[UncleSam]

In the following video Syrians in France are showing solidarity with Russia in front of the russian embassy.They are openly supporting the ruling Assad regime which makes me think about the question: How many Syrians are there who don't have a general problem with Assad? I mean, the majority of the Syrian people cannot wait to be liberated by the west with Democracy as an extra. That's the official narrative, right?

[NovaVirtu]

Does that guy with the "No War Generation" shirt standing directly to McCain's right look familiar?

Looks an awful lot like Abu Mosa, Islamic State Press Officer, doesn't it?

Fast forward to 2:27 in:

[Veloce]

Look at Obama's eyes, face, and body language at :54

There's zero conviction behind his words. It's almost like he doesn't believe the bullshit coming out of his own mouth. Almost like he's a puppet being told what to say.

"Those folks"? Interesting term for rebels

"Political transition"? You mean a CIA-backed coup?

I can't believe how fucking stupid the U.S. looks on the global stage right now. The one reassurance is that on nearly any "news" website about Syria, be it BBC, CNN, Fox, all of whom are painting Putin in a negative light, the comments sections are filled with commenters echoing what we're saying in this thread.

The jig is up.

[Belgrano]

(10-03-2015 02:10 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

Look at Obama's eyes, face, and body language at :54

There's zero conviction behind his words. It's almost like he doesn't believe the bullshit coming out of his own mouth. Almost like he's a puppet being told what to say.

I sometimes think Obama is, or at least used to be, a genuinely well meaning, nice guy with the average intellectual liberal world view. It seems he vastly underestimated what it means to rule a hegemonial world power, what it takes to make sure the US remains one, and overestimated how much influence a president really has behind the scenes.
If Obama seems incongruent it could very well be because he truly doesn´t believe in most things he´s doing as POTUS, but the realities of power don´t leave him with much of a choice.
His appearance shows the impact of the reality check he had to endure:

[UncleSam]

(10-03-2015 02:10 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

Look at Obama's eyes, face, and body language at :54

There's zero conviction behind his words. It's almost like he doesn't believe the bullshit coming out of his own mouth. Almost like he's a puppet being told what to say.

"Those folks"? Interesting term for rebels

"Political transition"? You mean a CIA-backed coup?

"Iran and Assad make up Mister Putins Coalition at the moment."

Wait a minute, did POTUS forget about China? That small, negligible country somewhere in Asia? And what about the fighters from Iraq and Lebanese Hezbollah joining the club?

[JacksonRev]

(10-03-2015 11:01 AM)WildBoar Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 10:55 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Prompted by your post, I searched wiki for the list of Russian oligarchs. They're mostly jews. I had seriously just assumed they were 'normal' russians. The more I read, the more the plot seems to thicken. Like all of the leftist members of the US supreme court being jews. Just what exactly is their deal?

If anyone has any recommendation of materials on "how the Jews work", I'd be interested. The topic seems to be dominated by conspiracy theorists, neo-nazis, or the "that's anti-semitic!" brigade. None of that stuff. I'd like something calm and objective on the topic.

Specifically, I'm interested in how dynasties like the Rothschild's are so persistent. Is it because they sexually select for intelligence in their women more than other traits or something? How do they educate their children, is it much more comprehensive and intense than in other families? I'd also like to understand why they are overwhelmingly leftist, and often at the forefront of leftism (e.g. Marx and Lenin).

Read Sex and Character by Otto Weininger. He has a special chapter on Judaism. He was Jewish himself. He has the best explanation on why Jews tend to lean towards communism (not socialism).

Quote:

Let me begin with the analogies. It is notable that the Jews, even now when at least a relative security of tenure is possible, prefer moveable property, and, in spite of their acquisitiveness, have little real sense of personal property, especially in its most characteristic form, landed property' Property is indissolubly connected with the self, with individuality. It is in harmony with the foregoing that the Jew is so readily disposed to communism. Communism must be distinguished clearly from socialism, the former being based on a community of goods, an absence of individual property, the latter meaning, in the first place a co-operation of individual with individual, of worker with worker, and a recognition of human individuality in every one. Socialism is Aryan (Owen, Carlyle, Ruskin, Fichte). Communism is Jewish (Marx). Modern social democracy has moved far apart from the earlier socialism, precisely because Jews have taken so large a share in developing it. In spite of the associative element in it, the Marxian doctrine does not lead in any way towards the State as a union of all the separate individual aims, as the higher unit combining the purposes of the lower units. Such a conception is as foreign to the Jew as it is to the woman.

