Upload
Login or register
x

Comments(185):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
12>
[ 185 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
165 comments displayed.
Reply
+46
User avatar #13 - siemenz (10/27/2015) [-]
Can somebody explain? I never heard that america would arm ISIS.
Reply
+1
User avatar #140 to #13 - norrisblade (10/28/2015) [-]
They don't, hence why they all have Kalashnikov's not Armalites unless there's some conspiracy about america purposefully giving them Russian weapons to cover their trail that I haven't heard of yet
Reply
+6
#150 to #140 - DJBitz (10/28/2015) [-]
Are you ******* joking? You don't think the CIA does any off-the-books arms deals? Of course the United States arms ISIS. They arm the "rebels fighting ISIS" but the rebels seem to always get defeated or captured or turn against the other rebels and by proxy, the United States arms ISIS. Most of ISIS' weaponry has been captured from either Syrian military or Syrian rebels.
Reply
+1
#169 to #140 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
Well, if that's the logic you are using
Reply
0
User avatar #147 to #140 - ssliskas ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
So I'm formulating a theory about America purposefully giving them Russian weapons to cover their trail that you haven't heard of yet
Reply
0
User avatar #166 to #147 - norrisblade (10/28/2015) [-]
huh?
Reply
0
User avatar #179 to #166 - ssliskas ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
Read your comment very carefully and then read mine very carefully
Reply
+1
User avatar #177 to #13 - durkadurka (10/28/2015) [-]
So the whole thing is that we want things in the middle east to go our way without committing any lives and as few resources as possible. The west obviously wants some stable, friendly democracy in power instead of Assad or ISIS. So their way to do this was to arm "moderate" rebels who would hopefully be able to win and take control of everything.

The problem with this is that you're basically dumping weapons into a region and hoping for the best. It turns out that the strongest rebel group (ISIS) just ended up beating these other groups and taking all of these weapons and supplies.

The arming wasn't really intentional, moreso just inevitable. We're following a really dumb policy of trying to get our way in these conflicts with minimal effort using political maneuvers. It's just a huge mess.
Reply
+9
#138 to #13 - augustusxxiv (10/28/2015) [-]
They never did. This is just fringe internet ******** . US armed specific, vetted rebels. What really led to the success of ISIS was the inaction of the West in Syria, Russian veto votes in the UN Security Council, and the endemic corruption in the Iraqi army. These led to the extremely dire situation in Syria, and the quick takeover of northern Iraq.
They never did. This is just fringe internet ******** . US armed specific, vetted rebels.

What really led to the success of ISIS was the inaction of the West in Syria, Russian veto votes in the UN Security Council, and the endemic corruption in the Iraqi army. These led to the extremely dire situation in Syria, and the quick takeover of northern Iraq.
Reply
+3
#143 to #13 - billburr (10/28/2015) [-]
They never did but the Republicans and some Democrats wanted them to. The media framed it as an evil dictator vs. peaceful revolutionaries because Assad wasn't a friend of the US.
Unfortunately those peaceful protestors formed ISIS. Luckily they didn't actually give them the weapons!
Unless you count arming the Iraqi army who ran away from ISIS; I'm starting to think Iraq never liked us at all
Incidentally, the protests really only started because of a drought
Reply
+6
User avatar #134 to #13 - indalx (10/28/2015) [-]
No they just drop them nearby them.
Reply
+11
#117 to #13 - selfdenyingbeggar (10/27/2015) [-]
The Covert Origins of ISIS



This video will show how the US helped create ISIS
Reply
+1
#161 to #117 - anon (10/28/2015) [-]
jet fuel cant melt steel beams
Reply
+1
User avatar #123 to #117 - garymotherfingoak ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
>>#119,
Reply
0
User avatar #174 to #123 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
Nowadays you can trust independent journalists more than state or bank paid journalists
Reply
0
User avatar #183 to #174 - garymotherfingoak ONLINE (10/29/2015) [-]
there's too many factors that come into play in journalism integrity to make that assumption, and SCG isn't known for neutral sided reporting.
Reply
0
User avatar #137 to #123 - beardedtiger (10/28/2015) [-]
What do you mean? are they stupid or something?
Reply
+1
#119 to #117 - anon (10/28/2015) [-]
>stormcloudsgathering
0
#173 to #119 - alimais has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
+259
User avatar #16 to #13 - asotil (10/27/2015) [-]
Syrian civil war like 2 years ago
America going to send in troops for full scale invasion
Populace, soldiers, generals, everyone and their mother says "This is ******* stupid, why"
Congress and Obama make multiple speeches about why we need to invade "assist" Syria by sending troops to make Iraq 2: Sandy Boogaloo
Population of the world collectively "You're full of **** "s
"FINE WE WON'T HAVE BOOTS ON GROUND IN SYRIA"
Fund, arm, train the Syrian Rebels to fight their government which we're allied with
Rebels say "Hey thanks for all the stuff guys, NOW **** OFF"
Instead of "Syrian Rebels" they decided to become a coherent group with the name "ISIS"
Archer is fired
Past year happens
Reply
+39
#44 to #16 - astafarianp (10/27/2015) [-]
"Instead of "Syrian Rebels" they decided to become a coherent group with the name "ISIS""

There is nothing coherent about any rebels in Syria. ISIS is one group. There's also Al-Nusra. As well as the Free Syrian Army. It's moderate factions fighting extremists and the government. The kurds fight anyone who comes into their territory. The government fights the moderates and extremists. The extremists fight everyone. Russia fights for the government now. The Arab gulf countries arm anyone fighting the government. It's a giant *********** with 300,000 dead, 11 million displaced, and no end in sight.
Reply
+5
#49 to #44 - lozarus (10/27/2015) [-]
"moderate" factions is kind of a euphemism regarding the syrian war. They still want a caliphate under sharia law, they just want to overthrow assad first while ISIS went full retard and declared global yihad right now.

Other than that, yeah, its pretty much a big *********** where everyone is fighting everyone.
Reply
0
#85 to #44 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
, There are no moderates or tell me which one on the list is the moderate group

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

If you pick FSA which receives and received most US weapons you are picking Jihadi terrorists see:
>>#37
Reply
0
#98 to #85 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
how to link **** :
NOT >>#37
>> 37 *********************
Reply
+3
User avatar #101 to #98 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
Oh Anon, that sure is now my most important concern
Reply
+11
#63 to #16 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
Welp, that's about 100% wrong.

