• Advertisement

US Attacks ISIL in Syria...any Guesses?

Discussions regarding wars around the globe
Knuckle
x 11

US Attacks ISIL in Syria...any Guesses?

Postby Knuckle » Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:47 am

So we get to start anew here. I likely know less about this conflict as I focused mainly on Ukraine and that has enough conflict. This should then be more pro-US orientated as i doubt I could find much to present a defense for ISIL anyways if I wanted to. But there are questions still regarding ISIL's objectives and funding, ect., I'd like to have answers to. And nothing can be learned if one only views this crisis from one side!

The US led airstrikes at night meant to batter ISIL's base in Syria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLhKHFGBUEg
Even RT news seemed OK with this attack as they only mention that the Syrian government never gave their approval https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBou3kjfN60
RT shows footage later of a village devastated by the shelling. hard not to notice the lack of vehicles, equipment, or anything else to suggest this was anything but a village as villagers young and old are trying to dig bodies out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rlP-KxgM-c

The problem that I continue to have over such as this is that ISIL is another US bred group as al Qaedea once was. There is again so much proof showing that US dollars formed, trained and backed them and now we are to believe that they have just run amuck. Coincidence is a pill that is getting hard to swallow these days and thus one has got to be wanting to ask how many more pills there yet to be swallowed.

Will this event in any way be an attempt to draw Putin into this battle too? Will this event be a means to maybe challenge Russian ships as they might try to relay information to Syria as they did during the last US conflict of 2013as shown here by CNN? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9SwNgDr3Ic


So this is the ground floor...we can start here and watch what occurs and how events progress. But this time maybe we should look harder and challenge actions and try to instead attempt to predict results. Then maybe see if we have discovered a pattern or better reasoning as to why each event had or was to occur. I have no clue if this concept could work. It just seems that it might be fun to guess motives and see where the rabbit hole eventually leads.

I try not to use the overplayed NWO theories but agree that even Obama and other world leaders started that rumor too by casually mentioning it time to time in their speeches. We all have likely heard too the depopulation theories and such, but they are again drifting off into the realm of vague conjecture. But is there common factors at play that tie Syria in with the Ukraine crisis or that of the Gaza Strip? Or are each of these separate entities and their flaring up at the same time is just coincidence?
Last edited by Knuckle on Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

OldTimeGardener
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:45 pm
Location: B.C.

Re: US Attacks Syria...any Guesses?

Postby OldTimeGardener » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:39 am

Your title says US attacks Syria.....
Seems they were joined with Arab allies in the attack against the militants.

Is this the article your are referring too?
Must be, as there was only one attack so far on Syria.

If you read this article, Syria was told many hours ahead it was about to happen.

U.S. and Arab allies launch first strikes on militants in Syria

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKCN0HI03A20140924?i=6&irpc=932

Just to add, in case you don't want to read the whole thing.

Tightly controlled Syrian state TV interviewed an analyst who said the air strikes did not amount to an act of aggression because the government had been notified. "This does not mean we are part of the joint operations room, and we are not part of the alliance. But there is a common enemy," said the analyst, Ali al-Ahmad.
0 x
A sense of humor is absolutely essential to survival.

Knuckle
x 11

Re: US Attacks ISIL in Syria...any Guesses?

Postby Knuckle » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:34 am

Changed the name already to narrow the focus.... thanks. I admit that I do see it somewhat as an attack on Syria too as otherwise they'd include Syria in this endeavor to save further conflict. I know too that Syria wouldn't give the OK and so they went ahead without it.

What I also fail to understand is why they don't at least use their drones and guided missiles to further convince the public that their targets are just. This shelling from afar is great against an enemy that has near equivalent abilities, but we, the public, never see any technology used from an enemy that justifies such measures. From what we've seen in the past , even Blackhawk helicopters could have dealt with this threat and the public could be better informed to show proofs of their actions. Thu a more honest approach would maybe even then help redeem past US incursions such as claiming WMD's in Iraq and so on.