Quote:

The true conception of the State is foreign to the Jew, because he, like the woman, is wanting in personality; his failure to grasp the idea of true society is due to his lack of free intelligible ego. Like women, Jews tend to adhere together, but they do not associate as free independent individuals mutually respecting each other's individuality.

Jews basically gave up farming almost two millennia ago, which probably accounts for their lack of emphasis on personal land ownership, and liberal and communistic values. They just don't have the need for those values because they don't work the land.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/every..._farm.html

[YossariansRight]

Overwhelming force with no rules of engagement.. there’s a novel idea.

Russia didn’t elect a community organizer.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Heh - mass defections at ISIS already. Their mythical super-strength was just based on the fact that they were aided by the NATO and Israel.

When meeting a vastly superior force, then they are wiped out faster than Saddam's forces. Of course the mopping up and local control will be left to Assad's infantry, but any large forces, movements and supply lines will be utterly wiped out. Assad's men are Syrians who defend their homecountry. ISIS are a bunch of mercenaries and crazies who are badly organized:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/6096...ate-defeat

Quote:

ISIS left so weakened by airstrikes and desertion it could be destroyed in just HOURS

That's an exaggeration, but weeks - yes.

Quote:

Western and more recently Russian airstrikes, chaotic leadership and mass defections have weakened the jihadi group to such an extent that it would be unable to repel even a small invasion force.

A terror analyst told Express.co.uk that the fanatics have vastly exaggerated their military strength and called on Western leaders to launch a co-ordinated fightback which would obliterate the hate group.

Of course it's the mainstream media lies - Western forces aided ISIS, it was all the Russians who fucked them up.

The Kurds are kicking their asses in Iraq as well:

Quote:

An abandoned ISIS outpost which was overrun by Kurdish forces

Quote:

ISIS has reportedly lost half of its fighters

Hehe - the glorious caliphate.

[quote]Last month it emerged that half of the group's fighters have now been killed, whilst others are deserting en masse after their salaries were slashed.

Dr Ashraf, a researcher at the respected Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think tank, added that assessments of ISIS' military capabilities have been vastly overplayed.

He said: "They have built up this superhero status because of the way the Iraqi army just fell apart when they confronted it. But that was not very much to do with their ability to fight, it was to do with the Iraqi army, which just doesn't have a leadership that inspires. Once you've got a General running off you don't expect the soldiers to stand and fight.

"As a result, they have given the impression that they are far more capable than they are. If we had serious forces fighting in a coordinated battle against these people they wouldn't last very long at all." [/quote]

Uh - someone stopped financing it. The US is not that stupid. As soon as the Russians attacked, then they knew that those goat-fuckers are a lost cause. Cutting funding is one of the first deeds you do. What remains now is likely lone guy attacks, but good luck doing that in a unified Syria.

They can go back to Iraq and sow mayhem there, but won't be ruling over vast territories anytime soon.

But I guess then it's plan B and off to Mamma Merkel.

[kosko]

The real truth is that those Islamic "extremists" never were fighting for religion and were just as corrupted and petty as any weak man in chasing pure profits.

These goons stood for nothing aside from being paid in sheckles, money, whores, and gold. See how quick they scurry away back to whatever villages they came from once the money dried up.

[porscheguy]

I'll expect the US to go all in to hunt down the remainder of ISIS forces. Can't have any witnesses saying that the US was complicit in their antics all along. Have to silence all of the witnesses.

[Sombro]

[Ursus]

Am I the only one who is not terribly impressed by all this? ISIS do not seem like weak bullshitters to me and call me a pessimist, if you want, I do not think those lunatics will surrender that easily. Insurgents are really hard to beat, especially just by air strikes.
Also if that Express article is true and ISIS has finally been weakened, It will be because of Assad's troops and, to a lesser extent, Western air strikes, not of Russia-they just entered the conflict and conducted in total of two-three small air strikes with REALLY obsolete weaponry. In all- hardly a game-changer.

[porscheguy]

(10-05-2015 01:25 AM)Ursus Wrote:  

Am I the only one who is not terribly impressed by all this? ISIS do not seem like weak bullshitters to me and call me a pessimist, if you want, I do not think those lunatics will surrender that easily. Insurgents are really hard to beat, especially just by air strikes.
Also if that Express article is true and ISIS has finally been weakened, It will be because of Assad's troops and, to a lesser extent, Western air strikes, not of Russia-they just entered the conflict and conducted in total of two-three small air strikes with REALLY obsolete weaponry. In all- hardly a game-changer.

