Putin's warplanes missiled Obama's terrorists in Syria

[nkfnkfnkf]

https://tw.mobi.yahoo.com/news/敘反軍山地獵鷹控俄戰機-飛彈攻擊基地-160142888.html


敘反軍山地獵鷹控俄戰機 飛彈攻擊基地

中央社
4小時前
（中央社貝魯特1日綜合外電報導）敘利亞反抗軍「山地獵鷹」（Falcons of the Mountain）發言人表示，俄羅斯戰機今天在敘利亞西北部伊德利布省（Idlib）發射多枚飛彈，攻擊山地獵鷹的訓練營。

全球300萬人正在玩的遊戲《塔防海賊王》中文版正式上線
Sponsored*塔防海賊王
山地獵鷹係美國扶植的敘利亞反抗軍團體。

山地獵鷹發言人哈拉比（Mustafa Halabi）說：「上午10時30分，俄羅斯戰機鎖定山地獵鷹的訓練營為目標，計有4架戰機發射了十多枚飛彈。」

哈拉比指出，下午時分，又有2架俄羅斯戰機出擊，攻擊這處訓練基地。1041001

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russian-jets-struck-cia-backed-rebels-syria-says-123057687.html





US-backed Syria rebels say Russia strikes hit their base

By AFP | AFP*–*7 hours ago

View Photo
AFP/Lens of a young Dimashqi/AFP/File - Russian warplanes fired missiles at a training camp run by a US-backed Syrian rebel group, a group spokesman tells AFP
Russian warplanes fired missiles at a training camp run by a US-backed rebel group in the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib Thursday, the group's spokesman told AFP.
"At exactly 10:30 am (0730 GMT), Russian planes targeted Suqur al-Jabal's training camp, with four Russian planes firing more than 10 missiles," said Mustafa Halabi, spokesman for Suqur al-Jabal (Falcons of the Mountain).
He said two more Russian warplanes attacked the base at noon, but that no rebels were hit.
Rebels from the group have received training and equipment as part of a $500-million US programme to build up a force to combat the Islamic State group in Syria.
But the Pentagon programme, which had originally aimed to train around 5,400 vetted fighters a year for three years, has come under fire.
In September, US General Lloyd Austin told the Senate Armed Services committee only "four or five" US-trained rebels were on the ground fighting in Syria.
But later in September, more than 75 newly trained rebels were deployed to northern Syria and assigned to either Suqur al-Jabal or Division 30, another opposition unit.
Russia began conducting air strikes in Syria Wednesday, and has insisted that it is only targeting the Islamic State group and other "terrorist" factions.
But US and French officials have expressed doubt, saying they had indications Russian warplanes were targeting groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instead of jihadists.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

Obama is crying pain from being fucked by Putin in Syria

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...syria-bombing-george-w-bush-iraq_1039256.html


White House Compares Putin's Syria Bombing to George W. Bush in Iraq
8:21 AM, Oct 1, 2015 • By DANIEL HALPER
Send to Kindle
Widget tooltip
Single Page
Print
Larger Text
Smaller Text
Alerts

White House spokesman Josh Earnest compared Vladimir Putin's bombing in Syria to George W. Bush's "military solution in Iraq in the last decade." Earnest made the comparison at the daily White House press briefing.
Vladimir Putin, Russia

"Russia is not going to be successful in imposing a military solution inside of Syria, and they’ll be no more successful in that regard than the United States was in imposing a military solution in Iraq in the last decade, and certainly no more successful than Russian efforts to impose a military solution on Afghanistan three decades ago," Earnest said.

A Jeb Bush adviser responded by blasting the White House. "Dictators and tyrants around the world don't just have a friend in the White House, they have a defense attorney," he wrote on Twitter.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

Loser Ukirane also crying pain

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukr...two-war-strategy-in-syria-ukraine-399117.html

Protesting Putin: Kremlin starts two-war strategy in Syria, Ukraine
Print version
Oct. 1, 2015, 10:30 p.m. | Ukraine — by Oleg Sukhov

From left, Ukrainian Crisis Media Center’s Nataliya Popovych, member of parliament Hanna Hopko, Ukrainian Crisis Media Center’s Gennadiy Kurochka, Odesa Oblast Deputy Governor Yulia Marushevska and Oksana Shulyar of the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C., hold the tattered national flag of Ukraine from the August 2014 Massacre of Ilovaisk, in which officially 366 Ukrainian soldiers were killed after being tricked into surrender by Russian forces. The defeat forced Ukraine into concessions of the first Minsk peace agreement a month later. The flag protest took place in the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 28 as Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke. UN security ejected them. Popovych explains the protest on page 5.
© Mykhailo Palinchak
Tweet

Kyiv Post+

​​Editor's Note: ​Kyiv Post+ is a public service offering special coverage of Russia's war against Ukraine and the aftermath of the EuroMaidan Revolution. All articles, investigative reports and opinions published under this heading are free for republication during Ukraine's time of national emergency. Kyiv Post+ is a collaboration of the Kyiv Post newspaper and the affiliated non-profit Media Development Foundation.

Oleg Sukhov

Oleg Sukhov is a former Moscow Times editor and reporter and a graduate of Moscow State University. He also used to teach history and the theory of knowledge in English at the European Gymnasium in Moscow.
SEE ALSO

Financial Times: Ukraine fighting ebbs as Russia turns fire on Syria rebels

The Daily Signal: How the wars in Ukraine and Syria are connected

The Guardian: Russian media turn attention to Syria as Ukraine conflict dies down

Reuters: Merkel says can only end Syrian war with Russia's help

Why we raised flag in front of Putin at UN

Financial Times: Ukraine fighting ebbs as Russia turns fire on Syria rebels

CNBC: Lavrov says Russia sees 'eye-to-eye' with US on Syria

The shift in Russia's attention to Syria, where it launched airstrikes on Sept. 30, has coincided with relative calm in the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine's Donbas.

