U.S.-led Forces Strike Syrian Troops

[Thanato]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Those 'rebels' we support are Alquaeda, Al Nusra and ISIS , AKA terrorists. Who the US bombed are regular military who happened to be fighting against ISIS who used the air support as cover for attacking. Pretty big difference.

I'd like to see evidence that the Us is directly supporting any of those groups on the ground in Syria. 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Thanato said:

I'd like to see evidence that the Us is directly supporting any of those groups on the ground in Syria. 

So are you in denial or are you hanging on to the US's version of events that the "moderate rebels" we're working with magically stopped being terrorists when we gave them guns? 

U.S. Support for Al Qaeda-Linked Rebels Undermines Syrian Ceasefire

Al nusra launch offensive against assad 

This quote from 2014 is a gem which sums things up pretty well. 

Shortly after those comments, Paul said that America can’t be sure–since supposedly “vetted moderates” are working alongside ISIS–who any of them are. He added that even if some might be loyal now, they could change their allegiances in a heartbeat–saying that some officials estimate that more than half of FSA forces have defected to ISIS. 

The timing and circumstances of yesterday's bombing of Syrian troops, combined with ISIS's quick response (after a US brokered ceasefire allowed them to regroup) is nearing smoking gun level of evidence of US collusion with terrorists. 

The US supports regime change in Syria, so does ISIS, Alquaeda and Al Nusra (or whatever their called now). The United States Government is actively protecting terrorists groups to include ISIS, in their attempt to enact regime change and install a caliphate. It takes a Clintonion level twisting of logic to not see and understand these very basic facts. 

Mccain meeting with Alquaeda/ISIS   

US tried to negotiate cease fire for Al Nusra held territory   

Russia accuses obama of supporting alqaeda in syria

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the opposition. …

In the above quote we see that the very Director of the defense intelligence agency knew and advised the government that "Jihadists were in control of the opposition"  So at a very minimum, even if you want to pull a Clinton and search for the definition of is in an effort to exonerate the government of working with named terrorist groups, we know for a fact that our government knew they were supporting, arming, training , providing air support for and negotiating on behalf of jihadists. 

[bee]

5 hours ago, bee said:

.

I expect the millions of displaced Syrians care - who might one day like to go home - if only the US / Britain etc would stop interfering and supporting violent insurgents - 

Why are 'you' supporting ''''rebels'''  anyway? And who exactly are the rebels you are supporting ..?

.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Why don't you research that instead of making absolutist statements about that which you know not? It's not the rebels who were dropping barrel bombs on civilian population centers.

.

you can't or won't have a go at answering the basic questions - probably because there is no satisfactory answer you could give -

A satisfactory or acceptable answer  does not exist - so I can understand why you have side stepped any attempt at a reply -

.   

[bee]

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

It's no big secret that the US wants Assad gone.  

 

Killing troops  in their home country is a big deal though.  Not sure if an apology is going to work.  It's like the Japanese bombing us at Pearl Harbor and then saying, "Whoops."

The end result will probably be us being forced to walk away from Syria and letting the Russians and Iranians take care of it.  (And our "moderate allies")

.

Re the bolded above --- it's a big secret exactly WHY though --- why does the US want to cause mayhem in the Middle East and destabilize secular governments virtually handing them over to extremists and jihadists --- to the very people who more or less hate them --- 

and is there no level of death and suffering that the civilian populations wont be put through to achieve what ever it is that the want to achieve - 

.

 

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, bee said:

.

Re the bolded above --- it's a big secret exactly WHY though --- why does the US want to cause mayhem in the Middle East and destabilize secular governments virtually handing them over to extremists and jihadists --- to the very people who more or less hate them --- 

and is there no level of death and suffering that the civilian populations wont be put through to achieve what ever it is that the want to achieve - 

.

 

Pipelines perhaps Is the fight over a gas pipeline fuelling the world’s bloodiest conflict? 

 

[bee]

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Pipelines perhaps Is the fight over a gas pipeline fuelling the world’s bloodiest conflict? 

 

.

