Russia has liberated Syria from ISIS.

[Manny]

From the Russian Ministry of Defence, announced on the UK Embassy Twitter feed tonight:



https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/938507669148663808

So much for Uncle Sam.     

[Contrarian]

From the Russian Ministry of Defence, announced on the UK Embassy Twitter feed tonight:



https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/938507669148663808

So much for Uncle Sam.     

Sadly agree with you not our finest hour under the Obama/Hillary regime.

Under Trump he’s clearly doing his best to avoid conflict with Russia/Syria.

[Manny]

Under Trump he’s clearly doing his best to avoid conflict with Russia/Syria.

Yes, Trump raining bombs on Syria helped avoid conflict. 

The next job is to remove the US uninvited invaders from Syria. 

Looks like the US dream of the oil pipeline across Syria (the real reason for US intervention) is history. 

[Contrarian]

Under Trump he’s clearly doing his best to avoid conflict with Russia/Syria.

Yes, Trump raining bombs on Syria helped avoid conflict. 

The next job is to remove the US uninvited invaders from Syria. 

Looks like the US dream of the oil pipeline across Syria (the real reason for US intervention) is history. 

That missile strike was minimal and the warmongers in the USA wanted far more (McCain, Graham, etc).

[andrewfi]

No, it is the US led coalition that destroyed ISIS not Russia. Don't you lot read the news?

Don't fall for Russian propaganda. The Russians are just meddling in USA affairs again.

[TomT]

Celebration may be premature.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-emerges-thin-air-idlib-rebels-concede-territory/

[Ste]

Russia running out of troops? Suggests ISIS might be winning...

Russian seven year old gets army call-up papers

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-42251301

[Markje]

No, it is the US led coalition that destroyed ISIS not Russia. Don't you lot read the news?

Don't fall for Russian propaganda. The Russians are just meddling in USA affairs again.

That is propaganda.

How many years did USA try before Russia became active? And after Russia became active, 2 years later ISIS is defeated.

That to me, says it all.

[Ste]

No, it is the US led coalition that destroyed ISIS not Russia. Don't you lot read the news?

Don't fall for Russian propaganda. The Russians are just meddling in USA affairs again.

That is propaganda.

How many years did USA try before Russia became active? And after Russia became active, 2 years later ISIS is defeated.

That to me, says it all.

I think Andy was being satirical. In any case if it is true, ISIS hasn't been defeated, it's just buggered off somewhere to regroup and return as something else - Taliban -> Al  Quaeda -> ISIS -> Another US-funded terrorist group...

Like in UK - National Front -> BNP -> EDL -> Britain First -> Anti Muslamic Rayguns League

[andrewfi]

Thanks Ste for accurately noticing what I had done.

As for this little pushback, well, it is a pushback and it is little. This is going to keep on happening for a long time. Worth recalling that Syria is not a little place and most of it is empty with little outposts of humanity scattered across the least inhospitable bits. The Syrian army is not spread out across the country but rather is focussed on where stuff is happening. When a bunch of terrorists get together in a little village and start shooting then they will, in almost every case, succeed, in the short term. However, the foreign backed insurgency in Syria is, for practical purposes, over. This is kinda like when a few years ago I wrote about the Russian Bride business being dead. It was, it is, but that does not mean that there are not small outcrops of activity and that observers, at the time, and since, were happy to point to those low level activities as evidence that I was wrong - I wasn't and am not.

The habit of the U.S to co opt and build up terrorism organisations for their geopolitical purposes will not end here. Right now ISIS, or its leaders and managers, are being repurposed for use elsewhere, possibly under a different brand; but the currency in which their wages will be paid will continue, for the time being, to be the U.S dollar.

[msmoby]

Whats the matter, Manny - my pointing out that 'Syria' has  put down far more political opposition groups  - than ISIS and managed to make most of the citizens of a city twice the size of Damascus - who have never appreciated the dictatorship - homeless.

Feel 'proud' ...

[Tom Cat]

Shared glory? It's a given had it not been for Russia's military involvement in Syria ISIS would still have control over Syria. Iraq's liberation would have also taken longer.

Trump, Mattis turn military loose on ISIS, leaving terror caliphate in tatters

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/08/trump-mattis-turn-military-loose-on-isis-leaving-terror-caliphate-in-tatters.html

[TomT]

We're doing a fine job in Syria.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-made-secret-deal-isis-172533608.html

[dcguyusa]

It's always better to have someone else do all of the dirty work.   

[TomT]

^ That depends. The Mujahedin did it for us during the Soviet/Afghan War and just look at how well that turned out.

[andrewfi]

It is a faulty strategy but one that suits those managers whose regional and cultural knowledge is lacking.

I rather doubt that one could point at a single case where U.S creation and/or support of insurgent/terrorist organisations has had a positive effect upon U.S geopolitical goals - unless a significant, but covert, desired outcome is chaos. The cynic in me tends toward the idea that chaos IS a desired outcome. There are economic and political benefits to such a strategy and it is among the easiest strategies to set up and manage.

[msmoby]

It is a faulty strategy but one that suits those managers whose regional and cultural knowledge is lacking.

