Post: #51

"He is shooting his own citizens"

Why is this a crime per se ? Any country will yell how it's crime to shoot your own citizens until it is forced to to the same in order to hold on to power.

I don't buy that. I wouldn't want my government to shoot me, but if i ran a country, i wouldn’t want a foreign sponsored revolution either, and would pay the price necessary for independence.

There is no greater weakness than running for cover and abdicating "for the sake of peace". Damned be a legitimate leader who will give up the throne for a pat on the back.

Post: #52

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/china-led...-to-syria/

Quote:China-led SCO troops may follow Russia to Syria

Fu Xiaoqiang, director of Institute of Security and Arms Control from CICIR in the Ministry of State Security (CIA equivalent), warned that “terrorism has become an outstanding stumbling block for China’s development…[and] is a threat to national security.”

Post: #53

(09-13-2015 01:02 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/china-led...-to-syria/

Quote:China-led SCO troops may follow Russia to Syria

Fu Xiaoqiang, director of Institute of Security and Arms Control from CICIR in the Ministry of State Security (CIA equivalent), warned that “terrorism has become an outstanding stumbling block for China’s development…[and] is a threat to national security.”

Entire world is gearing up for War.

Obama's incompetence has lead us to WW3. Damn, I knew Obummer would be bad, but this is simply unbelievable. Obama voters need to have their voting rights revoked.

Voting is a privilege, not a right. People need to make positive contributions to their state in order to gain the right to vote.

Post: #54

Well this was unexpected. I did envision a nice fluffy world where the US, China and Russia cooperates to crush Jihad nutters but alas it was not to be.

China and Russia goes from strength to strength without over reaching themselves, backing up their allies and preventing the enemies at the gates from breaching it.

Over to the puppet masters for a new plan.

Post: #55

Quote:I think that a week after Ynet broke the story about a Russian military intervention in Syria we can confidently say that that this was a typical AngloZionist PSYOP aimed at inhibiting the Russian involvement in the Empire’s war against Syria and that it had no basis in reality.

Or did it?

It turns out that there was a small kernel of truth to these stories. No, Russia was not sending “MiG-31s to bomb Daesh”, nor is Russian going to send an SSNB (submarine armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles) to the Syrian coast. All these rumors are utter nonsense. But there are increasing signs that Russia is doing two thing:

1) increasing her diplomatic involvement in the Syrian conflict

2) delivering some unspecified but important military gear to Syria

The second item is the one which is most interesting. Needless to say, as is typical in these cases, the actual contents of the cargo Russia is sending by air and sea is not made public, but we can speculate. First, we know that Syria needs a lot of spare parts and equipment repairs. This war has been going on for 4 years now and the Syrians have made intensive use of their equipment. Second, the Syrians lack some battlefield systems which could greatly help them. Examples of that include counter-battery radars (radars which spot where the enemy’s artillery is shooting from) and electronic warfare systems. Furthermore, Russian sources are saying that Syria needs more armored personnnel carriers.

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/so-what-are-th...-in-syria/

Post: #56

Great analysis of what is at stake when/if the world sees Russia help crush Islamic State in short order as compared to the year + of no results from the US. The US is in a bind.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e42953.htm

Quote:The Fall of the American Empire: Hooray!

By Jack Perry
Vladimir Putin is pulling Assad’s fat from the fire in Syria. At least that’s how it looks to America. He’s sending military assets to Syria and told Assad all he needs to do is just whistle and Russian troops will be on the way. The U.S. government is still wondering what all of this means. The U.S. government doesn’t realize that in the grand scheme of things, it all comes down to knowing culture. Russians play chess. America plays poker. Putin was looking at moves on the board ten years down the road. America was only worried about bluffing its way through the next hand. The United States thought it needed three more queens to make a four-of-a-kind and forgot to guard its own queen on the chess board. Hilariously, it will be Russia to clean up Syria and it’ll probably take two months. Putin walks away with Syria and Iran will be kicking the tires on a neo-Warsaw Pact offer from Russia which will certainly emerge.

The U.S. will sit there looking at its irrelevant cards and then slap its forehead, not realizing this was a chess match, not a poker game. Putin has the U.S. in check over there in Syria and the U.S. did the only thing it could do: Move its king out of check. That is, it had to accept Russia in Syria. John Kerry is sitting there going, “Well, uh, we need a meeting to make sure U.S. aircraft don’t accidently hit Russians. And, uh, why are there Russian fighter aircraft and SAMs there?” Because, dummy, if American aircraft “accidently” hit Russians, they’re going to get a hotfoot.