In the long run, however, Russia’s continuation of its war against Ukraine will depend on its strategy in Syria, analysts say. If the Kremlin’s intervention to prop up dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime is short-term and limited, Russia may still be able to wage its war in the Donbas.

But if Russia steps up its presence in Syria, its adventure could become risky and may even turn into a quagmire comparable to the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan. In this case, the Kremlin will be unlikely to wage war against Ukraine effectively.

Russia’s intentions in Syria and Ukraine may become clearer in an Oct. 2 meeting among Putin, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris.

Russia has also requested a one-on-one meeting between Putin and Poroshenko in Paris, Konstyantyn Elyseyev, a deputy of Poroshenko’s chief of staff, said on Oct. 1. He said Ukraine had not yet decided on the proposal by the time this edition of the Kyiv Post went to press.

Although Moscow says it has started its air campaign in Syria against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Russia has bombed targets in areas that are not controlled by that group. The first strikes on Sept. 30 occurred near the cities of Homs, Hama and Latakia, and hit the positions of the secular Free Syrian Army, a U.S. ally, according to a vast pool of media reports, video, and photo evidence.

The bombings took place only two days after Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared in the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 28 to seek an international coalition against terrorism. Poroshenko, who spoke on Sept. 29, mocked Putin’s anti-terrorism credentials, noting that the Kremlin leader has instigated war and terrorism against Ukraine since February 2014. Ukrainians walked out on Putin as he spoke; five Ukrainians were kicked out of the hall after holding up Ukraine’s national flag as the Kremlin leader spoke.

Kirill Mikhailov, a member of the War in Ukraine intelligence team, told the Kyiv Post that his group had found photos and videos of Russian Su-24 and Su-25 fighter aircraft operating in Syria. Russian warplanes of these types had earlier been spotted at Syria’s Bassel al-Assad Airport, he said. More proof that they are indeed Russian aircraft is that Assad’s air force doesn’t have Su-25 planes, Mikhailov added.

Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed it was only targeting ISIS and published a video of one airstrike. But the War in Ukraine open source team said the Russian ministry was lying and located the site of the strike as Al-Lataminah, where there are no ISIS troops.

Top U.S. officials have already expressed concern over Russia’s actions, warning it not to strike non-ISIS targets.

However, that warning appeared to have gone unheeded on Oct. 1, as several reports emerged in a number of media of renewed Russian air strikes on groups other than ISIS.

The air strikes have heightened speculation over Russia’s intentions in Syria, with the United States and its allies appearing to have been caught flat-footed by the Kremlin’s sudden appearance in the Syrian theater.

Putin during his speech on Sept. 28 at the U.N. General Assembly and then in talks with his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama claimed that he was seeking cooperation with the United States to fight ISIS. But some experts say Putin is not interested in combatting ISIS, and is only seeking to support Assad by attacking the other rebel groups that are actually leading the struggle against the Syrian dictator’s regime.

Russia has also clandestinely deployed up to 2,000 infantry and at least seven tanks in Syria in recent weeks, according to media reports and open-source intelligence investigations. Putin on Sept. 30 denied that Russia is planning any ground operations in the country, although earlier video footage of Russian troops allegedly fighting alongside Assad’s forces has already been widely shared on the Internet.

Russia’s pattern of lying about its actions in Syria bears a striking resemblance to its actions in Ukraine, where it has denied sending troops and supplying equipment in the face of an immense amount of evidence to the contrary, experts say.

Viacheslav Tseluiko, a military expert at the Center for Army, Conversion and Disarmament Studies, attributed Russia’s decision to intervene in Syria to its desire to break its international isolation and gain leverage in its talks with the West, including on Ukraine. Analysts also say that one of Putin’s motives was to persuade the West to lift sanctions imposed on Russia due to its aggression in Ukraine.

“Russia is trying to get a foothold in that region to have a tool for influencing the United States,” political analyst Vitaly Bala, head of the Situation Modeling Agency, told the Kyiv Post by phone.

Bala said that Russia’s Syrian gamble was a diversion aimed at making the West forget about the Kremlin’s aggression in Ukraine.

“It’s like if you had a headache and someone cut your hand off to make you forget about it,” he said.

Russian political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin told the Kyiv Post that one of Russia’s motives in shifting to Syria is that it “suffered a major fiasco in Ukraine.”

Putin initially wanted the whole of Ukraine to be integrated into the Eurasian Union, but two years later Ukraine is actually more pro-Western and anti-Kremlin than ever, he said.

Currently, Russia’s involvement in Syria is unlikely to jeopardize its capability to wage war in Ukraine. The Kremlin now has 32 warplanes and seven helicopters in Syria, according to media reports.

“One U.S. aircraft carrier has more warplanes than the ones deployed by Russia in Syria,” Tseluiko said.

Russian troops can achieve local results but are unlikely to significantly change the military situation, he added.

Moreover, fighting ISIS is a very difficult task.

“ISIS is a very liquid structure,” Tseluiko said. “Unlike Ukraine, it doesn’t have a definite population or definite borders. The war on ISIS is an attempt to break a puddle. You can break a piece of ice, but you can’t break a puddle.”

Given the limited size of its Syrian contingent, Russia can still wage war on two fronts.

“Russia may continue its aggression in Donbas and have a military presence in Syria at the same time,” Tseluiko said.

He said Russia’s war against Ukraine “can be unfrozen at any moment.”

Another scenario is that Russia launches a full-blown military operation to prop up Assad, in which case it will be too preoccupied with Syria to wage its Ukrainian war.

However, it will be difficult for Russia to step up its military presence because there are few places where its aircraft can be based, Tseluiko said.