The US was never, ever, under any circumstances, going to get involved in the civil war in Syria with ground forces. Such a move was never considered, proposed, or discussed.

US arming of Syrian rebels was extremely limited due to the fact that most rebel groups also oppose US interests and are associated with fundamentalist extremism.

ISIS did not originate in Syria, the originated in Sunni Iraq.

Most Syrian rebel groups are not in fact part of ISIS.

TLDR you're utterly ignorant of the situation in Syria and the recent history of US foreign policy.
Reply
+1
#126 to #63 - anon (10/28/2015) [-]
and this is wrong as now even said by the mainstream press (NYT)
The Rebels are getting TOWs for far longer than the US claims to arm them. How?
Well our friends in Saudi-Arabia and Qatar bought Arsenals full of TOWs and gave them to the rebels. And what is the most interesting thing? This Weaponry demands an agreement by the buying side, that it will not give away the TOWs. The US knew that the TOWs were given to the Rebels and in that group especially to Al-Nusra.
So the US is activly arming the Rebels or has given its consent to the Saudis arming al-nusra with their weapons.
So after the NATO Member Turkey gave areas to recover and retreat to the Rebels and with that Al-Nusra and thus activly intervened into the war, the US did not only train rebels in jordan (the failed operation was only the tip of the iceberg, the CIA is training Rebels since the war broke out and most of the fighters on the southern front recieved CIA Training and Intel.
Claiming you would only arm the rebels and not ISIS is btw simply dumb.
There is a very well documented tendency to further radicalize during the combat and so there is a constant stream to ISIS from the other rebel groups.
Reply
+1
#124 to #63 - anon (10/28/2015) [-]
Conspiracy videos aside, the US is still mostly responsible for ISIS. If they didnt **** up the Iraq invasion so badly the group probably wouldn't have gotten nearly as powerful as they did in Iraq before heading over to Syria. For those who don't know, the reason they did so well in Syria is because theyd already had many years of experience in guerilla warfare fighting Americans in Iraq - unlike the most of the other Syrian resistance groups who are super disorganised
Reply
0
User avatar #178 to #124 - durkadurka (10/28/2015) [-]
The invasion itself was fine. US troops managed to bring relative stability to the region.

What helped create ISIS was the withdrawal and subsequent power vacuum.
Reply
+2
#109 to #16 - asotil (10/27/2015) [-]
Click to show spoiler
>All saying the US never did/wanted to do anything are anon
Reply
+1
#94 to #16 - destroyerofcheese (10/27/2015) [-]
"Archer is fired"
Reply
-1
#68 to #16 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
rofl, you obviously don't know **** about ISIS, let alone the Syrian conflict. ISIS didn't even originate from Syria, and the Syrian rebels are many, many groups with all kinds of different agendas and alliances.
Most experts agreed that the FSA (inb4 Russian shills says they don't exist) were only a month from winning over SAA, until Russia intervened.
Basically saying USA has armed ISIS is less than half the truth (ISIS gained strength from the Iraqi army acting like a bunch of homos), and nonetheless the real baddy in the war is still Assad, as the SAA is responsible for approx 80% of all civilian casualities in Syria (this is indisputable, almost every organisation involved in Syria agrees on this).
Reply
+1
User avatar #93 to #68 - upunkpunk (10/27/2015) [-]
The FSA was not a month away from winning and FSA is just a mask all the other terrorist organizations use. Nusra pulls the strings at the end.
Reply
0
#105 to #16 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
As much as I hate Obama. Obama is the only reason we did not invade. Imagine if the Bush Admin was in charge.
Reply
0
User avatar #170 to #105 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
The only reason you did not invade was because Assad destroyed all of his chemical weapons
Reply
+153
User avatar #15 to #13 - gibroner (10/27/2015) [-]
they don't intentionally but they've armed other rebel groups which have either given up their arms to ISIS or ended up joining with ISIS
Reply
+34
User avatar #36 to #15 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
Iraqi soldiers also showed how the weapon airdrops for rebels and kurds landed right into the hands of ISIS.

The anti-tank missiles the US dropped are a huge pain in the ass for the Syrian government troops
Reply
+3
User avatar #57 to #36 - inyourmind (10/27/2015) [-]
The TOW anti-tank missiles have been kept within the intended rebel group rather effectively. Mostly because the CIA hands those out in person and requires proof of use (the canister and a video of it firing) before giving out another.
Reply
0
User avatar #89 to #57 - upunkpunk (10/27/2015) [-]
Actually Al-Nusra which is Al-Queada is heavily embedded in the rebel controlled regions. They always bully the FSA, kidnap and assassinate their leaders. They keep FSA close since they're Nusra's bitch and have the TOWs. So no, those are supporting terrorists too.
Reply
0
User avatar #96 to #89 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
They are also cooperating on a regular basis, there is a interview of a FSA commander referring to them as brothers mentioning their cooperation and plan to bring shariah law over Syria also all of Al-Nusra territory is inside FSA territory.
Reply
+2
#115 to #15 - selfdenyingbeggar (10/27/2015) [-]
they do so intentionally, they just don't admit it. They wanted to take out Assad that way. That's why their supposed coalition against ISIL didn't deliver much results and on the other hand, from the first week, Russia delivered heavy casualties.
Reply
0
User avatar #100 to #15 - furiousmarshmellow (10/27/2015) [-]
Didn't they somehow get Toyota Hiluxes, too?
Reply
0
#122 to #100 - anon (10/28/2015) [-]
By stealing them. Same way they also got hundreds of former US Army vehicles and heaps of US made weapons
Reply
+204
User avatar #1 - protectorofjam (10/27/2015) [-]
the inconvenient truth, son
Reply
+28
User avatar #17 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
The U.S. Government has been pretty strict with which groups they are backing in Syria. Only problem is ISIS size wise is like 90% of the rebels groups over there.
Reply
-2
#71 to #17 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
you dont live in syria so dont talk **** you stupid american
Reply
0
#130 to #17 - anon (10/28/2015) [-]
That and the US only has control of the weapons until they're in rebel hands. After that, nothing's stopping them from defecting...or dropping the weapons and running away, leaving them for ISIL which is basically what the Iraqi military did .
Reply
-17
#18 to #17 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
Here's some food for tought. USA buys oil from ISIS.
Reply
+34
#19 to #18 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
REALLY NOW? How about you give me a well written article from a legitimate source other than /pol/?
Reply
+8
User avatar #22 to #18 - reaperriley ONLINE (10/27/2015) [-]
You mean Saudi Arabia and Kuwait right?
Reply
-1
User avatar #24 to #22 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
Even then, I think we stopped buying Oil from Saudi Arabia a long time ago. We because self sustaining I think in the past 5 years.
Reply
+2
User avatar #26 to #24 - reaperriley ONLINE (10/27/2015) [-]
Oh yeah, we have a **** ton of oil, in fact its out 3rd largest export its why we dont get oil from those countries.