The Pentagon is scared witless. See, ISIS managed to capture several M1 tanks from the Iraqi army who conveniently bailed out of them and ran, leaving the keys in the ignition. Now, Russia has sent some of their latest T-90s to Syria. I would wager those T-90s are under orders to take out those M1s. At which point, the “invincible” U.S. M1 tank is shown to be highly vulnerable to Russian armor and the entire world gets to see it on You Tube. And any U.S. threats over Ukraine can be laughed off because we haven’t got the armor to back it up. We can’t afford to go into production of a new main battle tank and then make them on a scale the Russians can. Besides, we’re talking the U.S. defense industry. The “new” tank they’d dream up would probably have a design glitch that killed the crew when the gun was fired. Plus, the Pentagon is crapping bricks over the possibility that a Russian SAM or, worse, a Russian fighter could shoot down America’s trillion dollar Wunderwaffen, the F-22s or F-35s. Perhaps in a mistaken identity incident where U.S. aircraft hit Russians and they defended themselves. That’d be as embarrassing as the M1s getting de-turreted by those T-90s. It would show how for all the money spent, none of that aircraft is actually superior in reality against genuine opponents, as opposed to camel caravans. So they want to avoid that at all costs. Hence, the “cooperation” with Russia over Syrian airspace protocol.

Putin certainly knows that, so he’ll use that as an advantage. He can use his aircraft to clobber ISIS with impunity and use them for ground-support operations of Syrian ground forces. Something the U.S. refused to do. Plus, if Putin embeds Russian troops with Syrian forces, the U.S. will be in deep dookey if our aircraft have an “oopsie” with Assad’s people. So far, no American has seen the hand writing on the wall. The message is this: American foreign policy in the Middle East is about to come to an abrupt end. The future there belongs to Russia.

Now, back in history, the U.S. and the Soviets waged a proxy war during the Lebanese Civil War. Our aircraft and SAMs in the hands of Israel against theirs in the hands of Syria. And the U.S.-made toys came out as vastly superior. But that will not happen a second time. Vladimir Putin does his homework. This isn’t Leonid Brezhnev over there. The U.S. has gotten itself into check in Syria very nicely. Anywhere it moves on the board, it’ll get back into check. It can’t risk hitting Russians, it can’t continue trying to topple Assad but it can’t back Assad, and it can’t afford to have its weapons defeated by Russian weapons and the whole world see that. However, the thing is, the U.S. is going to lose its entire foreign policy over there if Russia defeats ISIS, which it will. How so?

For one thing, the U.S. has been involved in operations against ISIS for a year now. Let Russia go in there and get rid of ISIS in a few months, the entire Middle East will see who gets results and who doesn’t. That translates into who has the best military capabilities, better weapons for the money, and more advantageous defense alliances.

Iran could benefit from an alliance with Russia. To wit, access to military aircraft it needs badly. Hey, they pulled off an airstrike against ISIS several months back using F-4 Phantoms they cobbled together. They could use some newer birds. Now that the U.S. has been repeatedly poking the Russian bear, they have no reason to embargo weapon sales to Iran anymore. They sold Iran some missile defense systems recently to break the ice, so to speak. Iran wouldn’t need to bother with America anymore. Especially if they signed a mutual defense pact with Russia. Iraq might just join the party, too.

Oh, the Republicans are going to whine about this soon enough. As soon as they figure out our king on the Middle East chessboard is in some pretty serious doo-doo. Not to mention the Saudi king who’ll sweat ballistic missiles, to say nothing of bullets, if Iran and Syria have Russia backing them. The balance of power over there is about to change and the United States is soon to become Option Two on the Emergency Call phone list for everyone over there except Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a few other Gulf states. The Republicans will blame Obama for dropping the ball. Actually, there never was a ball, guys. It was a chessboard. The pieces were on the board when Emperor Dubya ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003. For now, the Republicans are too busy worrying about Muslims running for president in America and, one supposes, a First Lady wearing a hijab. Putin just opened a mosque in Moscow; said to be Europe’s biggest.