Given the huge distance between Russia and Syria, logistics will also be very hard. “If you supply a big force by air, every nail will cost as if it's made of gold,” Tseluiko said.

To cause serious damage to ISIS or other rebel groups, Russia must have at least 10,000 to 20,000 land troops, Tseluiko said.

Deploying such a large force would pose major risks for Russia, with some analysts even painting the apocalyptic scenario of Putin’s regime collapsing in a way similar to the Soviet Union’s breakup after the Afghanistan War.

“We must assume that the Kremlin has a distorted perception of reality to conclude that it will increase its presence in the region and get mired in a full-blown war,” Tseluiko said.

Kyiv Post staff writer Oleg Sukhov can be reached at [email protected]

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

Re: Loser Ukirane also crying pain

From these cries you can tell very clearly that Putin is actually killing American allies in Syria in the name of hitting ISIS. Otherwise Obama would be fucking thankful. LOL!

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424957/russia-syria-obama-assad-us-allies


Obama’s Syria Debacle
fullscreen
Obama and Putin shake hands at the U.N., September 28, 2015. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

Share article on Facebook
share
Tweet article
tweet
Plus one article on Google Plus
+1
Print Article
Email article
Adjust font size AA

by Charles Krauthammer October 1, 2015 8:00 PM
@krauthammer


Russia hits Assad’s foes, angering U.S.
— Headline, Wall Street Journal, October 1

If it had the wit, the Obama administration would be not angered, but appropriately humiliated. President Obama has, once again, been totally outmaneuvered by Vladimir Putin. Two days earlier at the United Nations, Obama had welcomed the return, in force, of the Russian military to the Middle East — for the first time in decades — in order to help fight the Islamic State.

The ruse was transparent from the beginning. Russia is not in Syria to fight the Islamic State. The Kremlin was sending fighter planes, air-to-air missiles, and SA-22 anti-aircraft batteries. Against an Islamic State that has no air force, no planes, no helicopters?

Russia then sent reconnaissance drones over western Idlib and Hama, where there are no Islamic State fighters. Followed by bombing attacks on Homs and other opposition strongholds that had nothing to do with the Islamic State.

Indeed, some of these bombed fighters were U.S. trained and equipped. Asked if we didn’t have an obligation to support our own allies on the ground, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter bumbled that Russia’s actions exposed its policy as self-contradictory.

Carter made it sound as if the Russian offense was to have perpetrated an oxymoron, rather than a provocation — and a direct challenge to what’s left of the U.S. policy of supporting a moderate opposition.

Share article on Facebook
share
Tweet article
tweet

The whole point of Russian intervention is to maintain Assad in power. Putin has no interest in fighting the Islamic State. Indeed, the second round of Russian air attacks was on rival insurgents opposed to the Islamic State. The Islamic State is nothing but a pretense for Russian intervention. And Obama fell for it.

Just three weeks ago, Obama chided Russia for its military buildup, wagging his finger that it was “doomed to failure.” Yet by Monday, he was publicly welcoming Russia to join the fight against the Islamic State. He not only acquiesced to the Russian buildup, he held an ostentatious meeting with Putin on the subject, thereby marking the ignominious collapse of Obama’s vaunted campaign to isolate Putin diplomatically over Crimea.

Putin then showed his utter contempt for Obama by launching his air campaign against our erstwhile anti-Assad allies not 48 hours after he met with Obama. Which the U.S. found out about when a Russian general knocked on the door of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and delivered a brusque démarche announcing that the attack would begin within an hour and warning the U.S. to get out of the way.

In his subsequent news conference, Secretary Carter averred that he found such Russian behavior “unprofessional.”

Good grief. Russia, with its inferior military and hemorrhaging economy, had just eaten Carter’s lunch, seizing the initiative and exposing American powerlessness — and the secretary of defense deplores what? Russia’s lack of professional etiquette.

Why is Putin moving so quickly and so brazenly? Because he’s got only 16 more months to push on the open door that is Obama.

Makes you want to weep.

Consider: When Obama became president, the surge in Iraq had succeeded and the U.S. had emerged as the dominant regional actor, able to project power throughout the region. Last Sunday, Iraq announced the establishment of a joint intelligence-gathering center with Iran, Syria, and Russia, symbolizing the new “Shiite-crescent” alliance stretching from Iran across the northern Middle East to the Mediterranean, under the umbrella of Russia, the rising regional hegemon.

Russian planes roam free over Syria, attacking Assad’s opposition as we stand by helpless. Meanwhile, the U.S. secretary of state beseeches the Russians to negotiate “de-conflict” arrangements — so that we and they can each bomb our own targets safely. It has come to this.

More Syria
With His Humiliation of the U.S. in Syria, Putin Has Cut Obama Down to Size
But, But, This is the 21st Century....
Obama’s Cluster of Mistakes in Syria
Why is Putin moving so quickly and so brazenly? Because he’s got only 16 more months to push on the open door that is Obama. He knows he’ll never again see an American president such as this — one who once told the General Assembly that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation” and told it again last Monday of “believing in my core that we, the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion.”

They cannot? Has he looked at the world around him — from Homs to Kunduz, from Sanaa to Donetsk — ablaze with conflict and coercion?

Wouldn’t you take advantage of these last 16 months if you were Putin, facing a man living in a faculty-lounge fantasy world? Where was Obama when Putin began bombing Syria? Leading a U.N. meeting on countering violent extremism.

Seminar to follow.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2015 The Washington Post Writers Group

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/opinions/syria-putin-obama-dilemma/

Why Putin's Syria move is such a dilemma for Obama

By Justin Bronk

Updated 1230 GMT (1930 HKT) October 1, 2015


(CNN)Once again Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have stolen a march on U.S. President Barack Obama and his European and Gulf state allies by presenting them with a fait accompli in the shape of an established air, ground and naval forces presence in Syria at Latakia and Tartous.