I suppose that could be ONE of the reasons - a totally unsatisfactory reason for causing so much death and suffering to so many -

I feel there is more to it than that though - because if the country (Syria) is over run with extremist groups and Islamic State they are
hardly likely to assist America in any way in the long term - even Saudi Arabia could turn it's back on the US - like - thank you very much
for helping us to dominate the Middle East with our Wahhabist style of Islam - now - **** off --- 

???

. 

[SHaYap]

 

Quote

 

Revealed: Saudi Arabia owns $117 billion of U.S. debt

 

by Matt Egan   @mattmegan5 May 16, 2016: 4:55 PM ET

 

One of the biggest mysteries in global finance was just revealed: How much U.S. debt Saudi Arabia owns.

Saudi Arabia stockpiled $116.8 billion of U.S. Treasuries as of March, the Treasury Department announced on Monday, ending four decades of keeping the figure secret.

That makes Saudi Arabia the 13th largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, though well behind the $1 trillion-plus owned by China and Japan each. The Saudi figure was first reported by Bloomberg News based on a Freedom of Information Act request.

~

 

• cnn money link

 

~

Where as China and Japan is a body of GOverment Fiancial Structures that owns the debt ... Saudi Arabia is mainly a handful of individuals of the monarchy ...

~

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

 

• cnn money link

 

~

Where as China and Japan is a body of GOverment Fiancial Structures that owns the debt ... Saudi Arabia is mainly a handful of individuals of the monarchy ...

~

Can we have them go collect that lump sum we just gave to Israel as partial repayment? 

[SHaYap]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

Can we have them go collect that lump sum we just gave to Israel as partial repayment? 

That's the shady of the slim shady please stand up isn't it ?

THe Monarchs gots the gonads in the vice grip of US foreign Diplomacy and has to answer to their subjects and fellow Muslims ... and the average Joe Muslims wants the dollars and cents for themselves to ride the global economic meltdowns and slip slide side shows ... every which way you care to look its all buckets of tears and barrels of blood that is poured over the treaties and accords if not the pacts ...

~

[Only_]

7 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Who cares? The Russians have been joyously bombing the crap out of rebels we support. It's good to remind them collateral damage can cut both ways. Our uneasy alliance with them is a marriage of convenience and political expediency, nothing more.  The last thing the Russians want is to fall into the trap of a proxy war hemmed in on three sides as they are by US allies.

We're on the wrong side of this one though. The U.S. is supporting Islamists and terrorists in Syria.

That should be a cause for concern when they are bombing the only moderates, Syrian governement troops.

Edited September 18, 2016 by TruthSeeker_

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

We're on the wrong side of this one though. The U.S. is supporting Islamists and terrorists in Syria.

That should be a cause for concern when they are bombing the only moderates, Syrian governement troops.

What are you, some kind of nut? We've been attacking ISIS since we started. That recent incident was an unfortunate case of friendly fire. The Russians have been attacking freedom fighters since they got there in support of the corrupt Syrian tyrant, Assad.

[+and-then]

18 hours ago, Thanato said:

The fog of war runs deep. Easily accept mistaken identity. I believe the US thought they were ISIS

I also think that's entirely possible.  People who have never been there or even taken the time to study actual battles cannot understand that.  Attacking ground elements, even in areas with known landmarks can be tricky because of the speed that forces can reposition.  However it happened, our guys killed nearly 70 Syrian soldiers that were not attacking THEM.  Our military has acknowledged it but it's going to be almost impossible to convince anyone that it was an accident.   No matter, we need to compensate the families and investigate how it happened and see it doesn't happen again.  There was a time when I would have bet my life that the US wouldn't fund a group like ISIS but I couldn't do that today.  The best I can hope for is that some bright idiot in the CIA/Pentagon chose the wrong group of "rebels" to help and ISIS acquired the weaponry.  I do not believe our officer cadre would remain silent if they KNEW we were flying air cover for ISIS.   If that became public knowledge here there would be a tremendous outcry by all those Americans who are still conscious of something other than their own belly button and the next beer.