See, chess is a very fascinating game. It’s a game of deep thought, which the American government is unable to perform. Recently, Putin met with al-Sisi over in Egypt. He presented al-Sisi with a gift—an AK-47 rifle in a nice display case. Now, do you see the United States giving a gift like that? No, they probably gave al-Sisi a solar-powered watch or something. Putin opened a mosque in Moscow, showing he’s not afraid of Muslims and they’re welcome there. He knows that to make friends in the Middle East. He can take a stand against radical Muslims without alienating Muslims as a whole by making ignorant remarks about them as have Republican presidential candidates and politicians. By the time the Republicans figure out what just happened, it will be too late.

All I can say is, the sooner the better. American foreign policy wars in the Middle East have been nothing but a Vietnam miniseries. Hilariously enough, they paved the way for Russia to come in and probably have success. The U.S. sat there watching the Russian rook in Ukraine and that might not have been the actual move to even be worried about. That’s the thing about chess. You’ve got to know how to play it. American presidents don’t. So even a Republican elected in 2016 is going to fumble this one. The biggest mistake made was alienating Russia in the first place. That mistake right there was the single biggest mistake that touched off the Fall of the American Empire. We are now witnessing the very beginning of that watershed event. Like I said, you’ve got to know how to play chess. The U.S. government came to play politics. But Vladimir Putin came to play chess. And win.

Post: #57

Hopefully it comes true. The U.S. needs to mind its own business and take care of its own people. Enough foreign adventurism, especially in that region.

Post: #58

The SCO has yet to act collectively in a military endeavor, and entering the Syrian conflict would be unprecented by the SCO. The group isn't exactly a counter-NATO--in fact, they do more on economic cooperation then military cooperation. So when I saw your post I was a bit skeptical.

However, I did some Googling and found several articles confirming that China may *potentially* get involved:

https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/49453...ddle-east/

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/28136/53/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-24...oute-syria

http://www.infowars.com/arab-news-source...-to-syria/

http://www.silkroadreporters.com/2015/09...mic-state/

I'd like to see some more 'credible' sources before seeing how China acts, but this is quite signficant.

Thus far, Russia has already embarrased the US on Syria:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/features/964...-the-west/

But if China comes in its game over. As you may have noticed, China prefers to lay low in conflicts abroad. The fact that they are overtly engaging in military activities shows they're not messing around. Plus, if China gets involved there's no way NATO tries anything in Syria. If it was just Russia, they'd try to get away with something, but with China too it's a no go.

I'd like to see China get involved though. I don't think it will trigger WWIII, rather it will force NATO to back down and allow the Russia-China-Iran axis to blow ISIS back to the Stone Age. It's about dame time too.

Post: #59

(09-24-2015 06:40 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  But if China comes in its game over. As you may have noticed, China prefers to lay low in conflicts abroad. The fact that they are overtly engaging in military activities shows they're not messing around. Plus, if China gets involved there's no way NATO tries anything in Syria. If it was just Russia, they'd try to get away with something, but with China too it's a no go.

I'd like to see China get involved though. I don't think it will trigger WWIII, rather it will force NATO to back down and allow the Russia-China-Iran axis to blow ISIS back to the Stone Age. It's about dame time too.

The Chinese should stay out of it. They are looked pretty favourably in the Arab world and getting involved would do them no favours. There’s also Chinese communities and tourists all over the world, and they would make very easy targets for terrorism. This is not a well known story, but the US wanted India to help control Iraq in 2003 after the invasion. India said no

AFTER THE WAR: OTHER FORCES; India Decides Not to Send Troops to Iraq Now

Quote:NEW DELHI, July 14— In a sharp blow to America's postwar plans in Iraq, India refused today to send peacekeeping troops there.
The Bush administration had hoped that India would send a full army division of 17,000 or more soldiers to serve in the Kurdish region around Mosul, and exerted considerable pressure on Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to do so.

That would have made the Indian contingent second in numbers only to the American in the occupation force and given a more international texture to a group that consists overwhelmingly of American and British troops. It would also have permitted the Pentagon either to send some troops home or to redeploy them to more volatile Sunni Muslim areas in the center of Iraq.

Pentagon officials said that the possible troop contributions by India had not been included in the tally released by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week, when he told Congress that 19 nations had forces supporting the Iraq effort and 19 more had promised troops.