The rapid Russian military build-up of forces and commencement of military operations in Syria has upset the established Western narratives on the Syrian civil war, operations against ISIS (also known as Islamic State), and Russia's confrontation with NATO in Eastern Europe.
Justin Bronk
Justin Bronk

Putin is clearly reasserting Russian influence in the Middle East and attempting to preserve his barbaric ally Bashar al-Assad. But his stated objective of combating terrorists including ISIS and the al Qaeda-affiliated group Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria align strongly with the U.S.-led strikes against ISIS that have been only marginally successful since their commencement in August 2014.

Where no strong ground forces exist to support them, coalition airstrikes have failed to push ISIS back in Syria and Iraq.

Therefore, unlike the seizure of Crimea and the barely concealed military interventions in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine in support of pro-Russian proxy militias there, Putin's latest move is a much more difficult one for the West to counter because if taken at face value it is helpful in the immediate struggle against ISIS.

U.S. official: Russia airstrikes didn't target ISIS
U.S. official: Russia airstrikes didn't target ISIS

U.S. official: Russia airstrikes didn't target ISIS 02:26

However, the capabilities Russia has based in Syria over the past few weeks suggest that the West should not fall into the trap of accepting Putin's "help" against ISIS without first being quite clear about his true intentions.

It is a seductive idea for many European nations, especially those bearing the brunt of the mass-influx of desperate refugees fleeing the Syrian conflict, to look for another way.

The U.S. strategy to defeat ISIS and promote the Free Syrian Army has spectacularly failed to bring about its stated aims in Syria. Putin will be looking to convince those states to accept Russian help in stabilizing Syria in exchange for acceptance of his seizure of Crimea and meddling in Eastern Ukraine.

Russia certainly has a reputation for brutally effective campaigns against armed insurgent groups when it commits to conflicts, especially after the destruction of Grozny during the Chechen wars in 1999-2000. However, the operations that began on Wednesday in Syria by the Russian forces in Latakia were airstrikes utilizing small numbers of tactical strike aircraft such as the outdated Su-24, and helicopter gunships.
France: If Russia hits non-ISIS, only aim is backing Assad
fabius amanpour intv france russia_00012019

France: If Russia hits non-ISIS, only aim is backing Assad 01:33

If this sort of airpower could materially affect the outcome of the Syrian civil war then U.S. strikes that are highly precise and number in the high thousands in Syria would have long since demolished Islamic State's ability to fight effectively. They have not.

Russia is certainly not looking to commit large numbers of ground forces to taking back territory in Syria from the Islamist groups; the Syrian Army and militias loyal to al-Assad are no longer capable of taking back huge swathes of territory even with air support. Therefore, the idea of Russian involvement in its current form offering a solution to the current conflict in Syria through military force is a false hope, though that will not stop Putin from trading on its appeal.

What Russia can and is accomplishing already with this action is twofold. Firstly, to ensure that al- Assad remains in power in regime-controlled areas of Syria, at least so long as he remains useful to the Russian regime. Russia now has the bases and the military flexibility to check any serious advances that threaten the regime's survival near Aleppo or Damascus. While Russia's aircraft and limited troop and heavy equipment deployments cannot make a strategic difference in terms of pushing ISIS out of Syria, they can make a tactically vital difference in specific engagements in the Western part of the country.
Smoke rises after airstrikes by Russian jets in Talbiseh, western Syria, on September 30, 2015.
Smoke rises after airstrikes by Russian jets in Talbiseh, western Syria, on September 30, 2015.

The second, and much more important (for the West) accomplishment of this Russian deployment and action is that Putin is once again at the forefront of international diplomacy -- participating in meetings with Obama and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to name but a few. This was supposed to be the sort of platform that Putin had lost as a result of his blatant and destabilizing military actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Now, however, the West has no choice but to talk to him.

The fact that Russian Su-30 multi-role fighters and Su-34 strike fighters -- both of which have very potent air superiority capabilities -- have also been deployed to Latakia, alongside ground attack jets and helicopters is also significant. These aircraft can hold at bay any Western military aircraft operating over Syria with the exception of the stealthy U.S. F-22 Raptors. This means that not only does the U.S.-led coalition have to include the Russian side in discussions at the operational level to ensure safety in the airspace over Syria; but also that Russian air superiority aircraft must now be factored into the risk assessments for coalition air operations.

The presence of these Russian fighters as well as surface-to-air missiles systems in Latakia also rules out any thoughts of a no-fly zone being imposed on the Syrian Air Force to stop the regime's barrel bombing campaign. With relatively minimal force contributions and political risk, Putin has made Obama look unsure of himself, coalition military strategies much less flexible, and made sure Russia must now be considered a major player in the international quagmire that is the Syrian civil war.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

USELESS USA, can not defend allies from being killed by Putin.





http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/us-seen-unlikely-to-defen/2165574.html

US seen unlikely to defend Syrian rebels from Russian strikes

POSTED: 02 Oct 2015 16:10

Email More

A A

WASHINGTON: Already out-gunned and out-manned in Syria’s civil war, U.S.-backed rebels are facing a new and possibly even more serious threat to their survival: Russian air strikes that Washington appears reluctant to thwart.

The Obama administration – blindsided by the speed of Moscow’s direct intervention and a Russian target list that included CIA-trained fighters – made clear on Thursday that the it had no desire to increase the risk of an air clash between the former Cold War foes.

While Washington took pains to insist it still considered the "moderate" opposition vital to Syria’s future and was not abandoning them, withholding U.S. air cover could further jeopardise beleaguered rebel forces.

President Barack Obama has rarely launched military action in support of the opposition in four years of Syria's civil war and is hesitant to get further ensnared in the conflict. Even if he wanted to, he could face legal limitations due to the scope of his presidential war powers.

The rebels have already struggled in the fight against the Syrian military, dogged by internal divisions and the rise of radical jihadist groups such as Islamic State and the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.

Russian warplanes, in a second day of strikes on Thursday, bombed a camp run by anti-government rebels trained by the CIA, the group's commander said, even as Russia insisted it was hitting only Islamic State forces, a common enemy of Washington and Moscow. U.S. officials believe Moscow’s main objective is to prop up its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Russia’s deepening role, together with inconclusive talks between the U.S. and Russian militaries on air safety on Thursday, underscored the consensus in Washington that Obama has few good options for turning the situation around.

Obama does have the power to expand the arming of moderate rebels so they can better defend themselves or to set up no-fly zones, as some critics at home have demanded, but U.S. officials note that such measures would carry their own risks of escalating Washington's involvement.

Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be betting that Obama, wary of seeing the United States pulled into another Middle East war, would be unlikely to respond aggressively.

“Mr. Putin reads the Obama administration well,” wrote Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East adviser to Democratic and Republican administrations. “He knows that President Barack Obama never wanted to militarize the U.S. role in Syria.”

Further complicating the U.S. response, Lebanese sources said hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria to join a major ground offensive in support of Assad.

"BURDEN ON RUSSIA"

The CIA has run an ostensibly covert training programme for vetted Syrian rebel groups deemed moderate by Western states that have supported the uprising against Assad. The plan is separate from the U.S. military's train-and-equip programme aimed at building a Syrian rebel force to fight radical Islamic State insurgents. That programme is considered to have all but failed.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest blasted Russia for “indiscriminate bombing of Syrian opposition targets” and said it was making a “grave miscalculation”.

But when asked whether the United States would do anything to protect them from Russian air strikes, he told reporters: “I think the burden here is on Russia.”

Earnest did not rule out the possibility that Russia, already under U.S. sanctions over the Ukraine crisis, could face diplomatic consequences over its actions in Syria, though he suggested that Moscow would suffer more if it is “sucked into a years-long sectarian conflict” there.

The message from the Obama administration, whose efforts to train and equip moderate insurgents have moved slowly and often ineffectively, appeared to be that they must fend for themselves for now in the face of Russian air strikes.

Even if Obama was willing to risk seeing a proxy conflict in Syria escalate into direct U.S.-Russia confrontation, he seems to be hemmed in by his own rules of engagement there.

The letters that Obama has sent to Congress invoking his war powers since launching the anti-Islamic State campaign last September have stated that he is limiting it to “air strikes and other necessary actions against these terrorists” in Syria as well as Iraq.

U.S. officials have not ruled out that rebel forces could receive air cover if attacked by Assad's air force. But so far that is not believed to have happened.

One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Obama administration was reviewing the legal implications of Russia’s direct involvement in Syria’s conflict.

At the Pentagon, spokesman Peter Cook repeatedly declined to discuss whether the United States might be called upon to defend moderate Syrian rebels under Russian attack, calling it "hypothetical."

Senior U.S. military officials raised American concerns about Russia's choice of targets in a secure video call on Thursday with Russia counterparts.

The call, which the Pentagon described as cordial and which lasted just over an hour, focussed on ways to safely keep U.S. and Russian jets apart as the two militaries carry out parallel campaigns with competing objectives. Washington also wants Russia to agree to stop striking moderate rebel targets.

U.S. Senator John McCain, a Republican who leads the Senate's top military committee and is a frequent critic of Obama’s foreign policy, questioned the logic of such coordination, which in military parlance is known as "deconfliction."

"Are we trying to ‘deconflict’ with Russian air operations that target U.S.-trained rebels?" McCain asked.

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton, Susan Heavey and Yeganeh Torbati; Writing by Matt Spetalnick; editing by Stuart Grudgings)

- Reuters

 

[singveld]

well done putin. kill the nigger terrorists. help assad win power back and ship all the refugee from germany and sweden back to his arms.

 

[kiwibird7]

USA is state sponsoring terrorism by supporting the rebels in Syria against a duly elected sovereign govt of President ASSAD. The Americans trained the Mujahideen in Afghan who are now TALIBAN. They ousted SADDAM HUSSEIN and the mess created now with ISIS is the result. How would Obama like it if Putin sponsors and supplies arms to ultra militant Christian rebels against Obama's anti Christian policies (forced LGBT rights and gay marriages, compulsory insurance for contraception on Christian orgs, abortion etc)?

 

[kiwibird7]

well done putin. kill the nigger terrorists. help assad win power back and ship all the refugee from germany and sweden back to his arms.

All the refugees should be shipped directly to USA since OBAMA likes them so much. Let Obama deal with them.

 

[obama.bin.laden]

Putin should challenge Obama to go to Syria war front in person. Putin went to Crimea during war time.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...n-Syria-on-Isil-to-US-anger-live-updates.html




'Russia kills US-backed Syrian rebels in second day of air strikes as Iran prepares for ground offensive'





By Raziye Akkoc, and Roland Oliphant in Moscow
5:19AM BST 02 Oct 2015
Russian jets bomb rebel positions in Syria including rural areas near the north-western town of Jisr al-Shughour, a day after launching air strikes. Follow latest developments here

• Iran and Hizbollah in Syria 'for ground operation'
• Russia launches more air strikes against rebels
• Moscow denies yesterday's strikes killed civilians
• Russia launches airstrikes in Syria - as it happened
• Vladimir Putin’s catastrophic plan for Syria would deliver war without end


Latest

Here is our summary of events in Syria on Thursday, from Richard Spencer, Middle East Editor, Nabih Bulos in Beirut and Ruth Sherlock in Washington:

• Iran was on Thursday night moving up its ground forces in Syria in preparation for an attack to reclaim rebel-held territory under the cover of Russian air strikes, according to sources close to Damascus. Hizbollah, the Lebanese Shia militia which has come to the Assad regime’s rescue in battle-fronts across the country in the past two years, is being prepared to capitalise on the strikes, a Syrian figure close to the regime told The Telegraph

ADVERTISEMENT

• Sources in Lebanon told Reuters that Iran, which is the main sponsor and tactical adviser to Hizbollah, was sending in hundreds of its own troops to reinforce them. Iran made no comment on the claims but Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said the move would be an "apt and powerful illustration" that Russia's military actions had worsened the conflict.

