bet that if you were a Yazidi on Mount Sinjar surrounded by crazy jihadists knowing that if they will ever get to you they will kill you and your family, then you would have prayed for US to bomb the SOBs to hell. And all because you didn't accept their truth. And that was just one story. Or maybe you think all that is US propaganda to justify throwing some bombs? I wouldn't be surprised.
Anyways, I don't see US going and bombing people just for their own interests. In Bosnia they did it to stop the massacre of muslims and croats by the Serbian army. In Libia to help Gadaffi's opposition to oust the dictator. Now they are doing it to help the Iraki army take back control of their own country. I asked you a question but I don't think I got an answer. Are you saying that US and the International Community do nothing and let ISIS proclaim their caliphate killing thousands of innocent people based on different religion beliefs and different ethnicity?
I didn't attack you, just your posts. And I showed why, point by point, but you never replied to that.
I would never argue that any kind of terrorist is just. The killing of innocent people at random has no positive solution, even for the terrorists themselves. It only creates anarchy and chaos. Therefore, this must be their intention as there is no other logical answer to this methodology. So then let us ask why.
It is hard to imagine that a bunch of blood thirsty psychopaths could even get along together for very long, as their nature would likely preclude that it is "kill first or be killed" by the fellow next to you. And since these terrorists are not doing this, it shows that even they still have a grip on reality, though it is somewhat twisted. Therefore, since they still have some rationals thoughts floating in the brains, they must then have other motivation to justify these actions.
Someone is obviously paying them to commit these acts or they'd need a job to support these endeavours in their spare time. And since there is so many of them, it's obviously someone with a lot of money and a final objective to justify this expenditure. So the next line of rational thought should be to determine this motive. What could the gain be to pay an army to create chaos in Iraq and Syria?
Now as I mentioned at the start, I am just starting to focus on this conflict as I put alot of time into Ukraine and did not want to confuse the viewers with multiple speculations as that is what much of the daily news was doing to me. I didn't even really know the differences between ISIL and ISIS but found the is article to clarify it http://allenbwest.com/2014/08/obamas-use-isil-reveals-true-allegiance-animus-towards-israel/
The author professes that the US's constant use of ISIL (instead of ISIS) precludes the existence of Israel and even the selection of one versus the other should then be considered a threat by Israel. I don't know, you tell me if that is what you conclude after watching the link.
Now we've also heard that the Arab nations may be the ones sponsoring ISIS....
- Are they also not assisting the US in this latest endevour to stop them?
- Are they too not closely tied to US oil interests and co partner in many US oil endevours?
- Why is it that the two major suspects who would benefit from this conflict created by ISIS are the same two who are confronting them?
- When we already have proof that ISIS was trained by the US just as the Talaban had once been too, why do we so quickly accept that these folks no longer follow US direction, especially when that direction is of benefit to the US?
- Why would the US now come to the aid of an enemy that they failed to subdue the year earlier?
- Why does this action also conveniently threaten Russia's trade with other nations?
These are questions I ask though I'm still learning the implications of this conflict. I'm sure that there are many other questions that should be mentioned but as yet,I just have to realize them first. I do suspect the US has alot to do with many aspects of this as that is what the CIA is for these days. Show other potential suspects who have something to gain and we can then follow them up too.
ISIS used to be al-Qaeda in Iraq ( 2004 )
Everything you wanted to know about the rise of ISIS
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/09/world/isis-explained/
Article says they have seized oil assets, and making up to $ 3 million / day on black market.
So they don't need any " backers " unless, those backers are the ones buying the oil on the black market.
ISIS used to be al-Qaeda in Iraq ( 2004 )
Everything you wanted to know about the rise of ISIS
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/09/world/isis-explained/
Article says they have seized oil assets, and making up to $ 3 million / day on black market.
So they don't need any " backers " unless, those backers are the ones buying the oil on the black market.
Now that was a good article. It shows that ISIS might indeed be self sufficient if it had oil sales contracts. But after reading it, a few questions did arise again.
- if the US knows these leaders, it is only a matter of time before they who die by drone strike
- why haven't the US just bombed these black market oil refineries? $3 million per day profit would require a substantial organization of hundreds of workers
- which nations have a reduction in oil imports to be suspect of purchasing and supporting this black market oil trade?
-the article is produced by CNN, who is well known to spread US propaganda
But this is how collected information can let each of us better determine what is really going on. It is a pro US aspect that may explain the financial backing or may not.
So for now, lets presume this is where they get their money. At least it shows that ISIS has a steady income and then one could expect that this would be a tap worth shutting off.
The next question was what could the gain be to pay an army to create chaos in Iraq and Syria? Your article put me back on this next path where I found this pro-US article which at least criticizes US past decisions http://www.vox.com/2014/8/8/5982501/the-us-is-now-bombing-its-own-military-equipment-in-iraq
The video in the middle shows the expansion of ISIS and how it is managing to gain it's strength in Iraq and Syria.