About 19,000 foreign troops already are in Iraq, Pentagon officials said today, a number that is expected to rise to at least 30,000 by October. Discussions continue with almost a dozen other nations, officials said.

The State Department's spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, said today that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had discussed India's decision with the United States ambassador, Robert Blackwill, but declined to say whether the United States was disappointed by the move.

''It is a decision that each country needs to make on its own, depending on its interests and its concerns about the situation in Iraq,'' Mr. Boucher said. ''I think you're aware that we're in discussions with a long list of countries about participation in the stabilization of Iraq, and we welcome those who have made those decisions to participate.''

The Indians' vote not to send troops was taken today by the cabinet's committee on security, after several months of uncertainty and debate.

''Our longer-term national interest, our concern for the people of Iraq, our long-standing ties with the gulf region as a whole, as well as our growing dialogue and strengthened ties with the U.S., have been key elements in this consideration,'' India's foreign minister, Yashwant Sinha, said in a brief statement to journalists after the meeting.

The war in Iraq is extremely unpopular here.

Even as American troops were approaching Baghdad in early April, Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning the war as unjust and calling on the United States to withdraw. Media reports spoke of antiwar demonstrations in hundreds of cities and towns. A poll in the current weekly newsmagazine Outlook showed 69 percent of respondents opposed to sending troops to Iraq; other polls have put the figure as high as 87 percent.

The politics loomed larger with elections coming this fall for five state legislatures, four of them in the Hindi-speaking heartland that is controlled by the opposition Congress Party. These elections are expected to set the tone for national elections in September 2004.
''Public opinion is sharply critical of the war,'' said Praful Bidwai, a prominent journalist. ''It just doesn't make sense for Indian soldiers to be basically used as cannon fodder when the U.S. is getting bogged down and taking casualties.''

The Americans had pressed hard to get India to send the troops. When the deputy prime minister, Lal Krishna Advani, visited Washington this spring, he was greeted by Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary Rumsfeld; the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and even President Bush.

Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal received similar treatment, meeting with Ms. Rice and the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz. The Pentagon dispatched a team here to help plan the Indian deployment.

Some in the Indian government argued for the deployment, contending that a closer relationship with the only superpower would strengthen India's international position -- particularly in relation to rival Pakistan, which has tied itself to Washington in the war on terrorism. Some also suggested that India could get a lucrative slice of postwar reconstruction contracts.

A retired general, Satish Nambier, argued in an essay in Outlook that sending a force to Iraq would, in ''considerations of realpolitik,'' give India a chance to be a major player on the world scene. Still, he hastened to begin the essay by underscoring his ''total opposition to the unilateral'' American operations in Iraq.

Writing in the same magazine, a columnist, Prem Shankar Jha, expressed a more prevailing view, suggesting that the situation in Iraq was changing for the worse.

''To send troops now -- without knowing what they will be called on to do, how long they will have to stay, and when and how their task will be completed -- would be to push many of them to a pointless death,'' he wrote. ''Iraq has not been liberated, but invaded and occupied. The Iraqis know it, resent it and are preparing to resist it. If India sends its troops to Iraq now, it will be as part of an occupation force. Stabilization will mean oppression.''

Some within the ruling Hindu nationalist coalition were strongly opposed, including the defense minister, George Fernandes, and other military and security officials.

Two left-leaning former prime ministers, Indar K. Gujral and V. K. Singh, issued a statement against deployment of Indian forces to Iraq.

''We believe irreparable damage will be done to India's reputation and good name if Indian troops were sent to prop up the occupation of Iraq,'' they said. ''Above all, it will be unwise and unfair to our army to send them on a mission to risk their lives where no national interest is at stake.''

The government statement said that ''careful thought'' had been given to the matter and that India ''remains ready to respond to the urgent needs of the Iraqi people for stability, security, political progress and economic reconstruction,'' adding that India was planning with Jordan to set up a hospital in Najaf as a ''concrete gesture of our support to the Iraqi people.''

The statement added that ''were there to be an explicit U.N. mandate for the purpose, the Government of India could consider the deployment of our troops in Iraq.''

I'm sure similar things would cross the minds of the Chinese government if they thought about getting involved in the Middle East.