But if you are going to throw stones at groups who have oil in the middle east, those would Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

I mean **** , we have had a self substaining amount of oil at the point at people started saying we were only over there for the Oil. Which is partly true, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait export alot of oil to the UK, germany, china, etc.
Reply
+1
User avatar #25 to #24 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
*became
Reply
0
#28 to #17 - comradewinter (10/27/2015) [-]
Haven't been that strict if they join the IS, though. Or leaving the fact that many of the armed groups were jihadist groups. It was doomed to fail.
Reply
+1
User avatar #29 to #28 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
The groups I was talking about was Kurds, and a few select groups. Sad to see that a lot of them turned into ISIS.
Reply
0
#31 to #29 - comradewinter (10/27/2015) [-]
The Kurds seem to be the most reasonable group in Syria, seeing as they represent Kurdish ideals, but have no interest in expanding past the territories they already control. However, they are disconnected from all other groups as they aren't as closely connected to Islamic factions. The FSA, however, hasn't been constant and has seen groups entering and leaving the coalition, thus arming just one group in it could prove catastrophic. Why the US even bothers arming groups in the MIddle East is beyond me, because it has never worked out for them.
Reply
-1
User avatar #87 to #31 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
Too bad Turkey is now ******** on Kurds
Reply
+1
#59 to #17 - widar (10/27/2015) [-]
Well, ISIS is not 90% of the rebels - but at least 90% are hardcore jihadis of various groups. The most powerful group (allies of our "friends" in the so-called FSA) is Jaish al Fateh, an alliance of Syria's al-Qaeda Branch, Jabhat al Nusra, and Ahrar al Sham, a group that has the same ideology as Nusra (also a bunch of smaller groups with similiar ideologies, but those are small compared to the big two).
I have a suspicion that the jihadis only allow the "moderates" of the FSA to exist because
1) they have no real power. The FSA controls no territory in the north of Syria, they leave the governing to the jihadis
2) their US and Gulf-state supplied TOWs are useful.
All weapons and training given to the FSA directly aids jihadi groups, since the FSA is essentially just a front that allows the west to supply weapons without having to go through the embarassment of officially arming al-Qaeda and friends directly. I don't know if it's incompetence or malice on the part of the US (the Gulf states are probably quite happy to aid Nusra), but I suspect that removing Assad is currently the top goal and the people in charge don't care much that they're using radicals of the same sort as those that committed 9/11 to achieve that goal.
Reply
+1
#34 to #17 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
The situation is much more complex in Syria and Iraq. Many countries have thrown cards in the fight. Everyone hates isis, but different countries have other interests. I've seen the RT listening fags say the U.S. supports isis, which I seriously doubt. If anything America tolerates isis in Syria since it wants assad out of power. But even then, it still bombs isis. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Russia, and probably others all have different goals in that region. Russia for example doesn't want assad out, because he is an ally. I'm pretty sure the only Russian naval base on the Mediterranean is in Syria. It doesn't want to risk losing that.
Reply
-1
User avatar #52 to #34 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
Man **** RT news. Everyone knows they are full of **** and I think they know it. Russia might just move and take Assad out and control the port if he can't do anything about it.
Reply
-2
#35 - kaboomz (10/27/2015) [-]
america funded terrorists to bring down assad
plan backfired and ISIS was born
since ISIS is still distabilizing the region they refuse to destroy them
they send drones a barely do a scratch on them
the UN is america's bitch so they do what america asks
you cant count on any of these 2 to wipe out ISIS

our faith is in russia
they are buttdevastating ISIS
based putin is based
Reply
-3
User avatar #45 to #35 - reican (10/27/2015) [-]
i'd say, round up Assads boy ans Isis and set up a big wall around them then fill it with water.
or combustible liquid and accidentaly a lighter
Reply
0
User avatar #41 to #35 - nanako (10/27/2015) [-]
hey elsanna. if you're going to block people then kindly stay the **** out of political discussion. This is not for children who can't have their worldviews challenged

you're mostly right on the first point. As to the second, it sounds like you've been swallowing too much propaganda

Russia is bombing terrorists, pure and simple. Assad is the legitimate government of syria, and ALL of those other factions are scum. Do you have any idea the evil **** the FSA has been up to?

russia is trying to save syria, and the best way to do that is to restore power to it's legitimate government. it is oing this because it wants stability in the region, and that is in the best interests of everyone, especially of the syrian people.

As we're seeing plainly, america is not waging war against ISIS. it is waging war against syria by proxy, and all of those groups are western funded. The only difference between ISIS and the FSA is that one has gone rogue and doesn't obey the master anymore

As to russia's targeting. yes of course it's focusing most of its strikes on the non isis rebels, because the area they control is all around assad, and especially around many major population centres umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-30-september-2015_54609#7/34.339/39.749

if america were serious about it, they'd be doing the same thing, it's the tactically sound decision. Isis controls the bulk of the landmass, but it's mostly in the east, and mostly rural. russia has nevertheless bombed a heck of a lot of isis, and will wipe them out in short order

nobody asked for america or israel, they're serving their own interests here. Russia's presence was specifically requested, and it is responding as a good ally should. albeit horribly late
Reply
+1
User avatar #64 to #41 - meganinja ONLINE (10/27/2015) [-]
If the Government is the best solution to all of this, why do you think there are so many rebels in the first place?
Reply
+1
#78 to #64 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
They're islamists from many different countries... Not home grown opposition
Reply
+1
User avatar #79 to #78 - meganinja ONLINE (10/27/2015) [-]
Then what's the point in calling them "rebels" and why are they so angry at Assad?
Reply
+1
User avatar #91 to #79 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
All of Syria was secular before the conflict and the government is still secular that's why extremists and jihadists are so butt mad about Assad.

