Do you think now the world has it's eyes opened to the true horror unfolding in Syria, they will now actually do something about ISIS?

[Whoknewitcouldbeso]

I know efforts are being made by some nations to try and counteract ISIS with the aid of drones and counter intelligence but I wonder if the refugee crisis may serve to instigate some direct action by more of the World's heavyweights?

I have just read the story of how Aylan's father has traveled back to Kobane to bury his family and has no intention of leaving the country again. It is his home and he was only leaving to try and save his family after 11 of his extended family were murdered by ISIS. There has been so much talk about migrants and asylum seekers and trying to help those who are fleeing, but most of these people would not be fleeing if it wasn't for the fact that they fear for their lives.

Surely we should be doing more to make their own country safe or do you think that's not possible and the only solution is to allow the ethnic cleansing to carry on taking place.

Another thread ruined by your spamming and troll hunting

'to me its a sport lol'

Long as you get your kicks

claig ...p-lease, yet more deflections, as explained on the previous page, reams of irrelevant posts by you clogging up page after page, quoting people that agreed with the Putin/Russian view that have NOTHING to do with the murders/threats to 80% of the Syrian (Sunni) population OR current Russian bombing of non ISIS targets, while saying he is bombing only ISIS.

Syrian citizens that you continue to totally disregard, repeating the Russian view that every Sunni in Syria is 'a rebel' and that somehow Putin can bomb them back into place, and keep happy under the Assad regime - even after what they have done to them for 40-years, never mind from march 2011 firing on civilians with guns, tanks, and chemical weapons.

In context I provide the facts, goading a kremlinbot is 'a sport', and the FACT you cannot say anything against Putin is absolute proof you work for that Troll House mentioned on the previous page - as in your 'Terms & Conditions.

Prove me wrong;

Repeat after me: Putin is a cross between a violent dwarf and a hairless pussy.

Putin now seems to admit he is not just bombing ISIS.
It is a real mess out there and I think we should keep well out.

If Sunni and Shia want to kill each other just like Catholics and Protestants did in the Uk for so long just let them all get on with it.

Yes, I agree we shouldn't get involved. Lots of Conservatives MPs now saying that we should only get involved under a UN agreement and we should involve all countries in the region including Iran and Russia.

Tory MP John Baron, ex-military, was on BBC Today programme this morning saying Isis is the greater threat and that Assad never threatened us and that we should only act under a UN umbrella as everything else has failed.

Labour MP, Jo Cox, disagreed and would vote for British air strikes backing Cameron.

As ususal, in my opinion, Tories make more sense than Labour.

It is worth watching Fox News. I watched it last night to see what is being said in the States. Top former gnerals on there, former head of the US Defence Intelligence Agency etc.

Wow, are they all giving Obama and his strategy a pasting saying that Obama has been too weak and let Putin dominate. It could get dangerous because Obama is likely to be under huge pressure with people saying he is weak. But the former head of the Defence Intelligence Agency didn't suggest war with Putin and suggested that Isis need to be tackled before anything else and that Putin had changed the entire situation.

Other Fox analysis is that Putin is pushing the US out of the region in conjunction with Shia Iran etc.

But other analysis is that Putin has made a mistake by getting involved and getting sucked in which will weaken him longterm.

Typical Troll House posts, but adding a Putin critic 'what some say' not what YOU (ever) say.
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

The Afghan city of Kandz, where American planes were trying to provide close air support to forces on the ground there looks to have been a tragic accident, hitting a hospital with many dead including many aid workers.

At least the American admit they were dropping bombs in the area, rather than Putin saying ‘not us guvnor’, we were only dropping bombs on ISIS forces on the other side of the country.

With ISIS and Americans and their allies hitting command and control buildings etc with precision/lazer guided bombs, those around the targeted area are more likely to be connected/sympathetic to the ISIS forces and accept the risk of being close to known targets – but the very nature of using precision weaponry will reduce collateral damage.