Japan is in the shit with ISIS and they never even sent any troops against them:

Japan Islamic State Threat: After ISIS Call For Violence, Tokyo Beefs Up Security At Foreign Offices

Quote:Japan ordered its foreign diplomatic offices to increase security after the Islamic State group directed its supporters to attack Japanese missions in Indonesia, Malaysia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said Friday. Japanese expats abroad were also urged to be conscious about their safety, Suga said.

The new threat to Japan from ISIS was published in the latest edition of Dabiq, the militant group's English-language magazine circulated over the Internet. “We are aware that such an article has been carried (in the magazine). We are cooperating with host countries to guard the overseas government offices,” Suga said.

Japan has been locked in a violent battle with the Islamic State for months after ISIS militants killed two Japanese hostages earlier this year. In its latest threat, ISIS published photos of the victims, 42-year-old Haruna Yukawa and 47-year-old Kenji Goto, alongside its call to attack Japanese diplomatic offices.

The magazine said the group executed the two to “humiliate the arrogance of this Japanese government." ISIS has accused Japan of supporting the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledged $200 million in aid for refugees fleeing territories controlled by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

"What, for example, prevents (a jihadi) from targeting... communities in Dearborn, Michigan, Los Angeles, and New York City? Or targeting Panamanian diplomatic missions in Jakarta, Doha, and Dubai? Or targeting Japanese diplomatic missions in Bosnia, Malaysia, and Indonesia? Or targeting Saudi diplomats in Tirana, Albania, Sarajevo, Bosnia, and Pristina, Kosovo?" the ISIS article read.

Post: #60

Putin’s policy will tend to keep Christians alive. "Ours" tends to get their heads chopped off.

Strange world. It's what happens when you elect a president like Zerobama.

Putin checkmated Zerobama when he was still a sperm. Zerobama has no clout at all on the world stage which is why he’s sucking up to the Pope now.

Post: #61

[/quote]
The Chinese should stay out of it.
[/quote]

I think that view is wrong.

Like Putin, Xi Jinping can either fight extremist terrorists within their countries or abroad. Best to do it abroad and crush them before they can establish a solid base of operations to spread out from with the US pointing them towards the Caucasus area, Central Asia, and the Uyghur area to attack and cause problems for both Russia and China.

If crushed in Syria and Iraq, it will pretty much end America's geopolitical plan of using Islamic terrorists to destabilize and weaken the Middle East on behalf of Israel and then use them to hurt Russia and China.

The US still needs to take out Syria, Lebanon, and Iran before they can really even focus on destabilizing Russia, the 'Stans, and China. So best for Russia and China to either crush the terrorists in Syria/Iraq or draw it out because time is on their side and not the American side. With Russia in Syria, the US is in a bind because it really can't cause another Afghanistan for Russia inside Syria. That's wishful thinking if they think they can repeat that gameplan, like they thought they could repeat the 1980's oil drop to crush the Soviet Union in 2014/15 against Russia. Hurting US shale and Saudi Arabia way more than Russia.

With China joining in, even if it's only a token gesture, it send a clear message to the US that they can't pick off countries one-by-one anymore. The US will see that Russia AND China will no longer sit back and let the US do whatever the fuck it wants anymore. Then the US needs to calculate the costs and consequences when and before it tries some other shady shit.

There's a good chance that the US would escalate things anyway because the US is a dying empire and has nothing productive to offer the world. So it needs war, chaos, and destabilization to stay on top. This is why people are worried about WWIII.

Post: #62

One word OIL - Syria has it - ISIS is stealing it and IRAN, Russia and China will control it so China can buy it.

Russia will crush ISIS they same way it has dealt with all of its radical islamists from Dagestan to UFA to the former FSU Stans - with an iron fist and no mercy fighting ISIS fire with fire and then install a benevolent Muslim strongman to rule his fellow tribesmen with an iron fist and bring stability if not peace back to the region - the is the success model the Kremlin uses to rule all of its Muslim Oblasts and all of its far flung empire from the Atlantic Seas to the Pacific ocean.

USA and EU style emasculated whining demented deranged gay loving Marxist feminist social justice warrior politicians have infected the Obama administration and are incapable of real ruthless fighting with truly masculine and dominant warriors so it is Russia and China to the rescue.

Time for us to rebuild America and reverse the scourge of the gay loving feminazis and the mind poison they spread across this land of the sons and grandsons of the greatest generation.

Post: #63

(09-24-2015 08:28 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  One word OIL - Syria has it - ISIS is stealing it and IRAN, Russia and China will control it so China can buy it.