Secular means no religion is allowed on government grounds and no discrimination on religious grounds is allowed in the country.

Doesn't take a wild guess why those doon coons are so mad
Reply
0
User avatar #92 to #91 - meganinja ONLINE (10/27/2015) [-]
Fair enough. I'm rather uninformed about the reasons behind the whole thing. Why does nobody want Assad back in charge, then? What did he even do to piss off the US?
Reply
+1
#95 to #92 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
Secularism of Assad pissed of all the Arab countries and Arabs in the region also the current Turkish government really doesn't like Assad because of that.

Israel always had some beef with Syria, Israel led assassinations, sabotages etc. previous to the conflict on Syria and during the conflict regularly supported anti-assad groups

US is bat **** crazy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria
Reply
0
User avatar #181 to #64 - nanako (10/28/2015) [-]
because assad's interests, and the interest of the syrian people, are in opposition to western interest. Most notably, israel wants greater control of land and resources in the region.

The rebels, ALL of them, are created, trained, and funded, by the west. A varied combination of disaffected native youth (which are found everywhere, in every single country in the world), people from nearby countries with something to gain, and flat out mercenaries from literally anywhere. It;s been proven that at least some of the ISIS members are former US military members who went into PMCs, identified by military tatoos.

There are so many rebels in syria because they have been put there. If you gathered up all the most vocal or violent opponents of america, and dumped them into arkansas, i guarantee you'd see an identical disproportionate effect of "rebels" fighting the host country.

Now to be clear, i am not saying assad's government is perfect I am also not saying it's bad . What i am saying is that organised government, even in it's most oppressive possible form, is infinitely preferable to the sort of anarchy that will result from letting scattered rebel factions take over a country.

We're already seeing the consequences of this in the form of a huge wave of migrants fleeing syria and ending up in europe And no shortage of people capitalising on that exact thing for political or economic gain, but that's a debate for another thread

I will state fully and openly, assad's government is better for the syrian people, and for the whole world, than the government of either ISIS, the FSA, or any of the other factions in syria.
Reply
0
User avatar #61 to #41 - elsanna (10/27/2015) [-]
You had me blocked for months.
Reply
0
User avatar #182 to #61 - nanako (10/28/2015) [-]
I typically only block people who blocked me first. There are some rare exceptions to this, you are not one of them. You blocked me, and i only blocked you in response some time later when i found out while trying to comment on your content.

This is pretty much the non-agression principle in action. i'll respond in kind if you fire the first shot, i will generally never do it otherwise
Reply
+2
User avatar #46 to #35 - robinwilliamson (10/27/2015) [-]
No that's absolutely NOT true.

America sent arms to who they thought were "moderates" (because we didn't learn from the past when it bit us in the ass but that's another story) and it was occasionally hijacked or captured. Not all of it, and it certainly wasn't on purpose.

ISIS was born in Iraq. Not Syria, and a long time ago mostly around during the Iraq war, and a lot of their top military leaders are ex-Saddam military leaders, Ba'athists.

ISIS isn't destabilizing the region any more than everyone else is. And I don't know if you noticed, but America, along with their international coalition, is bombing the living **** out of ISIS, whether it's doing any good (against a hydra-like enemy) or not.

Stop watching RT.
Reply
0
User avatar #145 to #46 - thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
I don't buy the "we thought they were moderates" shtick.

The CIA is one of the most crucial operations and intelligence agencies in the globe, the respective individuals in the CIA and the government knew who a lot of these FSA fighters against Assad were (foreign Islamist conscripts from all around the world and ex Al-Qaeda members) and funded and supplied the rebels.

The goal has always been to ultimately destabilize the region, ever since the Soviet Union became our primary enemy after the Second World War the Middle East / Islamic World has been a proxy-war ground between the U.S. and the Soviets using whatever means necessary to control that region due to its logistical importance (geographic, resources, etc.)
Reply
0
User avatar #164 to #145 - robinwilliamson (10/28/2015) [-]
I'm sure if the CIA were that smart we'd have the region by now.
Reply
+4
User avatar #40 to #35 - elsanna (10/27/2015) [-]
I hate America's ******** more than anyone, but this comment is full of problems.

>the UN is america's bitch so they do what america asks

This is completely irrelevant and not true. The UN can't do **** unless America and Russia agree on it, which they never do.

>our faith is in russia
>they are buttdevastating ISIS
>based putin is based

Russia is attacking the non-ISIS Syrian rebels who are fighting Assad. ISIS is a minor secondary target for Russia. Russia is trying to save Assad's regime. Russia isn't a savior of any kind either. America's and Russia's gov'ts both suck.
Reply
0
#55 to #40 - dehumanizer (10/27/2015) [-]
Assad is not a vilian you moron, why dont you go make some more fake evidence about him gassing civilians or something?
Reply
0
User avatar #62 to #40 - xgrandmoffx (10/27/2015) [-]
Russia's goal is to preserve Assad's government, which has Syria as its client state. Right now, they're focusing on destroying FSA, but once that's wiped out, the next step will be to take back all that land from ISIS. Russia will at least push ISIS out of Syria and into Iraq, so we better get to work on knocking them down from our side, because otherwise, we'll have more of them to fight later.
Reply
+16
#39 to #35 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
You mean Russia's bombing all the other groups only barely scratching ISIS itself.
Reply
+5
#42 to #39 - MasterL (10/27/2015) [-]
Exactly. Russia is most notably bombing areas where (non-ISIS) rebels are threatening alawite held territories. For those who don't know, Assad is alawite; coincedence-I-think-not.jpeg. On a side note, alawism is a branch of Shia islam; the majority of most prominently Iran and Iraq is Shi'ite, which is why Iran supports Assad aswell. Meanwhile most other Middle-Eastern nations are predominantly Sunni Muslims, which is a reason why Saudi-Arabia and the Gulf States are opposed to Assad. It should also be noted that while Assad is alawite, the majority of Syria is Sunni aswell; just another reason why the people want him gone.
In other words, uncle Putin is mostly saving Assad's ass, helping him secure the only territories loyal to the Assad dynasty. It should also be noted that Russia has a naval base in Tartous, south of Lataka on the map <<
Some would suggest though that in the current state of affairs, the best chance of bringing ISIS down is by helping Assad for the time being. And that's pretty much exactly what Russia is doing, though it's fairly clear that they mostly do this for their own benefit.
Reply
+1
#99 to #42 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
Your picture is **** and you should feel bad

Not alawism is the problem, huge problem is Syria being a secular No religion is allowed in government building, government and religion strictly seperated and discrimination based on religion is forbidden which is why Christians, Kurds and other minorities had it good in Syria nation in the Middle East.

