US planes violate ceasefire, kill 66 Syrian soldiers

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/world ... .html?_r=0

Syrian officials claim the US deliberately targeted the Syrian army to give ISIS dominance in the region. And I have to say I agree.

^^It does seem like a suspiciously large error to make in such a dangerous political context.

Opposing factions are supposed to be proxies of NATO or BRICS.

Ergo, the airstrike was against Russia.

And that's exactly what no news agency wants to talk about. Economic rivalry between US and Russia is what has been fueling the conflict in Syria. ISIS are being backed by the US government; nobody wants to admit this, but it's becoming increasingly obvious every day.

US hegemony is being blamed for all modern wars, though Russia meddles just as prolifically.

Russia are allies of the Syrian government, and respect Syria's sovereignty. They have also respected the terms of the ceasefire. I'm not going to claim Russia are perfectly innocent in all this, but you can't compare their involvement to what the US has done.

Respectfully, I see two superpowers, engaging opposing factions, with promises of nation building.

I am not calling for absolute isolationism, per se, but we need to rebuild our own nations, get to the point of self sufficiency, at home, before outposting, abroad.

Ancient Rome was once overextended, so fell to savage tribes of Germans.

I wonder if the Russians hacked the US planes to bomb the Syrians. The Russians are claiming this proves the US is on ISIS side.

^^Well, the US is the undisputed champion of friendly fire incidents.

The US has been working on the side of ISIS since the beginning

our government is controlled by anti-Russian extremists, more concerned about playing the 'great game' than actually combating terrorism

ISIS takes heavy casualties. Other groups that benefit from US support fight against ISIS. I think it is more complex than you indicate. And as for "government controlled by anti-Russian extremists", that also seems a little steep. But still, your statement is not totally baseless. Regime change in Syria is the reason for US involvment , and ISIS thinks that a great idea.

I think the evidence is the fact that ISIS was advancing at a blistering pace before the Russians intervened, the US did not attack ISIS's oil infrastructure which some people have speculated because Obama didn't want to create an 'environmental disaster' which is probably the best possible interpretation as the others are much more insidious. Support from the US to other 'rebel' groups still assists ISIS, we spent millions on a training program on a supposed moderate fighting force and they surrendered almost instantly or defected to ISIS with their US equipment the second they stepped foot in Syria. The US was the chief architect in the creation of this civil war, we wanted to do in Syria what we did in Libya. Without US meddling trying to force regime change, there is no civil war. The US government has an incestuous relationship with Islamic extremists going back decades, they are a monster we created for our political ends in the middle east.

The U.S. was NOT acting in favor of ISIS. It was acting against Assad's people.

You've got this one so wrong. You have a murderous regime being propped up by the Iranians and Russia. They barell bomb civilians and drop chlorine cylinders on their own people. They think nothing of staving local populations to death, or having half their population flee the country, just so they can stay in power. They would give Adolf Hilter a run for his money. They are so bad that if you gave the local population a choice being ISIS or their Asaad regime, most would choose ISIS. The US are involved in the conflict for the noblest of reasons, namely to transition a community to democracy and are being opposed by the usual mobs of totalitarians, facists, ex-communists and religious nutters.

Noblest of reasons, yeah right!

There has been tit for tat from all sides in this civil war, the rebels have also repeatedly used chemical weapons. Without US involvement from the start, this war is not still going on.

Assad is the legitimate leader and best hope for Syria at this point as he represents a multi-ethnic secular state as opposed to Islamist alternative, there are no mythical moderate pro-American rebels on the ground fighting so when we help out the 'rebels' who we really are helping are the jihadists.

Asaad runs Syria as his own private piggy bank and his legitimacy is based on a previous family coup as so many other Middle Eastern rulers. You might as well say Adolf Hilter was the legitimate ruler of Germany during the Second World War. And you should ask which rebel groups are using chemical weapons? The US are supporting the free Syrian army. So many rebel groups fighting in this conflict that you need to identify the good guys from the bad guys. The good guys are usually the moderates who want genuine democratic reforms and they are the first ones to be shot at in the civil war. They are the ones the US is supporting. Most of the other ones are totalitarians, fascists, communists, ex-communists and religious nutters. Even the Kurds who are being applauded for their heroism in opposing ISIS are a terrorist organisation trying to overthrow the Turkish government (which is legitimate by the way; their rulers actually won a general election).