Russian airstrikes in Syria

[New Werpland]

Russia cant beat the west militarily, so it threatens global nuclear catastrophe like its going out of fashion, such talk led them to ruin before.

Hopefully, it shall do so again.

Russia will avoid war with the West because it generally cares about life

Occasionally cares about life.

[New Frenco Empire]

I still don't understand why you wanted to see the Finnish lose the Winter war I mean the Russians were the aggressors entirely.

Because it was Russia who was fighting Finland, not the West. Russia never, ever, ever, ever attacks anyone unprovoked for the cause of furthering their own interests! Never!

Russia will avoid war with the West because it generally cares about life

Occasionally cares about life.

Only whenever they're confident they can get away with it.

[Roski]

Russia will avoid war with the West because it generally cares about life

Occasionally cares about life.

It cares enough to not nuke the US

[Shofercia]

Ruskies fucking up ISIS also? Hot damn

Lets get china and make this War: EVER MAJOR POWER WANTS TO FUCK YOUR DAY UP

Reality show: whose bombs do the most damage to ISIS. Hosted by President Trump. Coming to a village near you, November, 2016

[New Werpland]

Occasionally cares about life.

It cares enough to not nuke the US

That's because they'd get nuked back.

[Roski]

It cares enough to not nuke the US

That's because they'd get nuked back.

Thusly they care about life

[The balkens]

Russia cant beat the west militarily, so it threatens global nuclear catastrophe like its going out of fashion, such talk led them to ruin before.

Hopefully, it shall do so again.

Russia will avoid war with the West because it generally cares about life

Not really, they dont want to admit but deep down on the inside they are the same as us. We play the great game of global influence. They lost, they want Russia to be a world power by ANY means. Whether it means throwing away economic progress supporting a rebellion in Ukraine, and other historical events. Why? the Russian government can, have, and will throw away lives for minimal gains or don't care about civilians.

[New Werpland]

That's because they'd get nuked back.

Thusly they care about life

Or they care about retaining leadership of a country that wasn't just nuked.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, because that worked so well in Libya, right?

When will people understand that sometimes keeping a fucking war criminal in power is better than deposing him?

So are you advocating that the world should look the other way when it comes to war crimes (and crimes against humanity in general) so long as it keeps things quiet in a region?

I suppose I can see the appeal, I guess it can give the people of the West something else to think about as long as the imposed suffering of other people is "sanctioned" as it were.

Nevermind that it's Assad's brutal regime that caused the instability that allowed ISIS to grow as strong as it did but, hey, whatever.

[Sebtopiaris]

Frankly, good on Putin. He's basically the only one defending a secular, tolerant regime against US-backed ISIS, Al-Nusra and the FSA.

[The balkens]

Frankly, good on Putin. He's basically the only one defending a secular, tolerant regime against US-backed ISIS, Al-Nusra and the FSA.

Kek.

[Salus Maior]

Frankly, good on Putin. He's basically the only one defending a secular, tolerant regime against US-backed ISIS, Al-Nusra and the FSA.

Provide evidence of the U.S backing ISIS.

[New Frenco Empire]

Frankly, good on Putin. He's basically the only one defending a secular, tolerant regime against US-backed ISIS, Al-Nusra and the FSA.

Kek.

[Sebtopiaris]

Frankly, good on Putin. He's basically the only one defending a secular, tolerant regime against US-backed ISIS, Al-Nusra and the FSA.

Provide evidence of the U.S backing ISIS.

I've seen a picture of Joe Biden with the ISIS leadership, it's not shopped.
Plus, we're all aware ISIS has backed Al-Qaeda and is backing Al-Nusra to destabilise anti-western countries, right? So why would the US use ISIS any differently? Why is the US not putting boots on the ground in the middle east anymore, huh? I thought they were allies of freedom and democracy instead of launching inefficient air strikes at Saudi nationals and edgy Algerian-French teenagers roleplaying as a caliphate.

[New Frenco Empire]

Provide evidence of the U.S backing ISIS.