There are so many other ways to get this job done and remove people's doubts along the way. Yet their approach always seems to be total destruction with no possibility of proving justification by retrieving evidence even after the fact. There is never anything left it seems to either prove or disprove after their heavy shelling.

BTW, has there been any attacks yet on the US? All I've heard mention is there is the potential that ISIL will do something as they have even threatened to. Seems I always want some proof to go with the pudding as too much has already occurred just on false information.

I did find videos showing the exodus of 150,000 refugees as stated in Reuters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTti_xXYwx8

Most at least agree that the US created the instability in these regions by destroying the leaders or dictators that controlled the region. But the problems arise when the masses refuse to accept the imposed leader put in place by the US as they only see this new leader for what he is, a puppet of the US. Would it not be better to maybe put someone in power that was at least more acceptable to the people and though less a puppet, could at least remain in control as he would then have the majorities backing.

This makes one conclude that the US obviously wishes for this region to be in constant turmoil or they'd otherwise see the cost effectiveness of doing things somewhat different.
0 x

endangeredspecies
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:26 am

Re: US Attacks ISIL in Syria...any Guesses?

Postby endangeredspecies » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:30 pm

Kill two birds with one stone

im not visionary but thats my guess
0 x

Knuckle
x 11

Re: US Attacks ISIL in Syria...any Guesses?

Postby Knuckle » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:45 pm

endangeredspecies wrote:Kill two birds with one stone

im not visionary but thats my guess


But how? Is this just an attempt to get Russia to commit in some way instead of their "holing up" and silent treatment tactics which they have been using for some time now.

The US was treating Syria as an enemy last year and proclaiming they are more a less assisting them this year with UN approval. That detail alone should make all nations leary. The claim that Russia invaded Ukraine when delivering it's first load of humanitarian aid is only a month old and US isn't considered invading when they just drop bombs instead?

There has to be a logical reason that the US would face a further loss of face. Russia gained much of it's present popularity for intervening last year and quelling what appeared to be a volatile situation by getting Syria to turn over all their chemical weapons(seems only the super powers can have these). Russia showed they were more willing to get involved in 2013. This year they haven't done anything since acquiring Crimea through a vote that was seen as legitimate enough by the world that no one could reciprocate at the time. A large scale propaganda event has been in place since then to reverse this aspect.

It seems hard to believe that even more UN allies won't to want to disassociate themselves with the US if this next venture should fail. So I'm betting that this isn't a bluff. The US must be holding some wild card that should swing the balance to their side if they pull this off. Is it just to draw them out of their hole or is there more to this.

Just gotta clean this crystal ball a little more to see a little further.........
0 x

OldTimeGardener
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:45 pm
Location: B.C.

Re: US Attacks ISIL in Syria...any Guesses?

Postby OldTimeGardener » Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:40 pm

I have been reading about this for many days/weeks trying to sort out whos' who and what they are doing (or planning on doing), after all Canada is in this as well. The whys, I already knew. :(
I have read til my eyes want to drop out of my head.

Loads of info on reuters.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKCN0HI03A20140923?irpc=932

Just keep hitting the 'Next 10 Headlines' at the bottom of the page to sort thru them all.

There is one report of how US and as well as a lot of other countries that are involved in stopping IS, want to be sure nothing helps Assad, but to get rid of IS. Just can't find it right now... *sigh*..so many reports out.
Later if I can find it... got loads if work to do here.

Putin must be a little ticked, seeing buddy Assad is saying its ok by them for the bombing to be carried out in Syria. So hes been kinda put on 'ignore' by a lot of countries...that doesn't set well with him.
I noticed Putin's last message was a little more toned down. ;)
0 x
A sense of humor is absolutely essential to survival.

Knuckle
x 11

Re: US Attacks ISIL in Syria...any Guesses?