• A Hizbollah-backed advance would fit the pattern of Russian air-strikes, which have predominantly targeted those rebels not aligned to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant who currently present the gravest threat on the ground to core regime territory.

• The long-term aim would be to defeat or demoralise the non-Isil opposition, so that Isil became the regime’s only enemy. That would force the West to back President Bashar al-Assad against it. “They want to clean the country of non-Isil rebels, and then the US will work with them as Isil will be the only enemy," the Damascus source said.


Smoke rises after airstrikes by military jets in Talbiseh, Homs province* AP

• The Russians continued their aerial bombardment on Thursday. Targets included Jisr al-Shughour and Jabal al-Zawiya, areas under the control of Jaish al-Fatah, the Army of Conquest, an alliance of Islamist groups which have won significant victories against the regime this year. They also included Isil targets in Raqqa and Deir Ezzour provinces, including a Syrian Air Force base which fell to Isil earlier this year after a long siege.

• The Kremlin admitted on Thursday that targets included non-Isil targets - something it had previously denied - and that its aim was to shore the regime “in its weak spots”. The White House last night said the failure to discriminate between Isil and other rebel groups was a “grave miscalculation”.


• Among the dead from Wednesday’s strikes was said to be a prominent rebel leader in north Homs province, Captain Iyad al-Deek, a former regime officer who defected early in the uprising.

• The rebels have promised to take the fight to the Russians, some in blood-curdling comments online. “Is it not time for the knight to mount his steed? Is it not time to cut off the heads? What are we waiting for? What remains?” said one man, Mohammad al-Maghaweer, who claimed to be a front-line fighter with Jaish al-Fatah.


• The rebels also claimed there were a number of civilians among the dead. "The mosque was virtually destroyed, and there was a body under the ruins, and there were eight wounded, among them a child,” said Tareq Abdul-Haq, a media activist who visited Jisr al-Shughour after the Russian bombing. He said a “poor, civilian” neighbourhood had been hit.

• Russia is preparing both a United Nations resolution purporting to cover both its bombing campaign and that of the US-led anti-Isil coalition under one formulation, and a new round of peace talks.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...and-americas-timidity-afghanistan-putin-dares



Putin dares, Obama dithers
The danger of Russia’s intervention in Syria, and America’s timidity in Afghanistan
Oct 3rd 2015

TO HEAR Vladimir Putin, Russia has become the leader of a new global war on terrorism. By contrast Barack Obama seems wearier by the day with the wars in the Muslim world that America has been fighting for more than a decade. On September 30th Russian jets went into action to support Bashar al-Assad’s beleaguered troops. It is setting up an intelligence-sharing network with Iraq and Iran. The Russian Orthodox church talks of holy war. Mr Putin’s claim to be fighting Islamic State (IS) is questionable at best. The evidence of Russia’s first day of bombing is that it attacked other Sunni rebels, including some supported by America. Even if this is little more than political theatre, Russia is making its biggest move in the Middle East, hitherto America’s domain, since the Soviet Union was evicted in the 1970s.
In Afghanistan, meanwhile, America’s campaign against the Taliban has suffered a blow. On September 28th Taliban rebels captured the northern town of Kunduz—the first provincial capital to fall to them since they were evicted from power in 2001. Afghan troops retook the centre three days later. But even if they establish full control, the attack was a humiliation.
Advertisement

Both Kunduz and Russia’s bombing are symptoms of the same phenomenon: the vacuum created by Barack Obama’s attempt to stand back from the wars of the Muslim world. America’s president told the UN General Assembly this week that his country had learned it “cannot by itself impose stability on a foreign land”; others, Iran and Russia included, should help in Syria. Mr Obama is not entirely wrong. But his proposition hides many dangers: that America throws up its hands; that regional powers, sensing American disengagement, will be sucked into a free-for-all; and that Russia’s intervention will make a bloody war bloodier still. Unless Mr Obama changes course, expect more deaths, refugees and extremism.
Having seen the mess that George W. Bush made of his “war on terror”, especially in Iraq, Mr Obama is understandably wary. American intervention can indeed make a bad situation worse, as odious leaders are replaced by chaos and endless war saps America’s strength and standing. But America’s absence can make things even more grim. At some point, extremism will fester and force the superpower to intervene anyway.
That is the story in the Middle East. In Iraq Mr Obama withdrew troops in 2011. In Syria he did not act to stop Mr Assad from wholesale killing, even after he used poison gas. But when IS jihadists emerged from the chaos, declared a caliphate in swathes of Iraq and Syria, and began to cut off the heads of their Western prisoners, Mr Obama felt obliged to step back in—desultorily. In Afghanistan Mr Obama is making the same mistake of premature withdrawal. As NATO’s combat operations wound down into a mission to “train, advise and assist”, Mr Obama promised that the last American troops would leave Afghanistan by the end of 2016. The date had no bearing on conditions in Afghanistan but everything to do with when Mr Obama leaves the White House.
What can Mr Obama do? In Afghanistan, rather than pull out the 9,800 remaining American troops, he should reinforce them and make clear that he puts no date on their withdrawal. The rules of engagement must expand so that NATO forces can back Afghan ones. Attack aircraft should support them as needed, not just in extremis. He needs to knock heads together in Kabul, where the “unity” government forged last year between President Ashraf Ghani and his rival, Abdullah Abdullah, is dysfunctional enough to lack a defence minister. This was Mr Obama’s “good war”: he risks losing it.
In Syria Mr Obama’s dithering means his options continually grow harder and riskier. Mr Putin is unabashedly defending a tyrant and deepening the region’s Sunni-Shia divide. America must hold the line that Mr Assad will not remain in power, and set out a vision for what should follow. It needs to do more to protect the mainly Sunni population: create protected havens; impose no-fly zones to stop Mr Assad’s barrel-bombs; and promote a moderate Sunni force. That may well mean staring down Russian jets.
As a judoka, Mr Putin knows the art of exploiting an opponent’s weakness: when America steps back, he pushes forward. Yet being an opportunist does not equip him to fix Syria. And the more he tries to save Mr Assad the more damage he will cause in Syria and the region—and the greater the risk that his moment of bravado will turn to hubris. Given the enduring strength of America, there is much that it can still do to contain the spreading disorder—if only Mr Obama had a bit more of Mr Putin’s taste for daring.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

