Post: #1

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rus...is-7626914

Daily Mirror Wrote:A brave Russian special forces soldier who was on a Rambo-style one man mission to hunt for ISIS militants died a "hero" after calling in an airstrike on HIMSELF.

The fearless officer was directing Russian airstrikes at Islamic State targets near the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria when he was surrounded by terrorists.

Not prepared to go down without a fight, he ordered military officials to drop bombs on his location and died in the blast.

A spokesperson for the Russian military said: "An officer of Russian special operations forces was killed near Palmyra while carrying out a special task to direct Russian airstrikes at Islamic State group targets."

"The officer was carrying out a combat task in Palmyra area for a week, identifying crucial IS targets and passing exact coordinates for strikes with Russian planes.

"The officer died as a hero, he drew fire onto himself after being located and surrounded by terrorists."

I don't know why they put scare quotes around the word "hero". This man is a real hero.

Post: #2

(03-26-2016 01:51 AM)fokker Wrote:  I don't know why they put scare quotes around the word "hero". This man is a real hero.

They don't want to overuse the phrase war hero. It would detract from real honorable men like John "Songbird" McCain.

Post: #3

They're probably just quoting the exact word the spokesperson used to describe him.

Pretty ballsy stuff, going out by himself. Not something I'd want to do. I'm sure dying in an [airstrike] was a much nicer way of going out than he would've had if the terrorists caught him.


Edit - reading comprehension fail

Post: #4

Absolutely badass. I wonder if the Russian army could whip me up into shape as well as they did with this guy.

Post: #5

Meanwhile in the States, students are traumatized and need counselling for seeing "Trump 2016" written on the walls/stairs.

Post: #6

Quote: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

If this account is true, this man is a true hero.

Post: #7

I don't want to sound like a sucker for what might be Russian propaganda but if this it true then I hope that man's family are well taken care of for the rest of their lives.

Post: #8

Truly badass. Sounds like he was the Russian version of a combat controller. Probably air dropped in just to paint targets. That's an insanely dangerous mission for just a lone man to do. We'll probably never know exact details but I wonder how the ISIS scumbags bracketed his location.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if certain nation's intel operatives monitoring traffic and supporting the "moderate" ISIS groups got him killed. ISIS are just mostly degenerate primitives worshiping a sand god so I doubt they did it all on their own.

Post: #9

To play devils advocate, how can a foreigner who is killing locals, be surrounded and then killed by terrorists? Just a funny thought...if he was in another country killing people, how are the people trying to stop him from killing anymore locals, terrorists? Not trying to start an argument on the merit of the war, but I refuse to let the press dictate to me what words mean and what they do not. The article is obviously attempting to steer the reader to a specific view, rendering it biased.

Post: #10

(03-26-2016 09:12 AM)sylo Wrote:  To play devils advocate, how can a foreigner who is killing locals, be surrounded and then killed by terrorists? Just a funny thought...if he was in another country killing people, how are the people trying to stop him from killing anymore locals, terrorists?

If someone were to fight against the Khmer Rouge..let's call them North Vietnamese and prevented them from killing more locals would you say it was justified or not?

No offense but this is basic critical thinking.

ISIS may or may not all be locals but it's most definitely a violent death cult ideology that wants to plunge the region and perhaps the entire world into the same backwards ideology.

It's a war of civilization.


Russia and slavic culture certainly has its flaws but they are undoubtedly on the right side of civilization in this era. Europe and most of the anglosphere has shown signs of political and social infiltration of very deviant and self destructive cultural aspects that no longer promote freedom or the good will towards its own citizens.

Also, not all propaganda is negative propaganda. Would you consider WW2 propaganda to be negative if you considered (in hindsight) everything at stake?

Post: #11

My problem was with the use of the words "surrounded by terrorists" when, by definition, the infidel was the one terrorizing. Yes, any government propaganda is worthless. Your argument that the propaganda turned out to be on the "right" side of things makes no difference. It is the same argument as "you are only afriad of the government searching your possesions if you have something to hide, so invite them in your bedroom!" How on earth are you expecting to get by with an 'ends justify the means' argument?

Post: #12

(03-26-2016 09:48 AM)sylo Wrote:  My problem was with the use of the words "surrounded by terrorists" when, by definition, the infidel was the one terrorizing. Yes, any government propaganda is worthless. Your argument that the propaganda turned out to be on the "right" side of things makes no difference. It is the same argument as "you are only afriad of the government searching your possesions if you have something to hide, so invite them in your bedroom!" How on earth are you expecting to get by with an 'ends justify the means' argument?