Postby Knuckle » Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:51 pm

Lets see what others figure when they read even this first part of Reuters article......

WASHINGTON/BEIRUT (Reuters) - The United States and its Arab allies bombed militant groups in Syria for the first time on Tuesday, killing scores of Islamic State fighters, members of a separate al Qaeda-linked group and opening a new front amid shifting Middle East alliances.

The attacks encountered no objection, and even signs of tacit approval, from President Bashar al-Assad's Syrian government, which said Washington had warned Damascus in advance.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates participated in or supported the strikes against Islamic State targets, U.S. Central Command said. The countries are hostile to Assad but now fear the fighters who emerged from the rebellion they backed in Syria's 3-year-old civil war.

U.S. President Barack Obama said in a televised statement that the breadth of the coalition, including the five Arab states, showed the United States was not alone in its second campaign of air strikes. Since Aug. 8, U.S. air strikes have hit militant targets in Iraq, where Washington supports the government, but had held back from a military engagement in Syria, where it is at odds with Assad.

The White House said some of the strikes in Syria had targeted an al Qaeda affiliate known as the Khorasan group, which it said had been plotting an imminent attack either in the United States or in Europe.

"Once again, it must be clear to anyone who would plot against America and do Americans harm that we will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists who threaten our people," Obama said before leaving the White House for the United Nations.

In New York, Obama planned more talks to enlarge the alliance against extremist groups that emerged and gained power while trying to topple Assad. In a reversal, Turkey indicated Tuesday it would provide military or logistical backing.

"We will give the necessary support to the operation," President Tayyip Erdogan told Turkish broadcaster NTV.

The NATO ally, which is alarmed by Islamic State but also worried about Kurdish fighters and opposed to any action that might help Assad, had refused a military role in the coalition while 46 of its citizens were held by the group in Iraq. Turkey is home to a major U.S. base in Incirlik, which officials said has not been used so far in the strikes in Iraq or Syria.

Warplanes and ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles struck dozens of targets including fighters, training compounds, headquarters and command and control facilities, storage sites, a finance center, trucks and armed vehicles, CENTCOM said.

"I can tell you that last night's strikes were only the beginning," said Rear Admiral John Kirby, a U.S. Defense Department spokesman. He called the overnight attacks "very successful" but gave few other details.

The U.S.-led coalition launched 16 airstrikes on Islamic State across Syria, CENTCOM said in a statement later on Tuesday.

Washington also said U.S. forces had acted alone to launch eight strikes in northeastern Syria on what they called the Khorasan group.

Militants on social media mourned Khorasan's reputed leader, Mohsin al-Fadhli, a former associate of al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. U.S. officials have not confirmed his death.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the war in Syria, said at least 70 Islamic State fighters were killed in strikes that hit at least 50 targets in the provinces of Raqqa, Deir al-Zor and Hasakah.

It said at least 50 fighters and eight civilians were killed in strikes on the Khorasan group, which was thought to operate in Syria with the Nusra Front, another al Qaeda offshoot that opposes Islamic State.

The air attacks fulfill Obama's pledge to strike in Syria against Islamic State, a Sunni Muslim group that has seized swathes of Syria and Iraq, slaughtering prisoners and ordering Shi'ites and non-Muslims to convert or die.

It remains to be seen how effective air strikes can be in Syria, where Washington lacks a strong ally to fight the group on the ground. The militants vowed reprisals, and an allied group is threatening to kill a French hostage captured in Algeria.

In Washington, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI said they had alerted law enforcement agencies to a threat from Syrian-based al Qaeda operatives "nearing the execution phase for an attack in Europe or the homeland."


I find that this comes off like the plot of a badly written book.

