Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Breaking Up Syria
#61
(03-08-2016, 06:53 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: noterror.eu
Interresting website on ISIS (Daesh). No ideological hubbub. (Most of it we already know but it confirms what we have been saying all that time.)

Interesting articles Fred. I have it bookmarked. S22
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#62
And in typical Arab Islamic tradition,.........Syrian militants burn evacuation buses, activists say, endangering Aleppo deal

Quote:The opposition’s Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Sunday that the al Qaeda affiliated Fatah al-Sham Front burned buses assigned to evacuate people from the rebel-besieged villages of Foua and Kfarya.

Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group fighting alongside Syria’s government, said the buses were burned during fighting between the al-Qaeda-affiliated Fatah al-Sham Front and a rebel group that supported the evacuations.

The Observatory says six buses were burned while Hezbollah’s media outlet put the number at five.

Syrian media said earlier Sunday that buses and ambulances were preparing to enter east Aleppo to resume evacuating rebels and civilians from the opposition’s remaining districts in the city.

Pro-government Al-Ikhbariya TV says Sunday that convoys were also preparing to evacuate over 2,000 wounded and sick residents from the northern Syrian villages of Foua and Kfarya , which are besieged by rebels. It’s not clear what will happen to that operation after the fighting there.

And when one combines Arabs and Russian military operations, one get the following,....naturally.  All destruction is totally random, never any pin-point accuracy, or concern for the innocent.  Nothing but pure destruction.  

And guess who always gets the blame for all this?  Gah

But guess what?  Russian ambassador to UN says Russia will veto UN Security Council resolution to ensure outside monitoring of Aleppo, Syria - Reuters

[Image: stream_img.jpg]

[Image: aleppodestructi.jpg]

[Image: air-attack.jpg]

[Image: _80578755_kobane1.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#63
[Image: aria_c14721920161218120100.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#64
[Image: aria_c14713420161215120100.jpg]

[Image: lb161214c20161214105551.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#65
The americans are the only ones who were not in Alepo, yet someone finds a way to blame them for the destruction...

I say those who are fighting are rsponsible for destruction and death. Not those who sell or even give them weapons. The one who uses the weapon is always the final decision maker.
Reply
#66
I'm surprised how long the gunman was able to wander and tell a speech longer than that of a russian ambassador before being neutralized.
The ambassador didn't have a body guard? No police force anywhere to protect the event?

That's very weird...

[Image: 15622297_10154148564652393_1395414063863...e=58DF0FA1]
Reply
#67
Make America Do The Same Mistakes Again

Reuters Wrote:The U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State has boosted support for its Syrian allies since President Donald Trump took office, supplying armored vehicles for the first second third n-th time.

Either Trump doesn't understand or he doesn't know the history of this region.
Thousands of armored vehicles were left in Iraq when the US forces evacuated. Now they are sending even more of these vehicles.
Even worse they are giving them to the arab factions, not to Kurds.

Please Mr Budget Cuts tell us how much this costs...
And what will be the effect.

In Mossul, the Iraqi army is stranded for almost 4 months as they can't fight against 4000 militants.
So what does he expect in Raqqa?
Reply
#68
(01-31-2017, 03:28 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: Make America Do The Same Mistakes Again

Reuters Wrote:The U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State has boosted support for its Syrian allies since President Donald Trump took office, supplying armored vehicles for the first second third n-th time.

Either Trump doesn't understand or he doesn't know the history of this region.
Thousands of armored vehicles were left in Iraq when the US forces evacuated. Now they are sending even more of these vehicles.
Even worse they are giving them to the arab factions, not to Kurds.

Please Mr Budget Cuts tell us how much this costs...
And what will be the effect.

In Mossul, the Iraqi army is stranded for almost 4 months as they can't fight against 4000 militants.
So what does he expect in Raqqa?

Fred, in truth Rheuters is doing exactly what the Whores have been doing like crazy since even before the election. They are falsifying the facts. Here's what I mean and this is the very first paragraph of the article you linked above.

Quote:The U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State has boosted support for its Syrian allies since President Donald Trump took office, supplying armored vehicles for the first time as they prepare to launch a new phase in their campaign for Raqqa, a spokesman for the militia said on Tuesday.

There is no way in "you know what" that Trump could have possibly had anything to do with this. He's only been in office for a week, for heaven's sake. All of this was under MacDaddy and his 24/7, nonstop, foreign policy Cluster F-ck foreign diplomacy. Even if more equipment arrives tomorrow, or next week, Trump had nothing to do with it.

You are falling for the typical propaganda that the Media Whores are working on. There is no way Trump could have been responsible for this, and even if he had been made privy of the deliveries, he couldn't have donned his magic cape, crossed the Atlantic Ocean in one single bound, and placed himself in front of the deliveries.

Hey, I'm not even a Trump supporter. I just don't like the man. But I'm more than willing to give him a break when he deserves it. This is Obama's fault, as usual. Gah
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#69
You'r right. His time in office was too short to be responsible for this. Eventhought Trump is a super-fast acting president. The vehicles were probably shipped or prepared for shipments months ago.
Reply
#70
(01-31-2017, 06:07 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: You'r right. His time in office was too short to be responsible for this. Eventhought Trump is a super-fast acting president. The vehicles were probably shipped or prepared for shipments months ago.

Yeah, its just like I thought: Trump Team Throws Out Obama’s ISIS Strategy, Cites ‘Huge Gaps’
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#71
On that, I agree. It remains that Trump's policies in the M-E is neither clear nor toroughly thought of.
He wants to eradicate ISIS in three weeks but doesn't want US casualities...

About Iran, I think it was time to ease sanctions. Same about Russia.
Sanctions are strong symbolic messages in the short term and they also have an impact economicaly, albeit small.
But in the long term they become useless. Partialy lifting sanction is like recharging your magazine: You have more ammos later, when it's time to ban again when the other behave.
Lifting sanctions have one major, underrated purpose: to be able to put sanctions again in the future. If you are permanently on 100% sanction mode, you can't do that and Iranians and Russians have good reasons to hate you.
Reply
#72
Sanctions are just what they are. if they are designed to be effective, they are. If not, they are just symbolic. Iran's sanctions before Obama's $150B payment sealed off banking transactions, which was a major problem for them. That was the reason he said he had to give them cash. Of course, there were ways to get them money not in cash, but he evidently wanted them to have folding money which is easier to distribute to terrorist groups and harder to trace.

In this case, the symbolism was the main thing - but it was symbolism which was positive for Iran and negative for us.

Do not think applying sanctions makes haters hate more. It does make them understand their hate has consequences.
Reply
#73
No, it was giving them cash (their cash) for complying with the nuclear agreement. Why would Iran not making nukes if they don't get cash anyway, and if they are under sanctions no matter what they do?

Actualy 90% of terror is sponsored by the Saoudis and we don't freeze their cash nor do we ban them from monetary markets.
Reply
#74
(02-10-2017, 06:09 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: No, it was giving them cash (their cash) for complying with the nuclear agreement. Why would Iran not making nukes if they don't get cash anyway, and if they are under sanctions no matter what they do?

Enough cash can purchase nukes from other states. Pakistan, N. Korea, Russia, or Black Marketers anywhere. The cash is the going M.O. of terrorist funding. Seeing that the money did not stop their nuke program - just make it legal within a decade - the purpose of the money was not positive, at all.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)