[+and-then]

16 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Yes indeed it appears that "rogue-ish" elements of our so-called coalition are attempting to ignite a major flareup in the hopes that the cease-fire can be permanently broken.  Essentially, they are becoming quite desperate and are willing to resort to ever-more naked provocations.  It won't work.

It makes no sense that Kerry would be making nice with Putin and still allowing people we support to go off the reservation.  This Syrian situation is becoming seriously dangerous for the world and an answer needs to be found before it sets everything on fire.  I sometimes wonder who it is, exactly, that is making the real decisions in this situation.  Is it Jarret?  Is it Obama?  

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

we know for a fact that our government knew they were supporting, arming, training , providing air support for and negotiating on behalf of jihadists. 

This war, at it's roots, is a sectarian war. The US and Russia are using it to advance their own national priorities - which obviously differ.  BOTH groups of combatants are "jihadis".  Putin is using the conflict to gain influence and bases on the Mediterranean.  I'm not sure WHAT the US is trying to do and frankly I think Obama doesn't either. The implication that US airforce pilots are intentionally bombing Syrian army positions FOR ISIS, is not a proven theory.  Frankly, it's a ridiculous idea.  I think you may have gone so far down the rabbit hole that you are seeing things you want to see rather than objective reality.

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, and then said:

This war, at it's roots, is a sectarian war. The US and Russia are using it to advance their own national priorities - which obviously differ.  BOTH groups of combatants are "jihadis".  Putin is using the conflict to gain influence and bases on the Mediterranean.  I'm not sure WHAT the US is trying to do and frankly I think Obama doesn't either. The implication that US airforce pilots are intentionally bombing Syrian army positions FOR ISIS, is not a proven theory.  Frankly, it's a ridiculous idea.  I think you may have gone so far down the rabbit hole that you are seeing things you want to see rather than objective reality.

Im not sure why you deem it a ridiculous idea? ISIS and the US are on the same side in this battle, they both want the ousting of Assad and the installment of an islamic caliphate. So why is it ridiculous that the US would use help from and offer help to their ally in the battle against assad? Further how can you say its a ridiculous idea when you yourself admit you have no idea what the US is trying to do there? 

 

Edited September 18, 2016 by Farmer77

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Im not sure why you deem it a ridiculous idea? ISIS and the US are on the same side in this battle, they both want the ousting of Assad and the installment of an islamic caliphate. So why is it ridiculous that the US would use help from and offer help to their ally in the battle against assad? Further how can you say its a ridiculous idea when you yourself admit you have no idea what the US is trying to do there? 

 

Because I do not believe America's military leaders are soulless, blood lusting savages.  To knowingly support and defend people who do what ISIS does a person would be just as guilty and I seem to have more faith in the overall morality of the members of the US military than you.  There is a difference between knowing strategy and understanding the psyche and mores of my fellow citizens under arms.  SOMEONE would go public with images and proof.  It's your privilege to believe what you wish but I will not accept that the US military has become like the Japanese at Nanking.

[Farmer77]

20 minutes ago, and then said:

Because I do not believe America's military leaders are soulless, blood lusting savages.  To knowingly support and defend people who do what ISIS does a person would be just as guilty and I seem to have more faith in the overall morality of the members of the US military than you.  There is a difference between knowing strategy and understanding the psyche and mores of my fellow citizens under arms.  SOMEONE would go public with images and proof.  It's your privilege to believe what you wish but I will not accept that the US military has become like the Japanese at Nanking.

Having spent enough time around folks from alphabet agencies I can assure you they do not have the same moral standards you are espousing for the military members. I fully believe in a case like this the pilots were just doing what they were told and did believe they were bombing ISIS. Unfortunately it has been the alphabet agencies who are providing intelligence and dictating the course of events in the M.E. since we invaded Iraq. 

I too have faith that our line staff in the military are good honorable people (but even then youre only as good as your intelligence) . I just dont believe that for the generals whom Obama installed after the great purge a few years ago and we dont have line staff on the ground in Syria, and barely any anymore in Iraq instead we have spooks, special forces and mercenaries (operators, contractors whatever you wanna call em) . 

