4
   

Obama finally decides to assist Putin against ISIS

 
 
Glennn
 
  3  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 03:11 pm
@momoends,
I see. So where do you imagine the ISIS oil-truck convoys were heading, if not Turkey?

And by the way, the onus is on you to show that the truck drivers were not ISIS guys.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 03:14 pm
@Glennn,
Quote:
the onus is on you to show that the truck drivers were not ISIS guys.
Thats an ass backward assertion. It were the Russkies that shot up the convoy, SO Im sure they have the data that these guys WERE ISIS???

perhps they would share???
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 03:31 pm
@farmerman,
Gee, let's think about it. They were driving oil trucks full of Syrian oil out of Syria for ISIS and heading for Turkey. If you're thinking, "There's no way those guys were part of ISIS," then I'd have to say that that's some pretty ass backwards assertion. SO I'm sure you have some data that these guys WEREN'T ISIS, right?????
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 04:58 pm
@Glennn,
A story is not anything approaching evidence.

youre still the one who wears burden of proof.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 07:59 pm
The United States began air strikes against Islamic State from Iraq in August, 2014, almost two years ago. Where the hell was Putin then? Oh yeah, he was involved in annexing land from the Ukraine, and sending troops and weapons to Russian separatists in the Ukraine. He didn't have time for no damned Islamic State then. Lash is seriously delusional.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  3  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 08:11 pm
@farmerman,
What story are you referring to, farmerman? Be specific!

Oil stolen by ISIS is being transported to turkey via convoy, and you believe that that indicates that the drivers are not part of ISIS? Explain how you came to that counterintuitive conclusion. And be specific.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 08:29 pm
Gentlemen,

It occurs to me that you are under the impression that people who read about what's happening in Syria, and comprehend that Russia has been more effective against ISIS are somehow anti-Obama or anti-American (geez, the first thing that happens is I laughed my ass off, noting the outrageous hypocrisy from the Bush era) , but relax. It's not true.

I only discovered Putin's effectiveness and our disastrous political goals that fucked over our military choices by reading reports from a variety of knowledgeable apolitical people on the ground over an extended period of time.

You people with small ideas and sacred political cows to protect can't really enter into realistic, fact-based discussion.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:07 pm
@Lash,
What evidence do you have that the Russians have been more effective? Please provide us with the "facts" to which you refer. You keep shooting your mouth off about your knowledgeable srouces, but haven't provided these mythical sources.
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:36 pm
@Setanta,
You're the guy who said: If Russians have actually bombed ISIS, it's been a targeting mistake. And you want to talk about mythical sources? This isn't the humor forum you know . . .

Here's something you somehow missed:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3324789/Russia-hits-ISIS-hurts-Raids-target-oil-trucks-Syria.html
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 10:34 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The truck drivers are not members of Islamic State.

Can you show something to prove this?

Quote:
So, this is a decision that we had to make. We have not struck these trucks before. We assessed that these trucks, while although they are being used for operations that support ISIL, the truck drivers, themselves, probably not members of ISIL; they're probably just civilians. So we had to figure out a way around that. We're not in this business to kill civilians, we're in this business to stop ISIL -- to defeat ISIL.

So, we spend some time developing some TTPs that I read out earlier -- the leaflets, the low pass. We did some -- I didn't mention in my open, but we did some strafe runs as well -- to kind of shoo people away without harming them. So we had to go through that whole process of one, determining whether or not we felt it was in our best interest to strike these trucks. And then once we determined that, yes, it is in our interest to strike these trucks, how do we go about ensuring that we're able to mitigate the potential of civilian casualties?
Quote:
Well, I -- I -- we're not gonna detail exactly what we're gonna do next. One thing I'll tell you is that, you know, the combination of leaflets and -- and strikes, certainly sent a very clear message to these truck drivers. Remember, these truck drivers are just regular people, right?

