Evil Academy

Full Version: Russian air strikes welcomed by joyous Syrians in Damascus: Russia Luv'd
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3


great find dagwood
"If satan comes here to save us from those (Us funded) terrorists, I'd welcome him"

-Syrian Civilian

"In the last year America said they were fighting ISIS, but ISIS got stronger over the last years so we can tell their coalition is not serious, Russia is serious about destroying ISIS"

-Syrian

" i believe it is the Russians, not the arabs that are out brothers"

Syrian Civilian


"I'm very pleased with Putin's airstrikes, maybe this will bring results, and Syria will be beautiful like it used to be"

- Blonde syrian woman
Airstrikes probably aren't enough. The US tried just airstrikes. We need some of those Chinese boots on the ground.
^ no the US was bombing random targets imo . they weren't serious after all they back ISIS.
(10-02-2015 08:38 AM)EVILYOSHIDA Wrote: [ -> ]^ no the US was bombing random targets imo . they weren't serious after all they back ISIS.

Sounds like Putins bombing isn't hitting ISIS either?

Russian warplanes, in a second day of strikes, bombed a camp run by rebels trained by the CIA, the group's commander said, putting Moscow and Washington on opposing sides in a Middle East conflict for the first time since the Cold War.
The U.S. and Russian militaries were due to hold talks via video link to seek ways to keep their militaries apart as they wage parallel campaigns of air strikes in Syria, a U.S. defense official said.
Russian jets struck targets near the cities of Hama and Homs in western Syria on the second day of their air campaign.
Moscow said it had hit Islamic State positions, but the areas it struck are mostly held by a rival insurgent alliance, which unlike Islamic State is supported by U.S. allies including Arab states and Turkey.


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/were-targeting...58253.html
ISIS = assad's opposition.

Russia is hitting whatever is against Assad.

Assad is the only option to keep the peace there. if we let the rebels take over it will just devolve into another Libya or Iraq.

what is happening is the "moderate ISIS" gets funding/training by the US and they hand off weapons to "BIG ISIS"
Looks like there's going to be a fog of confusion over what is and isn't ISIS now.

Things are getting very interesting over there. Iran is joining up with Russia there now. Bring on the Chinee!
it's the same radical islamic militants supported by the west.. they go by diff. names like AL QAEDA, ISIS, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AL NUSRA etc.

the US media can say anything is anything. to me anyone that is trying to overthrow the govt. over there is ISIS
I do agree that we should leave Asad in power. So Russias plan is probably the right approach.

How long before Damascus gets nuked? Theres a biblical prophecy that seems to suggest that.
they are going from country to country destroying all their historical monuments.. I think this is one of the main jobs of ISIS.

underpinning all of this is a religious war.
pretty amazing coverage by a british MSM outlet:

Quote:Channel 4 News is among the highest rated television programmes in the United Kingdom, winning a record five Royal Television Society Television Awards in February 2006. These included TV Journalist of the Year for Jon Snow, Home News Award for the Attorney General leak, and the International News Award for Congo's Tin Soldiers.
The reason the US wasn't having any success with the airstrikes was because the only targets they were aiming at, were islamist's/mercenaries that were not enthusiastic enough or just plain ineffective at fighting Assad (i.e. destroying Syria). US bombing of any isis target was just a lesson to the mercenaries of what happens when you don't fight hard enough.

As far as the msm media coverage of the Russian airstrikes, or of absolutely anything to do with Russia or the rest of the world - I feel we've covered the subject of the role of media enough on this site, to a point that if you are even reading yahoo.......that's on you.
I like to read from many sources myself. You find the truth somewhere in between many different version of events. Often you learn a lot by what the enemy is trying to say by thinking about what he's not saying. Gathering information from many sources is better than just tossing our own opinion out as fact.
It's not a problem of knowing facts. Consuming that kind of media changes the way you think.

I see this with my own relatives, who mostly rely on the economist, pbs and cnn and comedy central (and of course hollywood movies/series) for their news/views. Challenging them with a list of facts does not work, cause they just twist and turn, bob and weave the argument in such a way that informing them that the US trains, funds and arms beheaders does not leave any impression. Instead it turns into how America is all great and stuff, and how they would vote for the teleprompter reader again if they could.

If I started to watch this stuff like they do, it wouldn't change my view or what I know, but it would change the framework within which facts exist and are comprehended.

This stuff numbs and dumbs you to a point that you can't tell up from down, and the actions and intentions of everybody are equalized to be the same.
Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's