They're not insurgents, they're mercenaries. Mercenaries are loyal to money. And when faced with any resistance, they typically fold. As for the obsolete weaponry of Russia, they have air superiority. They could be dropping bombs out of cloth covered biplanes and still hold a tactical advantage over ISIS who are largely equipped with small arms and some Toyota pickups.

[Wrec]

ISIS attacks Russian air base in Syria


27 terrorist shot and rest retreated
Terrorists lost 3x BTR with anti aircraft missile systems.





Meanwhile in Syria

   
Locals see Russian soldiers as heroes

[iknowexactly]

(10-05-2015 04:18 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 01:25 AM)Ursus Wrote:  

Am I the only one who is not terribly impressed by all this? ISIS do not seem like weak bullshitters to me and call me a pessimist, if you want, I do not think those lunatics will surrender that easily. Insurgents are really hard to beat, especially just by air strikes.
Also if that Express article is true and ISIS has finally been weakened, It will be because of Assad's troops and, to a lesser extent, Western air strikes, not of Russia-they just entered the conflict and conducted in total of two-three small air strikes with REALLY obsolete weaponry. In all- hardly a game-changer.

They're not insurgents, they're mercenaries.

This is interesting to me. I'm not arguing, but do you have more info on that? I'm imagining there are so many dirt poor mofos in the middle East that some oil money can get them dancing to any tune, presumably the Saudi's are the accused in this case?

If that's true, and I have no idea either way, how can we let them get away with that?

[iknowexactly]

(10-04-2015 06:16 PM)kosko Wrote:  

The real truth is that those Islamic "extremists" never were fighting for religion and were just as corrupted and petty as any weak man in chasing pure profits.

These goons stood for nothing aside from being paid in sheckles, money, whores, and gold. See how quick they scurry away back to whatever villages they came from once the money dried up.

But doesn't there have to be some perverse quasi-religious motivation somewhere for the bizarre executions and destruction of archaeological sites? Maybe just at the top?

[porscheguy]

(10-05-2015 04:58 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 06:16 PM)kosko Wrote:  

The real truth is that those Islamic "extremists" never were fighting for religion and were just as corrupted and petty as any weak man in chasing pure profits.

These goons stood for nothing aside from being paid in sheckles, money, whores, and gold. See how quick they scurry away back to whatever villages they came from once the money dried up.

But doesn't there have to be some perverse quasi-religious motivation somewhere for the bizarre executions and destruction of archaeological sites? Maybe just at the top?

What's the old saying? "Just following orders."

[Dan Woolf]

Is this just posturing or are they escalating towards WW3?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-05-2015 09:56 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

Is this just posturing or are they escalating towards WW3?

"By bombing ISIS Russia is contributing to the destabilization of the region. Our pet ISIS/ISIL/Al-Quaeda is getting bombed and our agents are dying. We object to this treatment of the same organization that has supposedly caused 9/11. We will protest vehemently against this atrocious behavior and will continue our good work against real work by bombing hospitals in Afghanistan because some terrorists were treated there. And yes - we would bomb schools, if those terrorists picked up their children. Killing 10.000 or 1.000.000 civilians means nothing if we can kill more of them to end this dangerous overpopulation. P.S.: Most of the war on terror is fake and is created to wage war on you. NATO real-talk out."

[porscheguy]

It's mostly just rattling sabres for the time being.

[Libertas]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/6097...s-military

Quote:

VLADIMIR Putin is preparing to send 150,000 troops to Syria in a bid to wipe out the evil Islamic State once and for all.

Please let this be true. Please let thus be true.

[Killer Joe]

It's not true. It's just tabloid bullshit. I couldn't find any other sources to corroborate this.

[Soothesayer]

(10-05-2015 10:29 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/6097...s-military

Quote:

VLADIMIR Putin is preparing to send 150,000 troops to Syria in a bid to wipe out the evil Islamic State once and for all.

Please let this be true. Please let thus be true.

It's a load of bullshit. This happens every year as Russia calls up about 150,000 conscripts every fall and spring.

It's a routine biannual draft

[Turkish Republican]

They annexed Ukraine, now they've set their sights on my country. Someone needs to bring these guys back to reality, Turkey is a NATO member state.

[Foolsgo1d]

ISIS will fall back into Iraq and their Syrian enclaves hoping to wait out the onslaught. They know the world is watching and Russia bombing Syrian civilian areas is not going to go down well.

Iraq may invite Russia to tackle ISIS in their heartland there, including Mosul. ISIS have fortified Mosul since taking it and the civilian population there is in the hundreds of thousands.

It will get more bloody then people realise as time goes on. Can the world stomach the need for killing ISIS?