I agree with the later but you must also take in account that most of the air strikes happen to be in the region Latakia where the Russian air base is so it's quite logical that that's the place they will bomb the most

Also can you feel bad about it if they bomb ISIS-like groups ?

examiner.com/article/u-s-backed-syrian-rebels-reportedly-massacre-christian-village
Reply
-3
User avatar #56 to #39 - dehumanizer (10/27/2015) [-]
no
Reply
+13
#90 - narddogg (10/27/2015) [-]
I'm a simple man. I see Tom&Jerry, I thumb up.
Reply
+73
#4 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
Ignoring the fact that the Syrian government has, at times, proven itself to be no better than ISIS
Reply
+23
User avatar #5 to #4 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
at least it'd be far more open to negotiations/less dangerous to outside countries than ISIS, and far more likely from keeping the made up boarders made after WWII together and not descending into total anarchy.
Reply
+2
#6 to #5 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
So... In other words, we shoud back the government that used chemical weapons against it's own population, because hey, at least it's not ISIS
Reply
+5
#37 to #6 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
The chemical attack was blamed on the rebels www.examiner.com/article/u-s-backed-syrian-rebels-reportedly-massacre-christian-village by UN and witness testimony

Syria destroyed it's chemical weapons stock to prevent US intervention against the Syrian government like Sadam faced in Iraq
Reply
+2
User avatar #38 to #37 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
>>#37,

themarineelite ,sircool , etiennesk, paddypancake ,

The only people who pinned the gas attacks on the Syrian gov. were USA and other NATO allies
Reply
0
#113 to #38 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
Cause, you know, we can totally trust the likes of Putin and his allies
Reply
0
User avatar #167 to #113 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
I didn't say anything about Putin or Assad being the nicest only that you still believed the mouth-propaganda from Kerry, Cameron, Obama and co. when it came to the syrian gas attack and even thought there were still a moderate rebel group left or a all-syrian group according to the the German intelligence service BND 96% of the rebels are foreigners
Reply
0
#111 to #37 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
Remember, it took almost a solid year to get them to cooperate, and even as the UN ships were waiting to remove the chemicals, he still refused to let them dock. Don't try to act like the current regime is somehow valid, they're still responsible for some pretty horrific ****
Reply
0
User avatar #168 to #111 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
Well we got ISIS, Kurds, Syrian gov. and the rebels and every rebel group wants Sharia Law .

ISIS -> bat **** crazy
Kurds -> pretty much a wildcard
Rebels -> almost ISIS even gassed thousands of civilians which was blamed without any evidence on Assad
Syrian gov. -> Pretty much stability in that region because of their strict Secular ruling Christian, Jews and other people who would have been discriminated against had it really good under Assad which is why there were so many massacres on Christians by rebels and Kurds don't want to rule over all of Syria

>they're still responsible for some pretty horrific ****
It's war, in WWII you pretty much carpet bombed cities see Dresden bombing until there was nothing left or during the Iraq war the US also destroyed whole civilian building only because there could have been one soldier in it.

The only citation Western media mentions when it come to civilian deaths in Syria is the SOHR syrian observatory for human rights even though western media said that organisation is highly questionable this organisation is basically one dude in his flat in Britain but still use it as a source.

Reply
+13
User avatar #7 to #6 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
which evil is better, the one using chemical weapons on its own people, or the one who'd likely use chemical weapons on its own people AND everyone around them?
Reply
+13
#23 to #7 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
Neither you ************ . The Middle East is a *********** enough, let them murder each other. Or let Russia deal with them
Reply
0
#108 to #23 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
We caused most of the *********** to begin with. Ever heard of "don't start something you aren't prepared to finish"?
Reply
0
User avatar #112 to #108 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
We as in who?
Reply
0
#127 to #112 - phoenixactual (10/28/2015) [-]
Let's have a look back at the root cause of the problems ongoing currently in the Middle East. Before WWII, the entire region fell under the reign of the Ottoman Empire, which was a surprisingly liberal government, all things considered. Post war, the empire was broken up, and the entire area, regardless of cultural boundaries, was colonized by the victors. Half of Gaza was promised to the planned new Israeli state, with the rights of native people across the region being promised to be upheld. One only needs to look at the way Israel treats the Gaza strip to see how that worked. A coup in Iran, backed by the CIA, upended the democratically elected government in Iran, and the royal family was put back into power, purely to give the US an ally in the middle east. Saudi Arabia, having been left because it was considered to be too barren, was taken by militant Wahabbiism in the power vaccuum left by the fall of the old empire, and began to spread it's influence. The Iranian revolution happened during this spread, assisted by a nation tired of constant western influence, and militant Islam began taking hold in the region, as colonies were released from their parent nations one by one. Further influence over the years spread these feelings of resentment across the region, and dictatorships began to rise. We created the regimes we fought, get it? We created the taliban through training militants in Afghanistan in the '80s, we created modern Iran through the coup in the '60s, we even created ISIS by blindly invading Iraq with no credible intel, and leaving when the job wasn't even half finished. And the majority, every time, voted for the presidents that caused these conflicts with their actions. When I say we, I can honestly say I mean the majority of the American people
Reply
0
User avatar #180 to #127 - themarineelite (10/28/2015) [-]
That wasn't America's fault for setting up the boundaries for the Middle East. It was British who decided where the boundaries were. Though the British did plenty of bad **** when they still had colonies.
Reply
-2
#81 to #23 - nazo (10/27/2015) [-]
Europe is up there, man
Europe is up there, man
Reply
+2
User avatar #131 to #7 - paranoidmuffin (10/28/2015) [-]
People still believe that Bashar used chem weapons? lol
Reply
-2
#8 to #7 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
neither, you dense ************ . There is no lesser of two evils, if Assad is willing to use them against his own people, he's obviously got no problem with using them against others
Reply
+4
User avatar #9 to #8 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
when you're in the middle of backwards ass no where, no one cares about you.