Different times, different situations, and different eras have different responses to different outcomes. Methodology does not invalidate the ultimate outcome.

Answer my initial question. Would you fault the north vietnamese for intervening in a completely different nation to free them from local tyranny?

It's not all black and white. Foreign policy is tricky for this reason.

It's not about politics or even geopolitics but the moral compass and the impact it has on your well being as a civilization.

Most people living in western (and developed mostly free eastern) society forget that it's still a dominant civilization with pressures from outside forces who want to diminish this way of living.

Post: #13

(03-26-2016 09:48 AM)sylo Wrote:  My problem was with the use of the words "surrounded by terrorists" when, by definition, the infidel was the one terrorizing...

Bollocks. Syria is a country. The Russian is there fighting under the banner of said country with the approval of its governing body.

Are you arguing that ISIS is engaging in some sort of morally legitimate secession?

Post: #14

(03-26-2016 09:48 AM)sylo Wrote:  My problem was with the use of the words "surrounded by terrorists" when, by definition, the infidel was the one terrorizing. Yes, any government propaganda is worthless. Your argument that the propaganda turned out to be on the "right" side of things makes no difference. It is the same argument as "you are only afriad of the government searching your possesions if you have something to hide, so invite them in your bedroom!" How on earth are you expecting to get by with an 'ends justify the means' argument?

Generally a group that takes up arms against the legitimate government will be classed as "terrorists" by said government. Any outside force invited in by the government will have the same authority as any government soldier. This man brought an airstrike in on himself knowing that he would probably not survive, in my eyes he is a hero and wish there were more like him in that fight. What was with calling him an infidel? are you sure he was because Russia does have a lot of muslims in it's army and population in general.

Post: #15

(03-26-2016 09:12 AM)sylo Wrote:  To play devils advocate, how can a foreigner who is killing locals, be surrounded and then killed by terrorists? Just a funny thought...if he was in another country killing people, how are the people trying to stop him from killing anymore locals, terrorists? Not trying to start an argument on the merit of the war, but I refuse to let the press dictate to me what words mean and what they do not. The article is obviously attempting to steer the reader to a specific view, rendering it biased.

Yes you are. You are doing exactly that. And your bias is obvious when you define them as harmless "locals" (aka citizens) instead of terrorists that are the enemy of Russia.

You are making assumptions based on even less knowledge than the press.

As you said, you are "playing" around and being a devil for the sake of stirring up the pot. Who knows why, maybe you just get off on provoking?

Or maybe you feel threatened by the idea there are courageous men in this world who can sacrifice their life for something greater, because it then puts into question what you are doing with your own.

Post: #16

(03-26-2016 09:48 AM)sylo Wrote:  My problem was with the use of the words "surrounded by terrorists" when, by definition, the infidel was the one terrorizing.

Terrorists under quotes implying that they're not, the Russian soldier was an infidel and the one terrorizing...

Post: #17

(03-26-2016 09:48 AM)sylo Wrote:  My problem was with the use of the words "surrounded by terrorists" when, by definition, the infidel was the one terrorizing.

Terrorism has a specific meaning. It means using terror to achieve political aims. Russia hasn't been sneaking into Islamic State and blowing up shopping centers, and saying "submit or I'll blow up more". They've been attacking IS forces, which is just "combat". It's also retaliatory, 3rd-party policing, since IS aggressed against others first.

IS on the other hand, has been pretty openly claiming to do terrorist attacks, where a bunch of guys sneak into a country and murder a bunch of civilians to strike terror into the citizens of that country. That makes them terrorists, in the same way Robespierre's government was comprised of terrorists. That is not the same as IS bombing EU military installations.

So saying he was 'surrounded by terrorists' is technically true, even if 'surrounded by enemy soldiers' would be more accurate.

Post: #18

(03-26-2016 09:12 AM)sylo Wrote:  To play devils advocate, how can a foreigner who is killing locals, be surrounded and then killed by terrorists? Just a funny thought...if he was in another country killing people, how are the people trying to stop him from killing anymore locals, terrorists? Not trying to start an argument on the merit of the war, but I refuse to let the press dictate to me what words mean and what they do not. The article is obviously attempting to steer the reader to a specific view, rendering it biased.

Great majority of ISIS terrorists fighting in Syria are not local.

Post: #19

Theres a good movie that came out recently about a similar situation involving Canadian Snipers. Its called Hyena Road if anyone wants to check it out.

RIP.