I rather doubt that one could point at a single case where U.S creation and/or support of insurgent/terrorist organisations has had a positive effect upon U.S geopolitical goals - unless a significant, but covert, desired outcome is chaos. The cynic in me tends toward the idea that chaos IS a desired outcome. There are economic and political benefits to such a strategy and it is among the easiest strategies to set up and manage.

We could start with support of Partisans in WWII - but one huge example of your flawed thinking ...

[Tom Cat]

Russia's Putin visits Syria airbase and orders start of pullout

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42307365

[andrewfi]

It is a faulty strategy but one that suits those managers whose regional and cultural knowledge is lacking.

I rather doubt that one could point at a single case where U.S creation and/or support of insurgent/terrorist organisations has had a positive effect upon U.S geopolitical goals - unless a significant, but covert, desired outcome is chaos. The cynic in me tends toward the idea that chaos IS a desired outcome. There are economic and political benefits to such a strategy and it is among the easiest strategies to set up and manage.

We could start with support of Partisans in WWII - but one huge example of your flawed thinking ...

You don't 'get' thinking do you?
Here's a thought for you so you can see how this thinking lark works:
Q: What was the purpose of resistance movements supported by the Western allies in World War 2?
A: To create disruption and chaos and by doing so reduce the morale of the occupying forces.

See how this thinking works?

Here's another thought for you:
Q: Apart from the obvious 'their cowardly terrorists, our brave freedom fighters' what is signaly different between the overwhelming majority of U.S supported terrorist groups and WW2 resistance movements?
A: The United States tends to support, post WW2, groups that seek to disrupt and overthrow a legitimate government. Allied support of resistance movements in WW2 was in support of groups seeking the restoration of sovereignty and legitimate government to states that had been invaded.

Ah, thought, such fun when one gives it a whirl. 

[Wiz]

We could start with support of Partisans in WWII - but one huge example of your flawed thinking ...

You don't 'get' thinking do you?

Here's a thought for you so you can see how this thinking lark works:

Q: What was the purpose of resistance movements supported by the Western allies in World War 2?

A: To create disruption and chaos and by doing so reduce the morale of the occupying forces.

See how this thinking works?

Here's another thought for you:

Q: Was that the only reason for supporting the resistance movements or there were also Ulterior Motives too, included in their support by the allies, for after the occupying forces moved out of the country?

A: Not in the case of Greece where the UK supported both camps, Left and right, and when the occupying German forces moved out, then a "civil war" was started in DEC 1944, at the instigation of the UK Government and PM Churchill  to "Divide and Rule" and impose their puppet King George and in 1947 the Americans took over to help the country rebuilt its self ........

To my knowledge that "friendly" support and the "divide and Rule policy", still persist today by both allies, UK and USA. 

[msmoby]

]


You don't 'get' thinking do you?
Here's a thought for you so you can see how this thinking lark works:
Q: What was the purpose of resistance movements supported by the Western allies in World War 2?
A: To create disruption and chaos and by doing so reduce the morale of the occupying forces.

See how this thinking works?

Here's another thought for you:
Q: Apart from the obvious 'their cowardly terrorists, our brave freedom fighters' what is signaly different between the overwhelming majority of U.S supported terrorist groups and WW2 resistance movements?
A: The United States tends to support, post WW2, groups that seek to disrupt and overthrow a legitimate government. Allied support of resistance movements in WW2 was in support of groups seeking the restoration of sovereignty and legitimate government to states that had been invaded.

Ah, thought, such fun when one gives it a whirl. 

A lot of meaningless words..my example was but one of many success stories geo-political aim achieved) you conveniently 'forgot' ..

@Wiz

Much of what you say about broken promises and divide and rule is true, but you overlook the fact the not only the UK played nationalist freedom fighters for their own end or as a distraction for problems at home.....

Ask the Greek Junta how the 'take-over' of Cyprus worked out?

Right now, in Syria, some folks are 'celebrating' the 'victory' over ISIS, when the losers are simply an oppressed majority.

[andrewfi]

I have no doubt about ulterior motives, and in a general case exceptions are to be expected; but this is a forum, not a political science lecture. My point was to help our forum indigent member to use his brain.

[Wiz]

I have no doubt about ulterior motives, and in a general case exceptions are to be expected; but this is a forum, not a political science lecture. My point was to help our forum indigent member to use his brain.

I only presented another side of the so called Support of the resistance during WWII.

On the other hand, you know him very well and I wonder why you still answer to his drivel?

Aren't you tired?

[andrewfi]

Sorry Wiz, I am but an imperfect human.

I failed in following my own guidelines.

[rosco]

It is a faulty strategy but one that suits those managers whose regional and cultural knowledge is lacking.

I rather doubt that one could point at a single case where U.S creation and/or support of insurgent/terrorist organisations has had a positive effect upon U.S geopolitical goals - unless a significant, but covert, desired outcome is chaos. The cynic in me tends toward the idea that chaos IS a desired outcome. There are economic and political benefits to such a strategy and it is among the easiest strategies to set up and manage.

We could start with support of Partisans in WWII - but one huge example of your flawed thinking ...

Just been catching up and its great to see our resident troll continuing to pollute the forum, obtusely disagreeing with everyone.

Yawn.