Obama the black feather chicken bankrupt nigger. So weak amd useless.

 

[nkfnkfnkf]

Loong u think USA can protect your lame ass when enemy make you bleed from there? Huh? BG Loong?

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Loong u think USA can protect your lame ass when enemy make you bleed from there? Huh? BG Loong?

China will soon enter the war against ISIS and you dirty Moose Limb Satan worshippers. You dirty immoral and Satanic worshippers deserve nothing but misery and even then it will not be enough to balance the demented acts of your Profit and the legacy of death and misery he left behind.

One of the most shocking events in the life of Muhammad, one which has been a major source of embarrassment for Muslims, is his marriage to his adopted son's former wife, Zaynab bint Jash. Zaynab had married Zayd, the freed slave of Muhammad's first wife, Khadijah, whom Muhammad adopted as his son. According to some versions of the story, Muhammad had ventured to see his adopted son, Zayd, at his house. Upon arriving, he found Zaynab unveiled and was enamored by her beauty. As he departed, Muhammad made some comments which she heard and, when her husband returned, told him what had transpired. After Zayd heard that Muhammad had made some comments about his wife's beauty, he went to his adoptive father and told him that he would divorce her so he could marry her if this is what Muhammad desired. Muhammad refused and encouraged his adopted son to remain with his wife. Subsequently, Zayd divorced his wife and Muhammad was commanded by Allah to then marry Zaynab, his adopted son's divorcee.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/zaynab.htm

 

[virus]

[video=youtube;-wB5ReXbAHQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wB5ReXbAHQ[/video]

 

[obama.bin.laden]

http://nation.com.pk/international/03-Oct-2015/obama-says-us-won-t-directly-confront-russia-in-syria


Obama says US won't directly confront Russia in Syria
October 03, 2015, 4:35 pm

President Obama has decided not to directly confront Russia over its new air offensive in Syria, believing that President Vladi*mir Putin will soon find himself in a Syrian “quagmire,” but he has approved a new escalation of U.S. efforts against the Islamic State.

Obama laid out the U.S. response to Russia’s actions during a meeting with senior aides Thursday evening. Details were firmed up in a meeting Friday morning among national security principals at the White House, senior administration officials said.

At the same time, the president also approved proposals, made prior to this week’s Russian actions, to strengthen the U.S. fight against the militants. Those measures were recommended by Obama’s new Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr.

They include direct U.S. weapons shipments, overland from Iraq, to Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters who in recent months have pushed the Islamic State from a major portion of northern Syria along the Turkish border.

The Kurds are now expected to begin moving south toward Raqqa, the de facto militant capital, in north-central Syria.

U.S. airstrikes are also slated to increase west of the Euphrates, where U.S.-backed opposition forces have had little recent success against the Islamic State. Those strikes are being launched from Incirlik air base in Turkey, where aircraft from other coalition partners will join U.S. planes.

Far from attacking the Islamic State, as Russia has said it intends, its three days of airstrikes appear to have focused largely on opposition forces, some of them U.S.-backed that are fighting across western Syria against the army of President Bashar al-Assad, whose government is backed by Moscow.

Obama did not respond directly to questions about what, if anything, he would do to help the embattled opposition, which includes thousands of fighters who have been trained and armed over the years by the CIA, as well as non-Islamic State extremists. Senior administration officials said that training and limited supplies for those inside Syria would continue but that the policy was likely to continue.

Current and former U.S. officials voiced concern that the Russian bombing would damage a covert program already struggling to gain traction in the fight against Assad. It is also likely to increase frustration among the rebels “that the Americans don’t do as much as the Russians do for their side of the conflict,” said Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria who resigned that position in part out of frustration with administration policy.

Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the Russian move “really ups the ante for the United States. We do have great reputational costs in letting the Russians assert themselves and be seen as a more forceful actor on the ground in Syria. We also have a deep interest in protecting the moderate population, and that’s going to push us to have greater involvement, which is a risky proposition.”

Any direct military response against Russia, a U.S. military official said, would probably require new presidential authorities. But Obama, speaking at a White House news conference Friday, made it clear that he has no intention of directly confronting Russian forces.

“We’re not going to make Syria into a proxy war between the United States and Russia. That would be a bad strategy on our part,” Obama said. “This is a battle between Russia, Iran and Assad against the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people. Our battle is with ISIL,” he said, referring to the Islamic State.

Obama responded angrily to suggestions of U.S. weakness in the face of Russian aggression, including Putin’s decision to launch surprise airstrikes just two days after meeting with Obama at the United Nations.

“This is not some superpower chessboard contest,” Obama said. “Mr. Putin had to go into Syria not out of strength but out of weakness, because his client, Mr. Assad, was crumbling.”

Rather than building support for Assad, a minority ruler, Russia would alienate Syria’s Sunni majority and the Sunni-ruled countries in the region he has been trying to court, Obama said.

The president said this “attempt by Russia and Iran,” the regime’s other backer, “to prop up Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire. And it won’t work. And they will be there for a while if they don’t take a different course.”

At least one senior Russian official noted that Russia had learned during its ill-fated occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s that airstrikes are not enough to hold territory — a lesson the United States has also learned more recently in both Syria and Iraq.

Without an immediate ground operation by the weakened Syrian army to capture bombed opposition territory, “the results of these airstrikes will be brought to naught,” Gen. Makhmut Gareyev, president of the Academy of Military Sciences, said, according to the Russian news agency Interfax.

In a conversation Thursday between the U.S. Defense Department and Russia’s Defense Ministry, arranged to “de-conflict” the countries’ air operations over Syria and avoid a possible collision, the Russians requested U.S. intelligence on possible Islamic State targets, according to a senior administration official, one of several who discussed internal discussions on the condition of anonymity.

“The answer we gave is that we cannot coordinate with you if you’re fighting the Syrian opposition. . . . We’re not going to make their task any easier if their fight is the wrong fight,” the official said. During their U.N. conversation, the official said, Obama told Putin that “if you’re not interested” in fighting the Islamic State, “what type of possible engagement could there be” between them? In his news conference, Obama also defended his decisions to not directly intervene in Syria’s civil war over the past four years. “And when I hear people offering up half-baked ideas as if they are solutions, or trying to downplay the challenges involved in this situation — what I’d like to see people ask is, specifically, precisely, what exactly would you do, and how would you fund it, and how would you sustain it?

“And typically, what you get is a bunch of mumbo jumbo,” he said.

“We are going to continue to go after ISIL. We are going to continue to reach out to a moderate opposition,” Obama said.

The CIA has provided the thousands of fighters it has trained at secret bases in Jordan with communications equipment, intelligence support and arms, including antitank missiles. Those CIA-backed fighters reentered Syria across that country’s southern border with Jordan, but many have made their way into units that are now arrayed north and east of Damascus — areas that have been pounded by Russian strikes over the past several days.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official said the U.S. failure to respond to the strikes or bolster support for CIA-trained units is likely to anger CIA paramilitary teams in the region that have for several years chafed at White House-imposed limits on the level of support given to moderate rebel groups.

“There is a huge amount of frustration with the indecision and ability to commit by this administration,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official with extensive experience in the Middle East. “The agency has a problem,” the former official said. U.S.-backed fighters “look at the CIA or DOD trainers as reflecting the U.S. government. They believe that we know what’s going on and can influence what’s going on. If we’re not influencing it, it makes them insecure. They will defect, go home or join the refugee stream heading to Europe.”

The current and former officials also expressed concern that the Russian strikes would prompt rebel groups to intensify their efforts to acquire antiaircraft weaponry, including *surface-to-air missiles — munitions the United States has worked to keep out of Syria for fear that they would be seized by al-Qaeda or the Islamic State.

The CIA operation has largely avoided the blunders that have beset the separately run Pentagon effort to arm and train rebels to fight the Islamic State, a program that has seen its fighters quickly captured and surrendering their weapons to an al-Qaeda affiliate. Even so, the CIA program has failed to shift the course of the conflict in Syria, and *agency-backed fighters have long complained about the U.S. refusal to provide more powerful weapons, air support or no-fly zones.

Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said Thursday that the United States should create “no-fly zones” and “humanitarian corridors” to protect civilians and moderate anti-
Assad rebels in Syria.

Obama said Clinton “is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems.” But, he said, “There’s a difference between running for president and being president. And the decisions that are being made and the discussions that I’m having with the Joint Chiefs become much more specific and require, I think, a different kind of judgment.

“If and when she’s president, then she’ll make those judgments,” Obama said, adding that “these are tough calls.”

Courtesy Washington Post

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

[video=youtube;-wB5ReXbAHQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wB5ReXbAHQ[/video]

You dirty lying Muslim bastard! This is old video you goat fucking Satanic worshiping Muslim fuck face cunt! Why are you Muslims such dirty lying filthy human beings? Oh, I forgot you bastard Muslims worship a pedophile, rapist, mass murderer, enslaver, terrorist prophet. You sick dirty bastards!

This bastard Moose Limb Mat was caught for corruption years ago. Like a typical Moose Limb they thrive on provocation and terrorism. They have learnt well from their Satanic Prophet Mohammed who was and still is the idol of all corrupted human beings. From rape, mass murder, incest, pedophilia, enslavement, torture, terrorism, Islam's Prophet Mohammed was at the extreme end of demonism. You Muslims are dirty bastards. The most evil people the world has ever known.

To non-Muslims, do not fall for these Satanic bastards and their perpetual lies about the good in Islam. Islam is nothing but a crime syndicate that pretends to be a religion and was founded by one of the most demonic human beings the world has ever known.


It is against Islam to rape Muslim women, but Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle. This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):

The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.
Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn't Muhammad, but "Allah the Exalted" who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands - which is all the more reason not to think of Islam as being the same as other religions.

Note also that the husbands of these unfortunate victims were obviously alive after battle. This is important because it flatly contradicts those apologists who like to argue that the women Muhammad enslaved were widowed and thus unable to fend for themselves. (Even if the apologists were right, what sort of a moral code is it that forces a widow to choose between being raped and starving?)

There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women - yet he instead offers advice on how to proceed. In one case, his men were reluctant to devalue their new slaves for later resale by getting them pregnant. Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular:

"O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)
As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/mu...hs-mu-rape.htm