They're civilians, they're citizens of Syria. Granted, they're oil smugglers. But -- but they're not really members of ISIL, so many of them have -- have got the message that smuggling oil for ISIL is a much more dangerous business now than it was last week.

http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/630393/department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-col-warren-via-dvids-from-baghdad-iraq



Glennn wrote:
Ah, so the war against ISIS could be lost because ISIS had--in your opinion (so far)--civilians driving the trucks carrying the stolen oil. Ridiculous!

We were never in any danger of losing the war against Islamic State.


Glennn wrote:
If there's on thing we learned from the invasion of Iraq and the use of drones, it's that the U.S. will avoid civilian casualties at all cost . . . NOT!

Our record of avoiding civilians is exemplary.


Glennn wrote:
What stands out most from this comment of yours is your inability to figure out that there is no reason that this could not have been done from the beginning. Don't you wonder about that?

It doesn't bother me a bit that this was not done from the beginning.


Glennn wrote:
In fact, don't you wonder why the trucks were not stopped at the Turkish border, and the drivers taken into custody right from the git-go ?

Ask Turkey. They were probably too busy trying to commit genocide against the Kurds.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 10:37 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Thats an ass backward assertion. It were the Russkies that shot up the convoy, SO Im sure they have the data that these guys WERE ISIS???

Almost all of the attacks against these convoys are conducted by the US Air Force.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-warplanes-destroy-116-isis-fuel-trucks-syria/story?id=35229047

It might be possible that Russia staged a single attack for publicity.

I'd not put it past the KGB though to photoshop a US attack and then claim Russian credit for it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 10:38 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Gentlemen,

It occurs to me that you are under the impression that people who read about what's happening in Syria, and comprehend that Russia has been more effective against ISIS are somehow anti-Obama or anti-American (geez, the first thing that happens is I laughed my ass off, noting the outrageous hypocrisy from the Bush era) , but relax. It's not true.

When I see a person believe something that is entirely untrue, my assumption is that they are severely misinformed.


Lash wrote:
I only discovered Putin's effectiveness and our disastrous political goals that fucked over our military choices by reading reports from a variety of knowledgeable apolitical people on the ground over an extended period of time.

It sounds as if you've been reading KGB propaganda.

Putin's attacks, which are about helping Assad massacre innocent civilians and which do not take place anywhere near any Islamic State targets, certainly have no effectiveness in the fight against Islamic State.

Putin's attacks may well be effective at helping Assad massacre innocent civilians.

I see no problem with our political goals. They all seem quite reasonable.


Lash wrote:
You people with small ideas and sacred political cows to protect can't really enter into realistic, fact-based discussion.

I'm the world's undefeated heavyweight champion at fact-based discussions. I'm sure I'll do all right.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 02:49 am
@Glennn,
Here's something you somehow missed: for almost two years, the coalitions (there's more than one) against Islamic State have been attacking IS military targets. Hurting their money is all well and good, but it doesn't get families safely out of Fallujah, and it doesn't drive IS fighters out of Iraq. This is from Fox News, even right wingers can accept that source. Here's the same story from The Independent, a UK-based online newspaper considered to be centrists by international commentators.

The point of the American-lead coalition has been to drive Islamic State out of Iraq. They have done so with air strikes. They still have to be fought on the ground. Blowing up convoys of oil trucks makes for splashy new stories which the Russians can exploit for propaganda, but it doesn't do squat against Islamic State as a military target. They already squeeze Syrians in the areas they control for cash to fight their war, so they'll just squeeze harder. No anti-IS coalition is going to destroy them, however, without defeating them on the ground, and probably without just killing all those hysterically fanatical murderers. For that, the Iraqi Security Forces (which is to say, the Iraqi army) and Iraqi Shi'ite militias have been doing the dirty work. Iran provides training officers who usually lead the Shi'ite militias into battle, and Hezbollah, also Shi'ite, also sends training officers to Iraq, and reportedly has a 250-man elite force there. It ain't gonna get donw until Islamic States is defeated on the grouns.

Lash here waxed rhapsodic about her big heart-throb Putin allegedly driving Islamic State our of Palmyra. If Russian air strikes are so damned effective, why did Islamic State get out of Palmyra with all their heavy equipment? If it was liberated, why are they still fighting there?