I've seen a picture of Joe Biden with the ISIS leadership, it's not shopped.
Plus, we're all aware ISIS has backed Al-Qaeda and is backing Al-Nusra to destabilise anti-western countries, right? So why would the US use ISIS any differently? Why is the US not putting boots on the ground in the middle east anymore, huh? I thought they were allies of freedom and democracy instead of launching inefficient air strikes at Saudi nationals and edgy Algerian-French teenagers roleplaying as a caliphate.

You've brought conspiracies and a misunderstanding of the wants of the average American voter.

So basically...you have no evidence of the U.S backing ISIS?

[Uxupox]

Provide evidence of the U.S backing ISIS.

I've seen a picture of Joe Biden with the ISIS leadership, it's not shopped.
Plus, we're all aware ISIS has backed Al-Qaeda and is backing Al-Nusra to destabilise anti-western countries, right? So why would the US use ISIS any differently? Why is the US not putting boots on the ground in the middle east anymore, huh? I thought they were allies of freedom and democracy instead of launching inefficient air strikes at Saudi nationals and edgy Algerian-French teenagers roleplaying as a caliphate.

We need more than your words to prove that the US is really backing ISIS, so uh where is that photo?

[New Frenco Empire]

I've seen a picture of Joe Biden with the ISIS leadership, it's not shopped.
Plus, we're all aware ISIS has backed Al-Qaeda and is backing Al-Nusra to destabilise anti-western countries, right? So why would the US use ISIS any differently? Why is the US not putting boots on the ground in the middle east anymore, huh? I thought they were allies of freedom and democracy instead of launching inefficient air strikes at Saudi nationals and edgy Algerian-French teenagers roleplaying as a caliphate.

We need more than your words to prove that the US is really backing ISIS, so uh where is that photo?

Don't worry. Even if we don't get to see it, we can be sure that it isn't photoshopped!

[Sebtopiaris]

I've seen a picture of Joe Biden with the ISIS leadership, it's not shopped.
Plus, we're all aware ISIS has backed Al-Qaeda and is backing Al-Nusra to destabilise anti-western countries, right? So why would the US use ISIS any differently? Why is the US not putting boots on the ground in the middle east anymore, huh? I thought they were allies of freedom and democracy instead of launching inefficient air strikes at Saudi nationals and edgy Algerian-French teenagers roleplaying as a caliphate.

You've brought conspiracies and a misunderstanding of the wants of the average American voter.

So basically...you have no evidence of the U.S backing ISIS?

Found it. I have evidence now. The circled man is al-bagdhadi:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-relati ... 05?print=1
And why hasn't ISIS attacked Israel yet? They're operating in the sinai for godsakes, they almost have them in the bag.

[Constantinopolis]

Yeah, because that worked so well in Libya, right?

When will people understand that sometimes keeping a fucking war criminal in power is better than deposing him?

So are you advocating that the world should look the other way when it comes to war crimes (and crimes against humanity in general) so long as it keeps things quiet in a region?

I don't need to advocate it, that's precisely what the world is already doing in countless other cases. Every major power on the planet supports at least one bloody tyrant somewhere, on the grounds of him being "our tyrant". The US is doing it in Saudi Arabia, for example. And we're expected to believe that the great powers will suddenly grow a conscience over Syria? Ha.

I suppose I can see the appeal, I guess it can give the people of the West something else to think about as long as the imposed suffering of other people is "sanctioned" as it were.

Western governments (and Russia, and China, and everyone else) are already sanctioning several dozen brutal regimes around the world. It's how international politics always worked. Why is sanctioning Assad suddenly such a horrible thing, when we're already sanctioning Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, that thing in Kabul calling itself the Afghan government...

Nevermind that it's Assad's brutal regime that caused the instability that allowed ISIS to grow as strong as it did but, hey, whatever.

Assad caused the problem, yes, but he also offers the only realistic option for ending it.

Besides, there is no way that post-war Syria could look anything like pre-war Syria, even if the same government remains in charge.

[Salus Maior]

Provide evidence of the U.S backing ISIS.