Russia will crush ISIS they same way it has dealt with all of its radical islamists from Dagestan to UFA to the former FSU Stans - with an iron fist and no mercy fighting ISIS fire with fire and then install a benevolent Muslim strongman to rule his fellow tribesmen with an iron fist and bring stability if not peace back to the region - the is the success model the Kremlin uses to rule all of its Muslim Oblasts and all of its far flung empire from the Atlantic Seas to the Pacific ocean.

Like I said before, this is the only kind of government rule that the middle east understand, a powerful who puts everyone in check (Saddam, Assad, Qaddafi, etc.)

And guess what ? They DID have stability until the States fuck everything up in the name of "freedom".

These are all power plays for natural resources man.

Post: #64

(09-24-2015 11:44 PM)kaotic Wrote:  These are all power plays for natural resources man.

I don't know everything about the situation, but that's the way I see it. I don't think the politicians are dumb, just power hungry

Post: #65

(09-24-2015 08:28 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  One word OIL - Syria has it - ISIS is stealing it and IRAN, Russia and China will control it so China can buy it.

Russia will crush ISIS they same way it has dealt with all of its radical islamists from Dagestan to UFA to the former FSU Stans - with an iron fist and no mercy fighting ISIS fire with fire and then install a benevolent Muslim strongman to rule his fellow tribesmen with an iron fist and bring stability if not peace back to the region - the is the success model the Kremlin uses to rule all of its Muslim Oblasts and all of its far flung empire from the Atlantic Seas to the Pacific ocean.

USA and EU style emasculated whining demented deranged gay loving Marxist feminist social justice warrior politicians have infected the Obama administration and are incapable of real ruthless fighting with truly masculine and dominant warriors so it is Russia and China to the rescue.

Time for us to rebuild America and reverse the scourge of the gay loving feminazis and the mind poison they spread across this land of the sons and grandsons of the greatest generation.

The Russians speak a language the Muslims understand.

Quote:KGB Reportedly Gave Arab Terrorists a Taste of Brutality to Free Diplomats
January 07, 1986|From the Guardian
Email
Share

JERUSALEM — The KGB has adopted novel, brutal and apparently effective methods of dealing with terrorists who attack Soviet interests in the Middle East, an Israeli newspaper reported Monday.

The Jerusalem Post said the Soviet secret police last year secured the release of three kidnaped Soviet diplomats in Beirut by castrating a relative of a radical Lebanese Shia Muslim leader, sending him the severed organs and then shooting the relative in the head.

The incident began when four Soviet diplomats were kidnaped last September by Muslim extremists who demanded that Moscow pressure the Syrian government to stop pro-Syrian militiamen from shelling rival Muslim positions in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli.

The militiamen, the Jerusalem paper said, did not cease their attacks, and the body of one of the Soviet diplomats, Arkady Katkov, was found a few days later in a field in Beirut.


The KGB then apparently kidnaped and killed a relative of an unnamed leader of the Shias' Hezbollah (Party of God) group, a radical, pro-Iranian group that has been suspected of various terrorist activities against Western targets in Lebanon.

Parts of the man's body, the paper said, were then sent to the Hezbollah leader with a warning that he would lose other relatives in a similar fashion if the three remaining Soviet diplomats were not immediately released. They were quickly freed.

G

Post: #66

(09-25-2015 07:11 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(09-24-2015 08:28 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  One word OIL - Syria has it - ISIS is stealing it and IRAN, Russia and China will control it so China can buy it.

Russia will crush ISIS they same way it has dealt with all of its radical islamists from Dagestan to UFA to the former FSU Stans - with an iron fist and no mercy fighting ISIS fire with fire and then install a benevolent Muslim strongman to rule his fellow tribesmen with an iron fist and bring stability if not peace back to the region - the is the success model the Kremlin uses to rule all of its Muslim Oblasts and all of its far flung empire from the Atlantic Seas to the Pacific ocean.

USA and EU style emasculated whining demented deranged gay loving Marxist feminist social justice warrior politicians have infected the Obama administration and are incapable of real ruthless fighting with truly masculine and dominant warriors so it is Russia and China to the rescue.

Time for us to rebuild America and reverse the scourge of the gay loving feminazis and the mind poison they spread across this land of the sons and grandsons of the greatest generation.

