Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Eldorado

22 killed in US air strikes in Syria

48 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Myles
3 minutes ago, Setton said:

 

All this backpedaling, you're going to meet yourselves coming back...

it's funny how much it is eating on you.   You are so devoted to trying to prove yourself correct that you are missing what is right in front of you.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Hyperionxvii

Remember back when the 'liberals' were anti-war? Yeah, that's been just as long as it has been since they've been liberals. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperionxvii

Bomb em all, bring the survivors here as refugees. Feature, not bug. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
2 hours ago, Myles said:

it's funny how much it is eating on you.   You are so devoted to trying to prove yourself correct that you are missing what is right in front of you.

You mean two partisan hypocrites who can't even admit it when faced with black and white proof?

Yeah, no, I've clocked them thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
On 2/26/2021 at 4:47 PM, Tatetopa said:

 How many people cheered when Trump took out Gen. Soleimani and some of his traveling companions? He was responsible for the deaths of a number of Americans.    Now we have Iranian backed non-government troops in Syria engaging American positions. No action required?  From a military and political standpoint there might be some differences but both the current and past president were advised to take action.

Regardless of my feelings about Trump or Biden, I think they had to respond in some way.  For many, one of Trumps highest achievements was to avoid starting another war, but he had to do something.  I think Biden found himself in the same boat.

I think the message was more to the ME than Russia or China.  We want to talk to Iran, but not at any price.  For Saudi  Arabia and Israel, we are shuffling our priorities and personnel, but not abandoning them.  But though they are our allies, we won't roll over for them either, America First after all.  For Syria, the message might be to get Iranian backed terrorists out of their country or deal with consequences should they arise.

Will it work?  Other presidents have had their plans jerked up short by the realities of the world.

On the good news side, you can still buy wonderful T-shirts from the  OMB website.  We will just assume instead of Orange Man Bad it stands for Old Man Bad.

For me I think the difference is, and I admit of course this is speculation, but I highly doubt this time it ends with a retaliatory strike. I doubt this ends till Syria falls. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
On 2/28/2021 at 8:22 AM, and then said:

Well this part alone shows that article to be utter b******s.

Quote

Iranian authorities might bluster—they certainly did after Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, or the deaths of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps missile chief Hassan Moghadam on November 13, 2011, Qods Force chief Qassem Soleimani on January 3, 2020, or nuclear chief Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November 27, 2020—but hindsight shows such targeted strike do deter subsequent Iranian actions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
4 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

For me I think the difference is, and I admit of course this is speculation, but I highly doubt this time it ends with a retaliatory strike. I doubt this ends till Syria falls. 

Based on the past history of American administrations both Republican and Democratic since the Korean War, odds might be with you.   I do think the strike was against Iranian backed forces rather than Syrian state soldiers.

The same mental conflicts arise with Biden as they did with Trump.  Do we want to deal with Iran in a forceful way or withdraw from the region?  Do we want to make peace, threaten them, or stay silent until they cross the line and Israel delivers the big one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hugh Mungus
7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

For me I think the difference is, and I admit of course this is speculation, but I highly doubt this time it ends with a retaliatory strike. I doubt this ends till Syria falls. 

And we don't have to look too far back to see the consequences of bombing Syria.

Remember when Obama took office there was no such thing as ISIS (or as Obama called them ISIL). 8 years later ISIS controlled parts of Iraq, Syria & Libya (not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power in Egypt after the Arab Spring). 

So, keep bombing Assad and lets see how many more terrorists we can fund through back channels to fight Assad as well. The US is playing the same old song, and we all know how it will end.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

If there was any question about the priorities of our current administrations what did we get first?

  • Stimulus checks? 
  • Higher federal minimum wage? 
  • Bombing foreign nations?

Never listen to what they say, watch what they do, because they will say absolutely anything.  This is all very predictable if you pay attention to history.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
50 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

And we don't have to look too far back to see the consequences of bombing Syria.

Remember when Obama took office there was no such thing as ISIS (or as Obama called them ISIL). 

Um, yes there was. It was founded in 1999. It's changed name at least half a dozen times but it's the same group.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Setton said:

Um, yes there was. It was founded in 1999. It's changed name at least half a dozen times but it's the same group.

Yeah but since they were just a sub-division of Al-Qaeda who's goal was the removal of western influence from Muslim countries and not of a single caliphate then you can't honestly say they were ISIL at the time, not that I think that really matters, they were not created by any US administration regardless.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Hawken

Remember when Trump was thought to be the Warmonger when he was campaigning?:hmm:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
8 hours ago, OverSword said:

Yeah but since they were just a sub-division of Al-Qaeda who's goal was the removal of western influence from Muslim countries and not of a single caliphate then you can't honestly say they were ISIL at the time, not that I think that really matters, they were not created by any US administration regardless.

Actually they were not part of AQ when first founded.

And AQ's goal is also the establishment of a caliphate. Just on a longer timescale than ISIS.

And they changed their name to Islamic State in Iraq in 2006.