When you're in the middle of backwards ass no where but sit on resources people want, they only care about your gov'ts stability and countries ability to send out those resources. The people in charge of both of those places do whatever it takes to remain in power, no matter the cost, only the second has far more to lose and far more pressure/assistance on them from global politics.

I don't like either, but there aren't any other choices at the moment and since glassing the area isn't an option, pick the lesser evil.
Reply
+1
#10 to #9 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
There are plenty of other options, in case you forgot about the moderate rebels that are fighting both ISIS and the current regime. Why choose between two evils, when there's a group that only wants peace out of it?
Reply
+4
User avatar #14 to #10 - etiennesk (10/27/2015) [-]
Unfortunately the moderate rebels aren't the most apparent option because they've become out of the radar internationally. Trying to aid them is nearly impossible because ISIS is willing to mask themselves as the moderates to get aid intended for their enemies. Most foreign nations have difficulty ensuring that the side they're supporting aren't actually radicals.

Build that on top of the fact that most of the countries which are capable of offering aid are more interested in their own politics than the issue of human rights. Russia wants to help Assad because Putin believes he can manipulate him and wants to have more influence the region for the sake of Russia's benefit. not that that's a bad thing The US government, on the other hand, want the ability to influence the people in that region for their own benefit, and unlike Russia, they don't have an obvious choice. Assad wants power for Assad, which benefits Russia. ISIS wants power for ISIS, which benefits Islamic Extremist Groups. The moderate rebels want power for the Syrian people, which benefits no one except the Syrian people, not the US or most other nations.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the moderate rebels don't actually appeal to any one other than human rights activists and Syrian people, whereas the majority of countries' governments which give aid do so for their own influence, not because it's the ethical or right thing to do. I agree with you, you should never chose the lesser of two evils when there's a possibility for a better offer, but politics overwhelm that.

that, and most Americans and people in democratic countries have come to be preconceived that there are only ever 2 options. Left or Right, Assad or ISIS, Palestine or Israel, Republican or Democrat, etc. The idea that there could be a tertiary option which succeeds more than a duality of choice scares those who have learned to live in a world of black or white.
Reply
-1
User avatar #86 to #14 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
The Syrian government was a Soviet/Russian ally since a longer time ago and Russia has several bases on the coast there
Reply
+2
User avatar #11 to #10 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
aren't the groups of "moderate rebels" either

A: selling their guns we give them to isis to escape to europe
B: Being bombed to ashes by russia
Reply
0
User avatar #12 to #9 - zenler (10/27/2015) [-]
its what u call take over the dammed place by force since the ******* there arent improving
Reply
+1
User avatar #30 to #8 - paddypancake (10/27/2015) [-]
Assad =Thinks about his own safebeing and kills his own people.
ISIS = People who kill all sorts of people they disagree with and who would die to hurt the western world.
Reply
+4
#21 to #6 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
there are backed up resources from several big publications stating that there have been a use of chemical weapons, but there has been 0 proof that it was the government. im pretty sure that it wasnt the government
Reply
+1
User avatar #128 to #6 - deerbeer (10/28/2015) [-]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one actually proved that Asad used chemical weapons. US government said they have evidence, but they couldn't show them in order to not reveal their sources. The incident ended with Asad giving up all the chemical weapons he had, so he can't use them now, even if he wanted.
Reply
0
#129 to #128 - phoenixactual (10/28/2015) [-]
You're right, it was never proven. But until the weapons were removed, they consistently remained under Syrian control. And we're stuck between the word of a dictator who kills anybody who disagrees with him, hence the cause of the whole damn civil war, and a bunch of murderous ***** , both trying to say the other side is responsible. The key factor in evidence, at least from our point of view, is the fact that only one side of the conflict had verifiable weapons stores, and it wasn't the group that would become ISIS. We can't trust either side here, there is no lesser of two evils.
Reply
0
User avatar #20 to #6 - mephiblis ONLINE (10/27/2015) [-]
Where da proofs at? Citations and shiet son, do i hefta spell it out fer ya?
Reply
+1
User avatar #171 to #20 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
John Kerry said so, that's enough proof
Reply
-1
#83 to #6 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
Its the legitimate government you ASS HOLE
Reply
0
#110 to #83 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
It was a legitimate government, until Assad decided to take supreme power over the country, and started ling anybody who disagreed with him. Not to mention the whole "gassing your own civilian population" part, which pretty much negates any remaining legitimacy he could have claimed.
Reply
+19
#54 - echsa (10/27/2015) [-]
Reply
+1
User avatar #27 - elementfall (10/27/2015) [-]
As difficult it is to admit sometimes,a dictatorship is sometimes better than a democracy with an extremist party in control
Reply
+9
User avatar #66 to #27 - xgrandmoffx (10/27/2015) [-]
>democracy with an extremist party in control
Wouldn't that just be a dictatorship? Rather, let us consider tyranny as opposed to anarchy. While both are terrible, tyranny is at least stable.
Reply
+1
#76 to #66 - elementfall (10/27/2015) [-]
You actually expressed my thoughts better than i could
thanks
Reply
+5
#82 - EventHorizon (10/27/2015) [-]
Except that's absolutely nothing like the Syrian War... at all.

Roughly, ISIL controls the north eastern portion of Syria, the rebels the north west, and the rest controlled by the regime with help from Lebanese Hezbollah and a smattering of radical Islamic offshoots. Iran is assisting in the anti-rebel campaign from the east, Lebanese Hezbollah from the west, and Russia from the north (until recently only through arms and armaments). Now, Russia is settling in extremely tight in the Mediterranean air/ground bases for the same (real) reasons they annexed Crimea, for the ports.

The US, in all of this, has been arming and training the rebels, in what has now officially become a proxy-war with Russia. We're currently only dealing with ISIL everywhere BUT Syria. Most notably, their holdings in western Afghanistan and parts of northern and central Africa. Russia's claims of massive offensive victories against ISIL are MASSIVELY inflated, because in reality they've been conducting airstrikes almost exclusively in the rebel controlled areas i.e. against the rebels, not ISIL (see picture).