The Russians speak a language the Muslims understand.

Quote:KGB Reportedly Gave Arab Terrorists a Taste of Brutality to Free Diplomats
January 07, 1986|From the Guardian
Email
Share

JERUSALEM — The KGB has adopted novel, brutal and apparently effective methods of dealing with terrorists who attack Soviet interests in the Middle East, an Israeli newspaper reported Monday.

The Jerusalem Post said the Soviet secret police last year secured the release of three kidnaped Soviet diplomats in Beirut by castrating a relative of a radical Lebanese Shia Muslim leader, sending him the severed organs and then shooting the relative in the head.

The incident began when four Soviet diplomats were kidnaped last September by Muslim extremists who demanded that Moscow pressure the Syrian government to stop pro-Syrian militiamen from shelling rival Muslim positions in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli.

The militiamen, the Jerusalem paper said, did not cease their attacks, and the body of one of the Soviet diplomats, Arkady Katkov, was found a few days later in a field in Beirut.


The KGB then apparently kidnaped and killed a relative of an unnamed leader of the Shias' Hezbollah (Party of God) group, a radical, pro-Iranian group that has been suspected of various terrorist activities against Western targets in Lebanon.

Parts of the man's body, the paper said, were then sent to the Hezbollah leader with a warning that he would lose other relatives in a similar fashion if the three remaining Soviet diplomats were not immediately released. They were quickly freed.

G

Like I said the stick works better with islamists than the carrot. After Genghis Khan and the other Khans reduced several caliphates into ash and skull piles basically giving the whole region a bloody enema.. the other muslims were more than happy to help out the new regime.

I really do think it's part of their culture to be arrogant and delusional until brought to heel by a greater power. That's why Saddam was so effective in Iraq because he was a brutal dictator and that's what they understand in that region more than the teachings of the Koran.

Post: #67

If true, this is beyond awesome.

Quote:Chinese Aircraft Carrier Reportedly Docks at Tartus, Syria

http://www.infowars.com/chinese-aircraft...tus-syria/

Post: #68

(09-26-2015 02:57 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  If true, this is beyond awesome.

Quote:Chinese Aircraft Carrier Reportedly Docks at Tartus, Syria

http://www.infowars.com/chinese-aircraft...tus-syria/

Post: #69

There also seems to be a new urgency coming out of Europe to end the war (I can't imagine why). I think even the Western elites know that the jig is up with this operation and are facing too much pressure from both their own people and the Russians, and now possibly the Chinese. I hear there's now talks of a deal between Washington and Moscow to keep Assad in power. How humiliating for the former.

I sincerely hope Russia flexes its muscle and ends this thing before the end of the year. I'd also be interested in seeing how the Russian military does in a grand setting.

Post: #70

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-new...settlement

Quote:Australia set to abandon opposition to Assad as part of Syria settlement

Julie Bishop indicates policy shift to strengthen Syrian regime and bolster opposition to Islamic State, as Russian backing for Assad forces rethink.

Australia is set to abandon the Abbott government’s position that the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, must step aside as part of any durable peace settlement.

The major policy shift is aimed at hastening the end of the bloody civil war in Syria, the Australian reported on Saturday. It also reflects the reality of the large-scale deployment of Russian forces and materiel in Syria, including tanks, artillery, advanced fighter and reconnaissance aircraft and more than 2,000 personnel.

The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, told the newspaper there was an emerging consensus that the Assad regime would likely be pivotal in fortifying the Syrian state and preventing further gains by the Islamic State group.

“It is evident there must be a political as well as a military solution to the conflict in Syria,” she said, noting that Australia would play its part in achieving that.

“There is an emerging view in some quarters that the only conceivable option would be a national unity government involving President Assad.”

But Bishop said the specific role and duration of President Assad’s involvement would likely be temporary.

Related: 'We suffer the same as them': the trauma and despair of Syrians detained on Nauru

“The fear that a number of countries have is that if the Assad regime were either removed or collapsed, it would create a vacuum, and one might find that it was filled by an even more diabolical presence than the Assad regime,” she said.

“I don’t for a moment shy away from the comments that we have made in the past about the illegitimacy of the regime.

“President Assad unleashed chemical weapons on his own people, and the death and destruction in Syria is appalling and at unprecedented levels.