Point being, their existence was neither a direct nor indirect consequence of the Obama administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
7 hours ago, Setton said:

Actually they were not part of AQ when first founded.

And AQ's goal is also the establishment of a caliphate. Just on a longer timescale than ISIS.

And they changed their name to Islamic State in Iraq in 2006.

Point being, their existence was neither a direct nor indirect consequence of the Obama administration.

ISIL originated in 1999 as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and participated in the Iraqi insurgency following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces at the behest of the United States.
 
Al-Qaeda ideologues envision the removal of all foreign influences in Muslim countries. Al-Qaeda members believe that a Christian–Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam. As Salafist jihadists, members of al-Qaeda believe that the killing of non-combatants is religiously sanctioned.
Founders: Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Ayman al-Za...
Member: Ayman al-Zawahiri
 
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
5 minutes ago, OverSword said:
ISIL originated in 1999 as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and participated in the Iraqi insurgency following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces at the behest of the United States.
 
Al-Qaeda ideologues envision the removal of all foreign influences in Muslim countries. Al-Qaeda members believe that a Christian–Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam. As Salafist jihadists, members of al-Qaeda believe that the killing of non-combatants is religiously sanctioned.
Founders: Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Ayman al-Za...
Member: Ayman al-Zawahiri
 
 

And?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
13 minutes ago, Setton said:

And?

And those links uphold what I said as accurate and what you said as........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And those links uphold what I said as accurate and what you said as........

....more accurate.

You need to read beyond the first paragraph if you're going to use Wikipedia:

Quote

In October 2004, when al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ISIL

Quote

Abdel Bari Atwan summarizes this strategy as comprising five stages to rid the Ummah from all forms of oppression:

 

Provoke the United States and the West into invading a Muslim country by staging a massive attack or string of attacks on US soil that results in massive civilian casualties.

Incite local resistance to occupying forces.

Expand the conflict to neighboring countries and engage the US and its allies in a long war of attrition.

Convert al-Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against the US and countries allied with the US until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the July 7, 2005 London bombings.

The US economy will finally collapse by the year 2020, under the strain of multiple engagements in numerous places. This will lead to a collapse in the worldwide economic system, and lead to global political instability. This will lead to a global jihad led by al-Qaeda, and a Wahhabi Caliphate will then be installed across the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Setton said:

....more accurate.

You need to read beyond the first paragraph if you're going to use Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ISIL

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

And that was the plan for the fledgling ISIL?  Maybe for al-qaeda but ISISL at the time were firmly in the:

Quote

 loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control,

part of your quote.  They were not part of planning a master strategy, they were gnats on the elephant

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And that was the plan for the fledgling ISIL?  Maybe for al-qaeda but ISISL at the time were firmly in the:

part of your quote.  They were not part of planning a master strategy, they were gnats on the elephant

It's the shared goal of all these groups.

Seriously, you need to read a lot more than a fraction of a Wikipedia page if you want to actually discuss this.

Let's not derail this thread further. Suffice to say, ISIL is not a consequence of the Obama administration and these air strikes have nothing to do with them anyway.

If you want to read up, I'm more than happy to continue the discussion by PM.

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
5 hours ago, Setton said:

Let's not derail this thread further. Suffice to say, ISIL is not a consequence of the Obama administration and these air strikes have nothing to do with them anyway.

That's straight up false.  The Obama administration is completely responsible for ISIS.

While ISIS was technically formed before the Obama administration they were a small splinter fraction of Al Qaeda.  It wasnt until the Arab spring, pushed by the Obama administration that they started to build momentum as a seperate organization and split from Al Qaeda.  Even then it really wasnt till the Shia led Iraqi government, which Obama did nothing about trying to stop and they kept backing, started to completely and utterly disenfranchise the Sunni population by pushing them out of all government and military positions that ISIS became a serious threat.

Obama's administration did ultimately play a large part in the formation of ISIS but given how you traditionally ignore all evidence that goes against your world view you will just ignore everything anyway but still claim to be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
30 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

That's straight up false.  The Obama administration is completely responsible for ISIS.

While ISIS was technically formed before the Obama administration they were a small splinter fraction of Al Qaeda.  It wasnt until the Arab spring, pushed by the Obama administration that they started to build momentum as a seperate organization and split from Al Qaeda.  Even then it really wasnt till the Shia led Iraqi government, which Obama did nothing about trying to stop and they kept backing, started to completely and utterly disenfranchise the Sunni population by pushing them out of all government and military positions that ISIS became a serious threat.

Obama's administration did ultimately play a large part in the formation of ISIS but given how you traditionally ignore all evidence that goes against your world view you will just ignore everything anyway but still claim to be right.

Gosh well if you come in with nothing but your personal opinion and some 'facts' that have already been disproven in this thread, obviously I'm just going to disregard everything I already know from studies and actual experts.

Same offer to you as to OS. If you want to read up and continue this discussion in PM, go ahead. Otherwise, perhaps best not keep derailing a thread that has nothing to do with ISIS anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.