Russia went to Syria to prop up Assad, the son of a former Soviet client, Hafez al-Assad. Their air strikes have been primarily against anti-Assad rebel groups. They launched a few air strikes against Islamic State when Assad wanted to "liberate" his tribe's hometown of Palmyra, but that included killing unarmed civilians from groups who have been fighting Assad in the Syrian civil war. Here's an interesting report from Radio Free Europe on Putin's real mission in Syria, which is propaganda. The article is a blog post, but it links the news stories it uses. It seems to me that you, like Lash, have drunk the Kremlin kool aid.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 06:22 am
@Setanta,
You really have slipped badly. Backtracked, fashioned a straw man to take swipes at, ad hom'd and started a totally different conversation.

You were just factually incorrect. It would have been much more respectable just to say so.

Under Putin's leadership, Russia made more progress against ISIS than the US. Period.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 09:47 am
@Setanta,
You said: If Russians have actually bombed ISIS, it's been a targeting mistake.

You're simply ignoring what we've shown you because it puts you in the position of having spoken out your ass concerning your uninformed comment about Russia's airstrikes against ISIS being a targeting mistake. We've shown you that you were wrong. You were wrong because you had your lips wrapped around the teat of the MSM, and you liked the flavor of their Kool-Aid. Now its leaving a bad taste in your mouth. And now you're aggressively campaigning to make it appear that your error is somehow someone else's. But whose error is it? And whose problem is it . . . really?
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 10:39 am
@Glennn,
You haven't shown me anything. Those truck drivers were Syrian civilians, not Islamic State fighters. Oralloy has provided a linked source for that.

I have no bad taste in my mouth, although i do wonder why i bother talking to somebody so nasty who really hasn't got a position to discuss.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 10:58 am
By the way, one swallow does not a summer make. Mr. Obama announced an air campaign against Islamic State on August 9, 2014--that's almost two years ago. You can bleat about the mainstream media to your heart's content. You have yet to produce any credible evidence that Russia has been consistently launching air strikes against Islamic State military targets. Russian air forces have not operated in Syria for even a year yet, and their operations have been to target anti-Assad rebel groups. Put up or shut up.
Glennn
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 11:12 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Those truck drivers were Syrian civilians, not Islamic State fighters. Oralloy has provided a linked source for that.

From his link ". . . probably not members of ISIL; they're probably just civilians."

You continue to live in the world of probably.

The point is that you said that if Russia attacked ISIS, it was a case of mistaken targeting. You were wrong. We showed you that you were wrong. And you have shown that you will not admit to being wrong. Your position has been destroyed, and yet you continue on.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 11:18 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
. . . their operations have been to target anti-Assad rebel groups.

So now you're saying that it's the anti-Assad rebels who are smuggling oil from Syria? That must be what you're saying because that's who Russia targeted.
Quote:
You have yet to produce any credible evidence that Russia has been consistently launching air strikes against Islamic State military targets.

You still see no value to cutting off a source of ISIS funding, do you? And not only have you not produced any credible evidence that Russia's airstrikes against ISIS' oil smuggling operation were mistaken targeting, you've been shown that they were not. Who did you think they were targeting?
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2016 12:13 pm
@Glennn,
Set your straw man up for someone else--i said nothing bout rebels smuggling oil. You really can't keep up with a conversation can you. As for the petroleum convoy, i believe the Russians want to hurt Turkey, who shot down one of their planes. I've already mentioned that going after their money is all well and good, but it is not targeting Islamic State military targets. I guess either your short-term memory or your reading comprehension is poor--probably both. Lash's thread here, since you don't seem to understand, implies that Russia has been attacking Islamic State longer than the United States, which is BS as i demonstrated in my last post. She has also said that the Russians are more effective, but neither she nor you have provided a shred of evidence that they've made significant attacks on Islamic State military targets. Stop playing with weak-minded straw men, and try to keep up, 'K?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/17/2019 at 01:29:12