- Why would the Syrian President like such actions occurring in his country without his approval? Proclaiming signs of tacit approval is conjecture at best.
- How would they know the Khorasan group had been plotting an imminent attack? Only in movies do you tell others of whom your attacking in advance...
- Militants on social media mourned Khorasan's reputed leader's death. I'd doubt any militants would so obviously paint themselves as being such openly on Facebook or such similar programs. That would be just dumb....
- The militants vowed reprisals... why wouldn't they just do it to show there are reprisals? Again usually vowing to do such is only done in the movies.

And this approach goes on and on. Each comment having little to do with the last as if they were reducing the news to short form and presenting how individuals reacted to some news or other they'd heard. That is too weird when trying to wrap my head around the contents. The author doesn't tie anything together and this approach leaves gaps where one's mind is supposed to then just "fill in the blanks"?

It's the format that makes this a hard read! The comments and conclusions are also hard to believe and so paints the article more as just propaganda in my opinion.
Last edited by Knuckle on Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

endangeredspecies
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:26 am

Re: US Attacks ISIL in Syria...any Guesses?

Postby endangeredspecies » Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:33 pm

they hit on petrol site first of course :D

i bet 1$ that Bashar al-Assad will be gone beffor isis
0 x

Knuckle
x 11

Re: US Attacks ISIL in Syria...any Guesses?

Postby Knuckle » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:35 pm

endangeredspecies wrote:they hit on petrol site first of course :D

i bet 1$ that Bashar al-Assad will be gone beffor isis


Good point and no, I won't take that bet!

I can't imagine that the US would directly take him out, but I'm betting they stir the pot until maybe someone else does it for them. The US is still hiding behind the charade that they are there to help so far. ISIL is real all right , but someone else is obviously backing them because they seem to have no real agenda so far but to just to make things run amuck and thus keep a few specific countries defenses weak and in constant inner turmoil.

This really smells of CIA tactics and so again, who would benefit from this chaos? Neither Russia or any of the countries infected with ISIL activities have anything to gain and lots to lose. The US has only received threats against them so far and no action, yet they ready and massed to fight in defense of those same enemies they confronted just last year....unlikely.

Check out this old video from back in 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg3rmVBv9bs
This shows how air superiority alone pretty much allows one to rule all the gameplay. Having the ability to simply call in airstrikes beats all the ground forces any of these small nations can muster and the video proves this with 200 kills and no losses.

The only thing standing in a super powers way today would be another super power. The only means of maybe defeating a super power without weakening your own defenses too much is likely by whittling away at the economic structure that supports the superpower. Limit it's resources and trade, and make it's neighbours on all sides enemies to guard against. That is what I suspect the US is presently doing at Russia's doorstep.

RT's Crosstalk debates this issue of attacking ISIL in Syria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaTGqI0XGx8
Fairly basic debate but one point of interest is the mention that the US will soon run out of targets... then what? Will they decide that since their already there, to deal with the Syrian government now. This present strategy has a very short timeframe even as an excuse to intervene on another countries soil (if even this were an acceptable excuse). Many countries already have taken offense to the US's neglect of diplomacy regarding this matter. To prolong the duration of their military presence will be seen as a major thread by many nations.
0 x

prom
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:14 am
Location: Calgary
x 1

Re: US Attacks ISIL in Syria...any Guesses?

Postby prom » Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:31 am

Knuckle wrote:
endangeredspecies wrote:they hit on petrol site first of course :D

RT's Crosstalk debates this issue of attacking ISIL in Syria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaTGqI0XGx8
Fairly basic debate but one point of interest is the mention that the US will soon run out of targets... then what? Will they decide that since their already there, to deal with the Syrian government now. This present strategy has a very short timeframe even as an excuse to intervene on another countries soil (if even this were an acceptable excuse). Many countries already have taken offense to the US's neglect of diplomacy regarding this matter. To prolong the duration of their military presence will be seen as a major thread by many nations.


This is what your idea of debate is, where everybody is on the same side. But anyways, what is your position on this matter? You only post stuff from RT but what do you think the international community do about this if anything?
0 x


Return to “War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest