Reply to: Russian Search Helicopter Downed Near Syrian Border

[Jog On]

I did watch Lavrov's speech after his phone call with the Turkish ambassador though. Don't think the Turks thought through how this will impact their economy with no more Russian tourists and possible cancellation of the pipeline thingy...

Think they will get slapped in a way that isn't military and won't harm the Russian economy too much whilst inflicting maximum damage on the Turkish economy.

Also they seem to be making the most of this to highlight the links between Turkey and ISIS, and declaring that while NATO supports Turkey and Turkey supports ISIS then NATO supports ISIS. Also having France co operating with Russia then how does that work out with the whole NATO thing?

Lots of inconsistency and difficult questions for the Turkey/NATO side which Putin and Lavrov are exploiting fully.

[CloudWalker]

https://www.rt.com/news/323428-milti...ankara-police/

[Jog On]

Oi Joggy, what's ZeroHedge writing about this? Don't want to read it myself ...

Usual WW3 stuff, usual reporting of RT headlines - but mostly market related finance type stuff (which is my original reason for reading it). I'd expect a lot more coverage given recent events but am welcoming the lack of it.

[AtW]

Oi Joggy, what's ZeroHedge writing about this? Don't want to read it myself ...

[Jog On]

Hang 'im!

Hang the War Criminal. (not the one with the wig, just to make things clear).

And ask for our money back as well...

[Jog On]

Almost.

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the rebels (who are good) started winning.

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria. President Putin (bad, as he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So, a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except Corbyn who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that mad ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (doh!).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

Clear now?

The ultimate explanation of the Syrian conflict... NOT!

You forgot Saudi Arabia! Otherwise

I blame Tony Blair for all of it...

[AtW]

To summarise this is a war that the UK doesn't want to get involved in

UK could stop the war in 24 hours by arresting Putins billionaire "Cash Register" friends, starting from certain chap who owns a football club...

[SueEllen]

To summarise this is a war that the UK doesn't want to get involved in because apart from the US and our normal allies everyone else is bad, very bad or super bad as they can cause us problems.

[DaveB]

So you're saying rebels who are against ISIS shot down a helicopter of a country also combatting ISIS (although supporting the Syrian Army, granted)

Boy, this situation is crazy. Seems like everyone is just taking pot shots at each other.

Almost.

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the rebels (who are good) started winning.

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria. President Putin (bad, as he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So, a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except Corbyn who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that mad ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (doh!).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

Clear now?

http://www.702.co.za/articles/6301/s...tion-explained

[MicrosoftBob]

So you're saying rebels who are against ISIS shot down a helicopter of a country also combatting ISIS (although supporting the Syrian Army, granted)

Boy, this situation is crazy. Seems like everyone is just taking pot shots at each other.

They hate the rebels, hate the Kurds, hate Assad, hate Russia and are friendly with ISIS and everything Islamic group fighting Assad except the American backed ones

So like the bombings in Turkey it could be another false flag by Turkey, to put the blame on the rebels this time rather than the Kurds

Remember Hitler had soldiers dress up as Poles and pretend to invade Germany as a pretense for war, subterfuge is nothing new

[DaveB]

You do realise that "Syrian rebels" and "Islamic State" are not the same thing?

Don't confuse him with facts. He won't know who's words to parrot in response.

[NickFitz]

In the interests of balance against the snivelling cowards of the anti west brigade the missile could have been Russian The Syrian rebels say that shot down the aircraft with a TOW anti-tank missile, most likely supplied by the United States. US and Russian weapons held by Islamic State

You do realise that "Syrian rebels" and "Islamic State" are not the same thing?

[OwlHoot]

Not quite. Turkmen rebels, not Turks. Turkey has been supporting them, but they are Syrians of Turkish descent. Currently fighting both the Syrian Army and ISIS in their particular corner of the country.

So you're saying rebels who are against ISIS shot down a helicopter of a country also combatting ISIS (although supporting the Syrian Army, granted)

Boy, this situation is crazy. Seems like everyone is just taking pot shots at each other.

[DodgyAgent]

by Turks no less. Things are kicking off now. Russian reduce helicopter looking for the pilots was shot down.

Forget Christmas. Turkey for dinner tonight.




Russian helicopter shot down while searching for downed pilot: report - Washington Times

In the interests of balance against the snivelling cowards of the anti west brigade the missile could have been Russian The Syrian rebels say that shot down the aircraft with a TOW anti-tank missile, most likely supplied by the United States. US and Russian weapons held by Islamic State

[DaveB]

by Turks no less. Things are kicking off now. Russian reduce helicopter looking for the pilots was shot down.

Forget Christmas. Turkey for dinner tonight.

Not quite. Turkmen rebels, not Turks. Turkey has been supporting them, but they are Syrians of Turkish descent. Currently fighting both the Syrian Army and ISIS in their particular corner of the country.