Edited September 18, 2016 by Farmer77

[ian hacktorp]

1 hour ago, and then said:

I sometimes wonder who it is, exactly, that is making the real decisions in this situation.  Is it Jarret?  Is it Obama?  

I think we can look to our coalition partners for the source of any plan to violate a major cease-fire agreement.  Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al simply will not let go of their dream to control the territory within Syria's borders.  The US military is over there mostly to do the bidding of those countries (and corporate interests) and not much else.  Yesterday's attack was a deceptive, opportunistic move designed to gain ground, kill Syrian Army soldiers, and create chaos.  Perhaps this was the "Plan B" al Jubeir referred to when he voiced the Saudi displeasure with the cease-fire.  At the end of the day, this event highlights the embarrassing weakness and detachment of the US lame duck Choomer in Chief.

[Thorvir]

17 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

A classic case of "stir the pot and pull the paddle".

Thanks for the failed, so-called "effort".

OMG...play a new ****ing tune for once, and stop this inane blame the US for everything BS.

[Only_]

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

What are you, some kind of nut? We've been attacking ISIS since we started. That recent incident was an unfortunate case of friendly fire. The Russians have been attacking freedom fighters since they got there in support of the corrupt Syrian tyrant, Assad.

''Freedom fighters'' LMAO. What are you, brainwashed by progaganda? We all know that most of the so-called 'moderate rebels' are actually Islamists friendly to al-qaeda. Get real. That's not the kind of fighters I'd personally want to support.

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by TruthSeeker_

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

''Freedom fighters'' LMAO. What are you, brainwashed by progaganda? We all know that most of the so-called 'moderate rebels' are actually Islamists friendly to al-qaeda. Get real. That's not the kind of fighters I'd personally want to support.

 

Oh, no you want to support the Ayatollah's Shia puppet regime of Assad, just like your hero Putin. You must be a regular over on the RT site.

[Only_]

40 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Oh, no you want to support the Ayatollah's Shia puppet regime of Assad, just like your hero Putin. You must be a regular over on the RT site.

I'd take Assad over ISIS or any other Al qaeda-linked rebels, indeed. It's called common sense.

If you want to buy into the PR myth of a 'Free Syrian Army' go for it, but don't expect all of us to buy into your delusion. It's no longer a secret that at least 90% of rebels fighting in Syria are a mishmash of Islamists, Salafists and jihadist types.

Edited September 19, 2016 by TruthSeeker_

[+Hammerclaw]

25 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

I'd take Assad over ISIS or any other Al qaeda-linked rebels, indeed. It's called common sense.

If you want to buy into the PR myth of a 'Free Syrian Army' go for it, but don't expect all of us to buy into your delusion. It's no longer a secret that at least 90% of rebels fighting in Syria are a mishmash of Islamists, Salafists and pro-Sharia types.

Oh really? How did you acquire that information, Captain Canuck? From your Russian friends, no doubt.

[Only_]

24 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Oh really? How did you acquire that information, Captain Canuck? From your Russian friends, no doubt.

[LINK] Obama's 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels Are Nowhere to Be Found

[LINK] Syria, the Times and the Mystery of the “Moderate Rebels”

[LINK] Here’s why there are no “moderate rebels” in Aleppo or anywhere else in Syria

[LINK] Syria’s ‘moderates’ have disappeared... and there are no good guys

 

I'm sorry, but I think the burden of proof is on you for this one.

Edited September 19, 2016 by TruthSeeker_

[+Hammerclaw]

13 hours ago, bee said:

 

.

you can't or won't have a go at answering the basic questions - probably because there is no satisfactory answer you could give -

A satisfactory or acceptable answer  does not exist - so I can understand why you have side stepped any attempt at a reply -

.   

The Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Revolutionaries Front. As to why, I haven't a clue. Why did Tony Blair back Bush? As a Republican, The convoluted logic of Obama Administration foreign policy has ever eluded me. Still it's my country! May she always be in the right, but right or wrong, My COUNTRY!