I've seen a picture of Joe Biden with the ISIS leadership, it's not shopped.
Plus, we're all aware ISIS has backed Al-Qaeda and is backing Al-Nusra to destabilise anti-western countries, right? So why would the US use ISIS any differently? Why is the US not putting boots on the ground in the middle east anymore, huh? I thought they were allies of freedom and democracy instead of launching inefficient air strikes at Saudi nationals and edgy Algerian-French teenagers roleplaying as a caliphate.

ISIS and Al-Qaeda despise each other.

"I've seen a picture" lol, why should I believe that? If you have the proof SHOW IT. I have no reason whatsoever to take you at your word.

I also notice that your argument is heavily based in conjecture. We're not putting boots on the ground because we had boots there FOR TEN YEARS and nothing good came of it. And nothing good would come of it now.

[Geilinor]

You've brought conspiracies and a misunderstanding of the wants of the average American voter.

So basically...you have no evidence of the U.S backing ISIS?

Found it. I have evidence now:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-relati ... 05?print=1
And why hasn't ISIS attacked Israel yet? They're operating in the sinai for godsakes, they almost have them in the bag.

Do you know who Joe Biden is? That's a picture of John McCain.

[Sebtopiaris]

I also notice that your argument is heavily based in conjecture. We're not putting boots on the ground because we had boots there FOR TEN YEARS and nothing good came of it. And nothing good would come of it now.

Really? REALLY?
You saying defeating ISIS won't even help the US project its interests in the middle east? Wait a sec, it doesn't need to defeat them to project its interests, by balkanising the region it's perfectly done so.

Found it. I have evidence now:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-relati ... 05?print=1
And why hasn't ISIS attacked Israel yet? They're operating in the sinai for godsakes, they almost have them in the bag.

Do you know who Joe Biden is? That's a picture of John McCain.

Ah, my mistake, not familiar with American politicians.
Still, what difference does it make, oh specific one? Explain how the fuck al-snackbardaddy and his crew are chilling with Mcain? He didn't just pop off to their house for a visit now, did he?

[Geilinor]

I also notice that your argument is heavily based in conjecture. We're not putting boots on the ground because we had boots there FOR TEN YEARS and nothing good came of it. And nothing good would come of it now.

Really? REALLY?
You saying defeating ISIS won't even help the US project its interests in the middle east? Wait a sec, it doesn't need to defeat them to project its interests, by balkanising the region it's perfectly done so.

Do you know who Joe Biden is? That's a picture of John McCain.

Ah, my mistake, not familiar with American politicians.
Still, what difference does it make, oh specific one? Explain how the fuck al-snackbardaddy and his crew are chilling with Mcain? He didn't just pop off to their house for a visit now, did he?

It makes the difference between the Vice President and one Senator.

[Sebtopiaris]

Really? REALLY?
You saying defeating ISIS won't even help the US project its interests in the middle east? Wait a sec, it doesn't need to defeat them to project its interests, by balkanising the region it's perfectly done so.


Ah, my mistake, not familiar with American politicians.
Still, what difference does it make, oh specific one? Explain how the fuck al-snackbardaddy and his crew are chilling with Mcain? He didn't just pop off to their house for a visit now, did he?

It makes the difference between representing the White House and representing one Senator.

He's in the US senate. Why is he visiting ISIS? Tell me.

[Roski]

Provide evidence of the U.S backing ISIS.

I've seen a picture of Joe Biden with the ISIS leadership, it's not shopped.
Plus, we're all aware ISIS has backed Al-Qaeda and is backing Al-Nusra to destabilise anti-western countries, right? So why would the US use ISIS any differently? Why is the US not putting boots on the ground in the middle east anymore, huh? I thought they were allies of freedom and democracy instead of launching inefficient air strikes at Saudi nationals and edgy Algerian-French teenagers roleplaying as a caliphate.

Because the US firmly believes in the fact that aerial supremacy wins wars.

The US also doesn't want to start up fighting again because of people like you.

Those who cry that the US doesn't do enough but when the US intensifies its activities you cry that it is overstepping its boundaries.

F-22s, Tomahawks, and F/A-18s, oh my.

The ISAF has been generally efficient in fighting ISIS.