The New York Times prints whatever the White Mosque
fabricates.
Sounds like the Russians will have to “up” their game. Unless they give credence to the next sternly worded letter of protest from our nutless president.
I doubt all of this, but if it is true, Russia will go back and flatten them all over again.
Why would I believe the NY TIMES—mouthpiece for the Obama White House?
Shouldn’t this be ISIS make gains in Syria as US bombing reduced
Russia/Syria ping
Russia is ISIS’s air force.
And this is a continuation as under Assad, the biggest killer over there.
ISIS is full of Russian speakers like Omar the Chechen.
All the propaganda that’s fit to print.
Remember all the freepers fawning over Putin about the show of force?
lol
I think this is something that many people haven’t realized yet which Western and Gulf states are working so hard to obscure via their media propaganda is that the various rebel factions including ISIS all share the same agenda, Sunni Islamic supremacy and the extermination of all infidels. Some just simply have a wider definition of infidels than others. Like the various Communist splinter groups that battled one another over quibbles in interpretation of Marxism and the “proper” revolutionary path, the end goal was still the dictatorship of the proletariat. You say People’s liberation front of Judea. I say Judean people’s liberation front. There is minor differences in ISIS and All Nusra or the dozens of other groups of armed men who change affiliations on a weekly basis. A “moderate” Syrian rebel group fighting for secular democracy simply does not exist in reality. Merely bands of jihadists practicing taqiyah who are willing to accept American money and weapons and bands of jihadists so dogmatic that that they don’t. The overthrow of Assad won’t usher in anything other than another Libya. There is no way America can influence developments in Syria to the way it wants without significant ground forces and an occupation. Present American policy also shared by the Gulf States and Turkey can only result in Sharia law and various stripes of Jihadists fighting for power over the carcass of a former Syrian state. The Russian policy is to restore the antebellum status quo with Assad in power and all of the rebels dead. Which outcome is more desirable depends on who you ask, but there will be no “Free” liberal Syria at the end of either road. That is simply a fantasy shared by both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists.
Russia Teams Up With Islamic State Against Syria’s Rebels
The main intention of Russia’s intervention in Syria is to prop up the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad and to do that Russia is seeking to ensure that the Islamic State (I.S.) is the only alternative to Assad’s regime. If the conflict becomes binary—Assad or I.S.—nobody can support I.S., and by default it will be accepted that Assad has to stay; even if international help is not given to put down the insurgency at that point, tacit support and political legitimacy will be extended to Russia’s effort to keep its client regime alive.
In service of this mission, Moscow has consistently targeted the moderate rebels and even some non-moderate rebels, while avoiding I.S., in the conscious hope that the rebel positions it destroys will be replaced by I.S. fighters. In northern Syria in the last few days, Russia got its wish in a major way.
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/russia-teams-up-with-islamic-state-against-syrias-rebels/
"If we want to actually dismantle ISIS, we need to dramatically change course. We need a real, robust campaign that maximizes our overwhelming air advantage.
We need to focus our efforts not on trying to create friends, but on supporting our real ones, especially the Kurds in Iraq and Syria who have actually had success against ISIS."
-snip-
"We can redouble our efforts to develop the defensive weapons that neutralized the offensive Soviet threat -- particularly missile defense, which has seen a 25% budget reduction under Obama, according to an analysis from the conservative Heritage Foundation, and has been constrained by bad arms deals like New START.
We should not only move quickly to install the canceled interceptor sites Putin opposed in Poland and the Czech Republic, but also to develop the next generation of systems that will only increase his discomfiture.
These options do not entail a ground war in Syria, yet would effectively shake us free from the failed policies that have brought us to our current impasse.
These options set us on a new path that puts Putin on notice that the United States is reclaiming our traditional role as leader of the free world."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/opinions/cruz-syria-putin/index.html
************************************************************
“I think it would be a mistake to get involved in the Syrian civil war. There have been voices in Washington eager for us to send our sons and daughters over to fight that civil war for some time. I haven’t been one of them. I think the touchstone of U.S. military policy should be protecting the national security of this country.
“What we’re seeing Putin in Russia do is a direct response to the profound weakness of Obama over six and a half years.
Putin views Obama as weak, as ineffective, and frankly, as a laughingstock. And, as a result, he is moving in, he is invading his neighbors – like Ukraine – he’s kidnapping Estonians, and he’s moving into Syria to gain a stronger foothold in the Middle East."
"According to the Washington Free Beacon, Russia’s nuclear arsenal how has over 100 nuclear warheads above the limit set by the treaty.
Since the treaty was launched, Russia has deployed 111 new nuclear warheads, bringing its total number of deployed warheads to 1,648. That treaty limit is 1,150 warheads — a number that must be reached in 2018.
Comparatively, the numbers of U.S. nuclear warheads, missiles and bombers have fallen dramatically and are already below the limits set by the treaty. Additionally, the United States has decreased the number of warheads in its deployed nuclear arsenal by 250.
While the United States intends to eliminate heavy bombers and launchers, Russia has launched a strategic nuclear force expansion.
Russian President Vladimir Putin also recently announced a new doctrine that placed priority on nuclear forces.
If this raises concern for you, you are not alone.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, said Russia “is in the business of violating treaties.”
Rogers said Putin has violated several agreements and treaties in the past, and he simply “violates any treaty or agreement that puts limits on capabilities that Mr. Putin and his cronies desire.”
“Russia’s arguable adherence to the New START Treaty just indicates how bad a deal it is for the United States,” he said.
Adm. William Gortney, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, said Wednesday that Russia has read our play book and is “fielding cruise missiles that are very, very accurate, very long range.”
Gortney said these missiles have the ability to reach targets in Canada and the United States. He added that Russia has been participating in war game scenarios recently that simulate cruise missile strikes in Alaska.
This news is serious because it appears Russia has no intention of abiding by New START or any other treaty. We should therefore be building up our military and our arsenals instead of depleting them.