With anti Assad Syrian ‘rebels’ and the Russian own televised use of their airplanes dropping by non precision means on civilian area fragmentation and cluster bombs - no less indiscriminate than President Assad’s dropping of barrel bombs on built up Syrian towns – the INTENT is to kill people over a very wide area.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragmentation_(weaponry)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition

The Syrian Regime's Barrel Bombs Kill More Civilians Than ISIS And Al Qaeda Combined
www.ibtimes.com/syrian-regimes-barrel-bombs-kill-more-civilians-isis-al-qaeda-combined-2057392

And that is why under a President Assad regime in Syria there will never be peace; as 80% of the 23 million Syrian population who are Sunni Muslims - making up the majority of the 12 million Syrians displaced from their homes – have either directly suffered personal loss, or know someone close who has, due to attacks by their own president.

Trump's take on it on Fox News

...no doubt saying something Putin luvs.

but the very nature of using precision weaponry will reduce collateral damage.

Yeah, they did well today then eh??

"Good Guys" hit hospital

I do mention that bombing on my post above timed 10.05.

The full facts are still not confirmed, as although likely to be coalition planes, how do you KNOW what KIND of bomb was being used, and if 'precision' they had mistakenly dialled in the co ordinance of that hospital - which ironocally would have kept those around the hospital relatively safe.

The hospital have said they repeatedly gave their position to the allies, fighting a close proximity battle on the ground with Taliban forces, so maybe there was a very serious mix up with serious consequences - as there certainly wasn't intent.

So are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue with me that Russia is not trying to flatten/kill everything around those fragmentation/cluster bombs on 'rebels' on their front line, opposing Assads forces?

Matthew Parris has just said on the Andrew Marr Show that the West has realised that we backed the wrong side in Syria.

Finally, we are begiining tio see some sense among some of our political class and chatterati after 4 years.

Article by our greatest living statesman - Farage - on our Syria policy

"I am getting confused. A couple of years ago, Cameron’s government were hell bent on arming the Syrian rebels to fight against Assad.

I thought then that it was madness as we simply didn’t know who the rebels were and that they certainly contained IS fanatics.

Happily, UKIP’s pressure persuaded a good number of backbench Tory rebellions and we didn’t intervene.

Now we hear that the government wants to start air strikes in Syria again.

So are we now on Assad’s side?

I generally think its better not to intervene militarily unless we have a clear long-term strategic goal. I am not a supporter of Mr. Assad or Mr. Putin and I’ve been shouted down by the political class over the last couple of years for making the simple point that on the greatest international issue that we face, namely Islamic extremism, these two gentlemen are on our side."

www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/02/farage-for-breitbart-time-for-tory-eurosceptics-to-put-up-or-shut-up-do-the-bastards-have-the-balls/

Article by our greatest real Conservative commentator - Peter Hitchens - in our last remaining real Conservative newspaper - The Mail on Sunday

"PETER HITCHENS: Which side are we really on in this war of the awful against the evil?

I don’t think the British or American governments really want to fight the Islamic State. They just want to look as if they are doing so.

I judge these people by what they do, not by what they say. And in recent months I have noticed them doing – and not doing – some very interesting things.

The White House and Downing Street both seethe with genuine outrage about Russia’s bombing raids on Syria.

Yet the people Vladimir Putin bombed have views and aims that would get them rounded up as dangerous Islamist extremists if they turned up in Manchester. So why do British politicians call them ‘moderates’ when Russia bombs them?
...
But in fact Turkey barely bothered to attack IS at all. It has spent most of the past few months blasting the daylights out of the Kurdish militias, a policy that Turkey’s President Erdogan has selfish reasons for following.

Yet the Kurds, alongside the Syrian army, have been by far the most effective resistance to IS on the ground. Why then does a key member of the alleged anti-IS coalition go to war against them?

Turkey, a Nato member, is not criticised for this behaviour by Western politicians or by the feeble, slavish Western media. These geniuses never attack our foreign policy mistakes while we are making them. They wait until they have actually ended in disaster. Then they pretend to have been against them all along.
...
Things are not what they seem to be here. Russia’s action may be rash and dangerous. It may fail, especially as we are obviously trying so hard to undermine it. But at least it is honest and straightforward.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3259146/PETER-HITCHENS-really-war-awful-against-evil.html

More common sense from some of our political class. Looks like the teenage whizzkids from Oxbridge and the naive modernisers are being questioned by at least a few of our political class.

Excellent Tory MP, Julian Lewis, on Sky News spells out our flawed policy is Syria. He says that "by seeking to bring down Assad, we are effectively promoting the Jihadis, the extremists" and praises our former ambassador to Syria (not a teenager fortunately), Peter Ford, who said that on Sky News yesterday. Lewis talks about "our present strategists, so called" (he should have just called them teenage whizzkids from Oxbridge). He says that we were misled over Libya as well.

Gordon Bennett (not the Labour one), this guy Lewis is good. He praises Admiral Lord West, former Head of our Navy (and fortunately not a teenager) when he said that we have to recognise "which of the crocodiles swimming around in these infested waters is nearest to your boat" and that Assad does not threaten British interests and Isis is a huge threat to British interests (including at home).

Lewis says that British airstrikes (which Cameron wants) would now be a mere gesture without ground forces. He says he would back it if the Turks were to put in a groiund force to sort Isis out.

Wonders never cease, some common sene at last to match the constant common sense of Farage.

And of course, everyone but the teenagers know about Turkey's anti-Assad support for Islamists, Jihadis and the rest of that lot

"German deputy speaker: NATO must stop Turkey support for ISIS"

rudaw.net/english/middleeast/12102014

But, due to the refugeee crisis, Germany has finally put its foot down and the whole mess will be solved and the Jihadis and their backers will hopefully be stopped.

• Isitmebut Fri 02-Oct-15 23:31:20

I thought in the news was all about you two! I really enjoy reading both your posts.

I am agog.

Claig … an interesting, nay timely attack on Turkey, I guess you had an internal memo.

Nato Chief; Russia Has Ground Troops In Syria.

"The head of the military alliance lays out his suspicions, as reports suggest Russia could extend its offensive to Iraq."
news.sky.com/story/1564629/nato-chief-russia-has-ground-troops-in-syria

NATO's secretary general has said a "substantial" build-up of Russian forces in Syria includes ground troops.

Although Vladimir Putin has said he would not put troops in Syria, Russian military chiefs have raised the prospect of "volunteer" soldiers joining the fighting.

If employed, the tactic would have echoes of the crisis in Ukraine, where Russian troops apparently helped rebels while Moscow denied its soldiers were involved in the conflict.

Jens Stoltenberg also said he doubted Russia's claim that violations of Turkey's airspace were a mistake because there were two incursions and they lasted longer than a few seconds.

He said the incidents were "very serious" and added: "It doesn't look like an accident, and we've seen two of them over the weekend."

Russia/Putin is soooooo predictable by flying into Turkey showing they do it as ‘they can’ - and your lame previous post mothing Russian interests citing Turkey for something or other - I will repeat a much earlier post;

A new Russian axis of Middle East trouble is being formed, to be aided both in the air and on the ground by a Russian base in Syria, as we speak.

Russia + Shia Iran + Shia Syria + Shia Iraq

Unless the West now stands behind the relatively moderate Sunni states AGAINST a larger sphere of Russian trying to influence higher oil prices as its economy collapses via the Shia states (who can pay for ‘protection’ to keep Russia’s vodka supplies flowing), they will come to regret it.

Russia/Putin is only happy when he is calling the shots i.e. controlling Europe’s gas tap and in the Ukraine, he will not want to CONTINUE losing face at home via the low prices in a carbon based energy market, Russia has under ground - and was its only real 'industry'.

It is clear that there is going to be egg on the faces of some people if the Russians defeat the hyped up twitter, youtube Isis outfit in a short period of time

"ISIS so weakened by Russian airstrikes and desertion it could be destroyed in HOURS

ISLAMIC STATE (ISIS) is now so fragile that its so-called Caliphate could be wiped out in a matter of HOURS, a top terror expert said today."

www.express.co.uk/news/world/609680/Islamic-State-ISIS-Russian-bombing-terror-Syria-Caliphate-defeat

Some Saudis may want to save their Jihadis

"Saudi Clerics Call for Jihad Against Iran and Russia in Syria"

news.vice.com/article/saudi-clerics-call-for-jihad-against-iran-and-russia-in-syria

and it is possible that an excuse will be found to attack Russia.

It depends what Obama does and so far he has not been a warmonger and has resisted the demands of the warmongers. But it is possible that we may see an escalation. I still doubt it, unless this has been a plan to trap Russia all along, but I could be wrong.

Claig .... Re Matthew Parris it matters not a jot to the 80% of Syrians Assad would kill WHAT he thinks.

Re Peter Hitchins it matters not what he thinks, as joined the Labour Party, left to join the Conservatives membership as Labour had become filled with Marxists (his words) and Thatcher would put them back in their box, yet now supports Russia - we have had 'double agents' here with more patriotism and he will ALWAYS be anti Tory government, so what.

Re Farage's confusion (bless), 2-years ago Cameron/Obama wanted to stop Assad using the chemical weapons the latter had said crossed 're lines' by taking out all the means Assad has used to kill and bomb 12 million of his population out of their homes - which Miliband gave his verbal support, but then flaked on the Parliamentary vote

ISIS has grown from about 10,000 not that long before 2013, now they are much larger and a threat to all around, Assad is just a continual threat to his own population; first (ISIS) thing first, especially as Assad is losing his war in 20% of his country - as Russia clearly realised, hence current actions to kill Syrian 'rebels' pretending to kill ISIS.

As usual, slippery Farage likes to pooh stir as has nothing to offer anyone, especially after the referendum, as who will need a United Kingdom Independence Party once the UK decided - and whose only core domestic policy (lasting) for 15-years I can see, was to ban the burka.

As I have said all along, the key player in all of this is Merkel because of teh refugee crisis

"Merkel: Resolution of Syrian Crisis is Impossible Without Putin, Assad"

That is why the backers of the Jihadis are so worried. They fear their game is up.

'Re Matthew Parris it matters not a jot to the 80% of Syrians Assad would kill WHAT he thinks.'

Who do you think is more important, Merkel or the Syrian refugees?

'Re Peter Hitchins it matters not what he thinks'

He is Britain's leading real Conservative thinker, liked and repected by millions of real Conservatives.

"ISIS so weakened by Russian airstrikes and desertion it could be destroyed in HOURS

Hahahahahahah ... several hundreds of allied air strikes over several months, but after 25 Russian airstrikes - mostly against the Syrian rebels not ISIS - they are all packing up to go home?

All hail Putin Guffaw.

(I guess you are preparing your in-house domestic troll victory announcements as we write)

'several hundreds of allied air strikes over several months, but after 25 Russian airstrikes - mostly against the Syrian rebels not ISIS - they are all packing up to go home?'

That is why there will be egg on faces when Putin finishes them off with ease.

He is Britain's leading real Conservative thinker, liked and repected by millions of real Conservatives.

Hitchins, sez who, he just saw them as the lesser of the 2-evils, especially after the party he originally joined had 'reds jumping ALL OVER the beds'.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens
He joined the British Labour Party in 1977, but left it in 1983 when he became a political reporter at the Daily Express, thinking it wrong to carry a party card when directly reporting politics.[7] This also coincided with a culmination of growing personal disillusionment with the Labour movement.[8]

In 2009, Hitchens wrote of this period, "Against the Labour Party, which I knew to be penetrated by all manner of Marxists, and soaked in the ideas of the revolutionaries, it was increasingly necessary to support the Tories. This was partly because of the strikers' lies, but much more because of Poland and Czechoslovakia. On the Cold War, I knew she [Thatcher] was right and the Left were wrong".[9]

Hitchens joined the Conservative Party in 1997, but left in 2003. He challenged Michael Portillo for the Conservative Party nomination in the Kensington and Chelsea seat in 1999, accusing Portillo of "washy moderation".[45] However, he claims that he had "no interest in securing the nomination" and "no chance" of doing so, his real reasons having been to gain book publicity and "to draw attention to Michael Portillo's non-conservative politics".

"Hitchens believes that no party he could support will be created until the Conservative Party disintegrates, an event he first began calling for in 2006"

Hardly the stuff of staunch core Conservatism happy clapping policies, fool. lol