What is Putin Up To in Syria?

[Penelope]

Right, and now we see the war torn pictures on TV, only since Russia is there. The last year we have been bombing Syria, we are responsible.

 

[skye]

Obama may be a great community organizer on domestic issues.

But he is out of his league when it comes to high stakes international geopolitics. ......

We have to wonder whether Obama is just pretending to be an idiot or if his true intentions are in fact to drastically support his Islamic friends at the expense of the US and the West which is happening at the moment.

Is he playing the great game of taqiyya?

It certainly looks like it!

 

[Tehon]

Obama may be a great community organizer on domestic issues.

But he is out of his league when it comes to high stakes international geopolitics. ......

We have to wonder whether Obama is just pretending to be an idiot or if his true intentions are in fact to drastically support his Islamic friends at the expense of the US and the West which is happening at the moment.

Is he playing the great game of taqiyya?

It certainly looks like it!

There is really not much to ponder with regards to Obama's intentions in the ME. He is continuing a US policy that was made clear even during Bush's term. The US is cooperating with our supposed allies (SA and Israel) in the ME in an effort to negate any perceived advantages that Iran may have gained from the removal of Saddam Hussein. If you are insinuating that Obama is supporting his Islamic friends (Saudi Arabia) then I agree, for some reason I think you are implying something else though.

 

[skye]

Obama may be a great community organizer on domestic issues.

But he is out of his league when it comes to high stakes international geopolitics. ......

We have to wonder whether Obama is just pretending to be an idiot or if his true intentions are in fact to drastically support his Islamic friends at the expense of the US and the West which is happening at the moment.

Is he playing the great game of taqiyya?

It certainly looks like it!

There is really not much to ponder with regards to Obama's intentions in the ME. He is continuing a US policy that was made clear even during Bush's term. The US is cooperating with our supposed allies (SA and Israel) in the ME in an effort to negate any perceived advantages that Iran may have gained from the removal of Saddam Hussein. If you are insinuating that Obama is supporting his Islamic friends (Saudi Arabia) then I agree, for some reason I think you are implying something else though.

Obama is not supporting his previous allies in the Middle East -Israel, Egypt , Saudi Arabia....he has let them down in a disgusting manner in favor of his new best friend Iran, the supporter of terrorism, who he has given the gift of a nuclear bomb.

His agenda seems to be support of Islamic factions such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which was evident in Egypt and support for the Arab Spring factions who tore down the established rulers of stable countries such as Gaddafi in Libya.

The end result is utter chaos anarchy and terrorism!

Thank you Hussein, hang your head in shame!

 

[Tehon]

Obama may be a great community organizer on domestic issues.

But he is out of his league when it comes to high stakes international geopolitics. ......

We have to wonder whether Obama is just pretending to be an idiot or if his true intentions are in fact to drastically support his Islamic friends at the expense of the US and the West which is happening at the moment.

Is he playing the great game of taqiyya?

It certainly looks like it!

There is really not much to ponder with regards to Obama's intentions in the ME. He is continuing a US policy that was made clear even during Bush's term. The US is cooperating with our supposed allies (SA and Israel) in the ME in an effort to negate any perceived advantages that Iran may have gained from the removal of Saddam Hussein. If you are insinuating that Obama is supporting his Islamic friends (Saudi Arabia) then I agree, for some reason I think you are implying something else though.

Obama is not supporting his previous allies in the Middle East -Israel, Egypt , Saudi Arabia....he has let them down in a disgusting manner in favor of his new best friend Iran, the supporter of terrorism, who he has given the gift of a nuclear bomb.

His agenda seems to be support of Islamic factions such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which was evident in Egypt and support for the Arab Spring factions who tore down the established rulers of stable countries such as Gaddafi in Libya.

The end result is utter chaos anarchy and terrorism!

Thank you Hussein, hang your head in shame!

You seem to be suggesting that Obama is sympathetic to Iran and the Shiite faction of Islam while at the same time supporting the Sunni faction. Is that rational?

 

[skye]

Obama may be a great community organizer on domestic issues.

But he is out of his league when it comes to high stakes international geopolitics. ......

We have to wonder whether Obama is just pretending to be an idiot or if his true intentions are in fact to drastically support his Islamic friends at the expense of the US and the West which is happening at the moment.

Is he playing the great game of taqiyya?

It certainly looks like it!

There is really not much to ponder with regards to Obama's intentions in the ME. He is continuing a US policy that was made clear even during Bush's term. The US is cooperating with our supposed allies (SA and Israel) in the ME in an effort to negate any perceived advantages that Iran may have gained from the removal of Saddam Hussein. If you are insinuating that Obama is supporting his Islamic friends (Saudi Arabia) then I agree, for some reason I think you are implying something else though.

Obama is not supporting his previous allies in the Middle East -Israel, Egypt , Saudi Arabia....he has let them down in a disgusting manner in favor of his new best friend Iran, the supporter of terrorism, who he has given the gift of a nuclear bomb.

His agenda seems to be support of Islamic factions such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which was evident in Egypt and support for the Arab Spring factions who tore down the established rulers of stable countries such as Gaddafi in Libya.

The end result is utter chaos anarchy and terrorism!

Thank you Hussein, hang your head in shame!

You seem to be suggesting that Obama is sympathetic to Iran and the Shiite faction of Islam while at the same time supporting the Sunni faction. Is that rational?

Obama gave a great advantage to the Shiite faction in Iran with the nuclear deal and also by attempting to make it a respectable world player.

Also, the Muslim Brotherhood has been favored , Barack Hussein Obama seems to be non-discriminatory in his support.

Everything Obama does is irracional and can't be judged by normal standards of common sense.

 

[Sally]

Right, and now we see the war torn pictures on TV, only since Russia is there. The last year we have been bombing Syria, we are responsible.

What in the world are you talking about? All along newspapers and news sites have been covering this Syrian conflict. Because these stories somehow don't fit the agenda you apparently have , it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, just like magic, because the Russians are now involved all the media are now joining in reporting the news. The bottom line here is that it is sad to see such destruction and realize that it will take the Syrian people years and years to put their country back together again.


Air attack hits crowded market in Syria; more than 80 dead, watchdog says

Syria in ruins: Photos capture shocking devastation caused to war-torn country

Living in War-Torn Syria

Ten Powerful Photos Look Back At Four Years Lost To Conflict

A bird's-eye view of war-torn Syria

Pictured: Inside war-torn Kobane, ISIS fighters prowl the streets

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/08/28/syria-war-bombing-aleppo-364035.html

Before-and-After Photos Show What 9 Cities Looked Like Before They Were Destroyed by War

 

[fanger]

When Putin carries out airstrikes in Syria, he sees ISIS.

When the U.S. disputes the same targets, it sees Syrian rebel groups and the Free Syrian Army.

The mercenaries, armed with American weapons and Pentagon-source payrolls, aren’t terrorists, they are “relatively moderate rebel factions like al-Qaeda.”

Such is the delusion that goes on and on under the spell of the War on Terror. But the re-branding of ISIS to create a new enemy in the wake of bin Laden’s death has been too much for much of anyone to take.

But apparently it took Putin to call out the Naked Empire in our misguided and badly executed quest for a New American Century.

The Obama Administration is working overtime to officially state that white is black, as it scrambles to portray Russia’s decisive action to defend Assad in Syria as an attack on NATO’s pet proxy – a sovereign Mickey Mouse death squadron. Its cast members play double roles in rebel force costumes and an encore in Jihadi John jumpsuits, strike fear in all directions – and are not to be questioned as fake.

But is anyone buying it? After all, it has been many long years of painful and transparent lies. Do we really have to put up with the non-sense as if we don’t know we’re being tricked and screwed with? Does it really take Putin to stand up to the playground bully? Overheard at the Pentagon: “Right now, we are Putin’s prison bitch.” — Nancy Youssef, ????? (@nancyayoussef) September 30, 2015

The U.S. has left itself open to blackmail on its naked strategy of creating its own terrorist enemy – and pretending not to be a shadow boxer. Now, Putin has called the West’s bluff like a skilled poker player. In tow, Assad even claimed that

Al-Nusra and ISIS operate with such a force in the region under Western cover, because Western states have always believed that terrorism is a card they can pull from their pocket and use from time to time..
After Decades of Manufactured Terror, Putin Points to Naked Empire With ISIS Bombings

 

[Staidhup]

Putin is attempting to reestablish a base of support and power in the Mid East, Syria's Assad is the easiest pawn, now all he has to do is fight the revolutionaries and ISIS, but first the revolutionaries. A very dangerous move on his part, yet when you have twiddle d and twiddle dumb running US foreign policy and Iran beholding to him for his support of the Iranian nuclear arms agreement he may not have much to worry about.

 

[fanger]

US Complains As Russia Bombs Its Terrorists
For months now, after years of headlines confirming the US has been covertly arming militants in Syria for the purpose of overthrowing the government in Damascus, a narrative revolving around tens of thousands of these militants “defecting” to Al Nusra and the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL) has been peddled to the public by the Western media and US politicians to account for the apparent failure of America’s alleged policy of creating an army of “moderates” to both fight ISIS/Al Qaeda and the Syrian government.

In reality, from the beginning, there were never any moderates. Starting as early as 2007, years before the war in Syria began, the US as a matter of policy had long since decided to intentionally fund and support the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood – for all intents and purposes the political wing of Al Qaeda – and begin arming militants affiliated with Al Qaeda itself.

This was revealed in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s 2007 New Yorker article titled, “The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” which stated explicitly (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh’s prophetic 9-page report would also reveal that even then, the extremist Syrian Muslim Brotherhood was already receiving funding and support from the United States via Saudi Arabia. His report revealed (emphasis added):

There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

By 2011, Al Qaeda’s affiliates in Syria, most notably the Al Nusra Front, began operating nation-wide, taking the lead in the US-backed fight against Damascus. By 2012, when the US State Department listed Al Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization, it was clear even then, that the largest contingent of anti-government forces on the battlefield was Al Qaeda.

The US State Department’s official statement regarding Al Nusra reported that:

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.