The groups actually fighting ISIL are the Turkish Kurds from across the border of southern Turkey and the rebels. At no point whatsoever has the US endeavored to arm or support ISIL in any way as retaliation against Assad, as even a 5th grader could tell you why that's an enormously moronic thing to do (see: post-Aghanistant-Soviet war).

TL;DR: You people don't know anything about geopolitical conflict besides what is ridiculously minimalized and grossly oversimplified by poorly edited gifs.
0
#175 to #82 - alimais has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
0
#176 to #82 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
Well, that map got many wrong and why did the Coalition bomb Kurdish territory ?
Reply
0
User avatar #185 to #176 - EventHorizon (10/30/2015) [-]
Yeah I think I'm going to trust the Institute for the Study of War over some Google Earth cobbled together graphic. And ISIL elements were behind Kurdish lines which resulted in the coalition strikes there.
Reply
0
#186 to #185 - alimais (10/30/2015) [-]
It's actually a map from an article critical to Russia
www.vox.com/2015/10/7/9471271/russia-syria-bombing-map

Also you can see how effective and present those air-strikes are duo how every jihadist video where ammo depots are frizzling in the background are screaming Allah Akbar and curse the Russians or the recordings of the Russian drones of those air-strikes.

www.youtube.com/channel/UCE5vT3R9xU7SOZRQnuQr0jw/playlists

Liveleak is full of videos like this and I haven't really seen much from the coalition air strikes
Reply
+1
#102 to #82 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
So nice to see people who are aware of geopolitics.
Reply
+1
User avatar #144 to #82 - thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
Ding ding ding we have a winner.
Reply
+5
#51 - drakeii (10/27/2015) [-]
wah a frontpage post that is based on reality not ******** ignorance

i am pleased.
Reply
+3
#133 - augustusxxiv (10/28/2015) [-]
<MFW this suggests US armed ISIS
<MFW Syria portrayed in a good light
<MFW I'm an International Relations and Russian Area Studies Double Major inb4 haha BA fag
Reply
0
User avatar #151 to #133 - elcreepo ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
I feel like Russian Area Studies is not going to come in handy at all

Why focus on one particularly volatile, if interesting, area of political relations when you can figure out China or some other rapidly economically developing country

Understanding China is key to our not being nuked in 2050 because China gained superiority over us baring Trump, that is
Reply
+1
#158 to #151 - anon (10/28/2015) [-]
>Trump elected
>Declares war on North Korea whilst handling ISIS
>North Korea immediately gains support from China and Russia
>USA rekt
>GG
Reply
+1
User avatar #142 to #133 - thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
It be more accurate if the ISIS flag was replaced with the Free Syrian Army flag which we have been supporting against's Assad's regime.

There's a lack of evidence to suggest we ever funded ISIS outside of unknown CIA arms dealing which wouldn't surprise me, but based on what we do know they acquired weaponry from left over gear after we packed up and left Iraq.

There's also no reason Syria cant be portrayed in good light, for some one who's claiming superiority because of their laughable degree you should know the terms good and bad are practically unrealistic descriptive words in global politics and historical analization because at the end of the day it's all perspective and that being said - perspective and politics = nation specific goals.
Reply
0
User avatar #152 to #142 - elcreepo ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
>political relations
>laughable

***** we would have died LONG ago without political relations majors.

They advice our politicians and are actually pretty damn useful

Studying russia though... that's laughable
Reply
+4
#33 - infinitereaper (10/27/2015) [-]
"Hey lets arm those terrorists who want to take over the world and destroy the U.S. and have infiltrated increasing numbers of countries and killed our own soldiers because of politics."

-America
Reply
-1
#80 to #33 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
If that's sarcasm... it failed
Reply
0
User avatar #106 to #33 - severepwner (10/27/2015) [-]
I don't think you're correct about that.

I may be wrong, but to my understanding, the first U.S. military casualty was relatively recent. There haven't been that many.
Reply
-1
User avatar #75 to #33 - Conquistador (10/27/2015) [-]
>Implying the country of Syria isn't a ****** up lackey of Russia.
Reply
0
User avatar #3 - robinwilliamson (10/27/2015) [-]
And Iran, and the Mujahideen, and Argentina, and Chile, and Paraguay...
Reply
+2
User avatar #48 to #3 - robinwilliamson (10/27/2015) [-]
Wow, good morning, people clearly don't know what I'm talking about

All these I listed are times the U.S. didn't like a government (Tom) and handed some dangerous, backfiring group (Jerry) a bunch of goodie bags to fight them.
Reply
-1
User avatar #77 to #48 - Conquistador (10/27/2015) [-]
So the point being is **** skin countries are too stupid to find stability no matter the circumstances?
Reply
0
#165 to #77 - robinwilliamson (10/28/2015) [-]
South America is not that dark skinned really
Reply
0
User avatar #184 to #165 - Conquistador (10/30/2015) [-]
>Implying Brazilians don't have huge quantities of African blood.
>Implying more negroes were exported there for slavery than there was to the US and the rest of North America.
>Implying Spain hasn't ****** up the inhabitants' basic concepts of race.
Reply
+2
#32 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
Hey to the pro-assad numbnuts--two wrong's don't make a right. We did what we could without committing troops to the cause. There is only so much one can do without committing to war and it comes with equally high risks. Despite our "terrible" reputation as world police, we had a real opportunity to stop the mass bloodshed early in Syria and we didn't. That is an indisputable fact. Now half of the countrymen have abandoned their homes. Given the strength and modernity of our military, it would have been the solution that would have meant the least amount of bloodshed. There absolutely is a legitimate moral argument for the side of war, even if it isn't "our war". Not that I advocate violence (in fact the opposite) but take it as food for thought.
Reply
0
User avatar #65 to #32 - xgrandmoffx (10/27/2015) [-]
Syria is Russia's satellite state, so going to war with Syria would mean getting into it with the Russians. The Cold War may technically be over, but the precarious situation of mutually assured destruction and tensions between the US and Russia still exist.
Reply
+1
#88 to #65 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
if the US walked into syria russia would back off. they're weaker and stand no chance against the us in a real fight. course that would be expensive as **** and nobody in the us wants to occupy a third country and try to create a democracy the natives don't give a **** about.
Reply
+1
#58 to #32 - lozarus (10/27/2015) [-]
Stop the mass bloodshed? you would have just created another mass blodshed like the many, many times this **** has happened before.

