China finally comes to the dance....with Putin.

I think people can call it "propping up Assad" or "fighting ISIS." Currently, one is the same as the other.

We've been fighting a proxy war with Assad, which we can also call "arming and assisting ISIS."

Our proxy wars always end badly.

From the article you linked:



You know the Russian plane the Turks shot down? It was attacking a Turkmen enclave in Syria, rebels against the Assad regime. They were n't anywhere near Islamic State.

Utter, unadulterated bullsh*t. Are you on the take from take from the FSB? I hear they pay $250 a month to spread Russian propaganda.

I haven't seen a penny, but I appreciate inside info on the going rate. (Nods)

Ah . . . i see you've drunk the Kool Aid. You can join Gunga Dim and Whackeye in the Putin fan club. If you actually believe that BS you're spreading, you are seriously delusional. I suspect that's due to a polemical bias.

Reporters in the region say that the trucks were Turkey buying oil from ISIS. Usually these reports come to light days later, but most news agencies are towing their country's line.

Of course, Turkey claimed Russia bombed "humanitarian aid" trucks. The HA agency in the area said it wasn't their trucks.

It's so weird to see the mass disconnect. The facts don't fit the preferred narrative, so ad hom.

People who are interested in what's happening in Syria, consider where ISIS sells their oil and how that affects relationships in the region.

http://www.ibtimes.com/turkey-buying-oil-isis-after-downed-plane-putin-slams-islamic-states-black-market-2198214

Fascinating! Oil makes sticky bedfellows.

http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/isis-oil/

The US had reclaimed land from ISIS before Russia ever got involved in Syria. The problem is that ISIS puts itself among the general population, so bombing is of limited utility unless you want to hurt civilians. Bombing is limited utility unless you have a ground force also, and so far Obama was trying to find a ground partner to work with. Remember, Obama was the guy in Washington way back when who didn't want to go into Iraq in the first place.

ISIS took all this territory when Obama honored the agreement to withdraw US troops from Iraq, in fact the Iraq government was pushing us out. A couple of years later, ISIS started crumbling the sham Iraqi army built under Bush. 600 Iraqi fighters took over the city of Mosul, which was "defended" by thirty thousand Iraqi forces. Apparently, under Bush's nation-building program, the Iraqi forces were taught that the proper way to defend a city is to turn your rifle over to the invader and then invite him over to dinner next week.

Nevertheless, some territory had been reclaimed from ISIS. To say we were not fighting ISIS is just inaccurate, and I don't see any ISIS factions surrendering to the Russians either.

The US targets ISIS with 17 strikes on Christmas day.

Blickers seems newly back here on a2k and he probably didn't follow your period of changing your mind in various ways.
Same with Cicerone Imposter, who has been missing in action for health reasons until just this last week or two.
Then there's Rabel, who insists you are faking your changes.

From you to CI re Snowden, within that rather long thread CI switched sides, having thought better of his first take.

Accusations R Us..

He's making the same anti-Snowden arguments here.

If people didn't use it as a dodge to avoid dialogue about facts, I wouldn't really care.

Ah, missed it.

I see they've stepped up targeting ISIS. Good.

There was no "ad hom." If you want to spread pro-Russian propaganda, help yourself. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

The only problem is not having the authority never stopped them before.