It is clear that Al Qaeda was not only involved in the conflict since its beginning, but also led it. This betrays current US rhetoric that Al Qaeda had only entered the fight later on, seizing on the chaos created by “moderates” and their fight with Damascus. It is clear that it was Al Qaeda itself that drove that chaos from the beginning, and is still driving this chaos to this day.

US Complains As Russia Bombs its Terrorists

 

[waltky]

Russia sendin' more anti-aircraft missiles to Syrian port of Tartus...

Syria conflict: Russia sends missile system to Tartus base
Tue, 04 Oct 2016 - Russia sends an S-300 air defence missile system to its naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus, amid growing tension with the US over the conflict.

Defence ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said the purpose of the system was to guarantee the security of the base from the air. The move comes amid growing tension with the West. On Monday, the US halted talks with Russia on trying to co-ordinate air strikes against jihadists. A ceasefire brokered by Washington and Moscow collapsed last month. "Let me remind you that the S-300 is a purely defensive system and poses no threat to anyone," Maj-Gen Konashenkov said. "It is unclear why the deployment of the S-300 caused such alarm among our Western partners." The spokesman said the system was similar to one earlier deployed at sea on the cruiser Moskva.

S-330 missile launch system​

Analysis: Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent

The deployment of S-300 surface-to-air missiles (known to Nato as the SA-23) to Russia's naval base at Tartus is the first time Russia has deployed the system outside its own territory. It joins another sophisticated anti-aircraft system, the S-400, already in place at the Russian air base near Latakia. The S-300 is highly mobile - its radars, launchers and command systems carried on a number of tracked vehicles. It can be mounted on a heavy wheeled launcher as well. It is one of the most lethal area defence systems ever developed intended to engage aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles. Its deployment indicates that Russia is significantly bolstering its air defences in Syria. This is a clear signal to Washington that there would be a heavy price to pay should the US be tempted to intervene in some way against Russian or Syrian operations.

How the S-300 missile system works

Fox News reported earlier quoting unnamed US officials that the system had been deployed at the weekend. In addition to the Tartus naval base, Russia uses the Hmeimim air base near the Syrian coastal city of Latakia. Last year, Moscow deployed the more advanced S-400 system there as it began conducting air strikes in Syria. On Monday, the US said it was suspending talks with Russia over Syria, accusing Moscow of having "failed to live up" to its commitments under the ceasefire deal. Washington blamed Russia and the Syrian government for intensifying attacks against civilians, including rebel-held areas in eastern Aleppo. State department spokesman John Kirby said Moscow and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's troops had been "targeting critical infrastructure such as hospitals and preventing humanitarian aid from reaching civilians in need, including through the 19 September attack on a humanitarian aid convoy". Moscow strongly denies involvement of its own or Syrian planes in the deadly aid convoy strike, and says the incident was caused by fire on the ground and not by an air strike.

MORE

See also:

US Claims Right to Defend Against Russian Anti-Air Systems in Syria
Oct 04, 2016 | In a warning to Russia, the Pentagon said Tuesday that the U.S. maintains the right to self-defense against advanced anti-aircraft systems sent to Syria by Moscow.

"This is something that we take very, very seriously -- the safety of our aircrews," Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said in response to reports that Russia sent highly mobile S-300 anti-air missile systems (known to NATO as the SA-23) to its naval facility in the northwestern Syrian port of Tartus over the weekend. "Those aircrews have the inherent right to self-defense," Cook said at a Pentagon news conference. This marks the first time the system has been deployed outside Russian territory, according to the BBC. Last year, Russia deployed S-300s and the more advanced S-400 systems around its Khmeimim air base near the coastal city of Latakia, the hub of its air operations in support of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Russian air defense system missile system Antey 2500, or S-300 VM, is on display at the opening of the MAKS Air Show in Zhukovsky outside Moscow, Russia.​

Russia has no need of advanced surface-to-air systems in Syria given its stated aim of focusing operations on the Islamic State and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the al-Qaida affiliate formerly known as the Al-Nusra Front, Cook said. "The last I checked, the Russians said their primary goal was to fight extremism. Neither one of them has an air force," Cook said of the two militant organizations. "We're obviously tracking very closely" the placement of the Russian air defenses, he said. Already frayed U.S.-Russia relations have deteriorated even further since the collapse of last month's "cessation of hostilities" in Syria and the fierce bombardment of Aleppo by Russian and Syrian air forces, with the intent of driving out rebels holding the eastern part of the city.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday announced that talks with the Russians on renewing the cease-fire had been suspended. Cook said U.S. air operations against ISIS in northeastern Syria are continuing. He also said that neither the White House nor the State Department has asked the Defense Department to plan for relief airdrops to Aleppo or to provide air cover for U.N. humanitarian convoys.

In a statement, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, a Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, confirmed that the S-300 system had been sent to Syria and questioned why the deployment raised U.S. concerns. "The S-300 anti-aircraft missile system has indeed been sent to the Syrian Arab Republic," Konashenkov said. "I remind you that the S-300 is a purely defensive system and poses no threat to anyone. It's not clear why the placement of S-300 in Syria has caused such a stir among our western colleagues."

US Claims Right to Defend Against Russian Anti-Air Systems in Syria | Military.com