“The humanitarian crisis is creating an issue throughout the Middle East and Europe, the likes of which we’ve not seen before.

“The Assad regime has been diabolically bad for Syria, however we’re dealing with reality and the fact is we need a political solution because a military solution will not be the only answer.”

Related: Australia to accept an extra 12,000 Syrian refugees and will join US-led airstrikes

Labor wants to hear an explanation on the plan from the government, security expert advice and the views of American and European allies before deciding its position on the move.

“We are going to be very careful before we go down that path,” the opposition leader Bill Shorten told reporters in Casino in NSW on Saturday. “I do not believe Australia should be picking sides in Syria.”

As far as Shorten could tell, there was “not a great deal to separate” the Assad regime and Islamic State.

“It’s a matter of record that Assad has been a dreadful dictator,” he said.“Labor has no time for the administration or the government of Assad.”

Post: #71

This 180 by Australia may indicate a similar 180 by the EU and the USA. Putin brilliantly placed troops in Syria halting any sort of Western intervention. At least one without any risk. Isn't it ironic that it might be the West's "boogeyman" that can help the West resume to the right track? Though the fuckwittery of our rulers implies otherwise.

Post: #72

There could be an official announcement soon;

Russia, Iraq, Syria & Iran cooperation

And the US & NATO isn't invited. Watch this space for more chess maneuvering, trade deals and humanitarian & security assistance from mother Russia.

The EU and US thought it was a smooth move to place economic restrictions on Russia. Russia is now in the process of securing valuable allies in the Middle East and extremely valuable resources.

I would hazard a guess Russia can point to the EU and US as a xenophobic menace to Islam if questioned on the subject. "look at how many Muslim countries we have assisted and cooperate now with, now look at the US and its allies. YEs Afghanistan was a failure but those were Soviet times".

Crafty bastards

Post: #73

Geopolitically speaking, I'd like to see Russia, Iran, and China consider military/financial support for the Taliban if the US doesn't stop their geopolitical games. They, or their offshoots, will eventually get power back anyway.

They eradicated heroin and cracked down on homo pedophiles (both going strong now with the US in Afghanistan)... and brought a level of backwards stability to Afghanistan. Just let Afghanistan be backwards. As long as they don't support or harbor foreign terrorists (even the US doesn't categorize the Taliban as terrorists) and continue to fight Islamic State in Afghanistan, they'd be no problem for the rest of the world.

Now, the possible problems with this is the Taliban is splintered, they still harbor foreigner terrorists, and they are into opium/heroin trafficking. But hey, nobody is perfect. I'd send out feelers to the Taliban if I were Russia and Iran. I'm imagining a Russian-aligned arc of Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan. Another issue that I'm not sure about is Pakistan. They used to support the Taliban and now they're fighting it, but is there a distinction between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban? Would Pakistan get on board with the Taliban in power, again?

It's something to consider from a Russian perspective.

Post: #74

(09-26-2015 10:11 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  Now, the possible problems with this is the Taliban is splintered, they still harbor foreigner terrorists, and they are into opium/heroin trafficking. But hey, nobody is perfect. I'd send out feelers to the Taliban if I were Russia and Iran. I'm imagining a Russian-aligned arc of Egypt/Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan. Another issue that I'm not sure about is Pakistan. They used to support the Taliban and now they're fighting it, but is there a distinction between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban? Would Pakistan get on board with the Taliban in power, again?

It's something to consider from a Russian perspective.

There is definitely a distinction between the Pakistani Taliban and Afghan Taliban. The former is just a creation of various intelligence agencies, maybe involving the ISI itself, just like ISIS. Whereas the Afghan Taliban was created and trained by religious elements of the Pakistan Army in order to serve as freedom fighters during the Soviet invasion.
And yes, Pakistan would be on board with the Taliban gaining power in Afghanistan because the current Afghan regime is hostile towards Pakistan whereas the Taliban have always been in sync with them.

Post: #75

Just posted 2 hours ago:

It's official: Iraq, Syria, Iran & Russia coordinating against ISIL

Aww sheeiiit

Do you all realize the full implications of what this means?

It means the psychopathic NWO/Bilderberg/Military Industrial Complex overlords who rule the US and, by proxy, the EU- they're not in control.

They are not NEARLY as all-powerful as people thought they were.

I can only imagine all the panic, cursing and finger-pointing going on in their circles right now, ha ha.