Lets say you did a large scale invasion of syria. Then what? you think the people who wanted a caliphate under sharia law would not consider the US its new enemy? So congratulations! now you have yet another afghanistan in your hands, guess you just cant wait for another 9/11.
Reply
+1
User avatar #149 - tables (10/28/2015) [-]
BEAMS! Welcome to the inanimate object club.

-tables
Reply
0
User avatar #163 to #162 - tables (10/28/2015) [-]
It's a blessing, and a curse.
Reply
+1
User avatar #135 - elcreepo ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
We're not the best at understanding revolutionaries

Nor did we realize communism wasn't as bad as we thought as long as we left those countries that weren't attacking us alone

So yeah, we ****** up the middle east. We turned a potential shangrila of math and science education into a an ignorant ******** full of *********** armed with military grade weapons

But we've been trying to sort **** out ever since. If we just leave them alone you eurofags are gonna suffer more than you are already due to militants driving ********** innocents into exile. We're trying to fix this mess.

But no, the US is bad, the war we're still in is bad and we should just go away and everything will be happy, right?
Reply
0
User avatar #153 to #135 - Sunset (10/28/2015) [-]
"communism wasn't as bad as we thought"

ex-soviet citizens would disagree
Reply
0
User avatar #154 to #153 - elcreepo ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
No I'm saying to an American perspective

Sure it sucked ass in a LOT of countries and still does today, but if they weren't attacking/threatening to attack the US, there was no need to burst into their country and say DEMOCRACY BITCHES.

Communism would have handled itself without our intervention.
Reply
0
User avatar #155 to #154 - Sunset (10/28/2015) [-]
the entire point of democracy vs communism was to show whose dicks were bigger, the americans or the soviets. and in the end, it doesn't even matter was america that had the biggest dick
Reply
0
User avatar #156 to #155 - elcreepo ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
No, no

We WERE the biggest dick.

Seriously Vietnam and Korea still are a bit ****** up cos of us

The USSR should have been the only dickfight contest we engaged in

We only left China alone cos China doesn't dickfight, it just cuts yours off
Reply
0
User avatar #157 to #156 - Sunset (10/28/2015) [-]
i would honestly say vietnam and korea would have been more ****** if we didn't **** it up in our own special way
Reply
0
User avatar #159 to #157 - elcreepo ONLINE (10/28/2015) [-]
Not really.

The oppression would have lead to the same thing which caused the USSR to collapse and Cambodia to become relevant for a short time. A people's revolt.

Then we could have swung in and offered them democracy without getting our special sauce everywhere and making them resent the **** out of us even today
Reply
+1
User avatar #125 - assdoreponyfucker (10/28/2015) [-]
All I can say is Bashar Al-Assad is a good man, everything you hear about him on American media are all lies. Isis is bad, terrorism is bad obviously but why does America feel the need to go against Bashar Al-Assad when he has done nothing wrong but protect Christian civilians from Islamic extremists.

My family members are part of those refugees and while I dislike many Islamic "refugees" (aka Isis members) entering Europe and creating a huge sphere of influence in that region, we are Christians and my family works for their money as far as I'm aware.

My father knew Bashar Al-Assad and at this point he is just a puppet being controlled by the higher ups of Al-Qaeda. He never wanted to be President of our glorious country, he wanted to be a doctor but was forced into the presidency.

As for the whole regime and dictatorship, yeah yeah supreme rule is bad but honestly if it were a democratic situation over there the country would be run by ISIS so do not complain and give it time.
Reply
0
#136 to #125 - augustusxxiv (10/28/2015) [-]
Except no.

Bashar Al-Assad is not controlled by Al Qaeda, his forces are fighting Al Nusra, who have pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. So that makes no sense.

Assad is a malicious dictator who uses chemical weapons, barrel bombs, and wholesale slaughter of civilians in a desperate attempt to maintain power. If what you were saying is true, then he would have abdicated the presidency at the drop of a hat. This is of course disregarding the fact that the Assad regime began before Al Qaeda EVEN EXISTED Assads came to power in 1970, Al Qaeda was founded in 1988

And if it was a democratic country, THIS WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE. The war started over Assad's authoritarian regime, for god's sake! One that his father started! Now, no offense to your family, and I respect your plight, but I'm afraid you've been misinformed by the State controlled media in Syria, and the same goes for your father.
Reply
+1
User avatar #139 to #136 - assdoreponyfucker (10/28/2015) [-]
I never said the entire Assad regime is controlled by Al Qaeda, only Bashar, who assumed office in 2000. His brother Basel was supposed to be the President but since he died in a car accident, Bashar was next in line and had to drop his entire medical career because he had no choice. So things led on from that and now all of "his" actions are really just led on by the highest influencing party which at times were Al Qaeda but honestly who could know now.

Everything you stated about chemical weapons and civilian slaughter is first world propaganda, that's exactly what they want everyone to know.

The US really has no clue what's going on, and even if they did, they would never speak truthfully on the matter to the general public.

Obviously if it was a democratic country it wouldn't have happened that's a given, but we can't change the past and if all of a sudden they tried to change it without heavy American influence, it would fall apart which is what I'm saying.

And we don't watch "state controlled media in Syria," Al Jazeera (recently not as reliable since it has American stations for some reason) and most other Middle Eastern news outlets are stationed in Dubai, probably the most influential non-terrorist area of the Middle East which has no reason to lie about anything. So no, our media we're taking in isn't being controlled by the State, but sadly the actual Syrian media is.
Reply
0
User avatar #172 to #136 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
>>#37, only John Kerry, Cameron and other NATO allies blamed the chem attacks on Assad and the only source on the barrel-bombs is literally a one-dude organisation in Britain called Syrian Observatory of Human Rights. Just get a fancy name for a org. and you can **** with peoples heads

Assad was the only Secular Secular means no religion is allowed on government grounds and no discrimination on religious grounds is allowed in the country. nation in the Middle East and all Jihadists and Arabs were pissed about that which is why soon after rebels took over Christian towns that Christian massacres happened
Reply
0
#121 - Hawke (10/28/2015) [-]
"ebil assad with his chemical weapons"

US is just mad they can't destabilize another country further and put in a puppet leader.
Reply
0
#118 - selfdenyingbeggar (10/27/2015) [-]
The Covert Origins of ISIS


Inform yourself about how the US helped create ISIS
12>
[ 185 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)