Aeneas Georg and Niall Bradley
Sott.net
Sott.net
It's somewhat understandable that many in the West are confused by
statements and rhetoric coming from certain Western quarters since
Russian airstrikes commenced in Syria on September 30th, leaving them
wondering: 'whose side are we on anyway?'. Given that the Western media
has spent the last two years portraying ISIS as the epitome of evil,
shouldn't the Russians' intervention, at the invitation of the Syrian
government, be seen as a good thing? The results so far are impressive.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the following ISIS assets have been destroyed in the first week of bombing:
America's 'coalition of 60+ countries' have allegedly been bombing ISIS inside Syria for just over a year. Given the contrast with Russian results in just one week, US-led airstrikes have been dismal (to say the least), with 'Islamic State' increasing, not decreasing its control of territory in Syria. What else can we conclude from this but that the US-led airstrikes have helped, not hindered, ISIS?
In retrospect, you really have to wonder about those reports of weapons air-drops 'accidentally' falling into the hands of ISIS terrorists. If we put that down to 'bad luck', then the US-led operation has been a complete failure, something acknowledged by top US military commanders testifying before the US Senate in recent months.
But it's one thing to be 'less than ecstatic', another to be so furious as to attack Russia's efforts to rout ISIS from the moment it got involved. 36 civilian casualties on the first day, they told us, citing the dubious, UK-based 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights', an outfit run by one man from his 3 bedroom house in Kent, England.
Russia is also accused of only going after 'the moderate rebels' trained by the US and ostensibly tasked with first getting rid of ISIS, and then, one assumes, Assad's forces. But which 'moderate rebels'? The first and only batch of a hundred 'moderate rebels' hatched just over a month ago - at a cost of half a billion US dollars - either deserted or were kidnapped, and in the end only "4 or 5" remained. These were the 'moderate rebels' the US said it would defend with airstrikes if Assad dared touch them. Let loose into Syria from Turkey just over 3 weeks ago, they immediately gave their weapons and vehicles to 'al-Qaeda terrorists' and swore allegiance to them.
World leaders, if they really believe what they claim about ISIS being the number-one threat to global security, should be ecstatic. But they're not. Instead, we hear NATO Sec.-Gen. Jens Stoltenberg screaming about Russian 'aggression', and calling once more for more NATO troops all along Russia's European border and in Turkey.
- 71 armored vehicles
- 30 other vehicles
- 19 command facilities
- 2 communication centers
- 23 depots with fuel and ammunition
- 6 plants used to make IEDs, including car bombs
- several artillery pieces
- several training camps
America's 'coalition of 60+ countries' have allegedly been bombing ISIS inside Syria for just over a year. Given the contrast with Russian results in just one week, US-led airstrikes have been dismal (to say the least), with 'Islamic State' increasing, not decreasing its control of territory in Syria. What else can we conclude from this but that the US-led airstrikes have helped, not hindered, ISIS?
In retrospect, you really have to wonder about those reports of weapons air-drops 'accidentally' falling into the hands of ISIS terrorists. If we put that down to 'bad luck', then the US-led operation has been a complete failure, something acknowledged by top US military commanders testifying before the US Senate in recent months.
But it's one thing to be 'less than ecstatic', another to be so furious as to attack Russia's efforts to rout ISIS from the moment it got involved. 36 civilian casualties on the first day, they told us, citing the dubious, UK-based 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights', an outfit run by one man from his 3 bedroom house in Kent, England.
Russia is also accused of only going after 'the moderate rebels' trained by the US and ostensibly tasked with first getting rid of ISIS, and then, one assumes, Assad's forces. But which 'moderate rebels'? The first and only batch of a hundred 'moderate rebels' hatched just over a month ago - at a cost of half a billion US dollars - either deserted or were kidnapped, and in the end only "4 or 5" remained. These were the 'moderate rebels' the US said it would defend with airstrikes if Assad dared touch them. Let loose into Syria from Turkey just over 3 weeks ago, they immediately gave their weapons and vehicles to 'al-Qaeda terrorists' and swore allegiance to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment