So should the USA now applaud Russia for seriously kicking of some ISIS/ISIL butt over

[truedelphi]

The last 72 hours?

Over the last 48 hours, Russia has destroyed a fleet of 500 ISIS trucks used to smuggle oil out of Syria. 355 [targets] were destroyed in the countryside of Aleppo, Idleb, Raqqa and Dir Ezzor during the last 48 hours. “The Russian air force, in cooperation with the Syrian air force, carried out 186 sorties against ISIS sites in Syria,” Syria news agency reported. It added 26 command-centers, 35 depots, 28 fortified sites, 3 training camps, 8 explosive factories and 86 heavy-weapon stores were destroyed.

[RandySF]

1. I applaud the destruction of ISIS no matter who does it.

[morningfog]

2. Better them than us. They are closer neighbors.

[Buzz Clik]

27. ugh.

[morningfog]

31. What? You want to fight over there so we don't have

to fight them over here?

Let them have the blowback, I'm not interested in more of the same failed military misadventurers that brought is to this point.

[Buzz Clik]

37. "Better them than us. They are closer neighbors."

Wow. Just wow.

Your objection isn't to the death, destruction, or even genocide. You just don't want us involved.

Holy shit.

[morningfog]

38. My objection is multi-fold. I don't want us involved. I don't want innocents killed by anyone.

So drop your pearls.

I don't believe there is a military solution to this problem.

[Buzz Clik]

42. "I don't believe there is a military solution to this problem," but ....

... you're more than happy to let Putin commit Russian lives to this issue?

Try to get a consistent story, but on someone else's time. I'm done with this circular, nonsensical argument.

[morningfog]

43. Putin isn't my president. I don't really have a say what Russia does.

That is their business. Let's stay out of it.

You are trying not to understand. I don't believe you are that lacking in comprehension. But maybe you are.

[Buzz Clik]

45. No, I understood exactly what you were trying to say. You simply rephrased it, but ...

... ugh. I still dislike your attitude.

[morningfog]

46. That's fine. I don't care.

[Buzz Clik]

47. Clearly.

That's the part I don't like. You just don't care.

[Fix The Stupid]

40. Well, get on a flight and go ver there and 'fight' then...

This place is full of chicken hawks...

[Buzz Clik]

41. LOL!

Do I smell a flaming mole?

[Marr]

48. You're upset about ISIS being attacked?

Seriously?

[Buzz Clik]

49. Hey, don't address that to me. I didn't say it.

[Marr]

54. Then help me understand, because that's how I read it. /nt

[Buzz Clik]

55. Please don't take offense, but I am not inclined to do so. Ask morningfrog about his/her stance

[edhopper]

3. Syrian News

Really? Russia has been targeting Syrian rebel since it got there. Not ISIS.
They are bombing our allies in Syria, not ISIS.
What do you think that Russian jet was doing in Turkey, no where near ISIS?

[elias49]

4. I don't know why they were in Turkish air space, if that's true.

Are you insinuating the Russia was in Turkey to bomb Turkey?

[edhopper]

6. There are Syrians of Turkish decent fighting ISIS

They are in Syria near the border. That is who Russia was bombing.
Again, they are targeting Syrian rebels to help Assad, not fighting ISIS.

[Cayenne]

14. The bombs are not wasted on al Qaeda either.

[Igel]

24. Call them "Turkmen."

Yes, the word resembles English-derived forms like "Chinamen." It's not. The -men suffix has nothing at all to do with the English word "man" or "men." It means something like "similar to" or "like" in another, probably extinct or nearly extinct branch of the great far-flung Indo-European linguistic space.

They're not necessarily of "Turkish descent"; they are Turkic, are of Turkic descent, can be called Turks in the right context, and speak Turkish (probably not the standard literary form). But since "Turk" in English often means "citizen of Turkey or member of that particular ethnic group, narrowly construed" the word "Turkmen" does the trick.

[edhopper]

34. Yes

thanks for the clearer explanation.

I was trying to be brief about Turkey's interests.

[herding cats]

5. I think they've targeted both.

They have deliberately been targeting the rebels opposing Assad, I totally agree with that, but they've also hit some ISIL areas as well.

Putin isn't a stupid man, and he knows how to play the media while playing up the confusion of most westerners over the multi-faceted allies and opposition in the region.

[edhopper]

7. yeah

But t's just window dressing.

[herding cats]

8. Yes, it is.

I've followed it closely and I realize what's taking place there. The region the fighter jet was in is not controlled by ISIL, but rather held by the very anti-Assad rebels Putin has been bombing. It's obvious where Putin's sympathies are in reality.

[edhopper]

9. It is amazing that people in this country

And even on DU applaud Putin.

[herding cats]

12. I don't know how to explain it, really.

I suppose propaganda works to an extent.

Then there's the complexities of alliances and enemies in the region. It's not something you can understand at a glance. You have to actually have been following the region and know the complex histories to even vaguely grasp the who, where and why of things. It's not like the west at all. Which may explain why some westerners get confused?

[truedelphi]

13. Well for one thing, this is truly a complicated situation:

You have factions within factions. You have this group supporting Assad, and that group opposing Assad, and ISIS is against Assad.

Even over a year ago, you had testimony on The Hill that the USA should be "looking to aid these individuals who have risked their lives to combat the Assad regime and to combat the ISIL terrorists that they’re fighting today.”

Then you had McCain arguing against that position: that the U.S. would not get many “recruits” among the Syrian rebels if the mission was to fight ISIS alone.

“They’ll also be fighting against Bashar Assad which they’ve been doing for a number of years before ISIL was ever a significant factor,” he told Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey.

“Our focus is on ISIL,” Hagel said, while Dempsey referred to an “ISIL-first strategy.”

The Assad regime and its allies in Tehran and Moscow see the new focus on defeating ISIS as an opportunity to alleviate international pressure on Damascus, even suggesting that the West partner with Assad in tackling the terrorists.

The administration insists there will be no coordination with the regime if it extends the campaign of airstrikes against ISIS from Iraq into Syria, but is also not prioritizing regime-change as part of its anti-ISIS strategy.

####

So considering the fact that there has been a great bit of division about what to do, among people who are spending serious time dealing with the situation, and you can hardly fault people on DU for being confused.

On edit: When POV, the PBS news show, sent its reporters to Syria, I thought it quite tellling that some of the people they interviewed had first fought on one side, and now are fighting on the other!

And as far as I can tell, I wrote this as a question - perhaps rhetorical, perhaps not.

[CentralMass]

21. +1

[trumad]

36. Great post.

Many here think it is black and white. No---there is a shit load of Gray.

[truedelphi]

59. Thank you, trumad. n/t

[hifiguy]

60. Agreed. It's like the Hatfields and McCoys

with fifty families instead of two, all shooting at each other.

[840high]

15. I'll applaud anyone who fights ISIS.

[CentralMass]

18. We maybe getting some benefts from his ambitions in the region.

[edhopper]

35. We may also

be getting the destruction of our Syrian rebel allies, the saving of the Assad dictatorship and saber rattling with Turkey.

[tammywammy]

11. I agree it's obvious that ISIS isn't the main focus of Russia

And it has been. What's surprising, or I guess it's not really, that so many on DU don't get it.

[herding cats]

20. I think it's easier not to see the whole picture there.

What I mean is it's extremely complicated. It's easier just to take what someone says as being real sometimes, and not worry about figuring out what's going on yourself.

I'm not saying that's better, just sometimes what's easier is just too tempting.

[elias49]

16. Well, since the Russian jet-liner was taken down

I think it's more than window dressing!

[Yorktown]

30. Yup. Poutine is there just for Bachar and his military bases

[CentralMass]

10. Here is an article from the BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34882503




My comment:
So it great that Russia is hitting ISIS but they seems to be focusing more heavily on anti Assad rebel forces.

[JanMichael]

17. the concentration of bombing seems to be on the edge if civilization

and barbarism. where the line on one ends and one begins.

if the syrian govt collapsed all true hell would erupt in that gawd forsaken place.

[CentralMass]

19. The administration seems to be letting Putin take care of business.

In effect, this is a policy shift on Assad.

[GreatGazoo]

33. The US has little choice on Russia in Syria but we remain admant that "Assad must go"

11/19/15 - Obama: Assad must go:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-says-syrian-leader-bashar-al-assad-must-go-1447925671

I don't see much discussion of what would happen if Assad was overthrown but Libya and Iraq are not easily forgotten.

[renegade000]

22. Sure... and shouldn't Russia applaud the US for...

Assisting with rolling back ISIS from Northern Syria by providing air support and material assistance to the Kurdish YPG over the past several months? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Protection_Units

At least DU should applaud that right? I mean looking at the ideological bend of that group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)), seems like they'd get along great here on DU.

But I guess if they're not pro-Assad, they're basically ISIS...

[IsItJustMe]

23. Where did you get your info truedelphi.

Don't believe anything you hear and half of what you see. Just because you heard this somewhere does not make it so. Remember that we are constantly being played by powerful interests. Don't accept anything at face value.

These are the lessons I learned from living through 8 years of the GWB administration.

[truedelphi]

57. Well, Apparently Hollande of France is thinking along the same lines --

He is undertaking diplomatic dealings with the Russians to ask them to ONLY target ISIS.

So that should indicate that prior to this decision of the last 48 hours, the Russians were targeting ISIS.

I guess my info is as good as his.

[Igel]

25. Even in that narrow list of targets,

not everything said to be targeting ISIS is in ISIS-held territory.

Unless you look at the details, you'll be sure to miss where the devil is hiding in plain sight.

Nowhere do those places get called "ISIS-held." You have to follow the logic. "Russians bombed ISIS-held territory. (blah-blah-blah.) Russians bombed X." Therefore, X must be ISIS-held territory. But unless you make the connection explicitly and then question it, it's easy to overlook that X wasn't ISIS-held. That's a pain. It's time-consuming. It requires knowing a lot of facts and details.

[madokie]

26. Go Russia

[underpants]

28. Yeah! And their really giving those 12 HOSPITALS a good bombing too

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11964301/Twelve-Syria-hospitals-hit-by-airstrikes-as-Russian-jets-bombard-country.html

[randome]

32. It always amazes me how some think civilian casualties only occur with an American drone strike.

Putin, OTOH, is a whole 'nother level of not giving a shit about civilians. But, hey, in his case, it must have been a mistake, right? Where is the screaming about Russia creating more terrorists?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[CJCRANE]

51. Was any of that confirmed? The western media wouldn't lie would it? nt

[GreatGazoo]

29. Yes but the top goal of the US in Syria is to overthrow Assad

so ISIS (Saudi/Qatar/Turkey-backed mercs) is/was helping with that.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-state-sponsors-of-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-turkey-why-are-they-no-subjected-to-sanctions/5403310

"Truth is the first casualty of war." - Winston Churchill

[truedelphi]

56. There is another Churchill quote to the effect that

The USA always does what is right, after it has exhausted all other possibilities!

[flamingdem]

39. Some behavior is related to negotiations over the future of Syria

The difficult point being what happens to Assad. Russia's bombing might be an attempt to bolster Assad's position and avoid a compromise that gives them less control going forward.

Kerry, Obama etc are in negotiation mode and Putin is not easy to deal with but they realize he can do some of the dirty work.

[philosslayer]

44. I don't think the Russians care much about collateral damage

That is a concern. I wonder how many innocent civilians were killed in this bombardment?

[smiley]

50. The ME is a boondoggle at this point.

One that we helped create. I can neither applaud nor criticize the actions of Russia.

[CJCRANE]

52. PBS even showed footage of Russian air strikes on Isis oil facilities.

They didn't actually mention that they were Russian strikes but the fact that there were cyrillic letters in the video and that it had previously been shown on Russian TV kind of gave the game away.

[GOLGO 13]

53. No problem with the Russians killing ISIS anywhere they want.

[hifiguy]

58. The smart thing to do would be to look the other way and whistle

and let Putin do what needs to be done by whatever means available. Backchannel support would be appropriate but the public posture should be low-profile.

Putin is a ruthless SOB and will do what has to be done.

[truedelphi]

61. Very much agree with every point you make. n/t